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.