UK Broadband Provider G.Network Files Notice to Appoint an Administrator UPDATE
Alternative network operator and UK ISP G.Network, which has deployed a gigabit speed full fibre (FTTP) broadband network across parts of London, has followed up last week’s report – that they’d been acquired by distressed debt specialist FitzWalter Capital (here) – by officially filing a Notice of Intention (NoI) to appoint an administrator.
The provider originally aspired to expand their Fibre-to-the-Premises (FTTP) infrastructure to cover 1.3 million premises in London by the end of 2026. But not unlike many other altnets, they’ve since been impacted by an increasingly competitive environment and rising costs (high build costs, high interest rates etc.), which resulted in job cuts and a greater focus on commercialisation instead of new fibre build (here). However, their efforts to commercialise will have faced some pressure from gigabit-capable rivals, such as Hyperoptic, CommunityFibre, Virgin Media (nexfibre) and Openreach (BT) in some of the same areas.
Despite the challenges, the operator had continued to receive funding from long term equity investor Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS), including £85m in June 2024 (here). The company’s most recent accounts also reported an 85% increase in turnover to £10.2m in FY2024 and a gross profit of £7.3m (up 62%), with total assets of £453m (up from £394m). But they also suffered an operating loss for the year of £52.8m (down from £67.2m) and are estimated (Enders Analysis) to be carrying a net debt of over £300m.
Advertisement
Suffice to say that last week’s reported acquisition by FitzWalter Capital (FWC) made sense for a network that seems to be struggling to find a buyer for consolidation. As James Ratzer, Analyst at New Street Research, said: “Given the company’s losses, it is hard to see an obvious standalone business case. We presume the buyer is a short-term holder and would be keen to sell to another provider as soon as possible.”
The exact approach that FWC intended to take, with respect to tackling the company’s liabilities, didn’t become clear until Monday night when sources pointed ISPreview toward a new legal case (CR-2026-000171). In short, G.Network Communications Limited, via law firm Taylor Wessing LLP, has made a new application in the shape of a “Notice of Intention to appoint an administrator“. According to our sources, Alvarez & Marsal in London will take on the task.
Administration often occurs when a company, such as one that is in financial difficulty, is put into the hands of an administrator. The administrator then decides whether they can help the company to continue running or sell it off for a good price.
Once in administration, the company is often protected from legal action by people or organisations who are owed money (creditors). Administration can also mean that the company may not have to pay all its debts in full, but if deemed necessary, they can still be wound up.
Advertisement
The expectation here is that this may provide a way for FWC to sell the network and its customers to a new owner (consolidation). But it remains to be seen whether this will be a pre-packaged process (i.e. they may already have a new owner – likely a network consolidation partner in mind) or something more long winded.
ISPreview has contacted G.Network for comment and will update as soon as they respond.
UPDATE 10:22am
We’ve just received a statement from Alvarez & Marsal.
Advertisement
Richard Beard, Joint Administrator and MD of Alvarez and Marsal, said:
“G.Network will continue to trade as normal, with its full-fibre network operating as before and services being delivered to existing and new customers across London without interruption.
Our appointment as administrators provides a platform for a restructuring, and we will work closely with the management team to create a sustainable business. We understand that this will be an unsettling time for G.Network’s employees. We appreciate their hard work and will be keeping them updated on the restructuring process.
The Company benefits from a robust network and a strong customer base. We would like to invite any parties interested in acquiring the business to contact us.”
The announcement noted how “G.Network’s capital structure has become unsustainable in recent years and in response, the Company has been exploring options with its stakeholders, including seeking new investors“, which is of course what led to the completion of the sale of its secured debt and equity to affiliates of FitzWalter Capital in early January 2026.
The Joint Administrators state that they’ve “secured sufficient funding for the administration process, which will enable the Company to continue to trade as normal and to connect new customers. They do not anticipate that there will be any adverse impact on customers“. The Joint Administrators will be marketing the business for sale in the “coming weeks“.
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.
« Starlink Add Grok-powered AI Chatbot to Support Broadband Users on Website
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.
No doubt G.Network won’t be the last altnet to go down this path.
They’re not the first, either, with Spring Fibre doing it in 2024.
What are the main reasons?
High interest rates?
Fibre “real estate” taxes?
Unrealistic business model?
I’m thinking less than 10% uptake having spent four figures per premises passed just on network construction is probably the big one.
If you’re ever in one of their areas in London notice how much of their digging is in carriageways and think about the traffic management, lane and even road closures they had to pay for.
Their strategy was over ambitious and a bit bonkers.
Early on they decided that the value of their business would be to deploy their own subterranean duct infrastructure rather than rely on using Openreach PIA, which would have been a fraction of the cost but also crucially would have meant they wouldn’t have accumulated the huge debt.
They started in Central London, arguably one of the most challenging environments of any Town or City, and it was totally insane. They were closing important roads to excavate huge trenches at huge costs and disruption. By the time they were done, not only had they accumulated huge levels of debt, but also thankfully for them ensured that no London Borough was willing to cooperate with them to start massive excavations of their pavements and roads. So they changed tact and started using PIA, but the damage was done by their broken business model.
Contrast this to Community Fibre, who’s strategy was to get to as many premisses past as quickly possible using Openreach PIA and critically before Openreach got there first. Community fibre even prioritised overhead line areas rather than underground areas in their endeavour.
In my opinion G-Network failed because they thought the value was in owning their own ducts rather than reaching the customer first by any means. They were carrying on like it was the 1980’s or something laying all this ducting speculatively.
The only surprising thing about this news is that it took so long. Let’s hope they’re acquired by someone competent enough to be able to serve the residential footprint they had built up as well as the central London commercial blocks.
If the business could have been sold as a going concern, it would have happened before now.
this is the issue isn’t it.
overbuild of fibre (in some areas theres like 4 operators/networks)
too many individual altnets
as a result, not enough income to cover running costs.
problem is worse when openreach/cityfibre/netomnia/other wholesalers start running as it leads to greater choice.
others are facing difficulties.
G.Network were probably in a unique position that at least for several years after they first built their network, they were the only game in town. Central London was G.Network or a leased line, until Hyperoptic, Openreach, and Community Fibre started deploying. For over five years they were the only FTTP broadband option in the West End, the fact they couldn’t translate this into a workable business or really get on top of access into buildings is not the fault of their competition.
this is not true for most of London, both community fibre and hyperoptic had over 6 digits worth of properties live before gnet even started
1) Too much debt
2) Poor management (ex BT)
Will do well once they remove both of those in admin.
If they have large amounts of overbuild from other networks they will have a hard time to do well at all. The only thing then will be if the assets are sold for peanuts and the new operator has a very low cost base. An obvious buyer would be CityFibre as despite its name has very little presence in London.
The sooner the altnets get togethr, the better. They will be picked off the longer they are apart. Surely now is the time for investors to recognise that, dilute their holdings, and walk away with something later than planned than nothing in the next couple of years.
The problem is that the investors would have to take large write-downs as they realise the losses.
Employing BT managers who are used to “circling back” and “putting that on ice for now” was never going to end well was it?
The BT Group owns the largest, most rapidly deployed and most profitable FTTP network in the country. It is probably up there on the world rankings too. No one else seems to be able to manage it even with the multiple ways in which BT is forced to assist its competitors.
That jibe probably sounded better in your head.
Wouldn’t think there will be many prospective customers still wanting to join G.Network when they hear this news. Only a matter of time before we hear about more Altnets being in the same position.
Too much debt.
Too much overbuild.
Not enough customers.
They’ll only be the first of many.
Slow to generate uptake (or even light up) in areas where they were first fibre provider of any sort (like mine), and not price competitive if the customer wanted a landline.
In short, long time coming to areas where they would have been first option. In my case at least 3 years late to offer to a potentially willing customer, and even then not compelling compared to FTTC retention offer from sky
As a customer I had to chase to get the service. Online, their site said it wasn’t yet available, despite having dug up the road more than a year previously and stuck various flyers for offers through the door.
When I phoned, I was told it was because freeholder permission was needed. A very different proposition, especially as I am a freeholder. Putting this sort of unnecessary barrier in place, it’s no wonder they haven’t got the take-up they needed.
to add also, some alt nets aren’t that competetive either.
example: Toob, Hyperoptic to name some. are still stuck offering 900 as max speed. others are offering 2gbps, 5gbps and in some cases (youfibre) 8gbps. Whether or not you need it is irrelevant, but point is, those altnets offering more than 900 will often have 900 cheaper or same, and offering 2gbps for decent price.
Toob is stil selling 900 at £25 a month, briefly went to £29 but has returned back. it’s not a bad price at all but how long can they stay at that considering they now exclusively use cityfibre everywhere else outside their own network?
Heaven forbid we return to the days of the singular last mile operator, but it’s becoming quickly apparent that the only way to compete in this sector is to have an iron-clad exclusivity agreement for a build-out (or just merge into one mega-altnet), or go heavy on the wholesale so that customers aren’t even aware it’s your fibre.
This is a bit of a difficult one, though the new owners have a good track record in realising the value of distressed assets.
The administrators might have to do something like break out the chunks of the network and customer base where there is little overlap with competitors. That could be formed into a going concern that would likely be attractive to competitors. The customers on the risdul network might then be sold on to competitors, while the abandoned infrastructure might find a speculative buyer for the dark fibre.
What’s odd in my area is that business oriented Vorboss has brought fibre through the openreach ducts in my area (with a few chambers of their own, also), although not offering service to residences passed; presumably could have done a deal with G.network to use what they had already put into the ground (not via PIA with Openreach).
Not sure why Vorboss has come through as there would be limited local business uptake although their fibres pass by the exchange (on the list for eventual closure but well down the list), so maybe something to do with that.
@MilesT:
There could be a whole stack of reasons why Vorboss might choose a specific path – technical, contractual, cost, strategic, etc.
@ MilesT:
I would also add that Vorboss is a business services company, retail customers would be aseperate operation if they had chosen to go down that path, but it would not fit their business plan.
Lenders have simply had enough. Watching Gigaclear.
I think I am the only person who has suggested a solution to this madness – see https://shorturl.at/syLKo
I do not see any solutions for the current problems in that article.