None of the well-known brands ( EE, TalkTalk, Plusnet - nor SKY) will supply FTTP services to our community - and Openreach have confirmed to us that this is the case at present. Whilst it is true that some 'business' providers say that they will provide FTTP - the rates we have seen are all higher than those offered by BT - and often with landline services at additional cost (ie not bundled with a broadband offer) and with additional installation costs - and no one has taken them up to test this. Most householders in our community are unwilling to use companies that they 'have never heard of' at higher prices. The real question here is why Openreach/BT are - apparently - making it commercially unviable for 'mainstream' ISPs to offer to FTTP? the other question is will other companies offer FTTP when the initial FTTP contracts that people have with BT expire and the other ISPs no longer have to pick up the connection costs. Do you know??
Thanks for the info. That thing about >100Mbps or double current speed is pretty ambiguous. Hopefully you get it sorted out - I'd be interested to know which side it comes down on.
To me the idea of committing to an ISP contract now for a service that might not be available for another year or so seems bizarre. Do residents/businesses really have to sign up to a >100Mbps ISP that is available today, and carry that commitment through to when the fibre is installed, or is the does the contract just say 'I promise to take xxx xxx from the date the fibre service is live'?
In our area we appear to have a choice between BT and EE for >100Mbps ISPs. EE is quoted as roughly £5 per month cheaper, although I think you have to be an existing customer. That said, EE and BT are the same company now anyway.
The commitment for voucher holders is to take a fibre service at above X speed when notified that the infrastructure is in place. However, and as I mentioned before, the Ts&Cs change all the time. The latest version of the DCMS voucher Ts&Cs can be found here - https://gigabitvoucher.culture.gov.uk/ but no mention of 100MBps now, only 30Mbps !!
If you were in a native FTTP area, where Openreach had footed the entire construction bill because it was possible to make a return on the investment ( unlike your area , that presumably without a contribution from the ‘community’ wouldn't have been commercially viable ) you still wouldn’t have been able to use the company’s you would like to ( like Sky or TT ) because they currently chose not to offer service over OR FTTP, even though it’s available to them in exactly the same way as BT Consumer, no one is stopping them, it’s their choice not to.
It seems odd to me , to post onto a BT Consumer forum complaining that Sky and TT’s lack of take up of any OR FTTP products make you feel like you have to use BT, I would have thought your complaint should be directed to TT or Sky asking why they don’t, both company’s complain about the lack of fibre investment, but when it is available they don’t bother...or perhaps a little gratitude even, that BT were available, after all if BT chose not to offer FTTP like Sky and TT, then who would you use ?
Other company’s do offer OR FTTP services , but tend to be aimed at the premium end of the market, their customers are not generally those that want a budget stack em high and sell em cheap provider, the fact that you haven’t heard of them doesn’t in it self make them a poor choice, just not the choice of the poor
Wow....thank you for that condescending, patronising contribution from such a ‘recognised expert’. This thread is entitled ‘Experiences with Openreach CFP....’ and I have contributed our experience which is that - amongst other things - there is only one mainstream supplier willing to offer FTTP services in our area now that the fibre infrastructure is in place. I have pointed this out for the interest of others contemplating a CFP because if they think they are going to have a choice of ISPs when the project is completed - as we did - then they may be disappointed. You may not think this is helpful advice - I think others may think otherwise. Moreover, since most ISPs are presumably in business to offer customers services, I am entitled to wonder why they are not willing to do so and I have speculated that it is presumably because the wholesale costs charged to them by BT/Openreach make it unviable for them to do so. You - the ‘recognised expert’ reject that explanation but offer no alternative. Whatever the reason, a lack of competition in the Fibre broadband market is unlikely to benefit consumers nor provide the choice that customers expect these days. As to your insulting assertion that the members of our community must be ‘poor’ because they would prefer to obtain their broadband services from one of the mainstream ISPs used by millions of other customers, I won’t dignify it with a response. I will leave others to decide what value they place on our respective contributions - me being a mear ‘beginner’ an’ all!
Openreach have to provide all their products at the same price to anyone who wants to consume them, BT don’t get preferential access or pricing, it’s exactly the same terms that are available to Sky and TT, if they wanted them, so as I already stated if Sky and TT don’t want to avail themselves of this product, it’s a question for them, you imply that in some way BT and or OR are placing barriers in their way, this is simply not the case.
You speculate that as Sky and TT don’t offer service over OR FTTP, then there must be a reason and you suggest wholesale costs, so given that the wholesale cost is exactly the same for BT Consumer , then it’s a strange one to argue, a more likely scenario is that TT and Sky have constructed their own ADSL2+ networks, by offering FTTP , they negate the cost benefits of that network and start having to pay a little more to OR ( more than the £6 to £7 they pay OR to rent a loop to offer their ADSL2 ) so sweating their ADSL assets is more likely to be the reason for them not offering FTTP.
As you were successful in getting your CFP up and running, presumably you and enough neighbours desire for better broadband speeds was such that you were willing to contribute towards the construction costs , but what if BT took the same position as TT and Sky ? Who would you blame for only having the option of using ISP’s you have never heard of ?
I wonder , did you lobby VM and ask if they would ‘cable your area’ ? , if you did , did they offer to provide service, ( they didn’t ) but if they had, and VM provided you access to a higher speed network, just how many many ISP’s would have been allowed to offer service over it ?, the answer, of course is one, just them ,VM.
As I said, perhaps you ought to be a little more grateful than you are, you live in an area that wouldn’t necessarily be a candidate for FTTP , OR are not a charity and quite correctly look to invest in areas that are going to provide a return on that investment, but, so as not to exclude areas like yours completely, they offer something no other network provider does, and that is to offer the option , in return for a commitment and contribution towards the construction costs , build in ‘uneconomic’ areas, and when the build is done offer access to any ISP that wants to use it, you then seem to ‘blame’ BT for Sky and TT not using this FTTP network.
I can seen that some may say , why did I have to contribute to FTTP when others get FTTP for ‘free’, but it was your choice to look into CFP, you could have just waited and eventually , when the more lucrative areas had been done , the not so lucrative areas start to be looked at, or ( and this has happened ) a strategic decision is taken to massively increase their FTTP footprint and perhaps your area may have got FTTP anyway.
Sky and TT are both saying that they are about to start offering access over OR FTTP , presumably the market demand to be able to offer hyper fast speeds outweighs their desire to sweat their ADSL assets , so you will eventually get what you want, the option of taking their services , be interesting to see what price they offer it at.
Well at least you seem to have toned down the condescension a little bit this time. Let’s unpick some of this.
Firstly, I have simply been reporting the FACT that no one could or would tell us which ISPs we would be able to choose from BEFORE we embarked on the CFP project. We (obviously stupidly) thought that we would have a similar choice to what we had over copper. The reality was that we had a choice of one mainstream ISP. I thought that was worth making other people aware of. Many householders in our community have had bad experiences with BT in the past and I doubt that many of them would have expressed interest in the CFP if they had known that this would be the case. In my opinion, if the government sees funding CFPs and similar initiatives as a way of increasing the availability of Fibre broadband then it has to find a way of increasing choice and competition in the ISP marketplace. You may disagree - fine.
Next, the idea that we would have contributed to a CFP project without any ISP offering a service - at the end of it - or that such a prospect would have made any sense in the first place - is ludicrous. Were we guilty of naivety in assuming that we would have a choice of ISPs - yes, clearly so. If that makes you feel smug - fine.
I have no idea who VM are...but if they are anything like Truespeed who are aggressively targeting communities around us then, no, we would not have touched them with a barge pole. Who would want to tie themselves to the choice of a single ISP in that way? But...through our own naivety in thinking that we would have a choice of ISPs by going for a CFP ..that’s where we’ve ended up. Feeling even more smug? Fine.
Now..the piece de resistance..the charge that we should be ‘more grateful’....us forelock-tugging yokels who sits on walls chewing sticks of straw. The situation here is that our community actually sits as part of a medium-sized market town and within its boundaries. However for no reason that anyone has been able to explain, our community was left out of the roll-out of Superfast broadband here a few years ago that the rest of the town enjoys. So far from being ‘grateful’ that this wrong has now been righted, we are angry that we have been paying the same price for Standard broadband for many years that the rest of the town has been paying for Superfast (with a choice of ISPs!). As far as we are concerned, the CFP (mostly funded by grant and central government funding - and not out of the goodness of the heart of OR!) is simply levelling up the infrastructure in a neglected community but the lack of choice of ISPs over what should be part of the National infrastructure is unacceptable whatever the reason and whomsoever is to blame.
Those contemplating entering into a CFP should be aware of these issues before they commit themselves to it. I make no apology for drawing their to attention to them here and I have no intention of continuing this exchange with you. This will be my final post in this forum. Our readers can make of it what they will.
You have fairly posted on here about an experience which can be a lesson to many. Let's not forget that.
With brief regard to the availabily of mainstream ISP's and Fibre to the Premises I would assume it's still "new ground" to them and they have not extablished how they can make a profit from such services. As a mainstream ISP BT (Retail) saw the potential revenue from ANY internet product it could sell and has continued to do so over the many years it has operated.
Some futher "digging" for info may have found you the information you were looking for, prior to the signup to CFP funded FTTP, however the product is now something you have/about to have, and there are other ISP's you could go with, some of whom maybe "more" expensive but overal provide a 1st Class service and give you what you are really after... a decent speed internet connection!
Thank you for your input on this situation.
VM , Virgin Media, a company that has a massive reach, but has no obligation to offer access to its network on a wholesale basis to competitors, unlike Openreach who have no choice.
When I said if BT took the same outlook that Sky and Talk Talk took ( at least initially ) then you could still have entered a CFP with Openreach ( legally BT and Openreach are separate company’s ) but you would only have had the option of the handfull of niche providers that offer service, admittedly this may well influence starting a CFP , but to suggest if BT didn’t offer it, then what’s the point of contributing towards a network that no one could use is wrong, instead of 6 providers to chose from it would be have been 5, no ‘big names’ though.
As far as myself asking why you are not being grateful, obviously this was intentionally provocative, but you wanted faster broadband , OR offered you a way of getting it in an uneconomic area, BT ( a mainstream provider but admittedly a company that some have historic problems with ) were available to access it ( unlike Sky and TT ) , so my point is that if OR and BT didn’t offer this solution, where would you be ?
I dare say some you approached and agreed to participate in your CFP were ‘shocked’ to discover Sky and TT were not available, where you are completely wrong is in your assertion that in some way BT and OR in some way colluded to keep them out, and I would suggest that OR pointed out to you the list of ISP that had entered arrangements with them, if you didn’t realise your preferred ISP’s ( TT and Sky ) were not interested in OR FTTP , then that’s hardly OR’s fault, and it’s incredible you ‘blame’ BT Consumer