Housing Provider Peabody to Deploy SCCI’s Shared UK Full Fibre Infrastructure
The not-for-profit housing association, Peabody, which is responsible for almost 109,000 homes (220,000 residents) across London and the Home Counties of England, has signed a new framework agreement with SCCI Alphatrack (SCCI Group) to deploy their single shared full fibre broadband infrastructure solution (4Fibre) to residents homes.
Instead of installing multiple networks from different network operators, SCCI’s 4Fibre solution builds one open-access network that any broadband supplier can use. The goal is to help minimise disruption for residents, while protecting the structure and safety features of buildings, and reducing environmental impact.
The announcement is a little vague on precisely how much of Peabody’s housing stock is to benefit from this, although we’ve been informed that the main focus seems to be on large high-rise and complex residential buildings. Peabody has over 250 such buildings, mainly in London.
Advertisement
ISPreview has been informed that the first site to benefit from this will be Cumberland Market near Regents Park in Camden, which consists of about 500 units on one estate, including about 120 premises that are being supported by the Building Digital UK (BDUK) agency’s Urban Vouchers (Gigabit Broadband Voucher Scheme). But more will follow.
Elizabeth Connelly, Head of Landscape and Telecoms at Peabody, said:
“This is about making things easier for residents and safer for their homes. We understand the importance of being connected and we want all of our residents to have access to faster, affordable and more reliable broadband.”
A spokesperson for SCCI Alphatrack added:
“The new partnership also supports the national ambition to bring faster broadband to more homes and ensures the homes of Peabody’s residents are ready for the digital demands of the future. It makes it easier to keep accurate building records, supports safer installations, and provides a scalable solution that can grow with demand.”
Eagle-eyed readers may well recall that two alternative broadband operators, G.Network and Netomnia, have previously also signed agreements to build FTTP into Peabody’s homes (here and here). But it’s worth noting that Netomnia haven’t yet expanded their full fibre network into London (i.e. their deal was perhaps more about the Home Counties) and G.Network has just gone into administration, although 4Fibre’s solution was used to help wire a few blocks for G.Network before that happened (about 300 units).
Solutions like the one being delivered by SCCI have potentially become more attractive since delays in the Building Safety Regulator’s (BSR) updated processes for minor works began causing wider problems and pushing up costs, often unpredictably (here).
Mark is a professional technology writer, IT consultant and computer engineer from Dorset (England), he also founded ISPreview in 1999 and enjoys analysing the latest telecoms and broadband developments. Find me on X (Twitter), Mastodon, Facebook, BlueSky, Threads.net and Linkedin.
« Only One Telecoms Firm Makes Top 50 UK Companies for Customer Satisfaction
Advertisement
Leave a Reply
Privacy Notice: Please note that news comments are anonymous, which means that we do NOT require you to enter any real personal details to post a message and display names can be almost anything you like (provided they do not contain offensive language or impersonate a real person's legal name). By clicking to submit a post you agree to storing your entries for comment content, display name, IP and email in our database, for as long as the post remains live.
Only the submitted name and comment will be displayed in public, while the rest will be kept private (we will never share this outside of ISPreview, regardless of whether the data is real or fake). This comment system uses submitted IP, email and website address data to spot abuse and spammers. All data is transferred via an encrypted (https secure) session.
If I’m reading this right it’s an interesting model. SCCI deploy the local fibre, then encourage Altnets to build to them?
From everyone’s perspective this feels challenging…
SCCI – Do they take the risk of cost without revenue? Or do they already have the Altnets signed up to build out to them?
Altnets – Are they going to be happy to build out to SCCI, knowing they are going to be 1 of 4, with inherent and immediate overbuild. Again, cost without certainty of revenue, at a time when few are building and capital is scarce.
Residents – They’ll suffer the disruption without the certainty of being able to receive service.
Maybe I’m wrong.
But have any network operators agreed to connect to and make use of this last-meter infrastructure? If there’s a fault, who fixes it?
Similar operations in the past have failed, e.g. CTG:
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2024/06/ctg-withdraws-services-from-the-uk-fibre-market-after-slowdown.html
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/talk/threads/complete-fibre-ctg-openreach.43336/
The business model is completely different. SCCI builds it up front and charges a one off cost per unit.
CTGs model was literally of a parasite, stealing money every month from connected customers. The only way to make it work would be to pass CTGs cost into the prices, which would make it a nightmare to manage customer expectations
I don’t think SCCI’s model solves _all_ the problems — e.g. dealing with faults is still more complex due to the shared infrastructure. It would be interesting if SCCI had published a list of networks that are willing to use their infrastructure.
This is good news and a step in the right direction.
Why are they using the word “premise” to refer to a single location. Premise means something completely different.
In response to Grumpy Old Man – (you do sound a bit! )
Yes – we take a risk, but we now ensure that we have a line one operator signed up before we build.
Whether they will ever be one in four, – I doubt it. We normally save the landlord one of the four lines (future proofing their building)
Do remember BDUK, DSIT and government talk all the time about choice & competition. Your right though – as what is good for consumers is not so good for ISPS
In my opinion a consumer should be wary of an ISP who is worried by competition – that might tell you much about their business model.
Everyone Eutopia is an Alt Net, Openreach and maybe one more. Most “well planned” new build has an Alt Net, Openreach and VM02 – why not retro to have the same choice of three.
With regards disruption – 4Fibre clearly reduces that. I have seen building wired 4 times one after the other – what a waste of time, resource and source of disruption!
In response to NE555 – you have touched a nerve there with mentioning CTG, their Complete Fibre was a very poor copy of 4Fibre – it lacked segregation and relied on multiple operators sharing a fibre in one cable.
4Fibre is 50 times more robust – and ISP do not share a fibre in a cable – it was designed by engineers who knew what they were doing.
Reach out and I can put you in touch with an ISP engineer who works on both CTG and 4Fibre, if you would like – he can tell you first hand that they are incomparable in quality and operation.
As for who fixes the fault – the ISP does first line (as they own the line) & if they struggle (for any reason – maybe catastrophic failure of cable) 4Fibre offers a life time 24-hour support function.
In response to Sam – yes (spot on) 4Fibre is not only superior in quality – it is a purchase & CTG is a lease.
In the case of 4Fibre the ISP buy a line at a cost that is comparable to what they would pay to install themselves – therefore no extra cost to consumer
In response to Far2329 Light – thank you and yes, it is a simple less disruptive more robust and safer way to deploy fibre broadband in to Multi Dwelling Units
Even more so with High-Risk Buildings (HRB) & increased Building Safety Regulation
Thank you.
In response to Gary – this is just wording – where premise is mentioned in the article it is talking about a customer’s (consumers’) premise or a flat:
“Including about 120 premises that are being supported by the (BDUK) agency’s Urban Vouchers (GBVS)”
4Fibre provides 4 fibre services to every customer (consumer) premise – but I get the confusion if you’re referring to FTTP (premise) and FTTH (home)
In any case, you highlight an important part of the article – in that 4Fibre has got access to BDUK funding, therefore it is endorsed by BDUK / DSIT – that is a major step forward and clearly helps the commercials.
No. Look in a dictionary. The singular of premises is premises. It may be weird but that’s English for you. A premise is an assumption upon which you proceed to develop an arguement or case.
That’s an interesting point. The BDUK Urban Voucher scheme is only in place for a few months (I know the push is to extend it, but that outcome is far from certain), with the vouchers only being paid to the supplier once a customer is confirmed as signed-up, a speed test is run and the customer makes their voucher submission.
This does demonstrate your belief in your proposition. Build fast, and with an Altnet or ISP already engaged – if you don’t do this there will be delay (at best) in claiming any vouchers.
Steve “premises” is always used in the plural form, even when referring to a single location. This is not a grammatical error it’s a legal convention rooted in the word’s etymology and historical usage.
Unfortunately lots of people seem to get this wrong, even people setting up SAP systems for utility companies.
In response to Ben – we actually have very few faults that the ISP has to pass back to us – I can assure you, 4Finre was designed by engineers who have done the job, we don’t make it complex.
What ISPs are connected is commercially sensitive, but we are still building, which tells a story.
Take a look at our linked in page where we share case studies that sometime mention the ISP’s who are connecting to our network
I’m unsure this provides a sold mass market solution. I’ve been aware of operators who have found the 4fibre logic difficult to swallow and Aithorities who have invested in it but struggled to attract operators to use it.
Faults and Service Assurance – its unlikely that an Openreach or Virgin Media would be comfortable with the final drop being out of their control.
AltNets – especially those focussing in on MDU – often only own the asset inside the building, bringing in third party feeds to the meet-me point – so this reduces asset value
I believe that ‘on-paper’ this looks to be a solution for all, but in operation it solves problems for nobody. Not a mass market solution and the lack of named operators using the service in the case studies tells the story.
– reduced complexity and more control for the Landlord – removing admin costs of wayleave / route approval and risks on damage to the building fabric
– increased reach for operators, with reduced capital outlay
In the end this is another waste of taxpayer money, with Authorities investing into this in building infrastructure that will never be used.
In response to Billy Shears – I am an engineer mate. I skipped English language at university and just got on with installing networks.
I have been doing that for about 40 years, 38 of which at SCCI – and the last five working on 4Fibre.
Ask me relevant questions about fibre, and I will give you my honest opinion.
BTW I looked in the dictionary – its “argument” not “arguement” – that is English for you!
Well done, we both learnt something today, let’s try to remember it.
In response to Grumpy Old Man – Our first BDUK site was Weston Rise in Islington. By virtue of the difficulties to wire and to service it, it had BDUK vouchers.
It took a bit of time to get through the GBVS registration – but it went live last week and consumer take up has been excellent.
We did a bit of consumer questioning – and the overwhelming consensus from all the residents (who want to take a service) was that they were all very happy with their new service and it had been a long time coming for fibre to be introduced into the building due to the severe lack of reliable high speed internet services currently available.
Flat xx Stelfox
“The resident did not have any internet service at installed in their flat and was relying on their mobiles for internet service.
The oldest child was having to hotspot his laptop via his mobile so he had a decent service for his studies.
All the children in the flat were very excited for the new service, for gaming, streaming and studies. It will be an absolute godsend”
Flat xx Stelfox
“Currently had SKY broadband but only had speeds of around 4-10 Mbps.
It was taking on average, 4 days to download a single game to play.
They were having to use a mobile hotspot for TV streaming and when the whole family were home using devices at peak times then it was near impossible for them to use them adequately.
They were all very frustrated with the situation and this new fibre service will be a game changer “
Flat xx Stelfox
“Currently finding their existing internet service was very slow and was restricting the whole family from enjoying services and activities especially for the boys for streaming games which was becoming an issue.
They were very happy for the new service to be installed and could not wait to use it.”
Flat xx Frearson
“Currently had to pay for 2 different internet providers just to get minimum service all around the flat.
Customer worked from home and downloading presentations was painfully slow and online calls were being severely affected.
This was very frustrating and affecting his working from home experience. He was so looking forward to using his new service.”
Flat xx Frearson
“Current internet speed was painfully slow.
Customer had SKY Glass but at peak times she could not use it due to poor internet service.
Customer was so looking forward to having the new service she had spoken to a few of her neighbours and had got them signed up for installs as well.”
Flat xx Frearson
“Currently using mobile WiFi only for accessing the internet and is very slow.
Cannot wait to be able to stream, download and use the internet properly and with confidence.”
Flat xx Stelfox
“Currently has 2 different internet providers to cover the whole flat with coverage and to minimally make sure everyone who lives in the flat can have some kind of service.
At peak times it is very painful and frustrating especially for the kids, to be able use or play on their gadgets.
The customers eldest son had to move out due to his frustration with not having a decent internet in the flat and which was severely affecting both his work and social life.
Everyone in the flat was so happy and relieved to be finally getting a fast and reliable service which would really improve their home life in so many ways.”
In response to Dubious – you talk of mass market, but the news says “the main focus is on large high-rise and complex residential buildings. Peabody has over 250 such buildings, mainly in London”
The logic is pretty clear – rather than wire you building 3 or 4 times do it once – I actually think the ‘logic’ is supported by common sense – and Peabody agree, having spent a few years going down the ‘traditional’ path.
I covered faults and assurance before “In response to NE555” – the solution is far more robust than other methods. If you’re in the industry and want me to show you – reach out stevechesterman@sccialphatrack.co.uk
With the operators using 4Fibre so far, they bring their own asset TO the building (or we do that for them) – thus not reducing asset value
This not a solution for everybody – it is however a solution for switched on freeholders who wish to protect their building, do the job once, reduce disruption and have ONE GOLDEN THREAD
As for names operators – the first BDUK scheme line one was Community Fibre – as the largest Alt Net in London, they wont mind me mentioning them.
You comment about reduced complexity, more control for the landlord, removing admin cost, less route approval and risk of damage to the building, increased reach and reduced capital outlay – all hit the nail on the head, are you coming round!
We don’t generally use taxpayer money, it is funded by us. The situation with Weston Rise and BDUK was about the “gap” – the gap between what an ISP will spend, and what a job costs. We paid the vast majority of the cost to build.