Study Claims Altnet Broadband ISPs Deliver More Speed for 28 Percent Less Money
New research from Broadband Genie, which surveyed 3,996 UK broadband customers, claims to have found that consumers who adopt packages from ISPs that harness alternative networks (i.e. not Openreach or Virgin Media based) could be getting twice the internet speed for almost a third (28%) off the price.
The survey asked participants about their current broadband provider, average monthly cost, and average download speed. The data was then segmented to compare customers using alternative network providers (altnets) with those using nationwide providers.
The results are said to indicate that altnet customers enjoy average download speeds of 440Mbps at just £28 per month, which compares with 227Mbps at £39 per month from the major nationwide providers. But we think one caveat here is that some of the biggest ISPs also work with alternative networks, which is not something that is always obvious to the end-user. The availability of such networks will also vary from location to location.
Advertisement
For example, Sky Broadband, Vodafone and TalkTalk also sell packages via CityFibre’s growing full fibre network – often with different speeds and pricing, but only 4.5m premises have access to that. In addition, TalkTalk work with a number of other altnets on top of CityFibre, all of which could potentially pollute the results of such surveys. Equally, the survey only considered download speeds and cost, but not any other value-added features, upload speeds or service quality.
Nevertheless, altnets are well known to be adopting highly competitive pricing strategies in order to peel customers away from the incumbents, and many of their packages will often thus give you more speed for less money. In that sense, the survey results aren’t a surprise, even if the figures given might not be a truly accurate reflection.
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.
« Ofcom Fine UK Broadband ISP Gigaclear £122k Over Calling Info Failure
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 and display names can be almost anything you like (provided they do not contain offensive language or impersonate a real persons legal name). By clicking to submit a post you agree to storing your entries for comment content, display name, IP and email 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.
apart from OFNL sites…
I really wonder what will happen to OFNL in 5–10 years, once all the new estates are completed and other operators start offering 1 Gbps packages at half the price.
Why survey end users when this was obvious from simply looking at pricing data on the providers website?
I was paying £54 per month and now £34 for the same download speed (and faster upload).
As usual Study/Survey with agenda.
The pricing in the market currently is skewed and not all the low Altnet prices are available to all. In addition there is a long way to go for FTTP coverage let alone the availability of FTTP competition. In addition people are keen to get on any FTTP but the consumer market has not matured enough to really compare the overall FTTP service rather than headline speed.
The headline speeds of some Altnets are not always met and getting CS to respond can come with the threat of callout costs. (e.g personal experience of Hey! 900 is about 750 on wired connection)
If I was to take a benchmark I would use A&A and Zen. Their pricing is more realistic as to the true cost of service without the volume enjoyed by OR/VM.
A simple comparison of Speed vs Price does not include inclusive products or addition discounts (such as mobile).
The majority of UK consumers require entry level products so that is where comparisons should be.
@Meadmodj says “The headline speeds of some Altnets are not always met”.
That’s the case of any provider OR an address that has a supply chain fault to it.
I can assure you from family and friends that Netomnia, an ALTNET, OVER DELIVER on what you sign up for i.e. they over profile the speed to what you sign up for and deliver over the upload and download speed so just adding for contrast to your statement, even though you did say “not always” and “some Altnets”. Again for clarity, I am speaking of specific addresses in specific areas and as with any provider could potentially vary along with quality of end customer’s own kit and mis-configuration of it or client connected devices.
What on earth are you wibbling about? What is a “supply chain fault”? It’s broadband, not Tesco home delivery.
No misconfiguration of a LAN device will lower the line speed of the WAN connection.
@FANNY ADAMS:
Do you not pay for your own broadband connection? Why do you have to reference family and friends?
@Far2329Light,
What has it to do with you who pays my broadband bill?
I talk about friends and family because I have managed to transition them to a service they are delighted with, and that service is Netomnia and CityFibre based ISP. I know you will be squirming in your seat that they are not with your beloved BT. They are in the fast lane now and left snail broadband behind and more money in their account each month.
@84.08khz,
Ok, its like this, if you have the wrong MTU set on a router or client device, you can get IP fragmentation – along with a number of other TCP/IP related settings that could potentially be incorrect. That’s just ONE example out of many possible mis-configuration that could affect somebody’s speed.
Here is another for you; if the user has 1gb LAN ports and expecting 2.5gbps from their internet – they won’t get it, or they have 1gbps and expect 1gbps not 940mbps because of TCP/IP overheads.
Now, do you see where I am heading with this in conjunction to the disclaimer statement I made in my original post. CONTEXT is everything.
Supply chain means anything from customer premise to ISP and internet gateway, because that’s what it is. Might be a noise ingress issue, capacity issue in distribution causing congestion, loads of things.
@FANNY ADAMS: You are making claims about others, but it would seem you do not have a contract in your own name.
Zen already state that Alnet wholesale is about 20% below OR and they reflect that in their prices.
All well and good if you happen to be lucky enough to have an Altnet available in your area. Sometimes only building a few streets, and leaving many out. The pricing structure of these firms will probably increase through time, the one’s that survive anyway!
Breaking News: Company with financial interest in people switching broadband providers think people should switch broadband providers.
Great if you have a decent Altnet pass your house, unfortunately not all Altnets are created equal. I am passed by All Points Fibre who are apparently so rubbish that Cuckoo, their own ISP prefers to provison on Openreach.
Of course price isn’t the only thing to be concerned about. A lot of these altnets are struggling and won’t be around in a few years, and the recent fine by OFCOM of £122,500 due to Gigaclear’s inexcusable failure to ensure that emergency organisations are provided with accurate information about a caller’s location might make you pause when thinking of using some of these altnets.
That affected Digital Voice not broadband. It was ONE operator who rightly got fined.
So what you are cautioning is Altnets, and that the incumbent providers BT and VM get everything right?
You know, only in the past week, I read stories on here of EE outages, BT mis-sold contracts and a fine, and issues in a Welsh location not having broadband because of BT pole issue. I mean I haven’t even searched back any further, sure there are plenty of other stories covered on here…. Basically, no operator is immune from operational mistakes or outages. Period.
Does the study also show that Alt nets are not regulated in the same way as the big network providers
There is an organisation called Ofcom that regulates the UK’s communications industries, including broadcasting, telecommunications, and postal services. It ensures these sectors operate fairly and competitively in the interests of consumers and citizens (ok debateable that bit). Specifically, Ofcom oversees TV and radio broadcasting, fixed line and mobile telecoms, postal services, and the management of the radio spectrum.
Ofcom regulates altnets to ensure fair competition, promote investment in high-speed broadband, and protect consumers. This includes setting rules for things like network access, service quality, and pricing.
There you go……………………………
Ofcom don’t regulate equally and for good reason. This shouldn’t be news. Any network operator or CP who has significant market power, however that is defined per market and segment, is subject to additional scrutiny and rules to ensure fair play and avoid monopolies developing or market capture.
Specifically, smaller players have much more freedom around pricing and how they play with others and the deals they can make.
The original poster’s point is true and valid. Smaller operators are under a different regulatory regime to large ones. This is imoortant if regulation is to work properly.
I wouldn’t say “for good reason”. It looks amazing if you’re in an area that is to be blessed with an altnet but the rest of the country suffers for it.
I wasn’t benefiting from the restrictions and controls that were placed on BT Wholesale ADSL products, because my exchange was not cherry picked by the LLU operators.
I don’t benefit now from preferential treatment of altnets because I can’t get one, and even if I could chances are it’d offer an objectively lower grade of service to me (eg CGNAT). This is made worse given that some of my taxes are given to altnets to provide this to some premises, including in areas that were already part of the Openreach commercial build plans.
The UK is obsessed with “mandatory competition” even if it means tying someone’s hands behind their backs to get it to happen – and it’s telling that even with BT being sufficiently neutered, none of these firms are particularly financially successful and think it’ll all come good after offering loss-leading pricing to gain market share.
As I keep saying, the altnet obsessives should be careful what they wish for. The time will come when the BT Group finally demands that the shackles are taken off and *actual* competition can begin, and moves like Sky/CF go a very long way to justifying it.
Does the study check whether there are any data caps on the service? Headline speed is one thing, but a lower speed and unlimited is better.
I think they are right – BT 1.6Gbps £65-£73
Altnets 2Gbps- £40-£55
For “altnets” read “some but not all altnets”. Other altnets are markedly more expensive, eg Wildanet 2G down 400M up (not symmetric) – £85. And that’s with a handsome taxpayer funded donation as well, including places that have Openreach FTTP.
Whilst BT Ivor is correct, I’d like to point out to the days of FTTC and after where BT/Openreach got handsome tax payer funding via BDUK and still do for FTTP. I know of several places definitely NOT rural, and interestingly, what was BDUK under FTTC is no longer for FTTP. Tax payer funded with no discounts for the tax payer on their bills over other areas not tax payer funded….
Where these offerings are available, members of the public looking for new residential contracts will go for the cheapest option that meets their requirements.
Make the most of it while you can. These debt-subsidised prices cannot last indefinitely.
All but two of the network providers have a problem; they need to pass their break-even point to achieve profitability in order for the business to become sustainable. Many are a long way from achieving this. Further, many have a low take-up rate, which means they might take about a decade to achieve profitability and then sustain that as the market continues to consolidate, all while still being largely dependent on continued largess from their backers.
Yes, and you seem to reap enjoyment over prices reverting to incumbent dinosaurs charging us a fortune with over inflation price increases every year, whilst wages barely meet anywhere near inflation.
So from what you are saying, to me, it feels like Ofcom should keep the restraint on the majority provider, your beloved BT, that got tax payer resources deadly cheap back in the day for what they paid to keep it fair….
@FANNY ADAMS:
The numbers speak for themselves. What positive contribution do you make?