Home
 » ISP News » 
Sponsored

BT Openreach Recruit 500 Extra UK Telecoms Engineers to Improve Service

Monday, October 20th, 2014 (1:23 pm) - Score 9,334

BTOpenreach has announced its intention to recruit another 500 full-time broadband and telephone engineers, mostly in London, Surrey (England), Aberdeen (Scotland) and more generally around Wales. The move forms part of BT’s on-going efforts to meet Ofcom’s new quality of service requirements (faster fault fixing and installations etc.).

Apparently around half of the new engineers, most of which will be placed into permanent posts or fixed term contracts of 18 months, will be used to help meet and ideally exceed the telecom regulators new service quality requirements (details). Openreach also claimed that their latest data (here) shows them to be running “ahead of Ofcom’s service level targets for new installations and repairs“. But that could suffer a hit during the often turbulent winter months.

Meanwhile the remainder of Openreach’s new recruits will focus on the needs of consumers and businesses by connecting new housing developments and helping to install Ethernet and “fibre broadband” (FTTC/P) services across the country. Some of the new engineers will also be responsible for general maintenance of BT’s national telecoms network.

Joe Garner, Openreach’s CEO, said:

We’ve had a terrific response to our previous recruitment campaign, and I am thrilled to announce that we’re able to offer even more people an exciting career as an Openreach engineer.

Our fibre broadband rollout is making a really positive contribution to the lives and business of people right across Britain. We are seeing strong demand for our superfast fibre service, as well as our ultra high-speed business services like Ethernet.

We are recruiting more people so that we can continue to build our network rapidly, and serve our customers better. Broadband growth is great for our customers and for Britain. These new engineers will help ensure that Openreach continues to meet and exceed the rising demands of our customers in an internet age.”

The move follows hot on the heels of Openreach’s last recruit drive, which for the same reason saw the operator announce the addition of 1,600 engineers during May 2014 (here). Apparently BT received a staggering 26,000 applications for that recruitment drive and many of the latest additions are being chosen from that list.

As a result the total number of new recruits announced by Openreach this year will hit 2,400, including more than 300 modern apprentices. Apparently more than 200 of those that have already been hired were ex-armed forces personnel. Overall BT has well over 30,000 members of staff, including those in non-engineering positions.

Leave a Comment
39 Responses
  1. danny says:

    they want to improve the fibre nevermind recruiting more cowboys and spend some money on shit services instead of playing bodge this and that bt the company whats as much use as a chocolate fireguard .

    1. becky says:

      try working outside in them winter conditions to keep you guys in service…. then come back and call engineers cowboys

  2. Abuse Alert says:

    BT has a history of recruiting ex service people from the Army etc. They will be delighted to be described as ‘cowboys’.

  3. No Clue says:

    “As a result the total number of new recruits announced by Openreach this year will hit 2,400, including more than 300 modern apprentices. Apparently more than 200 of those that have already been hired were ex-armed forces personnel. Overall BT has well over 30,000 members of staff, including those in non-engineering positions.”

    So not many ex-service people in the grand scheme of things. Certainly not a “history” of recruiting them in significant numbers there either. 200 of 2400 is less than 10%, so quite possible the rest could be cowboys. Much as it will anger some. Better fire up the email and spam your complaining to Mark again.

    1. Steve Jones says:

      @GNewton

      If you are referring to line rental cost, the wholesale prices for MPF and WLR are heavily regulated by Ofcom. If you go and look at the OR pricelist, you’ll find that in inflation-adjusted terms (and, compared to some periods in absolute terms), lower now than previously.

      If, however, you are referring to the recent tendency for retail prices to go up ahead of inflation, then that’s certainly true. However, that’s for all ISPs. The retail market is fully deregulated and anybody can move to a different SP. Most probably the reason that this has happened is to compensate for a fall in call revenues (which is in long term decline) and as a means of cross-subsidising all those ridiculously cheap entry tariffs and to keep headline BB costs low. It’s something I’ve complained about a lot – the ASA ought to force all SPs to give prominence to the full package costs. In any event, the changes in retail line rental costs are nothing to do with OpenReach income. It’s a retail matter are there is a lot of choice on retail SPs.

      nb. when looking at retail line revenue prices, the SP markups aren’t quite what a lot of people think, as VAT has to be netted off.

      http://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/products/pricing/loadProductPriceDetails.do?data=totid5BwFmkf9vLcBITRyZF9loRxWIbIKK6V7YWmlYAlMnGHsqdC0vzO163bJmh34D91D7M0q8u%2FIlSgtIFAKw%3D%3D

    2. Steve Jones says:

      Oops. This went on the wrong sub-thread. It seems to happen to others too, so maybe there’s some quirk in the website working, although it might be me.

      I’ll copy to the correct one (I hope).

  4. telecom engineer says:

    First this is good news. Second bt do have a history with the armed forces, just look at previous recruitment and google 81 signal squadron.
    As someone who works along side the forced I can say they are on the whole a lit more likely to be grafters than your average joe. When fttc first came there were some issues as the training was suited to experienced dsl engineers (and first wave training always handpicks the top guys so not fair to compare) but as things stand now these guys will make a pisitive impact. Met a few radar technicians reqcruited etc so lets not assume they are just grunts, there are some seriously skilled people coming through.
    Third, we should appreciate a british company making the investment in high quality direct labour jobs and not running off to hire more cheap as chips contractors. Over 2000 people will now be able to pay mortgages and provide a steady income for their families thanks to this. Plus this frees up the experianced staff for special faults and the huge network uplift this year. Better service, better network, better jobs. Laughable that some will still try to be negative on this.

    1. NGA for all says:

      @telecom engineer – GOV/LA are investing £1.2bn+ £500m SEP cash into BT. The lack of cost trasparency creates the impression BT Group could be diverting a good slice of this to football rather than employing a further 1,000 or so engineers/apprentices. The money, all of it, was scheduled for engineers not premier league footballers.. and many would like you and your cohorts to have it.

      Note BT is charging the Gov £46,000 an average subsidy per fibre path and cabinet. This includes 5 man(woman) weeks of charges for a survey. £46k – £10k for cabinet/power/cable subsidy suggests – £36k/£20 an hour close to a man year of subsidies to survey and install a cabinet.

      What does it look like from your side? How big a crew and how many cabinets a month? What hourly rate should be used for state aid?

    2. GNewton says:

      With all due respect, but you are living in a dream world. Just take a look at the BT reviews on this website: http://www.ispreview.co.uk/review/products/7.html

      How do you explain the lack of transparency as regards the BT/BDUK cartel? Why are local councils not publishing proper figures and invoices for services rendered by BT, with detailed and easy to understand breakdowns? Simple things like cabinet costs, exact postcode data, the exact technology planned on taxpayer-funded BDUK areas would be a good starting point. I know of cases where up to £2400 per VDSL line were spent, way over the top of any reasonable bugdet.

      You are going to need all the technicians you can get, trying to patch up old twisted-pair copper-wire technologies. In our local area, BT hasn’t even done any preventative maintenance for years, they just wait till something breaks down before (possibly) fixing something. If it wasn’t for the need of broadband nobody would want you.

    3. GNewton says:

      P.S.: My post was addressed to telecom engineer.

    4. Steve Jones says:

      @NGA for All

      Are you seriously suggesting that there is any credibility whatsoever to the notoin BDUK funds are being used to pay for BT Sport? Even a cursory understanding of the regulatory environment will tell you that there are separate accounts for Openreach, BT Wholesale and BT Retail. BT Retail are not, as far as I’m aware, trading at a loss. Now it may turn out to be that BT Sport could turn out to be a poor investment, but it’s a retail matter and stands on its own. About the only connection that I can see is that a wider availability of FTTC means that BT Retail have a wider potential wider customer base. However, that applies equally to any ISP which uses the OR FTTC product set.

      Also, the financial investment in FTTC is also a stand alone one. It has to produce a return. Now, it’s quite likely that some of the areas upgraded under the BDUK regime would, eventually, have been dealt with under the commercial regime. However, (as Andrew Ferguson points out), the government did not wait until commercial roll-out was exhausted. They wanted to accelerate the process. (There is, of course, a claw-back process which should recover, in large part, subsidies to locations that turn out to be fully commercially viable).

      I would suggest you direct your criticisms to politicians who, after all, set up this programme, it’s political priorities and the regulatory regime it was enacted under. Giving credence to ideas like BDUK funding is being used to subsidise BT Sport something that you need to justify.

    5. NGA for all says:

      @steve BT commercial investment is not separaretly recorded or separated in BT accounts or regulatory accounts.
      The breakdown in capital and any incremental capital for NGA is not recorded in any public documents.
      The P&L for VDSL is a BT group creation where capital and cost and common costs can be moved about until they say whatevey BT Goup need them to say.
      The methodology of payment by milestones divorced from incremental costs was agreed one month before the Olympics. No problem with that if BT had a tendancy to raise costs but it does need scrutiny.
      In calculating capital expenditure for instance BT capitalises more labour than any other telco in Europe at c60% yet no comment from BT auditors or Ofcom economists.
      It is being dealt with 1 NAO report and 2 PAC reports and more are needed to resolve what you correctly describe as outrageous claims. They are outrageous but the numbers and bechaviours point to just that. I wish it was different.

    6. GNewton says:

      Steve Jones: Interesting. So how do you explain the over-priced line rentals on the hand, and the bottom-low broadband deals on the other hand?

    7. Steve Jones says:

      @GNewton

      If you are referring to line rental cost, the wholesale prices for MPF and WLR are heavily regulated by Ofcom. If you go and look at the OR pricelist, you’ll find that in inflation-adjusted terms (and, compared to some periods in absolute terms), lower now than previously.

      If, however, you are referring to the recent tendency for retail prices to go up ahead of inflation, then that’s certainly true. However, that’s for all ISPs. The retail market is fully deregulated and anybody can move to a different SP. Most probably the reason that this has happened is to compensate for a fall in call revenues (which is in long term decline) and as a means of cross-subsidising all those ridiculously cheap entry tariffs and to keep headline BB costs low. It’s something I’ve complained about a lot – the ASA ought to force all SPs to give prominence to the full package costs. In any event, the changes in retail line rental costs are nothing to do with OpenReach income. It’s a retail matter are there is a lot of choice on retail SPs.

      nb. when looking at retail line revenue prices, the SP markups aren’t quite what a lot of people think, as VAT has to be netted off.

      http://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/products/pricing/loadProductPriceDetails.do?data=totid5BwFmkf9vLcBITRyZF9loRxWIbIKK6V7YWmlYAlMnGHsqdC0vzO163bJmh34D91D7M0q8u%2FIlSgtIFAKw%3D%3D

    8. Steve Jones says:

      @NGA For All

      Whilst the internal account records in BT are not publicly available (as they aren’t for any publicly quoted company), Ofcom has got a great deal of access. Ofcom also have the final say on what costs are attributed to which regulated element of the company. Also, it is Ofcom, not BT, that value things like the OR distribution network for regulating such things as rate of return. Ofcom also define how overhead and services costs within the group are allocated to the regulated businesses.

      Indeed, there’s a whole series of consultancy documents they’ve raised on that one subject. In addition, Ofcom don’t just rely on BT accounts, or the consultants they use, they have go access to a large range of international comparison data. In addition, all the other telecommunications companies operating in the UK make their own submissions. Some of these even come up with opposing views. For instance, VM believe that the copper network is undervalued (cheap wholesale rates are bad for them), whilst LLU operators claimed the reverse (they want the cheapest possible rates). It’s Ofcom that has decreed that historic pension deficit contributions cannot be considered (even in part) as costs included in wholesale line rental. That latter is, by the way, different to the approach taken in other markets. It’s simply untrue to claim BT can shuffle costs between regulated businesses as they please.

      In all, it’s pretty well inconceivable that blatant cross-subsidisation would not be detected very quickly. As an example, Ofcom are currently examining whether BT Sport costs are properly included in BT Retail’s pricing (not an easy thing to do given BT Sport is also wholesaled and retailed independently).

      As for excessive capitalising labour costs, then that’s certainly a potential issue for overstating profits, but it doesn’t obviously affect BDUK, as that project also provides for some operational subsidies during the first few years of operation. Despite what people think, BDUK was never only providing gap-funding for capital. It was setup to cover costs up to a defined point in time when the market was meant to be self-funding. That is revenues would

      As for the NAO, I read their report with interest. Their biggest concern was over the potential for an inadequate mechanism for public sharing in any benefit in reduced operational costs. Claw-back against capital and original operational costs appeared to be less of an issue. However, I await further reports as the one produced so far was early on and there were relatively few BDUK projects substantially into their implementation phases. There is now much more information available.

      As far as the PAC goes, much of that comes across as a venue for MPs grandstanding. As informed commentators have pointed out, many of the MPs made fundamental errors of fact and interpretation, original BDUK commitments and not differentiating them from statements made by politicians.

    9. Steve Jones says:

      Just to add to the above, and to provide some evidence that Ofcom are held heavily to account by telecommunication operators, here’s a link to just one of the (many) submissions commenting on the detail of regulatory cost allocations. None of them, of course, have access to the internal financial data, but it’s clear that this is hardly a neglected area.

      http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/openreachframework/responses/Talk_Talk_Group_Appendix_C2.pdf

    10. No Clue says:

      “First this is good news. Second bt do have a history with the armed forces, just look at previous recruitment and google 81 signal squadron.”

      Only around 100 from what i could find work for BT, secondly alot of them are reservists. Not EX-armed forces.

    11. NGA for all says:

      @Steve Ofcom review of BT regulatory accounts was at the point where they could no longer reconcile management accounts and those presented for publication, hence the cost recovery for FLAM 2014-2017 had to be based on an earlier set of accounts.

      Yes Talk Talk and others are seeking improvements but for instance Ofcom said the public subsidies could be reported as a single line in the regulated accounts. This is regarded as a concession.

      Note even something as simple as a dispute on BT Ethernet costs it took Ofcom 7 years to resolve, the dispute ending in a £95m fine for BT. Ofcom have to pick their battles very carefully. Ofcom do not do public procurements and will wish to make the most of there independent status.

      There is no proper public record of what BT actually invested in VDSL so far, nor of its composition, or what amount was incremental to what BT would spend on maintining the network. In Ofcom reseach they still refere to the £2.5bn using it as PR for itself. BT have reported to analsts they have spent about £1.3bn of which c60% is capitalised labour. That evidence is being reported to various committees in the hope that benchmarks get put in place. But there are none at present. Note all government expenditure is 100% cash for a much smaller share of the rollout.

      PAC and NAO were fully informed because there are the only institutions available (as you suggested). There observations on competition were weak but what other instutions do we have? EU Commission is due back in next year and the evidence submitted to PAC /NAO will be reviewed then. How long did BT Global mis-reporting go on before it was detected?

    12. NGA for all says:

      Steve, I am not in a position to discuss legal or illegal in the context of state aid, and Thomas Aquinas was the last person to speak of ‘fairness’; which is not to be expected here, but some sense of proportion is needed and it is not present. Susbsidies went from £70 per premise past in 2010 to now c£170-£200 per premise for the same components. The geographic challenges and thus costs really only kick once you get past 90%. The money is being collected through milestone payments and available to BT Group.

    13. Steve Jones says:

      Global Services misreporting was a scandal, but the losers were shareholders. What was perpetrated probably fell just short of fraudulent behaviour (I have to be careful of the libel laws) by aggressive management brought in by the board at the time in the hopes of finding a growth business. I should add, prompted by a lot of institutional shareholders, who saw a much tightened regulatory environment. It was known at the time that Ofcom had been given a mandate to reduce BT’s share of the market through regulatory action (something which did, of course, happen). The GS initiative was meant to provide a business which was not subject to regulatory intervention (often carrying a political motive).

      However, a lot of this came about because the regulatory regime does not encourage infrastructure investment. In fact it’s often acted the opposite way. Virgin Media have been vocal in stating that very thing. Ofcom also caused a considerable delay in the implementation of NGAs by BT with an atmosphere of uncertainty over the approach they’d take to regulation (especially price regulation). I should add that the problem wasn’t that the board would or would not take the required risk, but that the finances wouldn’t be made available. The providers of funds simply would not be forthcoming.

      What Ofcom did encourage (basically by guaranteeing a return), was investment in LLU. Which is fine if you want to optimise price for ADSL services, but is counter-productive for major new investment. In fact, given that it’s locked into a regulatory requirement to provide MPF, it’s it virtually impossible to do what the Island of Jersey has done. Arguably, it would require a change to EU law to allow that. If a different regulatory regime had been put in place (maybe one that provided encouragement to migrate to fibre through cost allowances and staged removal of the MPF obligation), then we might be in a better position in the long term. In the US they simply went for removing NGAs from regulatory intervention for a period.

      Here’s just one of many economic studies regarding the impact of regulatory regimes on infrastructure investment.

      http://www.econ.upf.edu/docs/seminars/grajek.pdf

    14. Steve Jones says:

      Incidentally, before it sounds like I’m condemning Global Services entirely as a business concept, I must be noted that it’s over 35% of total group revenues as of 2013. Measured over the medium/long term, it’s a profitable and key strategic business. The problem was that overly optimistic accounting assumptions and poor cost control ruled in the early few years. Also, it has to be kept in perspective. If you look at the NHS contract, most of other suppliers (including a prospective BDUK bidder) failed to meet their contractual commitments and had to buy themselves out of their contracts (losing billions in the process). It’s probably true to say none of the direct contractors made money, but GS probably lost least.

    15. NGA for all says:

      @Steve Thanks for the paper. The flip between pseudo regulatory freedom on NGA to get the BT Board moving on VDSL and a gift of £1.2bn state aid may have been too much of a temptation for some. The regulator had promised some freedom which needed to be honoured Even BDUK and indeed BT were surprised that LA could in fact more than match the c£500m in the middle of significant buget tightening era.

      Unfortunately this does not excuse what is now occurring. The money would go to BT anyway, just every penny needs to go into the netwwork, not to be seen to be gouged by BT Group in the manner LA are having to witness.

      I will read the paper. Thank you.

    16. NGA for all says:

      @ Steve Finally more public investment would be easy, but this was a test, and instead of happily planning a FTTP transition over 25 years, with the appropriate incentives, this rather obscene use of commercial confidentiality agreements (as an example) will mean the debate will be on the need to get greater separation of BT before such an event can even be discussed. NAO and PAC should not be dismissed but supported where ever possible and visibly seen to be so.

    17. GNewton says:

      @NGA for all: “obscene use of commercial confidentiality agreements”

      This is one of the biggest failure of the BDUK process. It often prevented other network providers to deploy their own NGA networks in certain areas. Nobody wants to compete against a taxpayer-funded monopoly company, especially not when there are not clear public documents about the precise BDUK areas down to the postcode level, with sufficient postcode level details of what technologies and speeds would be exactly deployed with the aid of taxpayer’s money.

    18. telecom engineer says:

      @ noclue not got official figures but a quick google gives ranges up to 1600 but tends to have yearly announcments of over 200 mod each year from 2011. I see quotes of 250 reservists working for bt but they are more likely existing 81s rather than the new recruits. To give an idea an entire seperate team structure was set up nationally called mobile workforce / national ops and tv that the mod recruits filled … this is just fitters for the end user and not the extra network construction intake. If it was in the low 100s they would have just been absorbed into existing customer teams (local teams also conduct this work so no reason not to other than a huge intake).

    19. No Clue says:

      “@ noclue not got official figures but a quick google gives ranges up to 1600 but tends to have yearly announcments of over 200 mod each year from 2011.”

      NO that is the figures for the amount that have some form of training from BT, and/or previously worked for BT. (IE not currently working for them) and then have joined the 81 squadron. NOT the other way round (IE coming from the Army to BT AKA Ex-Service).

      I suggest you google again.

  5. telecom engineer says:

    Apologies for awful spelling on mobile.

  6. david says:

    @abuse alert I think danny is not exactly pointing the finger at the people who work there its at the shambles of BT wont spend money on improving services because they greedy gets they rather have the customer paying line rental for a service what is absolute joke ,

  7. telecom engineer says:

    Bduk… ok … there was a tendering process and its now up to bt and the public bodies to fulfil and ensure compliance with the terms for the ones the won; does every bt topic have to decend into salty rants because bduk wasnt a mass patchwork of hobbie diy networks? or because the rest of the private sector lacked the will or capacity to offer a better or cheaper tender repeatedly?
    With regards to survey and planning yes it can easily take weeks as surveys, blockages and coordination with contracts, power etc take time let alone actually devising the actual network run, my cabinet ended up delayed by year on the commercial rollout due to numerous issues. I am only speculating but I assume BT would have a typical rate of wholesale costs for deployment that they used for tendering. They have already, where projects came in under budget, reinvested to extend coverage.
    As for not investing in the network or maintenance, it had slowed for a couple of years while bt focused crews on fibre rollout; but this recruitment will allow further support for what is an eyewatering expendature on copper maintenance this year – I am sure openreach will be sharing the stats in their pr to cps soon enough.

    As for footballers… well, I personally think engineers provide a far more worthy contribution to society and business, alas nobody wants to subscribe to watch me remake joints….

    1. No Clue says:

      “As for footballers… well, I personally think engineers provide a far more worthy contribution to society and business, alas nobody wants to subscribe to watch me remake joints….”

      I dunno a discovery type channel all about comms i would find infinitely more interesting than BT sport.

    2. NGA for all says:

      @telecom Engineer Thanks. Note it was reported 400,000 hours billed in Wales to install c900 cabinets, which if billed at a state aid cost ( incremental cost, not wholesale) of £20ph = £8,500 would if remotely true would allow more engineers and more FTTP, thus more network transformation to occur.
      Your point to lack of copper maintenance so commercial VDSL could occur, this is not something BT Group make public but let the impression it is incremental investment.
      The engineering programme to transform rural networks is a once in a generation opportunity to create ‘best in Europe’. This cannot be done behind commercial confidentiality agreements, well not in the manner they are currently used.
      This would make good TV for the 5.2m to benefit and it would be reassuring to report how well public monies are being managed and going where intended.

    3. telecom engineer says:

      @nga if total labour costs charged were 20quid the goverment had a steal. Basic rate for one man is around £14 an hour wages direct to an ordinary greasy jointer in bt let alone employer ni, pension etc. This nearly multiples up to 1.75 x during overtime and up to triple bank holidays… possible allowances dirt discomfort etc.. lodge payments for mobile crews, extra 33% for night work crews, Planners, surveyors etc significantly more. Cost of vans, fuels parts… its not cheap.

    4. nga for all says:

      @engineer you make the case for engineers if the overtime is being claimed routinely.

    5. NGA for all says:

      @telecom engineer whilst remembering warmly m owen’s hatrick against Germany, you have already have educated us more than a lifetime of M Owen punditry on a BT Sport sofa. By the way if BT have had a minimum of 6 months to plan work with no penalties (non football sort) for lateness why would any overtime need to be paid? I am thinking of efficent use of state aid.

    6. TheFacts says:

      Work over running. Needs to be completed before next stage. Life in the real world.

    7. No Clue says:

      Does not need to be completed by wasting money on overtime for projects already behind though. Delays in anything are normal, spending more on the delays is not.

  8. terri says:

    give me virgin media and id love to get rid of this BT shit what I have now

  9. fastman2 says:

    terri i assume VM not in your area ans you nor to coin a phrase Value for money for them

Comments are closed.

Comments RSS Feed

Javascript must be enabled to post (most browsers do this automatically)

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. By clicking to submit a post you agree to storing your comment content, display name, IP, email and / or website details 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.

NOTE 1: Sometimes your comment might not appear immediately due to site cache (this is cleared every few hours) or it may be caught by automated moderation / anti-spam.

NOTE 2: Comments that break our rules, spam, troll or post via known fake IP/proxy servers may be blocked or removed.
Cheapest Superfast ISPs
  • Hyperoptic £20.00 (*22.00)
    Speed 50Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Plusnet £21.95 (*36.52)
    Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: £50 Reward Card
  • Vodafone £22.00 (*25.00)
    Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • NOW £23.00 (*32.00)
    Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • TalkTalk £23.00 (*29.95)
    Speed 38Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest Ultrafast ISPs
  • Community Fibre £25.00 (*29.50)
    Speed: 300Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: Double Speed Boost
  • Hyperoptic £25.00 (*35.00)
    Speed: 150Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Virgin Media £26.00 (*52.00)
    Speed: 108Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Vodafone £26.00 (*29.00)
    Speed: 100Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Gigaclear £29.00 (*49.00)
    Speed: 300Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
The Top 20 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (3371)
  2. BT (2975)
  3. Politics (1884)
  4. Building Digital UK (1883)
  5. FTTC (1869)
  6. Openreach (1792)
  7. Business (1634)
  8. Mobile Broadband (1436)
  9. Statistics (1380)
  10. FTTH (1362)
  11. 4G (1244)
  12. Fibre Optic (1149)
  13. Wireless Internet (1135)
  14. Virgin Media (1132)
  15. Ofcom Regulation (1123)
  16. Vodafone (819)
  17. EE (810)
  18. TalkTalk (747)
  19. Sky Broadband (726)
  20. 5G (726)
Promotion
Helpful ISP Guides and Tips
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
Sponsored

Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved - Terms , Privacy and Cookie Policy , Links , Website Rules , Contact