so both neighbours (left side and right side) have FTTP , they are about 100m give or take away from the bottom of our driveway. it was offered that we could use their cbt to feed us internet however, one of the neighbours is a car dealership and has built a car park over the CBT giving us no option on that side. the origina plan was for 400m + of ducting. the new plan has the BT Road Panel (im not sure what it is called, it is where the node / CBT is put in the panel underground) and from that panel there is a 20m ditch and duct (that openreach dug) fed right directly next to the shed that needs to have the cable terminated.
I suspect that the car dealership isn’t FTTP, more likely an Ethernet leased line and that is unrelated to FTTP , if it is an Ethernet leased line they do not use CBT’s, if it is NGA FTTP , its legitimate for business to get NGA FTTP ( cheaper than a leased line ) but a CBT will no be provided solely for their use and won’t be within their boundary, but there may well be some fibre equipment that has been made inaccessible by work they have done, but the feeding CBT will be in a public place ( a joint box or the top of a telegraph pole )
Are you a business or a residential customer ?
With respect, your initial post suggests that you are a ‘regular’ domestic type installation that is being unduly delayed by opaque and overly complicated ‘rules’ , but I suspect that it’s a business premises that you want service into ( irrespective of that you may well just want an ordinary residential service )
It does seem odd to me that FTTP is shown as available though , if the property is 400m away from the road, ( the closest point a CBT would exist ) then depending on the work required , it may well be excess construction costs that are the reason for any delay, if you somehow have managed to get an order raised ( because the wholesale checker says FTTP is available ) any technician turning up to install it won’t be able to do anything apart from sending it back for ‘planning’ and planning may well say the order should never have been accepted in the first place.
There is a solution for this as I have seen a similar problem on a different forum dealing with VM. You can read all about it and the solution here.
hello @pippincp ,
thank you for your response, i have read through that forum post, all i can see is that the person with the problem took legal action, im not sure he even got his internet service?
So you didn't see this and the associated post then.