Provider at New Build

I am going to be moving into my new home inless than a weeks time, this is a new build but I am having trouble finding any info on providers all the sites I try even this one always come up with an error.

When I did my house viewing they did say about full fibre will be there.

this is my new address details Valerian Gardens, CB7 5WR

Hopefully some one can help

Postcode is not showing up on Openreach and that is because the full fibre is from SeeTheLight (IFNL) see https://www.directsavetelecom.co.uk/availability-res... which is one of the providers who does sell their full fibre service

Usually estates like this have some information on the 3 or 4 providers that will offer a service

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Postcode is not showing up on Openreach and that is because the full fibre is from SeeTheLight (IFNL) see https://www.directsavetelecom.co.uk/availability-res... which is one of the providers who does sell their full fibre service

Usually estates like this have some information on the 3 or 4 providers that will offer a service

I did get a leaflet today not impressed at all the 4 providers are not offering anything special at all yet they are charging almost premium prices and it's suppose to be full fibre but the speeds on offer are poor some even have monthly download limits (do not even have proper websites to order on)

Other thing that annoys me is they want £100+ which makes no sense it's new build it's already installed then cheek of either not provider a router or wanting another £10 for one to be sent to me.

Edited by mortmaru (Sat 28-Oct-17 00:54:23)

Sounds like a new kind of scam. I wonder if the developer gets a kick-back?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Sounds like a new kind of scam. I wonder if the developer gets a kick-back?

wouldn't surprise me if they do.

It's silly the houses and work places all around the new build site are covered by the main providers bt/sky/talktalk who are offering 80/20 cheaper than 38/10.

i don't see the point of full fibre if all you get is low speed packages or even monthly limits seems to defeat the whole point

With Direct Save i see 300/30 for £61.50 with no limits...which i personally would say is a good price?



https://www.directsavetelecom.co.uk/ftth.php

I know someone who is on this service in Guildford and is very happy with it.

Edited by deleted (Sat 28-Oct-17 04:27:46)

The thing is, I guess they need to cover their costs for providing service some how. You wouldn�t expect the shiny new house to be free ?

As an aside, how do estates/developments like this become exempt from the USO for a copper network ?

Too small to enforce a USO, only BT and Kingston in Hull have that pleasure, and unadopted roads prevent BT building network there

As per other reply on checking this postcode all providers for fibre offer 300/30 for under £70 a month on a unlimited plan.

So not sure what the issue here is?

Here is the link

https://www.ifnl.net/availableisps

Edited by deleted (Sat 28-Oct-17 11:26:58)

In reply to a post by mortmaru:

i don't see the point of full fibre if all you get is low speed packages or even monthly limits seems to defeat the whole point

Not sure where you're looking but SeeTheLight are offering FTTP packages from 60/12 Mbps to 300/60 Mbps for a reasonable £28-£60 pm - all services come with unlimited usage and a one-off connection fee of £99. You can even increase your upload speeds to 150 Mbps for an additional premium. Most people would give an arm and a leg to be in your position!

https://www.seethelight.co.uk/broadband

Edited by deleted (Sat 28-Oct-17 11:30:42)

In reply to a post by baby_frogmella:

In reply to a post by mortmaru:

i don't see the point of full fibre if all you get is low speed packages or even monthly limits seems to defeat the whole point

Not sure where you're looking but SeeTheLight are offering FTTP packages from 60/12 Mbps to 300/60 Mbps for a reasonable £28-£60 pm - all services come with unlimited usage and a one-off connection fee of £99. You can even increase your upload speeds to 150 Mbps for an additional premium. Most people would give an arm and a leg to be in your position!

https://www.seethelight.co.uk/broadband

I had a look and as I said before I do not see why I should need to pay £100+ for install when it's new build it's their already plus virgin 300mb £48 these providers £60+ i know it's only £12+ difference a month but that is still £144 extra a year.

In reply to a post by jdigz7:

As per other reply on checking this postcode all providers for fibre offer 300/30 for under £70 a month on a unlimited plan.

So not sure what the issue here is?

Here is the link

https://www.ifnl.net/availableisps

Same answer as above

In reply to a post by mortmaru:

I had a look and as I said before I do not see why I should need to pay £100+ for install when it's new build it's their already plus virgin 300mb £48 these providers £60+ i know it's only £12+ difference a month but that is still £144 extra a year.

New build properties, whether connected to copper or fibre, will NOT be totally ready for a service when first occupied. The final connection (typically from external DP to user's premises) will need to be hooked up. It makes no sense for Openreach/IFNL/others etc to spend a lot of time & money by pre-connecting EVERY property to a DP since not everybody will be ordering a service. Even if you had a copper service only, you would still be required to pay BT a £130 connection fee for a basic tel service. So in comparison £99 is a bargain but if VM are available & offering you a free connection (i highly doubt it) then by all means sign up with them. As for FTTH pricing, you are not forced to take the top tier 300 Mbps service...you can pay £28pm for a 60 Mbps service which the majority of people would be happy with. Just be aware that some people on Virgin's 300 Mbps service will be receiving a fraction of tha speed at peak times... (d/t to severe congestion)

That�s kinda what I was trying to ask, what makes �BT� not have to provide copper based voice service to addresses such as these ?

I had thought that unless huge costs were involved the USO obliged them to provide service.

vFast was £70 for install and free router provided.

AFAIK virgin 300mb comes with a £50 activation fee and most importantly a slower upload speed for the 30mb which a much higher chance of getting lower speeds if the area is oversubscribed.


In the end the prices to me seem fair but i guess they don't for you.

In reply to a post by mortmaru:

I do not see why I should need to pay £100+ for install when it's new build it's their already

The cabling is there already, but hasn't been paid for by anyone (and certainly not the housing developer).

When you hand over many thousands of pounds to the developer, some of it goes to the gas, water and electricity suppliers for the work they did getting utilities to the house. But not to a telephone/comms supplier.

If you built the house yourself, though, you'd be paying all 4 yourself.

Perhaps this is because the first 3 are seen as essentials, while the telephone is a luxury that you can do without. Or perhaps a telephone is something that Ofcom enforces a different kind of competition over.

If BT had wired the estate, then BT would supply all the materials to the builder; the builder would install all the ducting & underground chambers, and BT would pay the builder. BT is in the hole for £££ before you move in, and only starts to recoup their costs when you pay for installation.

I imagine IFNL have a similar arrangement with developers.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

That�s kinda what I was trying to ask, what makes �BT� not have to provide copper based voice service to addresses such as these ?

I had thought that unless huge costs were involved the USO obliged them to provide service.

The USO does indeed oblige BT to provide a service to everyone, with some pricing provisos.

However, Ofcom allows developers to choose who they get service from for telecoms, and they are keen to ensure that BT/Openreach is not the only choice.

There's obviously a gap if a developer chooses not to involve BT during the planning & early build stages, as there is no infrastructure built into the streets.

A new owner can ask BT to provide a service when they move in ... and BT are obliged to provide one if they can. That involves code access to publicly-owned land, and wayleave-controlled access to private land.

But...

While the build is going on, the streets are actually private land. And the developer does not have to reach a wayleave agreement for BT to dig up the streets and pavements ... so stopping BT in their tracks, and effectively handing IFNL (or whoever) a temporary monopoly.

The homeowner might be able to break that monopoly if there is a wireless operator in range. Otherwise there isn't much they can do ... at least not until the road is adopted.

Adoption is an issue. Councils want new-build streets to be in pristine condition before they are willing to adopt them, which often means pristine tarmac with no rough roadworks. The developer isn't likely to want to allow BT to start digging the streets or pavements, for fear of it causing a delay to adoption.

The council might then ban roadworks for some period after adoption, because the surface is in good condition.

Once Openreach have reached a point where they can get access to the street, that pricing proviso kicks in. The USO obliges BT to provide a service if it costs them less than around £3,500. Any more, and the owner can be charged.

You can imagine that, now BT have to dig up the streets to provide service to a single house, that charge ceiling is going to be breached easily. It really is only cost-effective to put the utilities down early in the build, for everyone. IFNL, presumably, are counting on this to keep a monopoly beyond adoption.

Things like gated communities can remain private for years so lock ins via covenants on services are possible e.g. usually no satellite dish or TV aerials allowed hence the fibre by default so Sky TV can be plumbed in by default

Interesting reply Wombat, thank you.

I am sure Wombat is right but i do remember hearing of a case that when OR were allowed on site some years later to save cost they put in poles and put up some 50pr aerial cable ! I bet the home owners just loved that !

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

When you hand over many thousands of pounds to the developer, some of it goes to the gas, water and electricity suppliers for the work they did getting utilities to the house. But not to a telephone/comms supplier.

I've been researching this recently as I negotiate on a new build. IFNL is part of BUUK (http://www.bu-uk.co.uk/about-us). They are contracted by developers to provide all the utilities, which BUUK continue to own and maintain. BUUK earn money from the various utility providers paying an access fee equivalent to how they access the local delivery infrastructure elsewhere. Since 2008 they extended this model to include telecommunications, creating IFNL as a wholesale provider analogous to BT Wholesale.

I found this useful information: https://www.seethelight.co.uk/documents/router_set_u...

On many developments they also deploy FIRS, delivering broadcast services over the same fibre. Each house has a GTU to feed a coaxial outputs in each room providing Sky, FreeSAT, Freeview and DAB.

I'm negotiating to buy at a similar development, and plan to order 120/120Mbps to support my home office. I think that's an amazing price for a symmetric service.

If I become unhappy, I'll try vFast. The cost to switch provider is minimal since the ONT is a one-time cost associated with the first connection. There are also rumblings of Sky offering their broadband over IFNL wholesale.

In reply to a post by DougM:

They are contracted by developers to provide all the utilities, which BUUK continue to own and maintain. BUUK earn money from the various utility providers paying an access fee equivalent to how they access the local delivery infrastructure elsewhere.

Yeah - sounds like they're making use of the rules allowing "Independent Gas Transporters" to exist.

uSwitch has this to say:

In reference to www.uswitch.com/gas-electricity/guides/independent-gas-transporters/:

While independent gas transporters may be convenient for new home builders, they are unfortunately not that beneficial to your wallet. IGTs charge energy suppliers more for supplying gas through their pipes.

That page lists 6 IGTs, but two of them are listed on BUUK's website.

In reply to a post by DougM:

On many developments they also deploy FIRS, delivering broadcast services over the same fibre. Each house has a GTU to feed a coaxial outputs in each room providing Sky, FreeSAT, Freeview and DAB.

Would I be cynical to suggest that those houses come with conditions banning satellite dishes?

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

In reply to a post by DougM:

On many developments they also deploy FIRS, delivering broadcast services over the same fibre. Each house has a GTU to feed a coaxial outputs in each room providing Sky, FreeSAT, Freeview and DAB.

Would I be cynical to suggest that those houses come with conditions banning satellite dishes?

Restrictive covenants blocking satellite dishes and visible aerials are surprisingly common, even on homes without such a system. It rarely stops them being installed, but can affect sale of the property. I recently removed a dish from a house to avoid the need for indemnification insurance for the new owner!

In reply to a post by baby_frogmella:

Most people would give an arm and a leg to be in your position!

Actually "most people" would prefer to be able to choose their provider and pay lower prices as a result. If INFL offer a compelling service there would be no need to lock out AAISP, IDNET and ZEN. The Openreach lockout is the most anti-competitive practice in telecoms today. Virgin are also highly active in this area.

Edited by deleted (Mon 30-Oct-17 21:10:02)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I wonder if the developer gets a kick-back?

Undoubtedly. Restrictive practices and residuals such as charges for 'gardening' the verge, charges for private gas mains and restricting broadband choice is part and parcel of developments these days.

Edited by deleted (Mon 30-Oct-17 21:06:21)

None of those ISPs is �locked out�; IFNL maintains an open access wholesale network that can be leveraged by any communications provider.

One issue is scale; until IFNL passes enough homes, there isn't the incentive for ISPs to absorb the administrative overhead of managing IFNL connected homes in addition to Openreach connected homes. I hope this changes so consumer choice goes up.

IMHO, this is exactly what the country needs to begin to break down the BT monopoly. Fully independent providers with no depedency on BT for last-mile connectivity.

Whilst your first two paragraphs sum up the position well the last does not. BT does not have a monopoly, a monopoly would imply there are no alternatives whereas there are an increasing number of such alternatives. A monopoly would suggest that there was a block on there being alternatives. That there are not is well illustrated by this thread. That not everyone has more than one option does not mean that the one supplier, whoever they might be is a monopoly.

On reflection if there is a monopoly at work here it might be thought to be IFNL as through their contract with the developer they have locked out BT for at least the immediate future. As would be the case on any development where the developer enters into a sole supplier contract with a provider, be that supplier VM, BT or IFNL.

I don't disagree that IFNL has a monopoly at these new build sites, but at a national level BT certainly does have a monopoly. Their physical network extends to almost 100% of homes, the majority of homes are forced to use BT services at some level if they want landline or broadband services.

Forcing BT to compete against IFNL to win the business to provide the last-mile is an important step towards a truly free market. The fact that people are shocked by a home not being connected to Openreach infrastructure demonstrates how ingrained this monopoly has become!

Could be worse could be taxpayers money used to infil BT FTTC into 100% cabled VM areas that were forgotten about by BT till the taxpayers money made it a viable FTTC location.

The whole telecommunications industry in the UK is a farce along with the general public people expect to pay pennies and demand a service which is impossible for some providers.


The whole industry in the UK needs a shakeup along with peoples expectations.


All parties are guilty of contributing to this disaster.

the majority of homes are forced to use BT services at some level

That is incorrect. Virgin Media cover over half the country and have plans to go to two thirds in the relatively near future. Other providers such as Gigaclear, B4RN, IFNL, etc also have small percentages of coverage. There are providers that are serving large blocks of flats with fibre based services. BT do not have the majority of homes in a stranglehold - I would guess that no more than 30% of the country currently have BT as their only choice and in those cases BT are regulated to provide wholesale services so that only the cable itself is a "monopoly" and many suppliers can offer their own services over that cable.

There is also nothing that stops alternates from setting up services in BT areas. The only reason they don't is because it isn't economical due to the costs of setup and the fact a good percentage would probably stay with BT services (as in current Virgin areas).

In reply to a post by partial:

In reply to a post by baby_frogmella:

Most people would give an arm and a leg to be in your position!

Actually "most people" would prefer to be able to choose their provider and pay lower prices as a result. If INFL offer a compelling service there would be no need to lock out AAISP, IDNET and ZEN. The Openreach lockout is the most anti-competitive practice in telecoms today. Virgin are also highly active in this area.

The OP can choose from an ISP being connected to INFL fibre - 5 residential and 25 business ISPs. Which is probably not that different had he been connected to Openreach fibre instead

https://www.ifnl.net/availableisps

Anyway if the likes of FluidOne and Timico are able to provide a service on INFL's network, then that begs the question why aren't AAISP and Zen, even if just for biz customers?

At the end of of the day the OP can order a pure FTTP service starting at £28 per month (no line rental) for a 60 Mbps connection which in anybody's book is a decent price for a good speed. If the OP is looking for bargain basement deals from TalkTalk, Vodafone, PlusNet etc then he should ask the developer to rip out the fibre and ask Openreach to install good old copper instead. He then literally has 100s (if not 1000s) of ISPs to choose from

Edited by deleted (Tue 31-Oct-17 09:43:34)

And as any part of selecting a house people should check what services are available. If those services aren't what they want then go and find a different house. If for some other reason it is the only house you can go with then unfortunately you have to live with what services are there - good and bad.

There are still plenty of houses that don't have mains gas but if you didn't notice that when buying the house then you couldn't really blame the seller.

Indeed, folks should do their research before buying a property. If choice of ISPs is of more importance than speeds then they should ensure copper is available.

And I'd personally expect this sort of thing i.e. restrictive covenants that stop Openreach fulfilling even the existing USO to be raised on the searches by a solicitor

In reply to a post by DougM:

IMHO, this is exactly what the country needs to begin to break down the BT monopoly. Fully independent providers with no depedency on BT for last-mile connectivity.

Who is this BT?

Don't Openreach provide the line's. You can then choose pretty much any isp for broadband & telco services.

In the op case they are more restricted. Which is wrong. As it means your choice of telco & isp is restricted to far less than normal.

I'm sure if the BT Group were the only choice for isp & telco Ofcom would be down on them like a tonne of bricks....

Edited by deleted (Tue 31-Oct-17 10:56:41)

Openreach are still part of BT group and "BT" is useful shorthand for what people commonly understand.

I don't agree. Virgin Media does not yet cover more than half of households; the latest figures show Virgin Media coverage at ~44%, almost none of which is outside towns/cities. When Virgin Media crosses 50% then I'll agree that the majority of homes no longer need BT for fixed line services, but we're not there and the other infrastructure providers don't yet make a dent.

My whole point in this thread is that companies like IFNL are an effective way to accelerate toppling the monopoly created by the former nationalised telecommunications industry. Let's not attack them because they're not Openreach.

For me, the litmus test for the effectiveness of splitting-off Openreach would be to see BT Retail offer Infinity over these 3rd party wholesale networks!

Agree 100%.

I've not yet committed to buy this new-build, yet I've already spoken to three of the ISPs and a number of existing customers. There is no way I'll drop hundreds of thousands of pounds on a house without doing my homework!

According to TBB it is over 50%. Plus other providers including wireless, fibre, etc BT do not have over half.

IFNL is not a way to tackle a monopoly as it just means that the households only have one choice of a wholesale provider that has no oversight. I am not attacking IFNL but thinking that going from one provider that has controls on how much it can charge and what it has to wholesale to a different provider that has none of those controls is to me not a way to get rid of a monopoly (a monopoly that does not exist in more than half of the country).

There is nothing stopping IFNL from installing in BT areas if they have a better product that is cheaper than BT - but they can't do it cost effectively, they can only do that where they have an effective monopoly on customers.

BT retail could offer services over other networks but are unlikely to for the same reason most ISPs don't currently offer services over Openreach FTTP - it just isn't big enough to make it viable to invest in the admin resources to do it.

If IFNL had 20% of the country then BT retail would quite possibly use it as it would be worth the investment in setup costs.

In reply to a post by DougM:

My whole point in this thread is that companies like IFNL are an effective way to accelerate toppling the monopoly

By creating another monopoly?

These schemes will not break anything other than people who realize that they are trapped into a small group of companies and not the massive choice you have with a normal telephone line.

These schemes will only ever cover new estates. Never be run out to everyone else. Simply due to the cost to the companies.
We already have a great network provided by the former nationalised telecommunications industry. If it was not for that, we would be stuck in the dark ages in many area's where the cost to provide a service does not provide a profit to a company.

In reply to a post by DougM:

I don't agree. Virgin Media does not yet cover more than half of households; the latest figures show Virgin Media coverage at ~44%,

VM themselves say they pass 13.7m households (using their "two-way homes passed" measure (Quarterly results, June 2017)

In the 2011 census, there were 26.4m households in the UK. That's probably gone up by now, by half to 1 million.

On those numbers, VM have likely passed 50-51% of households.

The next-biggest player is likely to be KCOM, covering about 0.7% of households that BT don't touch at all.

With just these two providers, BT's monopoly of the access network is around 48-49%.

IIRC, BDUK reckon about 1% of the country is passed (for superfast speeds) by altnets. I don't know if that includes KCOM; if not, then the monopoly drops to 47-48%.

(NB: The "premises" count is usually about 10% higher than the "households" count)

In reply to a post by DougM:

My whole point in this thread is that companies like IFNL are an effective way to accelerate toppling the monopoly created by the former nationalised telecommunications industry. Let's not attack them because they're not Openreach.

Why not attack them because of what they do offer?

Ofcom has forced competition through the means of LLU and VULA, and that has led to a huge amount of competition and reduced prices (especially within bundles).

While that looks like a short-sighted policy when it comes to investment in fibre, it has had a marked effect on the psyche of the country - which now comes to expect those cheap prices, and availability of bundles.

It isn't a surprise to me that joe public complains when he finds a new home where that choice and flexibility is unavailable to him.

The problem then is that IFNL offering's aren't currently in line with what most homebuyers expect, regardless of who is to blame, yet the developers still choose to use their services.

In reply to a post by DougM:

For me, the litmus test for the effectiveness of splitting-off Openreach would be to see BT Retail offer Infinity over these 3rd party wholesale networks!

The only way the biggest ISPs can afford to offer such cheap prices is by automation of their service ... which includes automation of the interface to the wholesale suppliers.

It is going to take a lot to get such suppliers to either handle orders to the "minnow" wholesalers manually, or to bother to code that wholesaler's API into their automation stack.

Splitting off Openreach isn't going to affect this, so I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

If something is going to happen, then you'd expect to see it via KCOM first.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

The problem then is that IFNL offering's aren't currently in line with what most homebuyers expect, regardless of who is to blame, yet the developers still choose to use their services.

Really? The OP has a choice of around 30 ISPs on IFNL fibre, some even have their own backhaul links such as Orbital/VFast. Some might argue he/she has a greater choice of ISPs than an Openreach based FTTP service. I suspect the OP is looking for a bargain basement ISP such as PlusNet or TalkTalk offering a 80 Mbps connection for £9.99 pm which can only be supplied over copper obviously.

https://www.ifnl.net/availableisps

In reply to a post by baby_frogmella:

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

The problem then is that IFNL offering's aren't currently in line with what most homebuyers expect, regardless of who is to blame, yet the developers still choose to use their services.

Really? The OP has a choice of around 30 ISPs on IFNL fibre
Some might argue he/she has a greater choice of ISPs than an Openreach based FTTP service.

With a choice of 30 out of 200+ Isp's?

In reply to a post by JohnR:

In reply to a post by baby_frogmella:

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

The problem then is that IFNL offering's aren't currently in line with what most homebuyers expect, regardless of who is to blame, yet the developers still choose to use their services.

Really? The OP has a choice of around 30 ISPs on IFNL fibre
Some might argue he/she has a greater choice of ISPs than an Openreach based FTTP service.

With a choice of 30 out of 200+ Isp's?

Are you saying there�s a choice of 200+ ISPs on an Openreach based FTTP service? If not then surely Openreach should lead by example and entice (by whatever means necessary) more ISPs to offer their offerings over the OR network? Perhaps then it would be fair to say IFNLs offerings are poor in comparison.

But as things stand, if you�re on a pure fibre service your choice of ISPs will be far less than being on a copper based line. It doesn�t just apply to IFNL, it�s the same for Openreach FTTP, Cityfibre FTTP, Gigaclear FTTP etc.

Edited by deleted (Tue 31-Oct-17 17:05:55)

How many can we choose from on a Virgin Media service? LOL

In reply to a post by baby_frogmella:

Really?

Yup.

Given most subscribers go for BT, Sky, TalkTalk, or VM. The vast majority. And given that these are the ones that can bundle that broadband with a TV service.

It doesn't matter what IFNL does bring, when they don't bring those retailers. Not to the majority of joe public. People on here are not representative of the country as a whole.

NB: I was talking about most homebuyers. And commenting with regard to previous complaints we've seen. It wasn't a comment regarding the OP.

I suggest that you look up the definition of a monopoly. You would then quickly realise that BT is far from being a monopoly. That other suppliers have chosen not to supply a particular address or location does not then make BT a monopoly. A single supplier at some locations yes but a monopoly not at all. You also conveniently choose to ignore that BT are obliged through the USO, as are Kingston in their area, to provide a service when requested unlike VM, Gigaclear, Hyperoptic and IFNL.

... and as I have been saying on and off for a couple of years, it is these �big names� who chose not to utilise the OR FTTP network.

Them claiming that it prove too expensive to retrain staff is flim-flam.... they just want it handed to them as cheap as chips..... an ethos that really does nothing to assist this country�s fibre roll out.

You could say the same argument for BT retail not using IFNL's network as well.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

In reply to a post by baby_frogmella:

Really?

Yup.

Given most subscribers go for BT, Sky, TalkTalk, or VM. The vast majority. And given that these are the ones that can bundle that broadband with a TV service.

It doesn't matter what IFNL does bring, when they don't bring those retailers. Not to the majority of joe public. People on here are not representative of the country as a whole.

NB: I was talking about most homebuyers. And commenting with regard to previous complaints we've seen. It wasn't a comment regarding the OP.

The point I was trying to make (albeit not very clearly) was that an IFNL based fibre service is no better or worse than an Openreach based FTTP service when it comes to choosing ISPs. ISPs are damned if they don't provide FTTP on new builds and damned if they do. Here's a recent thread about someone complaining about service providers on an Openreach FTTP service

FTTP monopoly - what are my options?

I agree though, Joe Public is interested in the cheapest & fastest (in that order) which usually means going with mass market ISPs piggy backing on BT/OR copper lines.

Edited by deleted (Wed 01-Nov-17 10:00:18)

It is ironic that FTTC is considered by many as a dead end technology but where FTTP is provided the choice of ISPs is very limited (whether that is Virgin FTTP, OpenReach FTTP, IFNL, Gigaclear, B4RN, etc). Many would prefer to have FTTP technology but will complain that the supplier choice is then much more restrictive and in some cases could be quite a bit more expensive than a FTTC solution.

Have they been offered I wonder ?

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

Have they been offered I wonder ?

Sorry, not sure I understand the question?

I was wondering if IFNL have offered their network to provide BT Retails customers service ?

I see. As a wholesaler I am assuming they wouldn't turn down interest from the countries largest ISP but I have no idea to the actual answer to that question. I suspect they would be happy for BT to come on board and resell their wholesale service.

In reply to a post by partial:

Actually "most people" would prefer to be able to choose their provider and pay lower prices as a result. If INFL offer a compelling service there would be no need to lock out AAISP, IDNET and ZEN. The Openreach lockout is the most anti-competitive practice in telecoms today. Virgin are also highly active in this area.

Most people have a choice of energy supplier but very few bother to switch. I suspect that no-one has a choice of water supplier which is perhaps the most important service.

Having single broadband supplier means that you know who to talk to if there are problems and they may well be able to do something about it. The problem with Openreach is that you can't make direct contact if you want to get some issue resolved.

Having single broadband supplier means that you know who to talk to if there are problems and they may well be able to do something about it. The problem with Openreach is that you can't make direct contact if you want to get some issue resolved.

Is that true in the case where the customer has chosen to subscribe to an ISP such as DirectSave. Does IFNL even provide a service or are they exactly the same as Openreach in being solely an infrastructure provider?

I don't know about the ISPs you mention. I have a Gigaclear a/c. If there is an issue I just make contact with them. There is no 3rd party that has to pass on details of any issues that I have to someone else.

Gigaclear appears to be totally different. From what I am seeing IFNL provides and maintains the infrastructure in a similar way to BT with various ISP's then using that infrastructure to provide a service to their customer. I see this as being little different to say Sky or TalkTalk who use OpenReach, the main difference being that few have heard of or had dealings with the ISPs currently providing a retail service over IFNL. It's my understanding that it is Sky and TalkTalk, or possibly even Ofcom, that don't want OpenReach dealing directly with their customers but here I may be totally wrong.

Isn't this all a bit like gas and electricity where the customer deals with their supplier rather than Transco and the other transmission companies that actually deliver the gas or electricity?

>>Does IFNL even provide a service

INFL has a separate company See The Light as their retail offering.

In reply to a post by MCM:

Isn't this all a bit like gas and electricity where the customer deals with their supplier rather than Transco and the other transmission companies that actually deliver the gas or electricity?

Yes, though in the latter case the quality of the product is exactly the same regardless of the chosen supplier, perhaps excepting smart meters. Also if you have a fault you have to complain to the actual supplier who may even pay compensation if you are cut off for a long time (48 hours in my case). The government now wants to interfere with the electricity market, which may mean that suppliers won't offer such good deals partly to attract new customers and partly to stop existing customers from leaving.

INFL has a separate company See The Light as their retail offering.

Presumably in much the same way as BT have BT retail. I wonder whether IFNL also have a wholesale arm comparable to BT Wholesale that supplies DirectSave, SeeTheLight etc or whether they simply cut out the middleman.