» ISP News » 
Sponsored Links

Persimmon Homes Criticised Over FTTP Broadband Monopoly Claims UPDATE2

Tuesday, Jun 29th, 2021 (9:45 am) - Score 23,616
house building uk broadband

Property developer Persimmon Homes is facing criticism from several UK MPs, which comes after residents on some of their new build home sites alleged that they’d been left them with no option but to use the Fibre-to-the-Premises (FTTP) broadband network provided by the same group (via ISP FibreNest).

The situation will be a familiar one to readers of ISPreview.co.uk as we’ve touched on it before, but first a recap. Not so long ago the market was very different from today, with Persimmon predominantly deploying broadband and phone services by working alongside existing telecoms operators (e.g. Openreach, Virgin Media etc.), which is how a lot of new build home developers work.

However, back in 2018 the property developer undertook a strategic venture to launch FibreNest, which meant that they could build their own “full fibre” (FTTP) service alongside the construction of new build homes (cheaper to deploy). Customers on this pay from £14 per month for a 10Mbps (1Mbps upload) package, and this goes up to £45 for 500Mbps (50Mbps upload).

Today, Persimmon’s own fibre network covers tens of thousands of UK premises, and they’ve managed to sign-up 14,000 customers, which is pretty good considering how young the network is. But the figures aren’t that surprising when you consider that FibreNest may be the only ISP choice for FTTP (here).

NOTE: There may be a few caveats to this, as initially customers in some FibreNest builds may have also had access to Openreach’s network, albeit only via slow copper lines (not much of a choice – but still a choice). We’re currently checking this.

On the one hand, Persimmon residents can often enjoy better broadband speeds than many other parts of the UK, but on the other hand their options for an alternative may be very limited. According to the Daily Mail, several MPs have now criticised Persimmon’s approach for what they perceive as allegedly creating a monopoly.

John Hayes, Conservative MP for South Holland and The Deepings, said:

“These huge building firms should not be taking advantage of homeowners for the sake of their own financial interests. No residents should be tied to the builder’s own provider and forced to dance to their tune.”

John’s comment was also echoed by the Labour MP for Sefton Central, Bill Esterson, who views the developer’s approach as “predatory behaviour.” In response, Persimmon said that by deploying their own FTTP they’re often able to bring better broadband speeds to consumers sooner than if they left it up to others, which may take longer to install after a home move. However, most networks are now building FTTP by default and are still keen to work with new build sites – often at no extra cost to the developer.

Persimmon added that rival operators are also able to run their own fibre through the infrastructure they build on-site (we assume they mean cable ducts etc.). But some residents claim to have been told by BT that Openreach were unable to extend FTTP into such sites due to a FibreNest exclusivity agreement (we’re currently trying to clarify this).

On top of that, it’s always much harder (commercial viability) for rival FTTP operators to make a workable model for building into an area where an established player has already signed-up the majority of homes. Not that this has stopped that from happening in dense urban areas (e.g. CityFibre’s build vs Openreach and Virgin Media etc.).

We should add that the property developer has also pledged that FibreNest customers will never have to pay more for the same speed as they would with BT, which may give some comfort. But then BT is just one ISP in a growing sea of choice, and they’re not always the cheapest of options.

The big question is what, if anything, might be done about all this? At present, aside from a few gripes by MPs and consumers, Persimmon are still a fairly small FTTP operator, and they’re one of only a very few that seem to be taking such a vertically integrated approach on new build sites. Others, like OFNL (GTC/BUUK), may have a similar outcome, but they also wholesale to other ISPs.

Suffice to say that there are both pros and cons to the developer’s approach, but Persimmon are ultimately working within the law. We also shouldn’t forget that fixed line broadband isn’t the only way to get online these days, with 4G and 5G based mobile broadband becoming a viable option in some areas. The best thing that new house buyers can do is to stay informed, so that they can make the best decision before signing on the dotted line.

UPDATE 9:56am

According to UK ISP Aquiss (here), getting access to Persimmon’s sites can take a very long time: “Other network providers often can’t touch new build Persimmon sites until the developments are handed over to the local authorities (which can take up to 10 years).” Aquiss also mentioned that they “have had customers pull out of house sales because their broadband options were to be restricted to FibreNest.”

UPDATE 12:22pm

Persimmon informs that they are “currently in the process of inviting alternative internet service providers to offer their services to customers over our infrastructure,” although it’s unclear when there will be an outcome to that.

In addition, we note that rivals seeking to deploy FTTP on to such developments may have to do so through the Access to Infrastructure (ATI) Regulations 2016, which in some cases have been known to create costly barriers and may not align to the way that such networks conduct their rollouts (i.e. both cost and practical deployment barriers can be an issue).

However, the Government have been exploring the possibility of greater sharing via existing infrastructure under the ATI (here).

UPDATE 9:18pm

We’ve had a statement from Persimmon on our question about the existence of an exclusivity arrangement, although it’s a little light on detail.

A Spokesperson for Persimmon Homes said:

“We don’t have a formal exclusivity agreement. On a development-by-development basis we make a judgment to ensure other providers installing their infrastructure would not jeopardise our ability to deliver day one FTTP connections to our customers.

It was because of the significant number of complaints from customers who were not connected that we created FibreNest in the first place.

We remain very happy to speak to other infrastructure providers regarding any plans they have.

Equally, we have already and continue to encourage other providers to use our existing fibre infrastructure for their services.”

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 X (Twitter), Mastodon, Facebook and .
Search ISP News
Search ISP Listings
Search ISP Reviews
69 Responses
  1. Avatar photo Winston Smith says:

    I suppose Persimmon need a new income stream now that ‘fleecehold’ has caught the attention of the CMA.

    1. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:

      I think it would be better if developers such as Persimmon stuck to the business of building and selling homes rather than continually trying to find ways of generating additional sources of revenue from homeowners.

      The various attempts by developers to provide “value-added services” usually put the developer in the position of monopoly provider, whether that’s for broadband, heating or energy. It’s not obvious that the developers have any real competence to offer the services and it’s certainly not obvious how such arrangements are in the interests of homeowners (their customers).

      You wouldn’t buy a house from Sky, why buy broadband from Persimmon?

    2. Avatar photo Buggerlugz says:

      Well said Winston, now they can venture into broadband monopolies and racketeering instead.

    3. Avatar photo Nick Roberts says:


      Maintaining the long-practised tradition that the over-sight authorities prefer being “Lessons-learned” Johnnies rather than proactive Peters.

      ‘suppose that approach helps to inflate the economy a bit more for them, not so good if you get incinerated in your flat.

    4. Avatar photo Badem says:

      @New_Londonder – Looking at some of the complaints about persimmon homes they cannot even build homes properly so would not trust them to hold the eggs for cooking either

  2. Avatar photo Jeff Fairburn says:

    I think that’s really unfortunate actually, that you’ve done that.

    1. Avatar photo A_Builder says:

      Done what exactly?

      I do understand why Fibre Nest was set up in the first place – OR are a big inflexible organisation that want to do things their own way.

      One of the biggest jokes in construction is to get gas, water, electricity, drainage and broadband connected in a timely manner. I’ve lost count of the number of times thus gets messed up by a works team arriving and deciding that civils that had already been approve were ‘not right’.

      Removing even one variable to the developers control helps massively.

    2. Avatar photo Jeff Fairburn says:

      ’twas a quote from Jeff when BBC questioned him about his hundred million bonus and he walked off the interview saying that.

  3. Avatar photo Skeletor says:

    TBF to Persimmon, if they didn’t provide their own FTTP then some of their new builds may well have been stuck on Openreach copper for many years. Though I suspect the average Persimmon buyer would rather have a choice of ~ 700 ISPs on Openreach copper to choose from instead of being ‘stuck’ with 1 FTTP provider (FibreNest).

    1. Avatar photo Ivor says:

      Openreach policy has long to been to do cheap or “free” FTTP to any development of any real size – and I suspect a company like Persimmon could have further sweetened the deal with their scale.

    2. Avatar photo Toby says:

      But its only in the last few years that OR have started offering ‘free’ (ie same cost as copper) FTTP at new builds, provided the minimum build criteria is met. I am almost certain that FibreNest was created when it was costing a small fortune for Persimmon to install Openreach FTTP, the other alternative being getting copper installed. Perhaps if Openreach had implemented their current policy wrt FTTP at new builds 10 years ago, then *maybe* FibreNest wouldn’t exist at all.

  4. Avatar photo RN says:

    So, people complain about being ‘locked’ into Persimmon FTTP at £14 a month.

    But on the other hand, as Winston says, the same buyers are delighted to be ‘locked’ into ridiculous, punitive and escalating in cost leaseholds which in some cases make the newbuild virtually ‘worthless’ when the homeowner tries to sell the property.

    All priorities are clearly in perfect order here.

    1. Avatar photo Buggerlugz says:

      £14 a month for FTTP is not a good proposition. They’d be better off on FTTC or 4g in most cases and get far better value for money.

    2. Avatar photo Nick Roberts says:

      Property will be a “Her-in-doors” decision, whereas broadband . . .

      there’s more ways of taking an elephant to water than stuffing its anus with cream buns.

  5. Avatar photo AnotherTim says:

    I don’t really see this as fundamentally different from the position of many people with an AltNet FTTP service where it is the only superfast option available.
    At least with Fibre Nest there is a price cap (= BT’s prices), while some AltNets charge significantly more.
    One issue may be the lack of things such as static IP addresses, business use, etc.

    1. Mark-Jackson Mark Jackson says:

      In most of those cases, Openreach’s copper or FTTC service may still exist, thus the altnet is actually adding more choice to the local market with their own FTTP network. The issue with Persimmon above seems to be that you might not even have copper as a choice.

    2. Avatar photo AnotherTim says:

      But when the copper provides sub-USO ADSL it isn’t really very different to not having copper.

    3. Avatar photo BobDylan says:

      In reply to Mark’s comment. Openreach tie some new build properties into using BT for 1-2 years. I personally had no choice but to use BT in my new build. (Purchased my house in September 2020)

    4. Avatar photo Andrew Ferguson says:

      Proof of the Openreach forcing people to buy BT for 1 to 2 years please?

      Its a common myth, and yes in the past when Sky/TalkTalk did not sell FTTP it might have looked like a tie in but providers like Zen Internet will be available over BT Wholesale network.

    5. Avatar photo Greg says:

      Its not a myth about new build owners having to buy BT broadband for the first 2 years, the extension to the housing estate I just moved out of has that limitation, and a work colleague has also just bought a new build and is tied to BT for the 1st two years to cover “build costs”

    6. Avatar photo Andrew Ferguson says:

      Postcode so can check and report to Ofcom

    7. Avatar photo CerealKiller says:

      FTTPoD used to have a tie in. Not sure if it still does.

    8. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:

      On FFTPoD, the “tie in” was to the supplying ISP, and only in the sense that the contract length was often longer than for a standard consumer product. IIRC BT typically does FoD as a business product with a three year contract to allow sufficient time to recoup the installation costs within the monthly rental charge, after which any FTTP service from any ISP can be purchased over the same connection.

      The tie in her thought isn’t coming from Openreach, it’s between the purchasers and the supplying ISP. I believe there are a few that offer FoD products over the Openreach network, although it is a low volume product and likely to disappear pretty quickly given build rates for regular FTTP have ramped up so much.

    9. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:

      *here though

  6. Avatar photo Buggerlugz says:

    I can get it completely, even if you live in these new build estates, its exactly how most of the UK feels.

    You’re effectively backed into a corner with no choice. Its BT’s pretend fibre, Virgin’s useless customer service or substandard slow 4g (I’ll not include 5g because that’s a sales KPI based vanity project.)

    Its a UK monopoly of who you end up with and all of them are pretty crap due to one reason or another.

    So Persimmon are capitalizing on this by installing their own FTTP, which in effect roadblocks 66% of other vendors from providing broadband to your new estate.

  7. Avatar photo Ronnie says:

    I have the same problem in my apartment building in Wembley Park NW London. Quintain the developer fitted their FTTP (Velocity1) to each flat and wont allow any other provider (Community Fibre/Hyperoptic) to retro fit into the building. Quintain say residents do have a choice FTTP from Velocity1 (which is owned by Quintain) and Openreach FTTC. FML!

  8. Avatar photo Chris Sayers says:

    My view, OR were forced to open their ducts, why not developers from the outset, they might be within the current regulatory framework, why don’t the competition and market’s authority take a look at this, as there is no competition.

    1. Mark-Jackson Mark Jackson says:

      I suspect they’d find it difficult to put Persimmon into the Significant Market Power (SMP) basket, but that may change as the network grows. But as per the update above, Persimmon may already be in the process of building a wholesale solution.

    2. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:

      Quote “Persimmon may already be in the process of building a wholesale solution.”

      The problem is that there is a cost for an ISP to connect to each wholesale platform, if not a connection fee then certainly a development cost. This can make it unattractive to connect to a small network operator.

      So unless Persimmon decides to make its network available via a larger wholesale platform then it may not be worthwhile for most ISPs to offer service. It really would be better for developers to stick to housebuilding and to let network operators provide services to their estates.

  9. Avatar photo Roland says:

    “FibreNest customers will never have to pay more for the same speed as they would with BT”
    Need to see the details; “BT” isn’t just BT Retail, PlusNet and EE are also BT.

  10. Avatar photo JP says:

    Wondered how long it would be before some light on this subject was shon’

  11. Avatar photo CerealKiller says:

    People like to have a choice – and it’s such an essential service it would stop many buying a Permisson home – once they understand the problem.

    Just because it’s fibre/FTTP doesn’t mean it will be a great service. Just look at the Fibrenest Trust Advisor reviews and make your own mind up.

    Even if the only available infrastructre is via Openreach, I still have choice of ISP – who are ultimately delivering my Internet service.

    And 4G/5G isn’t always an option. Latencies are higher than fixed line (so forget about online gaming), CGNAT breaks services, bandwidths vary considerably based on the time of day and it’s often got a data download cap.

    Me? I want the option to pay more than BT if I decide I want to consume something I consider to be a premium service (like AAISP for example).

    House builders should sell houses. Simples.

    This is just another example of the sharp living off the blunt.

    1. Avatar photo Buggerlugz says:

      Absolutely! £14 a month for 10Mbps even with FTTP isn’t exactly a generous offer to the very people who buy their homes.

    2. Avatar photo Ray Porter says:

      @Burgerlugs meanwhile the rest of us that are stuck in new builds with copper cabling are still stuck without FTTP for over 5 years. Complaining about having a single fttp provider is literally a first world problem, you are being given more privilege than anyone else and still being a Karen over it. Also £14 a month for 10mb is still much better than the £18 for 2 mb I had to pay when I moved into myself prior to FTTC even going up!

    3. Avatar photo Buggerlugz says:

      Ray, any of the 4g providers could better 10Mbps.

    4. Avatar photo Ivor says:

      Ray – aside from the absolutely cringeworthy use of a woman’s name to denote antisocial behaviour, £14 for 10 meg is pants – for not much more you could get better speeds over crusty old FTTC. While FTTP is nice, real world price/performance is what matters.

  12. Avatar photo I hate house builders says:

    Well I know who I’ll never buy a house from then. Deal breaker.

    1. Avatar photo Peter says:

      Not all their locations are stuck with their FTTP, quite a few have Openreach.

    2. Avatar photo Greg says:

      probably sites shared with other developers, they probably only can install their own FTTP on 100% persimmon sites

  13. Avatar photo Owen Collins says:

    In the early days of cable TV local authorities would withhold planning permission from developers who wouldn’t allow preinstalled ducts and free access
    They still have that power

  14. Avatar photo Ian Wigg says:

    Frankly I can’t see how it’s different to where I live. The choice here is basically no broadband (ADSL over aluminium and 9km from exchange so under 0.5mbs) or BT/EE FTTP. Yes I know that any provider who uses the openreach network supposedly can offer FTTP if available BUT oddly only BT and EE show availability. Plusnet (owned by BT) says not available only ADSL (oddly not available as openreach removed the aluminium when they installed Fibre,) as does every other ISP.

    1. Avatar photo Ivor says:

      It is likely to be either a database issue, or other ISPs have not done whatever they need to do to serve the specific bits of OR infrastructure you’re on. If this is in a very rural area I can imagine this is not top priority for those ISPs to resolve.

      The paranoid will like to insist that it’s a BT stitch up, but that’s just nonsense. I suspect smaller ISPs who sell services over the BT Wholesale network (which would not include Sky, Vodafone or TalkTalk) would also be available to you.

      I’m aware of places where it took a considerable amount of time for even BT to become available (even though the FTTP equipment was present and Openreach’s own checker was insistent that they’re up and running)

      Regardless, not at all remotely comparable to being locked into Persimmon FTTP.

  15. Avatar photo Allan says:

    I have had my negative comments disputed and requested to be removed from trustpilot by fibrenest. They are getting better but they operate a ‘passive’ network (to me suggesting built on the cheap!) when things go wrong you get asked to do all sorts of diagnostics that sky let me do on an app or they could do remotely.

    1. Avatar photo Ben says:

      In their defence, BT and CityFibre are also building “passive” (GPON) networks.

  16. Avatar photo Colin says:

    I have just purchased a Persimmon home and have to say – despite not having a choice of broadband provider – I am more that happy with the Fibrenest service.
    I had the advertised speed from day 1 and continue to do so.
    As for a previous comment about “you wouldn’t buy a property from Sky”… I believe that if Sky DID sell properties, people would indeed buy them, and no doubt you would be locked in to Sky products.

    1. Avatar photo RN says:

      Being locked in to a provider permanently is ‘maybe’ OK for some, IF it all works perfectly as described at all times. I feel this is extremely unhealthy if the service doesn’t work or changes in quality or price. And it will.

      You mention your SKY house, nice idea, but Sky have a nasty habit of advertising their dish service at £23 a month “who couldn’t possibly afford this” guilt trip mentality but whoever accepts the offer, actually ends up paying £60-90 a month in reality. This is where the abuse and unhealthiness starts creeping in.

      Sky is just another Ryanair type company. Surprised they don’t add 50p on your bill each time you fast forward the adverts. Who want’s to PAY extra for premium channels which are stuffed to the gunnels with adverts? Only irrational people would do that.

  17. Avatar photo Steven says:

    Glad that my Bloor Property was pre wired with access to both Openreach FTTP and Virgin Media!

  18. Avatar photo Mr Kevin D Boyle says:

    Im struggling to see the difference in the Fibre Next offering and the alternative provided by BT or any of the other ISP service’s provided to new home’s it’s either a monopoly for BT or the serving ISP because they invest in putting the infrastructure in to supply services. What’s the point of this article ?

    1. Avatar photo Chris Sayers says:

      You have not done your research, I am not going to compile a list, but the Biggie for me is fixed public IP.

      What’s quite attractive with OR network, your able to chop and change.

      The issue I have with this type of scheme people are purchasing properties that are not being told the whole truth and nothing but the truth, being locked into a developers network, with no means of choice.

      What happens if Diddly Squat developer goes bust (unlikely), who takes over, where does that leave wayleave permission.

    2. Avatar photo Ivor says:

      Because Openreach are first and foremost a network operator – their entire business is building telecommunications networks. As the most dominant company, they have virtually every ISP using their network. Persimmon / their subsidiary are not and do not.

      So while OR exclusivity is also a physical network monopoly (and due to size/legacy, subject to Ofcom regulations), unlike the Persimmon ISP it is not going to pose an issue for end customers. They can have any internet provider they want.

      It is not a “monopoly for BT” however. BT (the ISP) are one of many choices available on the Openreach network.

    3. Avatar photo Oggy says:


      If you’re struggling to see the difference then you have no idea how the broadband industry in the UK works.

      I implore you to read up so you don’t make yourself look foolish again.

  19. Avatar photo Rahul says:

    This monopoly is somewhat inevitable, at least not until the foreseeable future. Look, most of us, such as myself have been nagging our Property Developer for the last 6-7 years just to get a wayleave agreement with one Altnet provider (forget about overbuild)!

    It finally happened in my case with EastendHomes and CommunityFibre. Now let’s face it, be it intentional or not, this monopoly is now bound to happen. Because now all the properties will be served by CommunityFibre, which will be the only FTTP provider for now.

    The latest announcement from Openreach for FTTP for my location here in London Bishopsgate Exchange is April 2025. This means that of-course in this case Altnet will be a monopoly for 4 years to come. This isn’t supposed to be surprising at all.

    Why is it any different for Persimmon Homes? Ok, sure they are newly built homes, but it isn’t much different from the old builds that will be tied to one provider only.

    They are just like many other property developers who barely granted wayleave to one FTTP provider. Now to expect a second wayleave agreement for another FTTP provider is a bit of a tall order, (not impossible), but I’m not expecting for it to happen immediately!

    1. Avatar photo CarlT says:

      It’s different because these aren’t MDUs most of the time.

      Once the local authority adopts the highway no wayleave required apart from crossing private land and that private land is held by the freeholders whose homes are being covered, not a property management company.

      Other than that, sure, new build housing estates compromising largely SDUs are entirely comparable to Housing Association managed apartments.

    2. Avatar photo Rahul says:

      If wayleave is indeed not an obstacle for them, then there isn’t any excuse why FibreNest must be their only FTTP provider, particularly if they don’t even have FTTC as it is a newly built home.

      At least in most old builds we have Openreach FTTC as well as one choice of Altnet. If we aren’t happy with our Altnet FTTP provider, at least we have a choice to downgrade back to FTTC.

      If Persimmon Homes are stuck with only FibreNest and no Openreach FTTP or alternative FTTP (since it is newly built) indeed that is totally unacceptable!

      Newly built homes regardless of SDU or MDU must not be stuck to only one Altnet provider. They should have at least a choice of 2 overbuilds.

      Of-course for old builds the argument case would be different as we have FTTC so if I’m not happy with an Altnet provider at least I won’t feel hopeless.

    3. Avatar photo CarlT says:

      You didn’t really read and understand the second paragraph in the post of mine you were replying to, did you?

      Operators will pay for exclusivity. I mentioned local authority adoption as until that is done the exclusivity can be held.

      As soon as roads are public highway and footway operators can dig in them. Until then the developer can refuse requests or make conditions really onerous.

      Roads need to be approved for adoption, in a condition appropriate or money provided to pay for fixing, then spend a year provisionally adopted before becoming public.

      In the case of Openreach-exclusive estates the competition can even use PIA to avoid digging through private land.

      I’m in an Openreach FTTP-only area, which presents an interesting one: others may attempt to use PIA. Might well be enough space in ducts and chambers for a second set of fibre kit, no excavation = no wayleave = no exclusivity for Openreach.

      Once these estates are adopted others may move in. They also may not. Given block paving is seen a ton in new development now and is a nightmare to retrofit under loads of that plus ducts you aren’t sharing may tie things up longer due to costs.

      Down tarmac a team can dig and pass a small side steet in a couple of days. Flags will put a day or two on top. Block paving will put another 2-3 days on top of the flags time.

      In our estate a single street of 30-ish properties took a full month to build to. It was 4/5ths block paving, 1/5th tarmac. All the tarmac took a day. The block paving a month.

      Either way it’s in no way comparable to what may be faced in social housing run by a HA.

    4. Avatar photo CarlT says:

      ‘Either way it’s in no way comparable to what may be faced in social housing run by a HA.’

      This refers to MDUs.

      There are plenty of new builds with a single option. Be it VMO2, Openreach, these guys. Ideally be at least two networks serving every new build but I guess getting it to FTTP every time is a good start.

    5. Avatar photo Rahul says:

      @CarlT: Ok now that makes perfect sense. Yes, I’m aware that operators will pay for exclusivity when it comes to new builds, so this resolves the wayleave disputes.

      I’ve just had a look at some of the properties by Persimmon Homes out of curiosity. Indeed many of their new builds do have Openreach FTTP as an option. But some of them don’t and have only Superfast FTTC as their option along with FibreNest.

      Openreach FTTP only is perfectly acceptable as it shares the network across a wide range of ISPs.

      But what is not ok is if you have a single Altnet only FTTP like FibreNest that doesn’t share its network to other ISPs. That is the point I was making and it reflect the article, which indeed mentions that some of their properties have only FibreNest as an option rather than a second overbuild. This is bad for customers as they will be stuck with no other choice, particularly if they don’t have VDSL2.

      Indeed, social housing, particularly old MDUs are more problematic like in my case when it comes to wayleave disputes. I will have only CommunityFibre soon to begin with, but at least I also have FTTC.

      I’ve seen newly built private MDU buildings from a few years like in the case of millionaire travel tycoon who sued his property developer over lack of Full Fibre in Heron Tower, Barbican. That was much more scandalous and till this day, they only have Hyperoptic as their only option, no VDSL2!

      What should we say about their situation? It’s much worse!

  20. Avatar photo Mike says:

    Trustpilot reviews look pretty good, the 1 stars being mostly people who are tech illiterate.

    1. Avatar photo John says:

      I’m tech literate

      I’ve been using the service for a few weeks and it’s stopped working three times. Each time I call, when I can reach their tech support line (because they redirect a holding caller to the main IVR after 15 minutes) their “techs” on the phone have no idea what is going on. The only help they’ve ever been for me is relaying a rough idea of how many other customers are experiencing faults at that given time.

      These guys are cow boys.

  21. Avatar photo ryan says:

    Why anyone would even consider buying a Persimmon new build is beyond me, there have been nothing but problems reported in the press. Now they are trying to make even more money out of people through the back door seals the deal for me.

  22. Avatar photo Mike Payne says:

    My Persimmon home predates this, but all that means is that I’m locked into Virgin. With no Openreach lines on the entire estate, Virgin have a complete monopoly.

    Openreach have previously told me it would cost over £100,000 to bring a line to my home so I have a single broadband provider with absolutely no alternative until 5g or Satellite broadband arrives

    1. Avatar photo Tim says:

      Satellite broadband has arrived 🙂

  23. Avatar photo Jason says:

    I was going to buy a Persimmon Home. But even though it’s freehold you still need to pay £200 for site maintenance. (For Grass cutting etc…) But I see this as a way to slip in higher anuual maintenance in the future. They’re probably planning the same for the broadband too. Keep it reasonable now, increase it later when they need to boost profit once the Help to Buy Schemes ends.

    It’d be harder to sell in the future!

    Complete deal breaker for me.

    1. Avatar photo Adam says:

      That seems to be one of the new tricks, this also often means that the roads etc are not adopted by the council. The site remains a private estate with the site maintenance paying for upkeep of roads as well as grass etc.

      Some mortgage companies don’t like it and when it comes to broadband if they roads are not adopted then others can’t build to the homes without getting wayleave from site owners and as they run their own network that could be tricky.

  24. Avatar photo CerealKiller says:

    Liking Fibrenest to only being supplied by Openreach isn’t correct.

    Fibrenest are the infrastructure provider (the fibre in the ground) and the ISP service (controlling the backhaul, contention, IP addresses, transit/peering bandwidth, traffic policing etc).

    Openreach are the infrastructure provider. I then choose which ISP I want to run across that service.

    If I want cheap, I can buy from Sky or Talktalk.
    If I want a static IP, I’ll go to Zen.
    If I want a bespoke service I buy from AAISP.

    I can change ISP if my needs change or the service I go with performs badly. That appears not to be true of Fibrenest.

    When you read blog posts that say “My normal ISP only offers a connection using CGNAT (for v4), and for various reasons I can’t change away from them, so I’ve bought an L2TP tunnel service from another ISP” it’s clearly not a reasonable position. It sounds to me like a monopoly.

    It does start an interesting debate…..what’s more important….having FTTP and only access to one ISP, or having FTTC and access to many. 🙂

    1. Avatar photo Jason says:

      I have access tovirgin media, but keeping with Vodafone FTTC for 2 reasons
      No static IP (I use my own Vpn to connect when I’m abroad)
      Plus I don’t like that they increase the price, for example, £30 for first 12months then it goes to £45 after and no good deals for existing customers,

  25. Avatar photo James says:

    The Fibrenest operation is outsourced to a consultancy, Horsebridge Networks. Despite their best efforts, the Fibrenest service is pretty bad.

  26. Avatar photo Laura Jennings says:

    Persimmon is full of rubbish, we are on the MEadow View site in Redditch and phase 2/3 have been advised by openreach/bt that they are NOT permitted to install their services onsite – they cannot get access and we have to pay £40pm for a decent speed and then pay more money on top for TV packages. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER OPTIONS.

Comments are closed

Cheap BIG ISPs for 100Mbps+
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £26.00
Gift: None
Shell Energy UK ISP Logo
Shell Energy £26.99
Gift: None
Plusnet UK ISP Logo
Plusnet £27.99
Gift: None
Zen Internet UK ISP Logo
Zen Internet £28.00 - 35.00
Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest ISPs for 100Mbps+
Gigaclear UK ISP Logo
Gigaclear £17.00
Gift: None
YouFibre UK ISP Logo
YouFibre £19.99
Gift: None
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
Gift: None
BeFibre UK ISP Logo
BeFibre £21.00
Gift: £25 Love2Shop Card
Hey! Broadband UK ISP Logo
Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
The Top 15 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (5514)
  2. BT (3514)
  3. Politics (2536)
  4. Openreach (2297)
  5. Business (2262)
  6. Building Digital UK (2244)
  7. FTTC (2043)
  8. Mobile Broadband (1972)
  9. Statistics (1788)
  10. 4G (1663)
  11. Virgin Media (1619)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (1460)
  13. Fibre Optic (1395)
  14. Wireless Internet (1389)
  15. FTTH (1381)

Helpful ISP Guides and Tips


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