» ISP News » 

UPD Anger with BT and CALA as New Homes in Reading Lack Fibre Broadband

Monday, October 31st, 2016 (1:41 am) - Score 2,949

Residents of the new Parklands Development in Reading (Berkshire), which is being built by CALA, have told ISPreview.co.uk of their frustration after they were promised access to Openreach’s (BT) “fibre broadband” services but have instead waited months for a working phone line and slow ADSL2+.

The Parklands Development, which once completed will consist of about 290 homes, is situated in the Reading suburb of Woodley on the University of Reading’s former Bulmershe Court campus. Initially most of these properties are 3-5 bedroom semi-detached and terraced houses, with prices ranging from around £449,950 to £599,950.

At present the site is about 15 months from completion, but many houses have already been completed and over the past 1-2 years a fair number of new residents have moved into the area. One such home owner is Phillip Parkinson, who moved into his new house a year ago only to find that they had no phone line or broadband provision of any kind.

Phillip Parkinson told ISPreview.co.uk:

“We have been in the property for a year and at the time of purchase we were promised Fibre internet would be available. As you know it’s difficult to confirm this for a new build but this was promised and Phase 1 of the development did have FTTC [up to 80Mbps “fibre broadband“] access and all the existing surrounding homes had Virgin Media.

Sadly after we completed and moved in the true picture became quite clear. There were no plans between Openreach and the developer, as a result there were no cables at all in the new ducts. It took 4 months of constant pushing by us with the developer and Openreach for Openreach to eventually lay cables from each of the homes in our phase to the cabinet.

Myself and a number of other residents even had to write to our local counsellors and the East Reading MP in order for Openreach to get the work done.”

Most large property developments will ensure that the necessary infrastructure is already in the ground and ready to go before residents move in, although there can sometimes be a longer than normal delay before the first service activations, but experiences do vary.

Unfortunately the problems at the Parklands development had only just begun because residents were then informed that they couldn’t have an FTTC broadband service from BTOpenreach because there was not enough space in the existing cabinet, which Phase 1 of the development uses.

Instead Openreach built a new PCP Street Cabinet (no. 56 on the Earley exchange), but they didn’t build the necessary FTTC twin and thus only enabled support for an ADSL2+ based broadband solution (a lot of locals struggle to get much above 5-8Mbps on this).

Phillip Parkinson added:

“Openreach say the cab is too new so they won’t upgrade it at their full cost and they won’t deal with the residents as the site is ongoing, so they only want to deal with the developer. Unfortunately CALA don’t seem to care about internet connectivity at this site and they simply don’t engage with anyone on this topic.

The current internet connections we have been left with are so inadequate that most residents have two lines to spread the usage, this is not what you would expect in Reading and a new build development.”

Phillip claims that Openreach proposed to install an FTTC cabinet for the area, which would have required the developer to pay a gap amount of just £6,300. However CALA’s support team informed residents in September 2016 that they had chosen not to progress with the Fibre roll-out for the rest of the site.

On top of that the property developer denies ever having received a quote from Openreach for the upgrade work and says that they didn’t promise a fibre broadband service for new home owners.

A Spokesperson for CALA Homes told ISPreview.co.uk:

“Openreach is responsible for providing the communications infrastructure for telephone and broadband services at the Parklands development. CALA Homes has never advertised or informed purchasers that this would include access to fibre optic broadband.

Individual homeowners have subsequently requested fibre broadband from their chosen broadband supplier and where possible, this has been installed using Openreach’s existing fibre cabinet. We appreciate this is not a viable option for all purchasers which has understandably caused some frustration.

We are endeavouring to work with Openreach regarding the issues raised and the feasibility of Openreach upgrading the fibre cabinet to allow additional homeowners to benefit from fibre broadband. We have not received a quote for any upgrade work but we continue to liaise with Openreach on this matter.

Once the road is adopted by Wokingham Borough Council, Virgin Media may also look to install its services at the development if there is sufficient demand, but this is at their discretion.”

Meanwhile Openreach’s initial decision not to deal with the residents directly means that a co-funded (BT Community Fibre) approach cannot be pursued, although it would be somewhat sad if residents of a new build development were left with no option but to pay for the vital infrastructure upgrade themselves.

We should add that the existing Universal Service Obligation (USO) rules do not force Openreach to provide anything more than a basic copper line and broadband connection, while the newly proposed 10Mbps USO won’t be enforced until 2020 (the details of this are still being debated).

Suffice to say that the bulk of responsibility for this situation rests with CALA, whose sales staff appear to have made their alleged commitment towards “fibre” in the verbal rather than written form. Sadly they certainly wouldn’t be the first property developer to make verbal promises that never materialise.

The question of support for “fibre” was asked a number of times via email, but the confirmation was only ever given verbally during on-site visits. “Being in I.T it was important to me so I asked a few times … and the yes response was always a verbal one,” said Phillip.

Phillip Parkinson concluded:

“Myself and other home owners have tried everything under the sun to get decent internet access. I have handed out Virgin Media leaflets to encourage sign ups as their network is all around us. I have engaged Hyperoptic as they are close by as well, but nothing from anyone so far. I have been in contact with Superfast Berkshire as they embark on Phase 3, [but] they recently stated there are no concrete plans for our area yet as well.”

In some areas the situation has resulted in an awkward patchwork of connectivity. For example, in The Orangery area (street) all of the odd number houses have no FTTC as they connect to Cabinet 56, but the even numbers have it because they connect to the older Cabinet 1.

It’s worth pointing out that Phase 1 of the development, which does have access to FTTC, is only a minor part of the project with around 20 associated local homes and thus the bulk of the area looks set to be left without access to faster connectivity. Cabinet 56 is already catering for 100 live connections and more will follow.

An Openreach Spokesperson told ISPreview.co.uk:

“We appreciate how frustrating it must be for the residents on The Orangery that do not have fibre. We’re always keen to work with developers to find a solution that meets everyone’s needs and recently announced that we will be installing FTTP free of charge for all new sites with 30 or more homes.

We will continue to discuss the various options with the developer and residents to see if we can provide a solution that works for everyone.”

The situation is particularly frustrating because of the new rules that are due to come into force at the end of this year, which will require “high-speed broadband” (30Mbps+) to be factored into the planning process for new builds (example).

Not to mention the recent agreements between BT (Openreach), Virgin Media, GTC and the Home Builders Federation (examples here and here), as well as BT’s recent enhancement to their existing FTTP centric promise for new build developments (here).

Sadly the timing of some developments, such as Parklands, mean that they have effectively slipped through the cracks, at least with respect to some of the new measures highlighted above. As a result residents may end up having to wait even longer for a better broadband service, unless some sort of agreement can be reached sooner.

As usual we recommend that anybody who may be thinking of buying a CALA Home, or for that matter a home from any property developer, ensure that they get promises about “fibre” connectivity in writing and then check those claims with the relevant telecoms operator first.

The good news is that Openreach has said they’re now willing to engage with residents over a co-funded Community Fibre approach, although ISPreview.co.uk understands that, after a bit of prompting, there may now be some discussion with CALA about pursuing a “fibre” solution. We’ll keep an eye on this to see if the words can be turned into action.

UPDATE 21st November 2016

ISPreview.co.uk understands that, following our article, BT and CALA have now reached an agreement to deliver “fibre broadband” to 600+ homes on the Orangery and Parklands and Brookwood Farm estates. A letter confirming this should be going out to residents “soon“.

Share with Twitter
Share with Linkedin
Share with Facebook
Share with Reddit
Share with Pinterest
Tags: , , ,
By Mark Jackson
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 Twitter, , Facebook and Linkedin.
Leave a Comment
33 Responses
  1. GNewton says:

    This example shows the need to make it compulsory for all new estate developments to provide fibre. Voluntary arrangements don’t seem to work.

    1. FibreFred says:

      Totally agree but this has to be driven by the developer, at the moment some are up for it but most don’t care. They should just consider it another utility and ensure it gets provisioned like gas, water, electricity.

    2. MrWhite says:

      That’s why I think there should also be onus on BT to ensure fibre is laid for new build developments. As you can’t get “fast” or “slow” electricity/water, telecoms can’t be treated just like the other utilities currently. There needs to be a fundamental agreement that all new builds will get FTTP if viable – i.e. it’s a reasonable number of properties and not just a single build.

    3. Mark Jackson says:

      Not sure I’d agree with the onus for “fibre” / “superfast” broadband being exclusively on BT, since other operators can do faster broadband for new builds too.

      The developer needs to decide for itself which option to pick, but the key is with ensuring that those options do actually exist in the first place. Hopefully the forthcoming rules will improve things.

    4. New_Londoner says:

      @Mr White
      Both BT and Virgin will provide service to new sites (FTTP in the case of BT), but it does need the agreement of the developer. Quite why Cala Homes didn’t opt to provide decent broadband here is not clear, and it is by no means an isolated example. Perhaps we need purchasers to be more savvy, to only agree to buy once they have written agreement from the developer that fibre broadband will be available when they move in.

    5. MrWhite says:

      @Mark Jackson

      That’s why I stated “also”. Whilst there are other providers, the obvious ones (hyperoptic, gigaclear) deal in fibre rollouts. The article even states that Openreach are under no obligation to provide anything other than a copper line. This means that, for example, if the developer chooses Hyperoptic, they’ll get fibre. If they choose Openreach, they may get fibre or copper.

      This is why the onus should *also* be on the telecoms provider for developments of this scale. People should not be in a situation where a PCP is built, but no FTTC twin and no recourse to get one.

    6. MikeW says:

      If the developer engages with Openreach, and asks for fibre, and pays for it … then he gets fibre. If he doesn’t ask, he gets copper. At least, that’s how it has gone until this month.

      Simple market economics: order something, pay for it, get it.

    7. New_Londoner says:

      @Mr White
      Bearing in mind that this is private property, the onus has to be with the developer (the owner of the site) as none of the telecoms providers can insist that it takes their services. Of course once the housing has been sold the occupiers do have a choice, could themselves fund the provision of a fibre cabinet, although the developer could have provided FTTP by engaging earlier.

      The funny thing is the developer would be able to get FTTP from Openreach at no cost for a development of this size, so clearly some of them can’t be bothered, even when it’s free!

  2. Srinivas says:

    Wow even in the quoted response from CALA you can pick up their arrogance, they simply don’t care, pushing all the blame to Openreach. Why do they have to wait until the roads are adopted.

    Thanks for highlighting this issue, glad its getting coverage. We bought in the Bewley portion of the Parklands development and have the same issues as we connect to cabinet 56. Internet connectivity is poor to say the least. When are developers going to realise that Fibre is the fourth utility.

  3. Miss L says:

    We were considering buying a property on the development, but have pulled out until we can have a reasonable reassurance on the timescale that this will be sorted. In the USA, the definition of broadband is 25Mbps. Given we already live in Reading and get >70MBps, we were very surprised that this (now basic) infrastructure was not in place. Given Reading promotes itself as an IT hub, you’d expect that this would be standard in the towns (especially as some of those on the development have been lucky to get it on the now full cabinet!). For those of us that sometimes work from home, we need this in place. We are just glad that we checked, others won’t be as fortunate.

  4. M Butler says:

    I was also considering a property in this development but this has scared me off. Decent internet is a basic requirement and Cala holes are clearly living in the dark ages.

  5. Mark says:

    The developers here are still trying to sell homes in phase 1 of a development.

    The only means of getting broadband is mobile broadband, unless you regard 0.25 to 2 Meg downstream as “broadband”.

    That cabinet gets put back a year each year. Hampshire appears to be one of the failed BDUK projects (didn’t they all fail?). The houses weren’t there when the plans were drawn up. But others were and they’re still without anything of use as regards fixed-line. Can’t have the subsidised satellite as BT’s stick is in the sand as regards that cabinet. No idea who is to blame there.

    But then confirming that “fibre” is available is meaningless. What is relevant is whether it will be fast enough or not.

    The patchwork arrangement was always going to happen because of the way that the cables are routed and the distance limitations. I recall saying that this is going to end up on ‘Watchdog’ or similar with the presenter stood in front of one of the cabinets with that sticker on ‘Fibre is here’ then cutting to across the street ‘but not here. Or here..’

    As for the residents of this estate, BT is quite happy making line rental on at least one pair per property, that being its key priority. If you want BT fibre then you might need to get Virgin Media to cable it so that the line rental is lost.

    1. AndyH says:

      Where does Hampshire come from here? The development is in Berkshire…

      It’s an unfortunate situation, but I cannot see why BT should be blamed here. The developer sold the houses with the promise of FTTC (which many developers seem to do). Clearly that was never agreed with BT, so onus is now on the developer to provide it.

    2. Mark says:

      Just highlighting how widespread this issue is. This one’s especially annoying as it’s a new-build site.

      Round here, phase 2 of the development is still waiting to be started as the residents of phase 1 live on a plot part of which resembles a permanent building site. I’m guessing phase 2 won’t be started until the local authority pays to sort the cabinet. And so the stand-off continues. Years roll by..

      Would have been good to have got the promise in writing.

      But a verbal contract is a contract nonetheless and given that there are multiple residents who were told the same thing, on balance of probability, I’d have thought that a Court would take this seriously..

    3. New_Londoner says:

      If the developer told you and others that you would have access to fibre when you moved in, your complaint is with it.

      I’m pretty sure that residence in a similar situation (a part-built development, in Oxfordshire IIRC) put signs up to emphasise the lack of fast broadband, which deterred some potential buyers. Funnily enough the developers quickly came around to contracting to provide the promised service, I think at no additional cost to the existing residents.

    4. New_Londoner says:

      PS According to Think Broadband, approximately 91% of premises in Hampshire have access to download speeds of 24Mbps or higher, a number which has been steadily increasing every month, with just under 4% limited to 10Mbps or less. Based on this, it seems to be slightly behind the average for England for superfast coverage but only by 1% or so, so not sure that equates to “failing”.

    5. Mark says:

      Superfast broadband for 90%
      Minimum 2Mbps for all

      The project was a failure and continues to be so. The objectives were not achieved.

      Didn’t all the BDUK projects fail, with only a few exceptions where satellite vouchers were provided?

    6. New_Londoner says:

      Only 0.74% of Hampshire premises can download at less then 2Mbps and obviously that ignores the availability of satellite using the vouchers.

      The problem in labelling the contracts a failure is that many seem to judge them by political “ambitions” (and sometimes not even that) that were never part of the contracts in the first place, such as covering the final 5% (or whatever) first, only using FTTP etc. Also, premises built after the contracts were placed were not, by definition, covered by them anyway. It’s a real shame planning consents don’t make the provision of fast broadband a pre-condition of approval, a real missed opportunity in my opinion.

      Anyway, based on what you stated above, your gripe is with your developer and not the county council nor BT. Suggest you and your neighbours get some posters up, put them under a bit of pressure. Good luck!

    7. dragoneast says:

      Councils aren’t masters in their own house with planning conditions; they are subject to appeal to Inspectors who will apply the National Policy Framework and that really is a mean whatever you want document to allow development. Even Inspectors aren’t masters in their own house as they’re controlled by the Judges who have developed this case law of “land-use considerations” on the advice, mainly, of surveyors who advise, guess what, the Development industry. Get it wrong “unreasonably” and the Developers usually recover their costs. Do we really need to pay them any more money?

      As with so much in the UK it’s not designed to be sympathetic to change and innovation. Which after all is the way most of us think. We can always think of hundreds of reasons “why not” but rarely any “why”, at least when it comes to anybody else.

    8. MikeW says:

      “Superfast broadband for 90%
      Minimum 2Mbps for all

      The project was a failure and continues to be so.”

      It’s easy to criticise a project that hasn’t finished. Even easier when you don’t know what the targets really were … beyond the vague “political target” you quote above.

      In North Yorkshire, for example, the contract with BT included an allowance for the number of premises that could be left (for basic broadband) to be supported satellite. The number has varied in council reports, but could be 1-2% of the total premises.

      Is that a failure? Or an acceptance of reality? To me, it seems the kind of things that both engineers and lawyers have to sort out in practice, while politicians rarely worry about such details at press events.

      It turns out, as the existing contracts continue, that BT will need to upgrade a few more thousand premises to superfast speeds – but all as part of reaching the “basic broadband” USC target. That part is self-funded.

      Likewise with the practicalities of meeting EU limitations. The very static “open market review” is one aspect that conflicts with new-build properties; you can’t include postcodes that don’t exist. Everyone – council, government, BT, other CPs, developers – should have had a process in place back in 2011-2012 that ought to have prevented the problems we see today.

      Some developers have an “in-house technology” section for their developments, but they concentrate on TV capability, not internet access. Why don’t people ask?

      Right now, though, I wouldn’t buy a new house without written contract terms that defined the broadband capability *and* required a working setup as a condition of completion (possibly even exchange). The only way to successfully threaten a developer is to threaten his money…

    9. Mark says:

      I don’t see anything vague about those clearly defined targets.

      I do see the project objectives being rewritten so as to call the result a success. Starting with the original DCMS project objectives and then morphing into what they are today, progressively. They are unrecognisible. What has actually been achieved directly contradicts the original high-level aims which have been quietly forgotten.

      I’m not apportioning blame on anyone in particular, although as I have commented before, from what I can see of the structure of the contracts, the project was designed to fail from the outset.

      You can’t take a satellite voucher if that given area is in the list for BT to do.

      As has half of our are (by geography), since about 2014 IIRC. Each year the stick in the sand moves back another year (last I heard, it was supposedly Summer 2016), so each year the project is a further year late.

      That this services a new development is not actually relevant since the same cabinet location would service properties that have been here for over 200 years.

    10. Mark says:

      “Right now, though, I wouldn’t buy a new house without written contract terms that defined the broadband capability *and* required a working setup as a condition of completion (possibly even exchange). The only way to successfully threaten a developer is to threaten his money…”

      On this we agree. I think people make the mistake of thinking Britain is some sort of strategically planned forward-thinking country with modern infrastructure.

      There is no way I would buy any property without at least two sets of infrastructure already being in place and ready to service it, be that cable and 4G, cable and BT, etc.

      Back on the topic in hand, though, I think the residents should sue the developer.

      Verbal contracts are usually hard to proceed with as they are hard to prove. Yet here we have multiple people being told exactly the same thing. On the balance of probability those people should be seen to be telling the truth and they have bought properties which are now basically unsaleable to most people.

    11. fastman says:

      not sure what your issue is with BDUk — but this is nothing to do with BDUk and having crunched through what you have still makes little sense as PCP 56 would have been built to provide copper for phase 1 as other cabs that service the older housing

  6. dragoneast says:

    As ever the problem in the UK is money. Developers think they’re getting screwed by everyone else, but principally the landowners and the Councils with their infrastructure levies, which is many cases the only way they get facilities to cope with increased population (and making good their existing stuff often, too). Landowners think they’re getting screwed by the Developers, and so do the purchasers. BT, Virgin and the independents are convenient scapegoats too and playing their own games. So we end up with our favourite British pastime of buck-passing. Everyone trying to scrimp and save a bit because, let’s face it, we don’t like paying for anything. Nothing new, just look at the state of our existing infrastructure; it’s always been the same.

    The simple fact is that all of us will only do what we have to. No electricity, drainage or water and the public health will make a closure order. For lack of broadband, not a chance. It’s not going to kill you, is it? Caveat emptor. You can’t trust any of them.

    1. dragoneast says:

      I used to have dealings with highway adoptions, and the shoddy workmanship that Developers tried to get away with would be unbelievable if you didn’t see it. They needed someone on their back, all the time. So when it comes to broadband, who do we think that is?

      Yes, you.

  7. Colin says:

    Likewise I was considering this area, but broadband is such as basic requirement these days, this has completely put me off.

    For such little cost I can’t understand why CALA Homes haven’t got on and funded this already.

  8. Slow Caerphilly says:

    I would take that connection over a 3.5+km long phone line that manages sub 1Mbps on a good day provided under the usc, I thought the uso was the one requiring a 10 Mbps minimum

  9. IT Professional says:

    Just about to Exchange @ Cala Parkands when I have just discovered I will need to cancel my Amazon Prime, Netflix, Spotify and Virgin Media accounts and will not be able to work from home!!!!

    Should I look else where and buy a cheaper and better appointed second hand home …..?????

    1. FibreLess says:

      You should use the fact that you’re about to exchange to get commitment from CALA that they will provide Fibre at Parklands. Get you’re solicitor to get it in writing from CALA that Fibre will be provided, the timeline and type of Fibre. If CALA refuse to agree to this in writing then I would pull out as it shows their intentions. If you want the house this is your only chance to get a commitment, after you exchange and complete it’s too late and they’ve won.

      We’ve been fighting this for a year now. The broadband situation at Parklands really is not fit for purpose, it’s so slow and considering the cost of the homes it’s an insult to homeowners. In IT and working from home? You’ll need two lines like most have as we only get about
      5-8Mbps at best.

  10. Neil says:

    I live in this development, working from home is now difficult due to the limited internet speeds. The line is also not particularly stable dropping out a couple of times a day. Anyone looking to buy a home on the estate really need to get it in writing that Cala will provide the necessary infrastructure. Don’t plan on working or browsing the web if anyone else in the hose wants to stream video from the internet.

    The government should be insisting that all new builds are at the very minimum connected by FTTP or at least stop builders from getting paid to by suppliers such as BT to limit access to other suppliers. Everyone should have a choice of suppliers rather than the monopoly enjoyed by BT.

    1. FibreLess says:

      I feel your pain with the poor broadband connection but to fair the problem at this development (Parklands, Reading) is not Openreach it’s the stingy clueless developer, CALA Homes. They failed to plan any network at all let alone an adequate network and now when they know what’s required they still refuse to take any action.

  11. fastman says:


    The government should be insisting that all new builds are at the very minimum connected by FTTP or at least stop builders from getting paid to by suppliers such as BT to limit access to other suppliers. Everyone should have a choice of suppliers rather than the monopoly enjoyed by BT. – Really what disinformation

  12. Krud€nHom€shi7 says:


    I have a similar issue with a development in Edinburgh. The developer, Cruden Homes, put on a plan that we would get Virginmedia and I bought the property according to that standard.

    Now, few days before handing the property to me, it turns out that there is no “superfast broadband”. My solicitor says that “a plan is worth nothing” and I have no right to compensation.

    Is it true that a plan is worth nothing? Is there anything I can do about it?

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 Ultrafast ISPs
  • Vodafone £23.50 (*26.50)
    Speed: 100Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Gigaclear £24.00 (*49.00)
    Speed: 300Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Hyperoptic £25.00 (*35.00)
    Speed: 150Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: Promo Code: ROKUGIFT
  • Community Fibre £27.50 (*32.50)
    Speed: 200Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: First 6 Months Free
  • Virgin Media £28.00 (*52.00)
    Speed: 108Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
New Forum Topics
Cheapest Superfast ISPs
  • Vodafone £19.50 (*22.50)
    Speed 38Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • NOW £20.00 (*32.00)
    Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Hyperoptic £20.00 (*25.00)
    Speed 50Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: Promo Code: ROKUGIFT
  • TalkTalk £21.00 (*29.95)
    Speed 38Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Shell Energy £21.99 (*30.99)
    Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
The Top 20 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (3674)
  2. BT (3045)
  3. Politics (1976)
  4. Building Digital UK (1945)
  5. FTTC (1897)
  6. Openreach (1862)
  7. Business (1719)
  8. Mobile Broadband (1503)
  9. Statistics (1431)
  10. FTTH (1367)
  11. 4G (1296)
  12. Virgin Media (1198)
  13. Fibre Optic (1186)
  14. Wireless Internet (1176)
  15. Ofcom Regulation (1168)
  16. Vodafone (860)
  17. EE (846)
  18. 5G (794)
  19. TalkTalk (781)
  20. Sky Broadband (757)
Helpful ISP Guides and Tips

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