» ISP News » 

“Full Fibre” ISPs Call on ASA to Stop Misleading UK “Fibre Broadband” Adverts

Thursday, June 22nd, 2017 (12:00 am) - Score 3,196

Three of the UK’s most pioneering providers’ of ultrafast “full fibre” (FTTP/H) broadband – Gigaclear, Cityfibre and Hyperoptic – have today called on the Advertising Standards Authority to stop rivals from using the term “fibre” to advertise services delivered over slower copper wires.

At the start of this year several senior Government MPs suggested that some ISPs were “complicit in fraud” for the way in which they advertised broadband speeds and misused “fibre” terminology in their advertising. The Digital Minister, Matthew Hancock, who has been championing support for “full fibre” providers, also said that “adverts should be clear, and if it’s fibre, it should say fibre. If it’s not, it should not.”

Since 2008 the ASA has been happy to allow the use of “fibre” wording on adverts for hybrid-fibre services, such as Virgin Media’s hybrid fibre + coax (HFC DOCSIS) network and Openreach’s hybrid fibre optic + twisted pair copper network (FTTC / VDSL2). On top of that a number of fixed wireless ISPs also use terms like “air fibre” or similar.

However “full fibre” services, which are currently going through a period of rapid growth and can technically offer multi-Gigabit speeds (even faster than 1000Mbps), often complain that this is unfair because hybrid fibre services are usually much slower and don’t take the high capacity fibre optic cable all the way to your home (i.e. they rely on a fair bit of slower copper cabling).

Back in April the ASA finally agreed to investigate (here) and we’re expecting to hear an update from them sometime this summer 2017.

ASA Statement:

“We are also aware of evolving concerns about the advertising of ‘fibre’ broadband services. The term ‘fibre’ is currently used in advertising to describe both part-fibre and full-fibre broadband services.

The UK Government’s recently published Digital Strategy made clear its commitment to invest in full-fibre broadband infrastructure, which is likely to make those services available to significantly more people, and also made clear its view that the term ‘fibre’ should only be used to describe full-fibre broadband services.”

Last Friday three of the UK’s leading full fibre broadband providers (Hyperoptic, Cityfibre and Gigaclear) waded into the debate by meeting with the ASA to discuss launching a full investigation into the use of “fibre” in advertising.

As part of that meeting they presented the watchdog with new research from Opinion Leader, which between May and June 2017 was tasked with examining the opinions of various broadband consumers based on feedback from 6 focus groups in London, Sheffield and Swansea, 8 telephone interviews and 6 face to face interviews. It’s difficult to view this as a meaningful sample size and no statistical results were provided.

Nevertheless the participants are said to have reflected different ages, demographic, gender, levels of tech-savviness and were also a mix of rural and urban consumers (i.e. some who currently had full-fibre services and those who had recently switched, purchased or were considering purchasing or switching broadband ISP).

Research Results

* Participants typically associate the word “fibre” with the best category of broadband available, despite this term most frequently being used to describe services supplied over part-fibre that is unable to deliver the very high speeds, consistent and reliable service made possible by a full-fibre connection.

* Although participants typically had poor understanding of the technology used to deliver broadband, when the differences between full-fibre infrastructure and copper-reliant networks were explained to them, most recognised the step-change in quality of service made possible by the full technology.

* However, even after researchers explained the difference between part and full-fibre products, participants were unable to distinguish which adverts were for which product, because the word ‘fibre’ was consistently used without qualification or further explanation.

* Participants had different reasons for choosing to purchase a broadband product – some prioritised price while others prioritised speed or customer service for example. But once the technological distinction was understood, participants typically viewed the type of fibre as an important factor in choosing a broadband product and wanted this to be made clearer in adverts.

* Participants typically felt it was misleading to describe part-fibre networks as “fibre” because it impedes their ability to differentiate between different types of service.

* Participants wanted to be able to differentiate advertised products even if they are unable to access full-fibre at present.

* Although participants typically welcomed the ASA’s plans to improve clarity around speed claims in broadband advertising, this was not viewed as sufficient to prevent adverts from being misleading, as it does not provide clarity on other attributes of full-fibre services which are highly valued, such as reliability.

As we said above, it’s difficult to draw too many conclusions from such a limited sample and there’s always a danger that a survey commissioned by three of the markets best known “full fibre” providers might have been skewed to represent their viewpoints.

On the other hand we’ve long agreed that “fibre broadband” or “fibre optic” should ideally be a term that only FTTP/H providers can use – ‘Will the Real Fibre Optic Broadband Service Please Stand Up.’

Greg Mesch, CEO of CityFibre, said:

“Consumers are increasingly being provided with a choice; to rely on traditional broadband services delivered over outdated copper wires and cables, or to connect to a new generation of full fibre networks offering the vastly improved speeds and reliability essential to a modern-day home or business”

However, consumers won’t be able to take advantage of this step-change in technology until broadband advertising empowers them to make an informed choice about the networks they rely on. We urge the ASA to conclude that a change to the advertising rules is required.”

Dana Tobak, CEO of Hyperoptic, said:

“We commend the ASA for engaging in the real fibre question; as the opportunity to choose full fibre is growing across the country, consumers want to understand their choices and not be misled by terminology applied too generically.”

Matthew Hare, CEO of Gigaclear, added:

“There was a real passion from the research participants: they wanted to know what type of fibre they were being offered so they could make the best choice for them in terms of performance, reliability and cost.”

In fairness to the ASA, full fibre providers have until recently had virtually no real impact on broadband coverage in the United Kingdom and so it’s easy to understand why the watchdog may have been less inclined to tackle “fibre” terminology in adverts. However, today’s market is going through a change and FTTH/P networks can already cover around a million premises, potentially reaching 10 million or more by 2025.

Suffice to say that it’s fast becoming more important for consumers to be able to make a clear distinction between “full fibre” and “hybrid fibre” (or “part fibre” if you prefer) services, although some would perhaps rightly argue that the damage may have already been done (i.e. too late to put this genie back into its bottle because the consumer subconscious has already adapted).

On top of that there are other complications. For example, Hyperoptic calls itself a “full fibre” provider but some of their Fibre-to-the-Building (FTTB) deployments may still rely on a few metres of copper network cable in order to reach routers in individual apartments (depends on the building). A big fuss recently occurred in France over the same question (here), which is despite the fact that proper FTTB networks can still deliver Gigabit speeds.

Similarly the new generation of DOCSIS 3.1 hybrid fibre cable and, under ideal circumstances, even G.fast technology can in theory deliver Gigabit speeds. This may further blur the lines between hybrid fibre and full fibre solutions, although it has to be said that FTTH/P is still superior and could go many.. many times faster. It will be interesting to see what the ASA decides.

Share with Twitter
Share with Linkedin
Share with Facebook
Share with Reddit
Share with Pinterest
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
52 Responses
  1. GNewton says:

    Good on them, it’s about time for BT and Virgin etc to stop these misleading “fibre broadband” adverts, shame on ASA for not doing its job.

    1. Chris P says:

      Most people will know vdsl is fttc, but very few people know Virgin Media is coax, most will say it’s fibre as in FTTH which is clearly misleading to the public.

    2. AndyH says:

      If consumers really expect a fibre to be fed into their properties, then fair enough. Reality is though, consumers are buying the speed and not the technology.

    3. Bill says:

      Then why falsely advertise the technology?

    4. AndyH says:

      Where do they falsely advertise the technology? Do they state that the fibre runs all the way to the property?

      If you end up with a multiple product names for different technologies, you just end up confusing consumers.

    5. Chris P says:


      When virgin adverts constantly tell the public their service is fibre optic, then the public think the cable connecting into the kit in their homes is a fibre cable. Even the most recent ad has actors and stuff doing things inside a giant cable, panning out at the end to an engineer staring into the cable and shaking his head as if to say he didn’t believe what he saw, prob a joke as he’s clearly holding a coax cable, but to those who have no clue what either type if cable looks like, it would appear he is staring into an optical cable delivering that type of action packed content into their homes. The AD is designed for us to infer the cable is fibre optic. Yet we all know it wasn’t.

    6. AndyH says:

      @ ChrisP – So if a service is delivered with 3km of fibre optic cable and the last 100m is copper or coaxial, we should call it what?

      I could understand the arguments here if the ASA was inundated with complaints about people being misled by advertising, but the reality is a tiny minority actually care about the technology. The vast majority of people buy the headline speed, they don’t care how it’s delivered. When you start introducing multiple products and technologies, you end up confusing consumers.

    7. Bill says:

      @AndyH I find it a little strange that you keep de-emphasising the technology yet you are happy to portray it falsely to sell a product.

      All internet delivery uses fibre-optic at some point – so all services could be called fibre optic by your logic.

      Why don’t we call dial-up internet fibre-optic? Or ADSL?

      Its not really rocket science is it? Or why don’t we just sell “internet” in case some poor consumer gets confused?

    8. Chris P says:


      I fully agree the vast majority of people buy based mainly on the cost and access speed and could care less whether its coax, fibre, twisted pair or wireless.

      The problem is that there is so much noise about fibre being the better more advanced option that any product associated with fibre is deemed as a better offering. If the advert makes the consumer think they will get fibre straight into the bit of kit in their home they will believe the offering from the big well established brand at a competitive price may be better than some upstart they’ve never heard of that is banging on about fibre in the same way as the others.

      While you would not be taken in by that, many, many others would be. Its the ASA’s job to ensure the public are not mislead by the adverts.
      If the ASA can reject a BT ad because they only compared the big 3 or 4 providers provided wifi routers and not the whole market, then they should reject anyone claiming their copper connection is in fact fibre.

      If that doesn’t make sense then to you then what chance have the general public got?

    9. CarlT says:

      This was inevitably something that would come up as more FTTP/B networks came into play. It is time this were properly sorted and a solution presented going forward. Shame it took politicians to progress it rather than the ASA doing it on their own backs, it was obvious this would happen and a waste of time and money on the part of the ASA having to revisit this.

    10. Hull_lad says:

      The fact that the complaint has come from ISPs rolling out full fibre, and not consumers, tells you where the ‘beef’ is.

      In fairness, if a competitor could get away with passing off their inferior service as the same as my own, for half the price, I’d be annoyed too.

  2. MikeW says:

    Intrigued about CityFibre making comments on consumer behaviour in this. Are they going to start selling to consumers, then?

    Intrigued by Hyperoptic worried about full fibre. Will they stop selling FTTB? Or are they falling foul of a too generic definition too?

    Intrigued that Gigaclear should correctly identify that consumers want to choose based on performance, reliability and cost. Glad to see that the label isn’t in that list.

    Speed, latency, jitter, quality, uptime, congestion, repair time, money, guarantees, compensation. They’re the features that matter. No one label can cope.

    1. New_Londoner says:

      Completely agree. And of course Gigaclear helpfully proves that FTTP doesn’t automatically equate to reliability – just look at the number of times it has to apologise for network outages, downtime for “planned maintenance ” etc.

    2. dragoneast says:

      Never mind the quality, feel the width. Where have I heard that one before?

    3. gerarda says:

      @new londoner

      I have been told by my ISP that Openreach consider a business FTTC line that drops once or twice day is a perfectly acceptable level of service, and of course there is no resilience/backup/redundancy in most of Openreach’s network so you are not in much of a position to knock a competitive service.

    4. New_Londoner says:

      Since I’m not a network provider I will happily comment as I see fit.

      To clarify my comments about Gigaclear and its lack of reliability, I’m referring to network-wide events plus those affecting multiple communities, not those affecting individual premises, although it has those too! And don’t take my word for it, plenty of comments on line from Gigaclear customers.

      FTTP does not automatically make a network either reliable or resilient. If it’s badly designed or installed it will be neither of those.

    5. Chris P says:


      most of openreach’s network is resilient, the bit from the cab/pop/node is the least resilient. If you want resilience go for diverse routing, that’s 2 connections from separate exchanges taht at no point use a common path to your premises. Any provider can do it over openreach’s network. it obviously costs a lot more than double as may involve civils and a new connection to your premises, with ongoing charges for more than 1 circuit.

      maybe I’m misunderstanding you, what do you actually mean when you state:
      “and of course there is no resilience/backup/redundancy in most of Openreach’s network”

      bear in mind that openreach do the physical cables & infrastructure (exchanges, cabinets, poles, ducts, etc) and its upto providers to provide the logical connections like connecting to their back haul circuits etc. that backhaul too can be resilient or not depending on what the ISP wants to pay, which is reflected in the charges to customers.

      You can get whatever speed you want, anywhere you want, with as much redundancy as you want provided you pay for it. It’ll be a dam site more than £19.99 a month with a free home hub!!

    6. CarlT says:

      Via Openreach, in common with one else, the bit from exchange to home has no resilience. Whether an all-copper service, FTTP or FTTC, there are always single points of failure.

      In the case of other networks where virtual hubs are used in cabinets the SPoF is between the cabinet hosting the virtual hub and the home.

      As Openreach’s involvement in active networks ends at the exchange/handover point there’s not really any room for comparison deeper into the network.

    7. DTMark says:

      “FTTP does not automatically make a network either reliable or resilient. If it’s badly designed or installed it will be neither of those.”


      However it’s likely to be a new deployment/build and therefore won’t suffer from the cabling being blown down from the poles in high winds, individual lines interfering with each other causing performance degradation, radio based interference causing, in the worst cases, a total loss of service, power failure at the exchange knocking out all services in a wide area for hours, greater susceptibility to flooding, cable theft..

    8. New_Londoner says:

      However Gigaclear has introduced new problems, partly due to poor network design and partly due to poor installation. For example, putting unarmoured fibre in soft verges at shallow depths, which leaves it prone to being dug up, either by farmers’ vehicles or even by tyres churning the verge. The repeated downtime due to network maintenance is a clear indication of appalling network design.

      FTTP is not magic, can be badly designed, does suffer from congestion if there is insufficient backhaul …

      I could go on …

    9. ultraspeedy says:

      “Via Openreach, in common with one else, the bit from exchange to home has no resilience. Whether an all-copper service, FTTP or FTTC, there are always single points of failure.

      In the case of other networks where virtual hubs are used in cabinets the SPoF is between the cabinet hosting the virtual hub and the home.

      As Openreach’s involvement in active networks ends at the exchange/handover point there’s not really any room for comparison deeper into the network.”

      All explained to him before under one of his other guises, BTs redundancy he would like us to believe is so superior did not do them much good here…

      Unfortunately even using this very simple example he appears to have still not got it.

  3. Tom Watts says:

    Dana Tobak, CEO of Hyperoptic, said: “… as the opportunity to choose full fibre is growing across the country, consumers want to understand their CHOICES and not be misled by terminology applied too generically.”

    Well Dana love, considering that Hyperoptic, Gigaclear et al very finely cherry pick their deployment areas, its fair to say that the majority of UK households will never have the CHOICE of having your full fibre service. Or perhaps you’d like to put your money where your mouth is and build a nationwide FTTP/B network serving the majority of UK punters? No? Thought not…

    1. New_Londoner says:

      I’m pretty sure Hyperoptic only deploys to an apartment block if it has an exclusive supply agreement, which doesn’t sit well with her apparent eagerness to embrace choice! Nor does it allow any choice of ISP, being a closed network. Apart from that …

    2. Hyperoptic says:

      Thank you for your comments Tom. Hyperoptic has already invested millions of pounds to bring full fibre to hundreds of thousands of UK homes, and is fully committed to expanding that network to as many UK homes as quickly as possible. We appreciate many people want to have the choice of having access to a full fibre network and, despite the cost and time it takes to bring this option to UK businesses and consumers, we believe Hyperoptic are leading the way to increase the availability of full fibre broadband in the UK.

    3. Hyperoptic says:

      @ New_Londoner

      Be assured, residents living in an Hyperoptic enabled building (both new and existing buildings) can choose to switch to our full fibre service or stay with their current providers – our infrastructure is independent of, and is installed alongside, services from other providers. To find out more, please visit hyperoptic.com.

    4. AndyH says:

      Is calling your service “full fibre” not misleading?

      I am sure you will find some BT/Virgin customers who are in very close proximity to their cabinet and will have a shorter ‘copper connection’ than some of your customers in a large building.

    5. New_Londoner says:

      To clarify, you’re saying that you’re happy to install if other so-called “full fibre” providers (e.g. FTTB like Hyperoptic or indeed FTTP) are already present or planning to deploy in the same apartment block?

    6. New_Londoner says:

      I take it that’s a no then?

  4. Kits says:

    If the advertisement says Fibre to the cabinet (FTTC) how can they be falsely advertising as fibre is laid to the cabinet which is what they are advertising. If you select random postcodes you will a veriety of ways fibre is mentioned in wales there are many that say FTTP you do not need a degree to know that is full fibre while FTTC or FTTB are not.

    1. Mark Jackson says:

      The concern is more about commercial adverts that say less specific things like “fibre optic” or “fibre broadband” when they’re only part-fibre.

  5. DTMark says:

    Customer signs up for a product advertised as “up to 8 Meg” (ADSL) which actually can’t deliver more than about 6.7 Meg at best anyway and actually delivers 1 Meg.

    Same customer excitedly upgrades to “up to 20 Meg” (ADSL2) and pays a bit more. Connection actually delivers 1 Meg.

    Same customer sees adverts for “fibre”. “Up to 80 Meg”. A few pounds more.

    Fool me once, fool me twice.. no thanks mate.

    Does make me giggle when the industry struggles to identify selling points and overcome consumer apathy about upgrades when trying to get people to buy a product that might be better. But then it might not.

    1. AndyH says:

      This is why speed estimates are provided.

    2. Kits says:

      To be fair OFCOM allows this and BT stopped doing fixed speeds long time ago. You can call them and ask what speeds you will get. A good ISP will then ask for a BT landline number to check, if no landline number a estimate can be done using the address. What needs to be addresses is the large gap between highest and lowest IMPO.

      For my number I am offered between 40Mbps and 70.7Mbps I actually get sink is 71Mbps but speeds after overheads is in the 68Mbps. BT needs to make the speed closser and actually match the speed or revert back to fixed speeds sadly many of the public do not understand the dynamics of todays broadband

    3. DTMark says:

      Personalised estimates cannot be reflected in national advertising.

      So I’d argue it’s important not to blatantly lie to the customer about the technology (“fibre”) or the performance (“superfast”).

      Suppose said customer does elect to upgrade and takes up the offer of “superfast fibre”.

      And it then delivers 12Mbps down and 1Mbps up.

      You could argue “the customer doesn’t care about the technology, only their experience”.

      Theoretically so. But it doesn’t help when the customer above now believes that fibre is a poor broadband delivery conduit and they’ve been conned for a third time.

      The industry needs to take responsibility, not the customer.

  6. chris conder says:

    y’after laff. If the ASA hadn’t let virgin get away with it we wouldn’t be in this pickle. Real fibre broadband delivers what it says it will. If it comes down a phone line it isn’t fibre broadband. If it comes down a phone line it is from a cabinet, and as such will only deliver ‘upto’ speeds. The product is totally different and the ASA should have a basic grasp of physics and understand this. Otherwise as a previous commenter said, ‘dial up and wireless’ can also be classed as fibre broadband, as their supply is also fibre based. Everything is.
    But fibre broadband comes down a fibre.
    not a frickin phone line.

    1. CarlT says:

      Careful with your definition there. VM’s network, subject to congestion same as every other network, also delivers what it says it will, always, as the non-fibre section is amplified.

    2. AndyH says:

      @ Chris – We’re talking about the ‘final mile’ here.

      All broadband products, whether FTTP, FTTB, FTTC, cable are ‘up to’. Although certain technologies allow you to sync at the headline rate, they are not provisioned on a 1:1 basis because bandwidth is shared and split amongst the users.

    3. Dragon says:

      @AndyH @CarlT

      The problem with the VM network is they don’t tend to manage congestion very well, it’s not just that you don’t get the headline speed it’s that the latency goes to shit as well.

      Loss of some of the speed at peak time is annoying, but being unable to do anything that’s latency senstive such as gaming/voip.etc is far worse.

      In Situations like that I’d actually prefer it gets throttled down if it means at least the latency is then stabilised.

  7. lyndon says:

    I always smile when I see BT van displaying ‘Superfast Fibre’on the side and parked adjacent to their VDSL cab.
    Should it not say ‘Superfast Copper’ ?

    1. DTMark says:

      “Fibre broadband is here” (cabinet stickers)

      I love the irony.

      Indeed it is. It isn’t coming to your home, though.

    2. AndyH says:

      This is correct – at cabinets there is fibre DSLAMs.

      If BT were putting stickers on your home, then perhaps it would be different.

    3. PaulM says:

      What about BTs TV adverts for their special offers of 52Mb and phone line for xxx amount for 12 months…. Is that 52Mb “Fibre” if i order or is it just FTTC? AFAIK there is no FTTH/P in my area from anyone so what will i get?????

    4. alan says:

      “What about BTs TV adverts for their special offers of 52Mb and phone line..”

      Ah yes yo may have wondered why those “summer deals” ads have vanished along with their “cheapest fibre claim” wonder no more its the same reason their other ads have gone bye bye 😀 Expect new BS on the TV from them by them end of the month/mid next month.

  8. Darren says:

    Keep it simple, do away with superfast, hyperfast ect and instead just use:

    Hybrid Fibre = Services speed is distance dependant.
    Full Fibre = Service speed is NOT distance dependant.

    As long as the metalic path in a hybrid network is not a limiting factor it can be incuded in the Full Fibre category.

    ISP provides a speed estimate and states whether it’s either Hybrid or Full Fibre.

    1. CarlT says:

      That’s actually something Dana Tobak mentioned a while back she’d be fine with. Any technology that isn’t rate adaptive due to length of metallic segment.

  9. Phil says:

    Regardless of arguments and counter arguments, the ASA should not allow a product to be falsely advertised or described, and it’s about time they sorted this out.

    As pointed out, all data is delivered by fibre at some point during it’s journey, so ADSL could have been described as ‘Fibre broadband’ and using the acronym of FTTE (Fibre to the Exchange) to muddy the waters over what the definition is.

    The reason VDSL started using the word fibre was marketing, they had to make it sound significantly better than ADSL2+. It’s no more a ‘fibre’ product than ADSL2+ is. If they called it VDSL it wouldn’t have had the same marketing effect.

    I dare say when fibre does arrive to the home it will be marketed as something like ‘Quantum broadband’, after all, selling it as fibre will be old hat, as most people think they’ve had that for years.

    1. AndyH says:

      Every provider falsely advertises – be it BT, VM, Gigaclear, Hyperoptic, B4RN etc.

      The question is whether consumers are actually being misled and disadvantaged by what is advertised.

  10. TheFacts says:

    How do you get a 1G download over a 1G interface?

    1. Nucco says:

      Technically, you do. The symbol rate if you will is 1G bits per second when you receive. He he. It’s just that in that 1G, your language (protocol) needs some space to encode data as it gets more high level. That is, just like hot chocolate is rated in net weight, which includes the container AND the chocolate inside. You don’t eat the container of course, and your downloads have containers too.

      To get 1g of chocolate exactly, you must use a bigger container and the net weight must then be slightly more than 1g. 🙂

    2. TheFacts says:

      So a 1G speedtest result should be possible on a 1G connection?

  11. Dragon says:

    Openreach will install a diversely routed pair of circuits landing on different exchanges where possible if you request it and are prepared to pay for it. But then that’s usually Ethernet services at £500+ a month per circuit.

    They won’t do it for a normal Home/Biz DSL/FTTC circuit because almost no one is prepared to pay the costs involved.

  12. Bob says:

    Bit rich for Hyperoptic to comment when they provide ethernet to end users?

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 £15.00 (*25.00)
    Speed 50Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Vodafone £19.50 (*22.50)
    Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • NOW £20.00 (*32.00)
    Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Shell Energy £21.99 (*30.99)
    Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Plusnet £22.99 (*38.20)
    Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: £65 Reward Card
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest Ultrafast ISPs
  • Hyperoptic £20.00 (*35.00)
    Speed: 150Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Vodafone £24.00 (*27.00)
    Speed: 100Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Community Fibre £25.00 (*29.50)
    Speed: 300Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Gigaclear £27.00 (*59.00)
    Speed: 500Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Virgin Media £27.00 (*51.00)
    Speed: 108Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
The Top 20 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (3499)
  2. BT (3008)
  3. Politics (1923)
  4. Building Digital UK (1917)
  5. FTTC (1882)
  6. Openreach (1821)
  7. Business (1675)
  8. Mobile Broadband (1469)
  9. Statistics (1405)
  10. FTTH (1364)
  11. 4G (1271)
  12. Fibre Optic (1165)
  13. Virgin Media (1159)
  14. Wireless Internet (1151)
  15. Ofcom Regulation (1139)
  16. Vodafone (836)
  17. EE (830)
  18. TalkTalk (760)
  19. 5G (760)
  20. Sky Broadband (744)
Helpful ISP Guides and Tips

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