Sponsored Links

How can they offer such low prices? Is it sustainable?

Qbcd

Top Member
I don't know if this is really worth starting a thread over, but I'm curious how they can offer such low prices compared to the competition, it's roughly 50-60% of what the competition charges for gigabit. And on top of that, they offer hefty promotions, cashback, and discounts that can sometimes get your first 1-2 years down to almost nothing.

I know they are in debt still, they just got ~£1 billion in loans last autumn, and they are rapidly expanding, so my guess is they want to get as many customers as possible at rock bottom prices, but that seems unsustainable and eventually they will have to raise prices.

To be fair, there is nothing fundamentally more expensive about 1000 mbps vs 100 mbps for ISPs at this point if they are using full fibre. The vast majority of people won't use more bandwidth at higher speeds, and gigabit-class network equipment and connections at the data center are not expensive anymore. So it's not like they are losing money on the bandwidth side of things, it's just that they don't have a high-end more expensive product tier to bring in revenue, except their 3 gigabit plan, but I don't imagine hardly anyone is ordering that.

There are other variables like CGNAT and the business plans which are massively more expensive, but I imagine the residential customers are their bread and butter.

So I'm just wondering what the end game is, will they raise prices at some point in an effort to become profitable, or are they just building infrastructure and a customer base for whichever large ISP buys them out in a few years, I hope not.
 
One small part of their low costs is the ongoing infrastructure cost to CF is quite low. They use a passive optical network which means there are no powered repeaters or media converters between you and them. Just you providing light, and them providing light at either end.

That cuts down on electricity costs that for instance Virgin Media have to incur. In addition to that competitors like Virgin Media are also having to deal with a copper phone network, constantly upgrading the DOCSIS equipment in the street as they want to introduce faster speeds, investing in DOCSIS research and development, developing non-standard hubs which support DOCSIS vs purchasing affordable XGS-PON hardware on the open market etc

Some of CF's national competitors are also heavily invested in home phones using copper twisted pair, television where they may own failing network stations or be in unfavourable licensing deals and mobile networks (like Virgin is with O2) which aren't as profitable as they used to be with so much competition from cheap MVNO's.

Another aspect is that since CF is not national and is only confined to London their operations can be very centralised and efficient, they don't need to hire as many installers or "engineers" because the ones they already have can serve the entirety of their service area.

So I don't think there's just one thing that makes CF so affordable, it's a combination of lots of things that each help take some of the burden off them that other older ISP's have had to endure especially as business has changed.

For example, if you look at Sky. Their business model in the old days, send up a satellite and use it to deliver TV. It worked great but they're moving away from that due to the high costs of launching new satellites, the reliability and bandwidth available on fixed-line internet, the changing competition from streaming services etc

These are all things that newer companies like YouFibre and CommunityFibre simply don't need to deal with. Time will tell though if in another 20 years from now we see some of what CF has done become a burden to them as a new upstart uses an even more efficient technology to deliver services.

Perhaps 6G or 7G wireless will actually compete on speed and latency if the government opens up even more low-frequency spectrum that penetrates buildings better for wireless broadband use etc - That sort of thing probably wouldn't satisfy the hardcore crowd like those of us who post here but would happily satisfy the masses who just want to surf the web and stream video etc - The benefit here is obviously not having to do any physical street-works beyond mast installations etc.
 
One small part of their low costs is the ongoing infrastructure cost to CF is quite low. They use a passive optical network which means there are no powered repeaters or media converters between you and them. Just you providing light, and them providing light at either end.

That cuts down on electricity costs that for instance Virgin Media have to incur. In addition to that competitors like Virgin Media are also having to deal with a copper phone network, constantly upgrading the DOCSIS equipment in the street as they want to introduce faster speeds, investing in DOCSIS research and development, developing non-standard hubs which support DOCSIS vs purchasing affordable XGS-PON hardware on the open market etc

Some of CF's national competitors are also heavily invested in home phones using copper twisted pair, television where they may own failing network stations or be in unfavourable licensing deals and mobile networks (like Virgin is with O2) which aren't as profitable as they used to be with so much competition from cheap MVNO's.

Another aspect is that since CF is not national and is only confined to London their operations can be very centralised and efficient, they don't need to hire as many installers or "engineers" because the ones they already have can serve the entirety of their service area.

So I don't think there's just one thing that makes CF so affordable, it's a combination of lots of things that each help take some of the burden off them that other older ISP's have had to endure especially as business has changed.

For example, if you look at Sky. Their business model in the old days, send up a satellite and use it to deliver TV. It worked great but they're moving away from that due to the high costs of launching new satellites, the reliability and bandwidth available on fixed-line internet, the changing competition from streaming services etc

These are all things that newer companies like YouFibre and CommunityFibre simply don't need to deal with. Time will tell though if in another 20 years from now we see some of what CF has done become a burden to them as a new upstart uses an even more efficient technology to deliver services.

Perhaps 6G or 7G wireless will actually compete on speed and latency if the government opens up even more low-frequency spectrum that penetrates buildings better for wireless broadband use etc - That sort of thing probably wouldn't satisfy the hardcore crowd like those of us who post here but would happily satisfy the masses who just want to surf the web and stream video etc - The benefit here is obviously not having to do any physical street-works beyond mast installations etc.

Good points, but I was really talking about other PON providers when I said competition, yes vs. DOCSIS or DSL it's obviously cheaper to do PON. I think you're onto something with the localised deployment only in London. Population density makes a huge difference, this is one reason why wireless plans in the UK for instance are massively cheaper than in the US, because the country is much smaller and much more densely populated. There are other reasons too, but that's the main one imo.

But with all of that taken into account CF is still extremely cheap, I mean their prices compare to what people in the Balkans pay for gigabit, and salaries in London are several times higher. So I don't know, I have a feeling the party is gonna end at some point and they will converge with the other ISPs on pricing, but I hope I'm wrong.
 
Sponsored Links
Good points, but I was really talking about other PON providers when I said competition, yes vs. DOCSIS or DSL it's obviously cheaper to do PON. I think you're onto something with the localised deployment only in London. Population density makes a huge difference, this is one reason why wireless plans in the UK for instance are massively cheaper than in the US, because the country is much smaller and much more densely populated. There are other reasons too, but that's the main one imo.

But with all of that taken into account CF is still extremely cheap, I mean their prices compare to what people in the Balkans pay for gigabit, and salaries in London are several times higher. So I don't know, I have a feeling the party is gonna end at some point and they will converge with the other ISPs on pricing, but I hope I'm wrong.
Their prices are similar to YouFibre, but CityFibre I'm not so sure since they're a network that serves other ISP's instead of consumers directly so it's harder to compare.

YouFibre is offering 8Gb for £99, B4RN is offering 10Gb for £149 per month. Community Fibre by contrast only offers 10Gb on Business for £750 per month. Their closest speed wise is 3Gb for £49.99 per month.

1Gb its £24.99 on CF, £27.99 on YouFibre and £33 on B4RN which makes Community Fibre the cheapest out of those three for 1Gb but they're all within the same ballpark I think.

I think if you're a fibre company that owns your network and sticks to delivering in a high-density area like London it's viable. I checked CF's filings with Companies House and they made £20 million in revenue in 2022 and £17 million in gross profit. Which is an 85% gross profit margin.

However, they drew £40 Million in debt to grow the business which means they took a loss before tax of £50.4 Million. This isn't surprising due to their growth but the profit to revenue margin is quite good when you put aside the debt they're taking on to grow the network.

What this means is, that once they're done expanding they will have an exceedingly healthy business and these margins are very good.
 
Last edited:
Their prices are similar to YouFibre, but CityFibre I'm not so sure since they're a network that serves other ISP's instead of consumers directly so it's harder to compare.

YouFibre is offering 8Gb for £99, B4RN is offering 10Gb for £149 per month. Community Fibre by contrast only offers 10Gb on Business for £750 per month. Their closest speed wise is 3Gb for £49.99 per month.

1Gb its £24.99 on CF, £29.99 on YouFibre and £33 on B4RN which makes Community Fibre the cheapest out of those three for 1Gb but they're all within the same ballpark I think.

I think if you're a fibre company that owns your network and sticks to delivering in a high-density area like London it's viable. I checked CF's filings with Companies House and they made £20 million in revenue in 2022 and £17 million in gross profit. Which is an 85% gross profit margin.

However, they drew £40 Million in debt to grow the business which means they took a loss before tax of £50.4 Million. This isn't surprising due to their growth but the profit to revenue margin is quite good when you put aside the debt they're taking on to grow the network.

What this means is, that once they're done expanding they will have an exceedingly healthy business and these margins are very good.

Interesting, thanks for that information. But I think there are a lot more PON providers that are more in line with what BT and VM charge. Hyperoptic is the other FTTP provider that's available to me, and they charge £40 for gigabit. And they're also mostly in London with an all-PON fully owned network. So why do they charge so much more, I guess there are a lot of variables.

But wow, 85% margin, that is insane. And considering how much money they're throwing at their customers, I'm basically paying £11/month for gigabit for my first year, and I know people have gotten their first year for free. The referral bonus is also crazy, no other IPS has one like this. I suspect that will go away in time though.

I think for high-density areas like London the economics are definitely better, but the competition also has to be steep, otherwise everyone would be doing it, so I don't know how that translates to costs.
 
With hyperoptic they got in the game early but bet on GPON and so they're now stuck with that. They also had a strategy of only going after high rises, apartment complexes etc for a long long time.

They've not been very ambitious in my opinion which has led to CF running rings around them. A squandered first mover advantage. I was actually really hyped to get Hyperoptic about 10 years ago as they were in our area, but they only ever wired up an apartment complex down the end of our road. 10 years later, still nothing for the rest of us (I've since moved but keep tabs on things).
 
You got a couple of other things at play here. On one side it's all about the cost per property. Community Fibre and YouFibre are managing very carefully their investment to deploy in the cheapest possible properties first using PIA (Physical Infrastructure Access). PIA prices are regulated and set by OFCOM. If you read over the forum you will see lots of cases where CF skips streets and houses that use underground conduits. Conduit is blocked? CF will skip you whereas Openreach might have to dig around to unblock it. Lower costs per property means lower debt to ROI and lower tariffs. You should watch these two interviews to YouFibre and CF CEOs by the Zen CEO Richard Tang which are great and cover these points:



Both of them assure Richard their current pricing is sustainable in the longer term.

On the BT/Openreach side you can't really compare. BT is an old dinasaur with a massive legacy copper to maintain full of cabinets and exchanges that pretty much don't exist on a PON network. BT also has heavily regulated tariffs which take away flexibility on setting prices and competing. While in the BT has been prevented from raising prices now they are prevented from lowering them! (Google Equinox 2 for more). The truth is BT and VM were a monopoly/duopoly for most people and heavily abused their position to restrict innovation and charge higher prices. Both also moved into triple and quad play again to force customers to bundle services up and getting better prices. Only just recently BT has started to sell internet only at more reasonable prices due to competition from Altnets. Altnets do none of this so they can only compete with the internet tariff.

Luckily for us BT and VM were not thinking long term and deployed old technologies (FTTC, FTTC G.plus and DOCSIS) rather than fibre and thought they could remain unchallenged for ever. Well as it turns out so much time passed that suddendly it became a good investment opportunity and hundreds of Altnets were born to take their lunch away. Now obviously both BT and VM are rushing to upgrade their networks to FTTP but it's never going to be the same market again. While I agree a lot of Altnets will not make it and we will see a consolidation their fibre networks will survive for sure. I now have a choice of 3 FTTP network providers at my south London house (Openreach, CF and VM) and I doubt that will ever go away. Other people will be less lucky and have 2 only or 1 or none yet, but I think by the end of 2026 90% of the UK will have at least 2 FTTP networks to chose from. That's a huge change from where we were and we all got to thank BT and VM for being lazy and only looking at the short term.
 
Sponsored Links
The final point I forgot to add is that the cost to serve a property is obviously a variable thing. Community Fibre and YouFibre are hand picking where they go whereas Openreach has serve almost everyone (USO). This not only applies as an initial cost to install the service in a property but much more important is the ongoing maintenance cost. Non urban properties are much harder to service, have a higher chance of a tree falling into services, copper being stolen by thieves, etc, etc. But just the Royal Mail BT has generally speaking a national price.
 
Just a note to remember.

Altnets using PIA will have ongoing costs of its rental

Altnets laying their own ducts will need to recover their investment over the long term not just on these initial contracts and pricing.

Multiple providers in a street equals under utilisation (say provisioned at 60%+60%+60% with market share of only say 33% each) is a lot of investment not utilised and guess who pays for this. The variability in market share is an important issue to the industry.

Once consumers have gone through the FTTP change, digging up the garden/drive, ONT install etc many will probably use the ISPs available on their installed provider network. Churn/competition may therefore continue between ISPs but unless there is significant difference in price any likely change of the underlying network by consumers will slow. Hence the rush to get to the premises first.

Not all FTTP is the same and the differences in their network designs, their resilience, reliability and functionality will become more visible as we experience them 4/5 years out. (Don't worry OR will be moving to XPS PON overlay within the timeframes)

Currently it is all new.
 
Multiple providers in a street equals under utilisation (say provisioned at 60%+60%+60% with market share of only say 33% each) is a lot of investment not utilised and guess who pays for this. The variability in market share is an important issue to the industry.
This is true but this also means there is true competition which means networks have to fight for their customers. If you watch the interview videos I think the YouFibre CEO says they can be profitable at 20% penetration and and CF says 30%. In an ideal world we would had the state to lay down the infrastructure (like roads and railway) and then let others pay to use it. But I doubt there will be that much competition between ISPs in that case. And we know how state funded big projects tend to do: overran and not achieve all their goals.
 
There will be an element of wholesale competition which the ISPs will no doubt utilise but the choice of selling a broadband product via an existing network provider or the additional install cost via a new network provider will mean most ISPs will decide which one to use for a given postcode and stick to it.

There will be competition at ISP but users don't like hassle/disruption. My brother is still on VM from the Blueyonder days and is unlikely to change for a few pounds.

A friend had an option on VM (HFC), OR FTTP or Cityfibre recently. OR ISP chosen as no hassle and no dug up garden.
 
Sponsored Links
There will be an element of wholesale competition which the ISPs will no doubt utilise but the choice of selling a broadband product via an existing network provider or the additional install cost via a new network provider will mean most ISPs will decide which one to use for a given postcode and stick to it.

There will be competition at ISP but users don't like hassle/disruption. My brother is still on VM from the Blueyonder days and is unlikely to change for a few pounds.

A friend had an option on VM (HFC), OR FTTP or Cityfibre recently. OR ISP chosen as no hassle and no dug up garden.
True but older people don't live for ever and newer generations expect fast/good internet. And those are probably people that don't care much about their internet connection. As usage increases people will value better ISPs more and switch. Last year the average UK house used 456GB a month. Those numbers would have been unbelieable only a few years go. And eventually we will be able to switch providers and networks seamlessly, once Ofcom puts enough pressure on ISPs.

Your brother likes to haggle a lot, all those renewals fihgting with VM retentions to get a good deal. I am still with VM since they provide value for money for me to watch the football. I will ditch them at the first chance if I could. There are a lot of people that hate VM out there.
 
really informative discussion in this thread. thanks all.

I never checked my monthly data be honest. since joining CF definitely changed a lot as you can imagine...

Download:
Max speed (includes manual limiter): 2.98 Gb/s
Avg: 11.0 Mb/s
Total: 2.86 Tb

Upload:
max speed (with limiter): 2.72 Gb/s
Avg: 17.9 Mb/s
Total: 4.64 Tb

(influxdb/grafana stats, not a vnstat or something better)
 
really informative discussion in this thread. thanks all.

I never checked my monthly data be honest. since joining CF definitely changed a lot as you can imagine...

Download:
Max speed (includes manual limiter): 2.98 Gb/s
Avg: 11.0 Mb/s
Total: 2.86 Tb

Upload:
max speed (with limiter): 2.72 Gb/s
Avg: 17.9 Mb/s
Total: 4.64 Tb

(influxdb/grafana stats, not a vnstat or something better)
Why so much upload?
 
With hyperoptic they got in the game early but bet on GPON and so they're now stuck with that. They also had a strategy of only going after high rises, apartment complexes etc for a long long time.
I had no idea Hyperoptic was still on GPON, I thought everyone had upgraded to XGS-PON by now. Deployment to MDUs may actually be a smart strategy as it's probably cheaper per subscriber. But they're now on my street and we are not an MDU, so I'm actually curious how they would deploy the fibre here given they usually put a switch and run ethernet to your flat. But I'm not gonna pay to find out.

You got a couple of other things at play here. On one side it's all about the cost per property.
I was also thinking about the cost of running the fibre from the pole to my property. In my case 2 subcontractors came and did about 2 hours of work. A wild guess, but if they're getting paid £40/hr that basically costs CF 6 months' subscription, also my first year is almost free anyway, so probably 18-24 months until they start making money off of me. Tho these aren't recurring costs and it's probably worth it to them to get a new customer... provided I'm not in it just for the good deal and then hop onto the next one.

Also, somewhat unrelated, but do you know how many subscribers CF puts past a splitter? Is it 32, 64, 128?
Now obviously both BT and VM are rushing to upgrade their networks to FTTP but it's never going to be the same market again. While I agree a lot of Altnets will not make it and we will see a consolidation their fibre networks will survive for sure. I now have a choice of 3 FTTP network providers at my south London house (Openreach, CF and VM) and I doubt that will ever go away.
What do you mean their fibre networks won't go away, they can get consolidated too, can't they? Physically separate networks can get consolidated too if they're bought by the same company, lots of examples of this in the past, that's one reason I don't really want to have more than 1 fibre going into my property because in 5-10 years when there are again only 2-4 national providers it'll just be a useless thing, especially knowing how hard it is to get wires taken off of utility poles. But I hope you're right.

I hope some altnets will survive but looking at examples from other countries, they almost never do. For instance, in Eastern Europe something like this happened when they started to transition from dial-up, a whole bunch of local/small ISPs popped up, usually wiring up those giant commie blocks for ethernet and having the whole building (or building section) on a LAN with a single limited backhaul and restrictive data caps. Each town had an ISP or several, sometimes a neighborhood would have its own ISP. But they all got gobbled up by big telecoms over the next 5-10 years. Anyway, I digress. My guess is CF won't be around in 5 years, but I hope I'm wrong.
 
I think by the end of 2026 90% of the UK will have at least 2 FTTP networks to chose from.
Seems unlikely to me. That would firstly require VM to finish their DOCSIS to XGS-PON transition (which even they say will won't happen until 2028) *and* a big increase in their footprint (Nexfibre aiming to hit another 7m homes, again by end of 2028, which might get them to maybe 80%).

Then they, and/or some altnets, will have to tackle the next 10% from 80% to 90%, where it gets increasingly more difficult and expensive, whilst the altnets are under increasing financial pressure.
 
Sponsored Links
But wow, 85% margin, that is insane.
Not really, because it's not taking into account the cost of capital that they've already spent.

If the build cost is £350 per property passed, and 1 in 5 properties take it up, then each user is servicing a £1750 debt; a 12% RoC eats £17.50 per month.

However, the financials are very sensitive to those figures, and 20% take-up rate is optimistic for an altnet. If they only reach 10%, then suddenly each user is costing them £35 per month in capital alone - let alone the cost of running and maintaining the network, billing, customer support etc.

On the other side, to achieve a build at £350 per property passed also requires very tight cost control, and can easily be overshot.

There is very little wiggle room in retail pricing. If they sell higher than the budget providers like Talktalk and Plusnet, then take-up will be low - the majority of users who are on 40/10 FTTC are quite happy to stay with it.

Hence the strategy of Vodafone (on Cityfibre where available) to undercut by a pound or two, which is enough to nudge people to switch. But as a wholesale provider, Cityfibre sees only a fraction of the retail price, which makes it very tight for them indeed.

Vodafone at least have the benefit of a well-known brand. For the altnets without an established reputation, it's even more difficult to get people to switch.
 
Not really, because it's not taking into account the cost of capital that they've already spent.

If the build cost is £350 per property passed, and 1 in 5 properties take it up, then each user is servicing a £1750 debt; a 12% RoC eats £17.50 per month.
Yeah good points, it's like building a metro system, the margin on a single ticket may be 80-90% once it's built, but there is a massive initial cost. £350 seems high though, VM has said it costs them £100 per property passed to convert HFC to FTTP.
There is very little wiggle room in retail pricing. If they sell higher than the budget providers like Talktalk and Plusnet, then take-up will be low - the majority of users who are on 40/10 FTTC are quite happy to stay with it.
Vodafone at least have the benefit of a well-known brand. For the altnets without an established reputation, it's even more difficult to get people to switch.
I think this is a key point, in that people don't actually need gigabit and/or symmetric speeds yet. Don't get me wrong, I want everyone to have access to affordable symmetric multigigabit FTTP, the more the better. But today's internet is really designed for 50-100 mbps download with limited upload. I went from VM's 125 mbps tier, to CF's symmetric gigabit and I can't tell the difference in regular use other than when downloading big stuff, which I almost never do. Maybe it's slightly faster when jumping around 4K videos on YT, but only slightly.

And what this means is the big telecoms can still retain lots of customers and market stuff however they like even if their speeds are much worse than altnets. BT can call 70 mbps VDSL2 "superfast" and VM can call gigabit DOCSIS "superfast" and the examples they give are things like 4K streaming as a use case for "superfast", which in reality uses 15-25 mbps. So by this definition, even 30 mbps can be "superfast". And this is why I think VM is focused on nexfibre and getting new customers with their FTTP deployment rather then upgrading HFC customers, because they know 90% of HFC customers couldn't tell the difference between HFC and FTTP.

So I think this hurts the altnets and they have to compete mainly on price because the customers don't really know or care about speed or network performance as long as it "works" and feels relatively fast.

Anyway, I digress a lot sorry.
 
Last edited:
I think the pricing can be seen as what is required to get customers to switch and take the inconvenience of a new installation.

Even at the current pricing, assuming their installation methods are uniform (so it's easy to tell) I would estimate a 10% take up after a year or so of availability.

For many customers the current CGNAT product will meet their needs and selling on "speed" attempts to leverage the main concern that customers have "the internet is slow".

Community Fibre then do their best to deliver that expectation of speed with a relatively decent supplied router and a way of adding further units in a mesh.

While reliability could be better, given that there is quite a lot of build going on and technical change always brings some degree of service risk (generally the network that works is the one you don't change!) it's probably as expected.

To circle round to address the original question, my guess is the current price model will stick until the end of Community Fibre's "expansion phase", at that point prices will rise to start to give a better return on the capital invested in the network build.

As there is a desire to retain customers, the post first contract pricing doesn't increase that much to avoid customers "jumping" after the initial contract as I suspect the install costs take much of the first contract revenue.

There has been a degree of refinement in both pricing and price presentation.

I might have gone for a more expensive package if the post first contract pricing had been more attractive at that point.

Providing a faster service to me would have cost Community Fibre relatively little at that stage (although I would have had a public IP address) and they would have made perhaps £100 - £150 more from me over the contract period.

I think that's why apparently modest increases in out of contract charges (if any) are now seen in the published prices (however the RPI + mid contract increase has arrived).
 
Just a note to say that the CPI index is currently used not the RPI.

BT has a hump to get over (investment/debt) but other providers simply followed and that includes some Alnets including CF.

BT CPI rate + 3.9% (14.4%)
Plusnet CPI rate + 3.9% (14.4%)
EE Broadband CPI rate + 3.9% (14.4%)
Vodafone CPI rate + 3.9% (14.4%)
TalkTalk CPI rate + 3.7% (14.2%)
Gigaclear CPI rate + 3.5% in October 2023 (14%)
Shell Energy CPI rate + 3% (13.5%)
Community Fibre CPI rate + 2.9% (13.4%)
Virgin Media No set annual price rises (despite 13.8% increase in 2023)

BT may revise this going forward and no doubt the others will follow. How these rises actually relate to the rise in their business costs remains a question unanswered.
 
Top
Cheapest Superfast ISPs
  • Hyperoptic £17.99
    Speed 33Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • UtilityWarehouse £19.99
    Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited (FUP)
    Gift: None
  • NOW £23.00
    Speed 63Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Vodafone £24.00
    Speed 73 - 82Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Shell Energy £24.99
    Speed 38Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest Ultrafast ISPs
  • Gigaclear £17.00
    Speed: 200Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Zzoomm £19.95
    Speed: 150Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • YouFibre £19.99
    Speed: 150Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Community Fibre £20.00
    Speed: 150Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • BeFibre £21.00
    Speed: 150Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: £25 Love2Shop Card
Large Availability | View All
Helpful ISP Guides and Tips
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
Sponsored Links
The Top 20 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (5385)
  2. BT (3490)
  3. Politics (2494)
  4. Openreach (2275)
  5. Business (2221)
  6. Building Digital UK (2215)
  7. FTTC (2038)
  8. Mobile Broadband (1940)
  9. Statistics (1763)
  10. 4G (1639)
  11. Virgin Media (1589)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (1438)
  13. FTTH (1379)
  14. Wireless Internet (1378)
  15. Fibre Optic (1375)
  16. 5G (1215)
  17. Vodafone (1126)
  18. EE (1111)
  19. TalkTalk (927)
  20. O2 (914)
Sponsored

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