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)