» ISP News » 

BT Openreach Prices New 500Mbps and 1Gbps FTTP-on-Demand Options

Thursday, December 22nd, 2016 (4:25 pm) - Score 24,760

Openreach (BT) has today announced how much they will charge ISPs to take their new premium 500Mbps (165Mbps upload) and 1Gbps (220Mbps upload) FTTP-on-Demand (FTTPoD) product tiers and naturally you’ll need deep pockets.

Firstly, it’s very important not to confuse FTTPoD with Openreach’s native roll-out of ultrafast Fibre-to-the-Premise (FTTP) based broadband technology. Properties covered by the native roll-out (predicted to cover 2 million UK premises by 2020) should find that the fibre optic cable runs very near to the doorstep of their home or office and thus it attracts a much smaller cost (see here for details).

By comparison FTTPoD is designed to be requested (hence the ‘on demand’ element) in FTTC capable areas where Openreach’s pure FTTP fibre optic cables have yet to reach (the local exchange must also have been upgraded to support it), which in some cases will attract significant distance based construction charges worth thousands of pounds (i.e. civil works). On top of that you also pay significantly more for the monthly rental and one-off connection fee.

Unsurprisingly the new 500Mbps and 1Gbps tiers for FTTPoD are rather expensive (details here) and these are only the wholesale prices, which come before ISPs add to it with tax (20% VAT), profit margins, value-added services, network capacity and so forth. Not forgetting the 36 month contract term, but then FTTPoD is more of a business product and not really intended for home users (unless you’re rich).

FTTP vs FTTPoD Prices +vat (New Tiers Only)

Native FTTP Price: £55 per month (£660 per annum) rental and £500 connection*
FTTPoD Price: £1,392 per annum and £1,158 connection

Native FTTP Price: £80 per month (£960 per annum) rental and £500 connection*
FTTPoD Price: £1,692 per annum and £1,158 connection

* The native FTTP connection fee is currently reduced to £250.

As always the biggest challenge with FoD, other than the cost of course, stems from the problem of finding an ISP that actually offers it. We know that Spectrum Internet can do it in parts of the South West (England) and South Wales. On top of that we’ve been informed by some readers that FluidOne and Interoute may also be able to offer the service, but you’ll need to ask them directly as it doesn’t show on their websites.

Sadly none of the more mainstream providers appear to offer FTTPoD and many struggle to find a viable market for it. We should add that most FTTPoD offering ISPs won’t yet have begun promoting the new 500Mbps and 1Gbps tiers, which means they’ll only have the 330Mbps option.

Otherwise the launch pricing will become available from Friday 20th January 2017 and ISPs will also be able to change the speed tier of an existing FTTPoD service for a one-off charge of £11.25 per modification.

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
78 Responses
  1. chris conder says:

    Or you could relocate to B4RNland and enjoy Symmetrical gigabit fibre for £150 install charge and £30 a month, with no landline rental to pay and no hidden extras. If a bunch of farmers and retired gentlefolk can build it for that price why can’t the incumbent? Because the incumbent is too busy spending its profit on fatcats, shareholders, extra staff to patch up failing copper, and buying content and mobile ready to hive openretch off. That is why it is so bad for anyone on long lines to get a decent connection. Rural or urban. Digitalbritain is a superfarce.

    1. AndyH says:

      How would it cost for B4RN to deliver me this ‘symmetrical gigabit’ service in the centre of London please?

    2. brian says:

      Chris, I live in Salford. Where do I order BARN? Doesn’t look available on the website for me.

    3. FibreFred says:

      Sorry guys it isn’t possible you’ve actually got to sell up and move to get the service 🙂

    4. AndyH says:

      Damn…I will have to wait for Chris and her plans to expand into London then.

    5. 125uS says:

      “If a bunch of farmers and retired gentlefolk can build it for that price why can’t the incumbent?”

      I’d imagine it’s mostly down to the fact that the incumbent’s staff require paying, the bunch of farmers also want paying for wayleaves across their land if the incumbent lays cables, and the incumbent would have to build it in such a way that the product could be wholesaled to any ISP on equal terms.

      Would your model work so well if the install actually cost you more like £2000 and you had to wholesale what you’ve built to TalkTalk for £15 a month?

    6. Giggling says:

      BT employees – go and do some work and stop harassing people who actually offer 1Gbps symmetric broadband.

      YOU DON’T!

    7. fastman says:

      they woud expect you give it to them for nothing or you pay them for the priveledge

    8. Giggling says:

      Less of that, please.

      I saw Openreach’s margins on line rental. That is a great business. Unless you’re a customer.

    9. AndyH says:

      Show me the OR margin on WLR. BT don’t publish it.

    10. fastman says:

      giggling OR get a flat rate per month from the CP so not sure what you are referring to — (another massive misconception)

      who I work for is neither here or there or what I do when I’m not working is not important either –

      but your seem to be able to “tarnish” anyone who works for a particular company with–

      I made a valid comment about real cost of this stuff and the challenges around wholesale access –and to reiterate B4RN is a good example of a diy rural project — buts it not the be and end all of every thing everything — thats was my point

    11. FibreFred says:

      Deduction again…

    12. brianv says:

      You certainly flushed out the BT trolls with that comment, Chris!

  2. Adva says:

    Will the head end need upgrading to support these faster speeds? I make reference to your comment “the local exchange must also have been upgraded to support it”

    Its obvious you must be connected to a FTTC cab in the first place to place an order, hence the question.

    Currently the only provider known to sell FoD is Fluidata.

    1. Adva says:

      Who are the other FoD providers?

    2. Mark Jackson says:

      Did you not read the article?

    3. john says:

      I’ll give Spectrum a call once this is in place, they are based about a mile from me. I didn’t know they existed until now, Thanks Mark!

  3. Adva says:

    See it now 🙂

  4. chris conder says:

    AndyH and brian, we don’t do urban, because people in those areas already have broadband, and some have fast virgin cable, so there is no incentive for people to help themselves. We work in rural areas where people will step up to the mark and dig to a gig. That is why our install charges are low, you dig your own garden… easier than planting a row of taties and a lot better harvest. Towns and cities should be a lot cheaper and easier, cos there are ducts to use etc, and dense population is a good harvest. On one route of 14km we didn’t pass one farm or property, that is how sparse our rural area is, yet we can still deliver a service to them, all fresh dig, all fresh infrastructure. I am absolutely positive if we can do it then openreach could. But they won’t, because they can make the copper last long enough to reap the golden eggs to pay off their pension deficit, buy more content and corner the mobile market. Then they will hand OR to government and the government will have to pay for fibre to the home, because soon the copper, even short runs of fttc copper will not deliver what average families and businesses need.

    1. AndyH says:

      “because people in those areas already have broadband, and some have fast virgin cable, so there is no incentive for people to help themselves.”

      They may have broadband, but not everyone has superfast broadband access and lower numbers presently have ultrafast.

      “Towns and cities should be a lot cheaper and easier, cos there are ducts to use etc, and dense population is a good harvest.”

      How can cities and towns possibly be cheaper and easier than what you do? Are you suggesting we should all be ploughing the streets? Contrary to what you might think, there are not clear ducts running to every single property in the country.

      The largest cost in deploying fibre is the cost of capital labour. It’s expensive and time consuming to lay ductwork, unblock it, then feed fibre through it. No doubt that once it’s in place, it’s future proof and should be the end goal (even BT repeatedly say this). The question is where does the funding come from for a nationwide rollout as the commercial operators will not invest in areas that do not meet their investment return criteria.

      What you guys have done is great. But you have a rural business model that only works when a community comes together. It cannot be replicated in urban areas and there are many problems you could encounter in rural areas where communities don’t come together.

    2. DTMark says:

      “It cannot be replicated in urban areas”

      So the network can be built from scratch, literally “from nothing” in the “middle of nowhere”, but it cannot be built using existing ducting, poles and wayleaves?

      Surely some mistake in thinking there.

    3. FibreFred says:

      “Surely some mistake in thinking there.”

      I think he is (rightly) referring to the free labour side of it

    4. AndyH says:

      No one is saying it cannot be built. But the cost model employed by B4RN does not work with commercial suppliers.

      I would be interested to know how much DTMark thinks it costs for contractors to lay or unblock ducting, that along with the bureaucracy in doing it (wayleaves, council traffic fees etc).

      BT always state the final goal is FTTP. The problem is the cost in deploying it and the time it takes. A lot of people on here complain about BT ‘sweating their copper assets’, but at the end of the day would you like to wait 5+ years for FTTP and be on ADSL or take FTTC/G.fast in the interim while waiting for FTTP?

    5. john says:


      I can assure you – if you came to my area even with virgin media – you could mop up their custom – the few who remain might actually get the speeds they signed up for. Personally I would have dropped VM in a heartbeat – as I did when FTTC came along

  5. TheFacts says:

    Chris – instead of your usual misguided words online as the spokesperson for B4RN why don’t you get Barry to give the views of a professional?

    1. Oggy says:

      Barry Forde probably shakes his head in disbelief as much as the rest of us when he reads the unadulterated piffle that Chris posts.

      Chris knows fine well the reasons it would be so much more expensive for the likes of Openreach to install and maintain FTTP than the costs that B4RN have faced.

      That she constantly ignores them when making her silly posts makes her look pretty pathetic.

    2. Giggling says:

      Interesting article.

      Comments are the same bunch of sad BT employees/alumni spending their evenings having a go at someone who did something they couldn’t and delivered 1Gbps broadband to people in rural areas.

      You’d think they’d have some work to do..

    3. fastman says:

      giggling sarcasm aplenty I see — – I Sure those do would be actually building at deploying a fibre network rather than talking about it — will be interesting to see how other get on in the glare of private / public funded broadband in rural

      wonder what you actually do ?

      fastman “giggling” !!!!

    4. Giggling says:

      Don’t attack customers of the company you work for. It’s always a bad idea.

    5. Giggling says:

      Be nice to B4RN and people rolling out FTTH. It makes BT look terrible when their people attack farmers & small businesses who are getting on with it where their people couldn’t/wouldn’t.

      BT employees attacking B4RN aren’t doing Gavin, Clive and the team any favours.

    6. AndyH says:

      Another week, a different username. Why do you feel the need to continually change names? It’s fairly obvious who you are…

    7. chris conder says:

      Barry wouldn’t waste his time replying to astroturfers. I delight in it sometimes. I am not the spokesperson for B4RN. I just say what I see, and what I see is a monopoly whipping a dying copper donkey, and another group of people building a far superior network at a fraction of the price, raising the money from people who for two decades have been promised broadband but never got it, so now they JFDI themselves.
      There is nothing stopping cities of grit doing just the same. If they wanted to, and if the town elders would support them. The councils, the mayors, the government. But I guess they won’t. They believe the multimillion pound marketing hyperbole and are brainwashed by the vital vision behind the superfarce. Vital vision. Google it. Find the BT document. See how the brainwashing has been planned all these years. Think for yourselves people.
      Then move to B4RNland. 😉

    8. AndyH says:

      Chris. You may not be the spokesperson of B4RN, but you represent B4RN.

      The B4RN model does not work in urban areas, that’s there for all to see. You don’t like BT and you don’t like copper, we get it.

    9. DTMark says:

      It’s wonderful comedy seeing Virgin Media laying a brand new FTTP network in our neighbouring village which was subsidised by the government with only last-gen VDSL because it was apparently “uncommercial” for BT to deliver anything at all.

    10. New_Londoner says:

      It would be more accurate to say “because no company, including Virgin Media, expressed any intent to invest in coverage for your community in the next three years “. It obviously changed its plans, a shame it didn’t do so sooner to avoid wasting our tax monies.

    11. fastman says:

      DT mark — actually virgin don’t have any BDUk funding I assume its done by project lightning and I assume they were able to do as they don’t share any of their network and they don’t wholelsale access their network and they keep all the revenue — !!!!

    12. AndyH says:

      To be fair to VM also, I think they take their ‘register an interest’ very seriously. I strongly suspect that if an area has an interest far in excess of their normal models, then they will evaluate the possibility of expanding their network there. It makes perfect commercial sense if they can see the required ROI.

    13. FibreFred says:

      ” I am not the spokesperson for B4RN”

      No obviously not


  6. fastman says:

    standard move to B4rn post – unhelpful but unsurprising

    1. Giggling says:

      To be fair, B4RN seem to do an amazing job.

    2. MikeW says:

      Ultimately, it is like comparing a barter system with a currency system.

  7. Ignitionnet says:

    No messing around. The comments on this one hit the floor straight from the beginning.

    A good performance. Would read again.

    1. FibreFred says:

      Even though I don’t agree with Chris I can kinda get where she comes from

      Deduction / carpet burn is just a waste of life. It’s his parents I feel for 🙁

  8. Elrond says:

    I live in a rural area also ignored by BT. Along came Gigaclear who installed FTTP. They thought it profitable and they have to pay wayleaves etc. Goodbye BT never again will I have to use your poor system using aluminium wires.Yes they saved money when copper was too expensive.

  9. Doctor Colossus says:

    Meanwhile, in rural Aberdeenshire…

    …not much

  10. James Brown says:

    What do people think of the Swiss model for FTTP? Here in Switzerland we have spent a lot of public money on our utilities who rolled out an EPON network. With a simple change at layer 2, each home or business can choose a different provider. The local utility acts as ‘Openreach’ and the incumbent (in our case Swisscom) competes with other small ISPs. The rollout began in 2008 following a vote and I’m informed that there is a 20 year payback. Most of the large cities have extensive fibre coverage now. Whilst this angered the incumbent initially, and all of the arguments in favour of copper we’re made by Swisscom, they eventually became coinvestors alongside the utilities to avoid losing their monopoly.

    Is there any scope for this in the UK, or is the power and money too centralised?

    1. DTMark says:

      The UK has long-suffered amateur politicians and is far from a forward-thinking country.

      Having sold off the infrastructure for the telecoms network years ago placing it in private hands it now finds that broadband is effectively rationed to protect prices, and has to collude in that with schemes like “BDUK” because it also gave a Crown guarantee to pensioners of the company when it was sold off.

      BT has, with the complicity of government, whether through incompetence or corruption or a mix of both, managed to engineer itself into the ideal position for a UK business – “too big to fail”.

      Further, the UK is anti-private investment when it comes to broadband, preferring to treat it as a State affair which helps with those pensions and might in turn be linked to the desire of our amateur governments to spy on people which is more easily done with fewer underlying providers, and prefers a faux-choice model at the retail level rather than supporting actual customer choice.

      So, no, there’s no place for it in the UK’s “make do and mend” mentality.

    2. AndyH says:

      You still have the same problem though; rural areas. Switzerland’s FTTP/H deployment is primarily deployed in the larger cities – https://map.geo.admin.ch/?selectedNode=node_ch.bakom.downlink1001&Y=767022.50&X=231783.80&zoom=1&bgLayer=ch.swisstopo.pixelkarte-grau&layers=ch.bakom.anschlussart-glasfaser&layers_opacity=0.75&time_current=latest&lang=en&topic=nga&catalogNodes=317,320,327,334,338

      The government’s approach here has been to deploy superfast broadband for as many people as quickly as possible. BT also sought the same aim as part of their commercial deployment.

      For most people living in the UK now, their superfast speeds meet their needs. However, the rapid growth in streaming data usage means our needs will be changing over the years to come. Question will be whether the commercial operators will be able to deliver the speeds to meet the speed demand (which I believe they will for the majority).

    3. fastman says:

      Dt really

      BT has, with the complicity of government, whether through incompetence or corruption or a mix of both, managed to engineer itself into the ideal position for a UK business – “too big to fail”.

      the business has invested somewher getting close to 4bn of private money ands you suggest UK is anti pvivate investment and its the fault of the something that happened in the 1990’s

      you couldn’t make it up !!!!

    4. MikeW says:

      Or, in this case, he did make it up.

      One significant thing in the UK was that, shortly after BT was privatised, the government banned them from distributing TV and from running fibre. They wanted to create competition from cable TV, so created heaps of licences, and let those companies dig in coax … and go bust doing so.

      In 2008, BT were still banned from running fibre, and Virgin Media was just up and running out of the gradual mergers and firesales of the various cable companies.

  11. James Brown says:

    That’s a reasonable assessment DTMark. I just think there needs to be a few more concentrated deployments of FTTP to frighten BT into action and to show them that it can be commercially viable in the longer term.

    1. Ignition says:

      Given the lack of interest in the UK in actually paying for broadband services on the part of both consumers and CPs that might be tricky. TalkTalk/Sky resent paying more than about £3 a month for FTTC, I can’t see them being happy to pay more for FTTP just because it’s FTTP.

      Most people on FTTC are on the 40 or 55Mb products. They have no interest in paying the supplement for 80Mb, what makes you think they would want to if it’s FTTP?

      The UK’s broadband market is anti-investment. TalkTalk and Sky broke it by reducing broadband to an add-on to a TV package or line rental and conditioning people that it should cost next to nothing, if not outright nothing. They did this with the full cooperation of Ofcom who now seem to realise their error and are trying their utmost to cover their backsides over.

      If FTTP is commercially viable within an acceptable term for a new entrant where is it? VM can do it, they have Liberty Global’s deep pockets and a triple play offering, they also don’t have to wholesale which is key.

      If we allowed BT to keep the FTTP all to themselves for a period I’m sure they’d be far happier to build.

      For what it’s worth I think BT made mistakes with FTTC/NGA. They clearly underestimated the uptake, and where they did they built FTTP initially in a very strange and expensive way, and chose some of the wrong areas to do it.

      That said the deployment had to be wide and shallow as there is a lot of noise about the ‘digital divide’. Bizarrely in the UK the digital divide is in some respects now the other way around. There is, proportionately, far more FTTP in rural areas than urban ones.

      Hopefully we’ll see some more investment in FTTP and, perhaps, even a scaling back of G.fast in favour of FTTP as it’s quite possible BT’s aims for G.fast in terms of reach can’t be achieved with the technology.

      It is very hard to deploy FTTP right now, even with deep pockets. There are only so many contractors and engineers that can do it, and many of them are going to be busy with VM’s build.

    2. fastman says:

      so based on the FTTP that already there — you get little choice from who you can buty it from — there are about 15,000 – 20,000 FTTP premise in Milton Keynes and think about 4 service providers offering it — don’t see service providers clamouring to sell it as its not a £12 a mnoth product and most service providers want less cost not more or want broadband for nothing — will be interesting to see reall how many people will want to pay in excess £50 a month for a basic gigaclear product

    3. MikeW says:

      There was a recent report on TBB’s forums about people balking at paying even for Gigaclear’s entry-level price. Is that £42pm for 50/50?

      KCOM were getting the majority of their Lightstream take-up (which is running at a reasonable level) at the lowest package – a £5pm premium to DSL prices. They have now added a lower entry-level price … which makes it the same price as the old entry-level ADSL packages, at £32pm all-in. Mind you, they’ve added lower entry-level DSL packages too (though lower monthly allowances too).

      So even KCOM can only extract an extra £5pm out of subscribers … and that is without the need to wholesale, and with little competition.

      There isn’t enough money in the market; For BT and VM to pay for their work, they really need to be able to rely on lots of £5pm increments … so need lots of increments.

      I happen to agree with “wide and shallow” (I think “breadth-first” is better), and the natural outcome is that full-fibre should go to the places where distance is too great. That the digital divide gets reduced in that way.

      I think the worst outcome for rural dwellers would be when the main telcos decide to go all-out in full-fibre competition, because they’ll fully switch attention back to competitive urban areas first.

  12. James Brown says:

    Thank you for the interesting insights. I count myself lucky in Switzerland. The cost of 1Gbit symmetrical is around £74 pcm including an IPTV subscription (e.g. https://www.fiber7.ch/en), which I guess may be out of reach for folks used to bundled deals from Sky and the like. With Christmas approaching, Joyeux Noël to all and best wishes for the fibre rollout in 2017.

    1. gpm group says:

      Interesting to see how other countires are tackling the problem. What are the ping times to your ISP’s servers on your 1Gbit symmetrical connection James?

    2. Ignition says:

      Worth remembering that Switzerland is considerably wealthier than the UK so prices have to be seen in that context.

      Nonetheless BT supply what their customers ask for and they know us nerds who want 1Gb and are willing to pay for it are a tiny minority. Most resent paying more than the bare minimum for broadband but, bizarrely, are happy to shovel nearly a hundred pounds a month to Sky just for TV. Go figure.

    3. MikeW says:

      The Swiss might be wealthy, but not wealthy enough to get 1Gbps fibre to everyone.

      Quoted in Rob Kenny’s paper:

      Swisscom was a pioneer in FTTP, and has 30% coverage.
      However, its experience with G.fast and other copper
      technologies led their Head of IT and Networks to say
      at an investor day earlier this year:

      “Don’t start [FTTP] if you haven’t done it yet. Put all
      your efforts on to FTTS [Fibre To The Street] or FTTD
      [Fibre To The Distribution point]”

    4. john says:


      I agree with you!. For me the internet is not only for business but is my source of pleasure. IPTV being the main thing for me. Makes no sense to pay for Sky TV – yes it’s possible to get it free through deals online, but even so – £100 a month + is a lot for a TV service. Now this has comne along I am seriously looking to be one of the people who IS willing to pay for such a service. Right now I can get about 4.1 4.2MB/sec upload but if I could get say 20MB/sec upload my business would be transformed.

  13. Craski says:

    I’d happily pay these FTTPoD prices if I could find a supplier who would offer them in Aberdeenshire.
    I’ve had several quotes of ~£600/Month for a 20/20Mbps leased line so these monthly FTTPoD subscriptions look brilliant in comparison.

    1. Bill says:

      My thoughts exactly, but that is why BT will make it as unviable as possible to protect their leased line revenue.

      In my opinion OFCOM should focus on pressurising BT in making such products more widely available and with more realistic terms rather than separating BT which I see as more of a distraction.

    2. AndyH says:

      Try BT Business/Bistech/Entanet/AAISP/Fluidata/IDNet/SureVOIP/Zen – all are listed as suppliers. It will be bespoke though…

      @ Bill – Not sure what you mean here. It’s up to ISPs whether they sell FoD, not sure how that means that BT are making it nonviable to protect their leased line revenue.

    3. Bill says:

      Are you sure all of the above ISPs offer it? They certainly don’t list themselves as suppliers. At least one of the above (AAISP) say they don’t offer it because of onerous terms.

      BT are making it unviable by contract length, by having staff who have not even heard of the product (I kid you not), and making the install process ridiculous (if FODv1 was anything to go by).

      Perhaps dome ISPs could chime in and answer the question as to why they don’t offer it?

    4. AndyH says:

      The above ISPs are listed as suppliers on the OR portal. Whether they will provide it is another question though.

      How is the contract length unviable? It’s normal for a leased circuit to have a 3-5 year contract length. This product really is geared to SME and not home users.

      When you say staff haven’t heard of it, who did you speak to? BT Business staff are aware of it. BT Consumer staff are not as they don’t sell it.

      There have been a couple of recent conference calls with ISPs about FTTP and FoD. They were quite long and there were a lot of questions so there is interest there.

    5. fastman says:

      craski where about in abedeenshire and is it only you == if there were a couple of you suggest speak to the community fibre partnership team – as that would invole sharing any cost between you — would be a direct contract fro infrastructure between community and Openreach and you all then would be ble to have a native FTTP product at the end if it

    6. Craski says:

      I already have a host for an 80/20 FTTC connection that I send ~5km using 5GHz wifi to my house up on a hill and I have a sector antenna to feed that out from me to a few others in our not spot. The problem is that to grow that to more users, we need more bandwidth and at ~£600/Month for a <100Mbps leased line just doesnt work.

      Something like 1000/220 FTTPoD at around £150 to £200/Month would be perfect for us to take the next step and get more people in our not spot online.

    7. Craski says:

      Zen dont supply FTTPoD. I asked them recently and was told “We don’t offer that service unfortunately.” but they were happy to quote me ~£600/Month for a leased line.

    8. Doctor Colossus says:

      Craski, where in Aberdeenshire are you? We are just north of Insch – together with as handful of other houses, we are about 3-5 km from the nearest cabinet, and so, stuck in limbo. I’d like to hear more about your solution if you would share some info?

    9. fastman says:

      wheres your nearest main route — the distance might be a red herring

    10. Craski says:

      I know the area as I used to stay in Old Rayne. If you have line of sight from a premises which has a decent internet connection thats a potential starting point. You can use the BT DSL checker address search option to search out targets near you. You can use Google Earth to check for line of sight between sites and Ubiquiti also has a good wifi link designer tool at https://airlink.ubnt.com. Some folk are not that keen to put wifi kit on their house so if you can see a farm steading or commercial building which are within range of good internet thats another option to mount it without relying on someone putting it on their house. As long as it has power and is within range of BT infrastructure for getting a new line installed. Talk with the owners of the potential host buildings and sound them out if they’d let you install a new second phone line at their place (so it doesnt interfere with the one they have) and mount a small wifi dish (can be as little as 160mm diameter depending on range and amount of data you want to send over it) to get that bandwidth to you. Many small community broadband schemes work on basis of offering free access to the internet service to the host premises as a way to get them onboard, perhaps also paying a small monthly fee to cover electricity usage for the modem, router and dish. When you have the bandwidth at your place, from there its just a half decent router and a sector antenna to get more people who can see you.

  14. Bill says:

    Leased circuits can be provisioned on one year contract terms, 3 years or more is not mandatory at all. A contract of 18/24 months would be more palatable for this product, given that it is quite different to a leased line in terms of SLA etc. This gives people a chance to move away sooner if it doesn’t meet expectations.

    Yes indeed it was BT Business I spoke to… got transferred to 3 people who hadn’t heard of it then was asked to call some obscure BT business centre where finally one chap had heard of it.

    It is certainly good news if ISPs are planning to offer it lets hope it doesn’t take too long before that’s the case.

  15. 23prince says:

    I already pay £115 a month for my 2 connections and my exchange does offer me FTTPoD on the checker so could I be able to get this? The install charge is just written of against tax anyway – however if it really would be £1,692 per annum for 1000/220 then that’s worth it for me. I’m on 80/20 for both so very close to my cab (under 100M) and when I asked the engineer who did my recent 2nd line install he said I was close enough to get it.

    Finally – an affordable solution.

    1. Sigh says:

      You forgot about the alleged 3rd one from Virgin, Pete.

  16. fastman says:

    23 prince FOD pricing is determined by the distance you are from the aggregation node (ag node) in the network (motorway Junction in road terms) it does not use any of the fibre that connects to the cab – so you can be metres form the cab and say 2km from the Agg node and the charging will be from the ag node as a new fibre will have to be provided for your FOd order — local engineer will not have any view on it or h is costed or where the nearest ag node with spare capacity might be

    1. MikeW says:

      The full price list here
      goo.gl/s6eGWhcontent_copyCopy short URL

      That mentions distance to the aggregation node. That reckons 96% of properties will be within 2km of the ag node.

      I recall previous calculations were that there were maybe 4-5 cabinets per ag node, on a widespread average.

  17. Mike says:

    Ignition: “Most people on FTTC are on the 40 or 55Mb products. They have no interest in paying the supplement for 80Mb, what makes you think they would want to if it’s FTTP?”

    What a flawed assessment. Most people on FTTC who are on 40 don’t get 40. That’swhy they would be willing to pay more for an actual superfast/ultrafast speed – which fttp guarantees.

  18. John says:

    Can FoD be done from any FTTC cab?

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
  • Gigaclear £17.00
    Speed: 200Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Community Fibre £20.00
    Speed: 150Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Virgin Media £25.00
    Speed: 108Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Vodafone £25.00
    Speed: 100Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Hyperoptic £25.00
    Speed: 150Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest Superfast ISPs
  • Hyperoptic £17.99
    Speed 30Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • NOW £21.00
    Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Shell Energy £21.99
    Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Vodafone £22.00
    Speed 38Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Plusnet £22.99
    Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: £75 Reward Card
Large Availability | View All
The Top 20 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (4015)
  2. BT (3131)
  3. Politics (2086)
  4. Building Digital UK (2007)
  5. Openreach (1950)
  6. FTTC (1917)
  7. Business (1803)
  8. Mobile Broadband (1588)
  9. Statistics (1487)
  10. FTTH (1369)
  11. 4G (1359)
  12. Virgin Media (1264)
  13. Ofcom Regulation (1229)
  14. Fibre Optic (1221)
  15. Wireless Internet (1220)
  16. Vodafone (920)
  17. EE (899)
  18. 5G (874)
  19. TalkTalk (815)
  20. Sky Broadband (782)
Helpful ISP Guides and Tips

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