Chair of ISPA Steve Leighton on Solving the UK’s Full Fibre Take-up Problem
The Strategic Advisor for fibre supplier Altnets and Chair of the UK Internet Service Provider’s Association (ISPA), Steve Leighton, has made a number of recommendations on how he believes the broadband sector can address one of its “most pressing challenges” – low adoption of full-fibre services despite expanding network coverage.
At present around 88% of UK premises can already access a gigabit-capable broadband network or 78% when only looking at Fibre-to-the-Premises (FTTP) technology (here). Ofcom separately forecasts that gigabit coverage could rise to somewhere between 91% and 97% of homes by January 2028 (here).
Network coverage is thus one of the most common and familiar measures when assessing progress, but in a market under so much economic strain (e.g. rising build costs and high interest rates) – and filled with so many competitive network operators (i.e. overbuild this means splitting customers between several competing networks) – it’s also very important to understand the impact of customer take-up.
Advertisement
The challenge was recently underlined by a new report from Enders Analysis (here), which reported that the average FTTP network penetration rate across the industry now stood at about 15% (up slightly from 12% in 2023). Some providers are doing much better on this front than others, but take-up is clearly still a weak area for many providers.
Steve’s view is that some of the core problem areas stem from the issues of public understanding and perception. Part of this, says Steve, stems from a long history of confusing advertising (i.e. describing “part-fibre” services like FTTC as “fibre broadband“, which then makes it harder to sell true “full fibre” because consumers think they already have it). The other part is the issue of brand reputation.
Steve Leighton said:
“A reluctance to move to a provider customers don’t feel familiar with continues to limit take-up across multiple altnets. Adoption is being hindered by worries over service dependability as well as low exposure and mistrust of challenger businesses. Smaller operators need to demonstrate the reliability of their networks and the legitimacy of their brand in a market still dominated by long-standing incumbents.”
Steve goes on to state his view that the benefits of full fibre are also not being felt equally: “Exclusion still exists on a large scale and can be broken down into three categories: economic, where households are unable to pay for the connectivity they need; geographic, where availability is limited by remoteness and the accompanying lack of infrastructure; and educational, where there is a lack of knowledge about options or technology.”
The issue of consolidation also crops up, with Steve pointing out that this helps by delivering the “scale needed to boost operations and attract investment“, although he warns that its advantages may not become apparent “unless it enhances rather than detracts from the customer experience … Any decline in service quality during or after consolidation poses the danger of undercutting the sector’s hard-won momentum, slowing adoption, and damaging credibility.”
Advertisement
Finally, Steve makes a series of recommendations, which can be summed up as follows.
The Recommendations
1. Modify the industry’s marketing strategy to ensure communications are clear, accessible and centred on what full fibre legitimately offers rather than just what it is. “This entails emphasising the practical advantages, such as improved tools for businesses, stronger communities, faster connectivity, and a more competitive UK economy. On the other hand, using semi-technical terminology and headline speeds simply turns off customers“.
2. Introduce a strong national education campaign to “guarantee” that every community is aware of and able to utilise the advantages of next-generation connectivity.
3. Move beyond isolated local [skills training] programmes, replacing them with a strategy that “guarantees everyone has access to meaningful and continuous digital training“, regardless of circumstance. [Some] 10.2 million UK adults, roughly 20% of the population, are unable to complete all eight basic “Foundation” digital tasks, such as logging into a device, according to the House of Lords Communications & Digital Committee.
4. Economic exclusion is a significant obstacle, with 1.9 million households struggling to afford broadband. For individuals in need, social tariffs offer some help, but affordability goes beyond monthly expenses. “Without the technology needed to use it, having access to the internet is useless, and many families are still unable to engage in the digital world fully.”
While regional and siloed initiatives exist to address this, Steve suggests there is a “strong case for a coordinated national approach that ensures equitable access to both connectivity and the tools needed to make use of it“.
Steve makes plenty of fair and valid points above, although as always the challenge stems from converting such views into practical actions. At the same time, we’d disagree that using “headline speeds” turns off customers, since it’s one of the few practical ways in which the performance differences can be clearly and simply communicated to consumers.
We’d also add that today’s market is an incredibly confusing mix of multiple different networks, with different levels of coverage and ISPs that sell packages across those many different networks, often with different price points and features for each one. Consolidation thus isn’t just about the core business case, it will also hopefully bring some much-needed simplification to an already terribly confusing market. But that may take a few years.
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.
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 person's 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.
Simple answer is automatic conversion to full fibre that probable means low cost options that are the same prices as the current non fibre service . There would be a lot of cost savings with this approach
I don’t know how you force someone on copper with ISP A to start a new relationship with ISP B so that they can migrate to FTTP.
If they’re on copper (excluding VMO2 areas) it means they’re on Openreach & Openreach already have incentives for their ISPs to migrate their customers to full fibre which doesn’t help the altnets. The only time it could if an ISP like Zen had an Openreach copper customer & say CityFibre was available for them to migrate to. Mind in Zen’s case I would guess the fast majority of customers who can migrate to full fibre probably already have done so.
Just because headline speeds are one of the few practical ways that isps can differentiate the performance of their networks doesn’t mean it isn’t also true that customers find it a massive turn off. Many consumers have now realised that the quality of a broadband service is, in fact, dependent on a myriad of other factors of such complexity (to a casual observer) that they are effectively beyond their control, and often of the control of the service providers themselves. They have become rightly cynical of super/ultra/mega fast headline speeds now they’ve realised that all they care about is, “can I access the network quickly and easily, is it reliable and is it affordable?”
The team in which I work relies heavily on a reliable and fast network connection at home to carry out our day to day duties (including a decent upstream bandwidth) and we are generally more tech savvy than the average consumer, and yet, probably only about 10-15% of us actually have a decent understanding of the complex nature and detail of fibre broadband, internet services and local networks. It is all so opaque that there is surely little hope that an average consumer will be willing to engage with the business of changing providers, trying out new technology or next generation connectivity.
Basically, most people do not want to pay more money in order to become guinea pigs. If what they have works well enough then they will stick with it.
FTTP take-up isn’t a problem for Openreach – their take-up figures are good and improving further. Only for the altnets.
And as for the economics: broadband is already one of the cheapest bills people have. If you want to improve people’s lives, concentrate on housing, energy and food costs.
What is notable is that he doesn’t mention the real elephant in the room that is Openreach. They have no problem in moving customers on to FTTP with older cohorts exceeding 50% take up. After 4 years our street is now at 67% Openreach take up.
The pricing itself might be part of the problem.
There’s a well-known concept in consumer psychology called the price–quality heuristic. When people don’t know how to judge quality, which is definitely the case with broadband infrastructure, they use price as a shortcut. If something looks too cheap, many consumers assume it must be lower quality, unreliable, or risky to switch to. Altnets often pitch aggressively low prices, but for a product as fundamental as connectivity, that can actually undermine trust.
This ties into signalling theory as well: price acts as a signal of confidence and capability. If a provider undercuts the market heavily, some consumers instinctively wonder what corners are being cut.
You can see the contrast with Openreach-based ISPs. They generally charge noticeably more than the altnets, yet they’re signing up FTTP customers at a much higher rate. Part of that is brand familiarity, of course, but another big factor is that higher pricing reassures people that the service is established, supported and reliable.
Altnets can have great technology, but if the price point unintentionally signals “budget = risky”, that could be working against them.
Prices need to rise to sensibly and sustainable levels.
Stella Artois – reassuringly expensive.
Confusion does indeed reign supreme. Around here, all the Openreach street cabinets still have their big “Fibre Broadband is Here!” stickers from circa 2015, meaning everyone thinks they already have it. Of course, that refers to FTTC, not FTTP, which in our area only arrived a couple of months ago. The educational challenge is huge.
Terminology is daft sometimes: even calling it “broadband” now makes zero sense on a technical level, since FTTP literally uses a single, precise wavelength of light in each direction. The exact opposite of broadband 🙂
The cable industry was already using the term fibre optic broadband in 1996.
FTTC brings fibre closer to most homes than HFC cable. It’s understandable that Openreach would want to promote their competing hybrid fibre/copper service as fibre optic broadband too.
It’s always going to be difficult to unwind terminology that has been established for so long. But I don’t believe it’s a fundamental problem anyway.
Most people care whether Netflix works, whether their Teams calls are stable, whether they need their drive digging up if they switch, etc. more than they care about the underlying technology that makes it happen. Beyond that, they care about price and brand. If FTTC or whatever they currently have is good enough for their day to day usage, there is no motivation to change especially if the alternative is more expensive (like the altnet in my area is).
It’s worth bearing in mind that Virgin Media peaked at around 35% take-up, and most people were aware of the brand and aware that it offered faster speeds. Some even thought it was full fibre.
If people want something better/faster/more reliable and possibly cheaper , they’ll be happy to move. If there is no perceivable reason then they will need persuading . The problem isn’t about a label it’s about making FTTP a more attractive proposition to those that already have a service that meets their needs
A shopping list that blames the customers for poor altnet performance.
Please make reality conform to our fantasy business plan.
Indeed, I thought the first rule of sales was “if you can’t sell, you’re the problem, not the potential customer”.
A quite horrendous analysis of the mess most altnets find themsleves in, largely of their own making.
Consumer confidence blown to pieces – what sort of message did Cuckoo send when they dumped their FTTC customers off onto another ISP with a rather poor rep? How much damage did that do to their future sales?
A mad dash for maximal premises passed at lowest cost-per-prem regardless of potential uptake, with no consideration of short/medium-term adequacy of FTTC for most people.
This is a similar problem to the smart meter rollout.
Many people find that 30-70 down is “Good enough” for there needs and change always brings challenges, so why change unless forced/incentivised, especially if that change is slightly worse outcome (loss of analogue landline which is “always on” with no need for an in-home battery backup).
Just shouting “FTTP is higher speed” won’t cut it; the answer from many will be “so what, don’t care”!
Certainly any change needs to have the same monthly price. And ideally generous accommodation for varying the placement of the ONT replacing the master socket at no extra cost, maybe some zero or low cost assistance to rewire existing analogue phone wiring in the house or free/low cost handset replacement with DECT handsets.
Analogue phone lines are going either way, whether or not the customer continues to have broadband served over that copper. Openreach can’t force an FTTP installation but they can take services away.
LLU ISPs aren’t beholden to Openreach’s PSTN closure dates but they will have the same business case for wanting to get out of most of Openreach’s exchanges as OR themselves are. FTTC will do that for them if that’s all that is available. I presume there’ll be a small rental saving per line too as they won’t be needing the copper all the back to the exchange.
I won’t switch to the local altnet because my experience of their service is dire. After a failed install (no big deal, the installers were expecting to use a nearby pole but couldn’t and didn’t have a cable long enough to go to the next one. These things happen) there was no response to phone calls, voicemail or email. Even a guy knocking at the door failed to get back to me. If that’s their standard of customer service then I’ll pass. I’m also acutely aware that once they’ve drilled holes in my house I’m stuck with them and if I am ever able to switch that’s more holes/wires and kit. I’ll wait for BT and a choice of ISPs some of whom I am confident will provide good service. For now “good enough” will do.
Trouble is, when you have promoted FTTC as ‘superfast broadband’ for so long (I have Kevin Bacon on repeat in my head saying ‘Superfast Broadband on EE’)
Its very difficult to convince people that actually what they were originally sold is now considered a bit rubbish so now they should get this much nicer new thing that will definitely be much better, pinky promise.
Especially as for a lot of people, the promise didn’t really live up to the expectation with FTTC so are much more cautious this time around.
Perhaps if altnets/openreach started to push more in rural areas uptake might increase because myself and those in my village have been desperately waiting for FTTP for years due to our rubbish speeds on FTTC.
Never believed that argument held much water. If people are unhappy with the service they have (FTTC) then they will be quick to take up something demonstrably better (FTTP). I think many areas have hit a customer satisfaction hurdle where FTTC provides a good , reliable level of service they are happy with until something forces them to change, e.g. price.
I am sat in an MDU with two fibre network providers in the area who have both bypassed the property and will not offer fibre connections. That is part of the reason for the low average take-up and will be reflected in most urban areas across the country.
Average take up should only includes properties available for service , not properties missed
@The real Witcher:
“Should” is the keyword. There is inadequate clarity on how numbers are derived.
The piecemeal approach is so inefficient. Why couldn’t openreach take a street by street approach similar to the conversion to natural gas in the 70s. They would benefit from the economies of scale. True the altnets would not get a look in and competition would be limited. However the altnets are competing with an openreach service that has cost a lot more than was necessary and I doubt whether the consumer would benefited from cheaper service through competition.
The gas conversion didn’t involve overlaying a whole new gas network.
Why do you think they have not followed a systematic approach? There are multiple considerations to be taken into account for the deployment of new fibre.
If Steve has the solutions, why didn’t he implement them when he ran Voneus?
Because It’s All The Customers’ Fault
Some issues that concern me (preventing taking the jump just yet) that the Steve Leighton may want to add to the list of “what puts people off”
1) Loss of current copper landline during power/internet outages (but then wonder if I *really* need that old useless landline that only receives occasional calls anyway… not sure)
2) If my plastic duct from road to property is clear or blocked (I wish they’d just come out and rope and rod it before I order – has happened in some other areas where OR pre-emptively roped and rodded whole estates)
2b) and what would be done if it’s blocked (seen some alt net’s say that it’d be non-standard install and ‘potentially’ chargeable…?)
3) Concerns about how/where they’d bring the fibre in to the house as the route taken by the original copper cable when the house was built in 80s wouldn’t be possible now
4) Alt nets – being stuck with that one provider (lack of choice, other than changing to a new network and needing all new fibre/ont install)
5) Alt nets – concern of what happens if the alt net/isp goes bust (yes maybe an issue in general, but some of the more established names on Openreach FTTP seem less likely to – mainly due to not being billions in debt from their rollout)
6) Alt nets – unknown how their customer service is (and reading reviews that they really aren’t good – too much growth, too few customer service people, lack of money to have more staff to solve issues and lack of Openreach-style engineers for the network side of thing on the alt nets?)
7) Alt nets – in Gigaclear’s case, they don’t appear to make their price rises clear (‘may go up during contract’ type of text on the package selection) nor the out-of-contract pricing, and I don’t like how they appear to have various other “prices” for things like lost/damaged routers and the like – just be clear up front, it feels a bit ‘scammy’ (and therefore off putting)
8) Alt nets – stories of days/weeks of cabinet issues (such as power failures) taking a local cabinet out, where as OR doesn’t appear to suffer in the same way
‘2, 2b, 3’ could probably all be solved by a pre-install visit to discuss and do some pre-install work, but I’d ideally like that before ordering, rather than ordering and then being “hostage” to delays or additional costs or just a bodged install on the day…
Your point (8) can equally be levelled at OR. Horror stories abound.
I have a solid 80/20 and static IP with a £35 no price rise ever contract on Zen. Why would I change when that speed is good enough and I have the price certainty ?
Have you got a brother? 🙂
Exactly. The vast majority of FTTC customers have no reason to migrate voluntarily to FTTP yet. The time is coming (AI says it needs bandwidth, apparently) but not in the timescale that the altnets’ finances need.
The altnet’s “land grab” strategy absolutely failed to recognise that. If they’d hit the full-copper ( 🙂 ) prems first, they’d have seen 80% takeup easily, obviously for a higher cost-per-prem-passed – but the investors’ focus was on that metric, not the former one, in the build phase. Even worse, keeping that metric down (and the build rate up), direct-in-ground areas were skipped too, leaving real patchworks of availability in “market towns” – reducing the RoI on marketing spend. And damaging brand reputation – nothing worse than being told full fibre “is available in your town now” and then finding you can’t order it.
Mark, Ah “Simplification” see https://bit.ly/36SkoMp
Why the need to use a shortened URL?