Survey Warns Some UK ISPs Continue to Mislead by Advertising Copper Broadband as Fibre
A new YouGov survey conducted by network operator AllPoints Fibre, which is the UK wholesale division of Fern Trading’s recently consolidate alternative FTTP broadband ISP networks (Giganet, Jurassic Fibre, and Swish Fibre), claims to have found that the “vast majority of people” (72%) think it’s “misleading” to advertise part-copper broadband (e.g. FTTC) as ‘fibre’.
In the past it was common for ISPs to use “fibre” terminology to describe a wide range of internet connection technologies, including hybrid or part-fibre solutions that could involve either some copper wiring (e.g. FTTC) or even wireless connectivity over the final drop into homes. Such technologies can be significantly slower and less reliable than modern full fibre (FTTP) services, which take an optical fibre cable all the way to your home.
However, after many years of campaigning, Ofcom recently introduced new rules (here) that will only allow broadband ISPs to use terms like “fibre” and “full-fibre” on their websites, and in contracts, if their network brings the fibre optic cables all the way to your home (i.e. FTTP, FTTH and there’s also an allowance for FTTB). But the regulator’s change did not extend to advertising, which is an issue that we’ve already covered in detail (here).
Advertisement
The latest online survey from APFN and YouGov, which interviewed 2,000 UK adults during early November 2024, keys into the above issue by finding a “high level of consumer understanding” (70%) that full-fibre connections are generally faster and more reliable than part-copper connections. However, 77% of those questioned were unaware that it is currently legal to advertise part-copper broadband as ‘fibre’, while 72% agreed it is misleading for companies to do this.
In response, APFN has written a new Open Letter to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which calls on them to “take immediate action” over this issue, while at the same time highlighting how other countries in Europe have already addressed similar concerns (e.g. France, Ireland and Italy took action many years ago).
Copy of APFN’s Open Letter to the ASA
Dear Mr Parker [ASA CEO],
I am writing concerning the Advertising Standards Authority’s stance on the advertising of ‘fibre’ broadband.
You will be aware, following an ASA ruling in November 2017, that it remains permissible to advertise broadband connections that are part-copper (also called Fibre to the Cabinet or FTTC) as ‘fibre’. No doubt you will also be aware that full-fibre connections (so called Fibre to the Premises or FTTP) are faster and more reliable, and as such provide a better experience to the end consumer.
This matter has been a major source of concern to the broadband industry for some years, which has been investing billions of private sector capital into this new infrastructure. Ofcom recently updated its guidance in this area, mandating that broadband companies give customers clarity on this question on their websites and in their contractual information before they sign up to receive a service. The research underpinning their decision found that only 46% of customers who reported being on full fibre were living in areas where it is available and not all of them would have been on a full-fibre connection.
Today I am writing this open letter to you to share the results of new research that AllPoints Fibre has conducted online with our polling partner YouGov. The research found the following:
• 70% of British adults are aware that broadband using only fibre optic cables is generally faster and more reliable than broadband delivered partly or wholly on copper cables
• 77% of Brits are not aware that it is currently legal to advertise broadband connections that are part copper as ‘fibre’
• 72% of Brits agree that it is misleading that companies can advertise part-copper broadband as ‘fibre’
• Armed with the knowledge that fully fibre-optic connections are faster and more reliable, 68% of Brits are likely to buy these connections in the future.
As you can see, the vast majority of those questioned believe that the advertising practice your organisation is allowing is misleading. The ASA’s decision from November 2017, when full fibre broadband was available to less than a million premises (or around 3% of the UK), needs to be revisited urgently. Full fibre is now available to over 23 million premises (or over 70% of UK premises). Our research finds that the buying behaviour of customers changes once they understand the difference between part-copper and full fibre broadband, directly contradicting the research that underpinned the ASA’s decision in November 2017.
You will no doubt be aware that there are examples of other regulators from across Europe taking much more prompt action to tackle this practice. France issued new rules in 2016 limiting references to fibre in advertising to full fibre only. In 2019, the Irish ASA issued guidance banning the use of the word ‘fibre’ on its own to describe part-fibre networks. Italy requires broadband companies to follow a traffic light system when advertising broadband. Each advert must carry a prominent green dot for fibre, an amber one for part-copper, and a red one for copper.
The rollout of full fibre and the underpinning evidence has moved on so significantly since 2017 that I am now writing to ask that the Advertising Standards Authority updates its stance in this area. Billions of pounds have been invested in this critical area of the UK economy, only for consumers to be widely mislead about the technology that they are buying. This is negatively affecting the take-up of a technology that will underpin the UK’s future economic growth and power the UK’s public services. I am sure you will agree that, in other industry sectors, this situation would be seen as intolerable.
In a public statement in September 2024, your organisation said that it was keeping a ‘watching brief’ on this issue. Given that fully seven years have now passed since your original decision, we believe the time for consideration is now over. We urge you to take action on this vital issue.
Yours sincerely,
Jarlath Finnegan [APFN Group Chief Executive]
A spokesperson for the ASA previously told ISPreview that Ofcom’s review “never tested for ‘misleadingness’” and reiterated that they were “keeping a watching brief on if/how the guidance impacts on advertising claims,” although as yet there have been no changes in their approach.
Back in 2018 the ASA claimed, based on its own consumer surveys, that “fibre” wasn’t a priority identified by consumers when choosing a package; that consumers did not notice “fibre” claims in ads and that they saw it as a shorthand buzzword to describe modern fast broadband. Respondents told the ASA that they did not believe they would change their previous decisions, even after the differences between those and broadband services that use fibre optic cables all the way to the home were explained to them. But APFN’s survey appears to contradict this.
Advertisement
The reality today is that copper-based broadband connections are rapidly on their way out, with many ISPs now prioritising FTTP based packages in their promotions. Suffice to say that the best time to update the advertising guidance has long since passed and any positive impact today may be much more limited. But perhaps the old phrase, better late than never, may still have some play.
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, BlueSky, Threads.net and Linkedin.
« Pembrokeshire Celebrate Passing 60 Percent Gigabit Broadband Cover
Advertisement
Leave a Reply
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.
Latest UK ISP News
- FTTP (6035)
- BT (3643)
- Politics (2722)
- Business (2442)
- Openreach (2407)
- Building Digital UK (2331)
- Mobile Broadband (2150)
- FTTC (2084)
- Statistics (1908)
- 4G (1822)
- Virgin Media (1769)
- Ofcom Regulation (1586)
- Fibre Optic (1470)
- Wireless Internet (1463)
- 5G (1411)
I’ve definitely seen quite a lot of operators still name FTTC (half fibre half copper) broadband as full fibre or just fibre. So I could definitely attest to the findings of the survey.
TBH I think most customers couldn’t give a monkeys as to which technology brings the internet into their homes, the only thing that really matters is the speed that they can reliably receive and the price they are paying regardless of the technology involved.
They may be interested in the extra reliability and would likely take an interest when they either order full fibre or their provider tries to move them. The fewer people surprised when told they don’t actually have fibre and need their wall drilled for the fibre cable the better.
@Witcher
Reliability possible and partly due to lack of maintenance of copper, also as fibre generally costs the public more why would not improved service be expected for additional costs (and the unmentioned additional energy costs being shited from pstn to consumers..?
And should we ever hav power outages like we used to in decades past, the ‘reliability/fit for purpose compared to allways on copper may well be questioned by anyone with more than short term memory
As for drilling holes why just not replace the existing copper ‘holes’ apart from teh need for consumer provided power.
There is no public programm really explaining the pros AND the cons/drawbacks, only some shallw pros to encourage spending. Just try explaining the ‘improvements’ from the perspective of the older generations, and remember all the young folk who think the old are luddites, in a decade or two those non ludites will become the old / ludites of the future.
If fiber was to be a non detrimental improvement it’d do its own poe just like copper to maintain service given power outage, and as its so much more reliable then shouldn’t it be cheaper…
I’m sure the change leadership have full open reporting measures for when there are any problems when people can’t call for emergency purposes like copper provided, lord forgive should (when?) someone dies because of fibre related call difficulties – simply organisational manslaughter, smallprint is no moral excuse or defence. But very few will care till its part of their familly.
If it is such a wondeful replacement it would not need a additional ‘mobile’ backup (for where mobile is actually in coverage) with all the ‘use it or loose it’ or adittional costs, needs, to be keept charged etc.
The tech improvements are worthwhile, would be better if nationally consistent, but the dependancy, additional requirements are failures of the fragnet of a national service/utility are rather poorly comunicated. imho.
And how many users really need gigabit speeds (before we get into geographic capability discriminations), rather than just a my numbers are better than yours / the jones’s ‘snobbery’?
Latency should also be a service measure as should the actual min-max speed distribution rather than just peddling the max / big numbers as apposed to the small print of smaller numbers / reality, if anyone really cared about the services being sold/bought. Back to the ASA, just like MPG / EV vehichle real world range rather than misleading headline numbers..
Ignorange is bliss, until it is removed.
Id also say that all the roll out ‘presence’ numbers game spin should be tempered by the actual take up, who realy cares if supplier x has consumed so much (tax payers and others) ‘investment’ in cabling a million properties (never had such issues with the other utilities, gas, elec, water, sewerage do we). If the take up has only been 100K, until the ‘providers’ start going bust, ending up with just he big providers, rather like what has happeed with ‘competative’ energy market.
😉
The ASA has been a failure for years on this subject, they simply don’t seem to understand what fibre broadband is. That’s why companies like BT get away with false advertising and product descriptions. Just one example here: https://www.bt.com/broadband/fibre where it calls FTTC (copper cables to connect your home) “fibre broadband”.
They accurately describe FTTC in that link. For most customers there is considerably less copper than DSL.
They do understand what it is, they’ve just taken the bizarre view that because (they think) consumers don’t understand it, any ‘fibre’ claim is meaningless.
This tactic of calling FttC services fibre is not allowed in many countries and should never have been allowed in the UK. Time will only tell if this will become a case of mis-selling and have all the major ISPs who named FttC products ‘fibre’ mis-led consumers. As many people know, I personally believe that full fibre is an enabler for economic growth and allowing this confusion to continue has held back more efficient working practises and also the development of new technologies in the UK. This open letter is backed up by a lot of data that clearly shows that action still needs to taken.
The thing is I don’t think the general public realize how utterly bad FTTC is. I could never go back. If I moved house to an area without FTTP I would buy a 5G/4G router for my internet and not bother with FTTC at all. Pretending FTTC is Fibre is like someone selling VHS tapes and pretending they are Blu-Rays.
Well it is part fibre, and the route is more fibre than the last mile, so the ratio goes to fibre rather than Cu for the whole line? I fail to see why anyone not have fibre replacing existing copper wires to the house should feel duped by having fibre in teh description, as oppsed to full (i.e. no Cu).
Sad the there’s such an addiction to ‘tinternet – It would be interestign know how much of date across the web is actually useful, knowledge sharing, and to an extent trade, as opposed to wastefull ‘social media’ consumerisimg, fake ‘info’, social engineering / manipulation etc.
As to how bad, it will be interesting to see how much better fibre will be for me next month, but I’m hardly expecting a revolution, appart from the cost / privacy increase / decrease. Oh, ps, it’s hadly going to increase the freshness of products in the supermarkets :-}
I was sold a fibre package by Sky and was assured at the point of sale that I would be a fibre connection. They used very clever wording though as I later found out it was fibre to the Cab and then copper down my road and to my property…
Sky then kept trying to sell me a full fibre package but when I inquired I was told that they couldn’t offer full fibre in my area! But I would see improved speeds! When I questioned why they kept sending me emails and calling me to try and sell it, they couldn’t even give me an answer! So they were basically happy to sell me a more expensive package without being able to deliver it!
One of my neighbors stupidly signed up to it and was paying for it (!?) even though he was still on the same connection with only slightly better speeds than before (10mbps). I got them to cancel it and have sky drop them back down to their original package as 10mbps is not worth and extra £25 a month!
Fortunately an Altnet came down our road and I’ve gone from 40mbps down / 10mbps up on a good day to 900mbps down / 800mbps up CONSISTENTLY for half the price!
It’s one of my pet peeves.
Anyone with even a passing understanding knows that advertising VDSL, or copper broadband with a fibre backbone as “fibre” is misleading, nonsense, and an outright scam.
However, as per the article, they get away with it because the average Joe, for lack of a better description, also thinks that “WiFi” = internet.
Ignorance is rife, and gullibility is preyed upon.