Current telephone cable is DIG grey armour cable , How "should" fibre be supplied?

[iniltous]

It’s not uncommon for a property that’s built much later than those properties that surround it , to be served differently, however , in your case it undoubtedly was a choice the builder/developer made to have an underground service, probably a purely aesthetic decision   , but as they undertook the work to bury the cable from the property wall to the curtilage of the site , chances are its was cost neutral to BT/OR ( depending on who was the network provider back then ) so was no problem connecting the the address to the copper network this way .

The fact is that now ,underground isn’t going to be cost neutral, it would be massively more expensive to install underground when the overhead option exists , therefore FTTP service  is going to be overhead  ,it even states as much with the SNN for the address .

TBH , if that is not going to be acceptable, you may as well cancel now , rather than sending the technician away on the day of the  visit.

[justjohn1]

The current pole at the end of our drive was probably put in for just for this house, we are very rural. 

Its an openreach branded adsl/ telephone outlet.

[pddco]

Just wondering, I take it you’re sure it’s armoured cable and not a smaller diameter cable in a microduct? I’ve read elsewhere that one or two homeowners have mistaken such armoured cable. But anyway, just a thought. 

[iniltous]

DIG , or a cable in duct 100 wouldn’t alter the fact that the survey has indicated overhead means of provision, so should an order be made the technician that turns up will be ‘primed’ for an overhead feed , not an underground one…..should the homeowner refuse the overhead installation, protesting that the existing copper cable is underground so won’t accept anything other than underground , it won’t make any difference, the tech returns the incomplete job as installation refused by the customer , and the order is cancelled.

[justjohn1]

Its defo armour cable.  i am hoping if they are unable to run ducting  , they will at least install a second pole.  A second pole would avoid running down my drive  with overhead cables.

[pddco]

@iniltous Can see why @justjohn1  would be a bit miffed having an OH feed albeit at height down the middle of the drive. And can see the very black and white approach that OR may take. But surely through BT who, I would hope value their customer,  there may be room for manoeuvre. At least have an opportunity to speak to an OR survey person about other options. Couldn’t a second  pole be put nearer the house perhaps taking the feed away from the drive?  Even if it meant a contribution from the customer perhaps? Think that’s what I’d be looking for. That OH feed would there a long time and personally I’d want to thoroughly explore all options before excepting the default not pretty solution. 

[iniltous]

If there is no reason to provide a second pole (other than aesthetics ) then one won’t be provided….50m isn’t a long span , so the only reason to add another pole would be if the minimum height over the driveway couldn’t be maintained, this may be the case is if the property were a single storey building like a bungalow , then arguably it requires standing a new pole next to the property and erecting a wire between the existing pole and new pole on the way to the building itself, this can be more intrusive visually.

This post has really gone on a flight of fancy, apparently there is a pole capable of delivering service with ‘no anticipated issues’ , that’s really it , knowing this , the OP orders service on that basis or doesn’t , no underground service ( unless the customer wants to pay ) and no extra pole unless it’s necessary.

[justjohn1]

i don't mind paying a reasonable fee.  

what is minimium hight and also distance from detached buildings? 

The line will come past a garage and the house is lower than the pole. The single line  will cross my drive twice as there is a curve and gradient.

[pddco]

@iniltous .. So if it were your property you’d be happy with that then? And not try to see what was possible? I appreciate you’re  putting the hard business approach to it all. And no doubt it’s all technically correct. But annoyingly people and feelings do tend to get in the way.. Yes appreciate some people do try to get something for nothing and expect OR to do stuff that wouldn’t make business sense. But clearly the OP cares about the look and may be prepared to explore other ways of  sorting it.. 

[iniltous]

It’s not really to do with being ‘happy’ , it’s unrealistic expectations, if you went to Tesco to buy ‘mince’ you don’t expect them to provide you with steak for the same price , or expect a car manufacturer to supply a limousine for the price of a city car , why expect Openreach to spend thousands on an install getting nothing extra from the ISP compared to the standard installation method.

….as I’ve stated , if the standard method of provision is unacceptable then  a paid for bespoke installation can be arranged, unfortunately because the majority would baulk at the cost ,  most ISP are not interested and likely be unaware how to even arrange that , given the regulatory requirements that the network provider doesn’t ‘liaise’ with the consumer , the consumer can’t contact Openreach directly about this , even if a customer is prepared to pay , initially for a survey to establish the likely costs , getting your ISP to engage with this may prove problematic.

If the OP preferred method is underground and is prepared to pay for that extra work  , generally the way is to get overhead installed first and then request via the ISP , an overhead to underground shift , this requires a knowledgeable ISP , most are ‘stack  it high , sell it cheap’  providers and will simply say it’s not possible…..the process is a paid for survey ( non refundable in the event that the quote is unacceptable ) , should an acceptable quote/solution be  agreed, payment is made in advance ( via the ISP , hence the need to get a service in first ) and the work proceeds , the survey cost are deducted from the construction costs