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).