Rural Broadband ISPs

ChiefGrasscutter

Nope:
Acceptable use policies
Sharing a line amongst others while only paying for one installation and getting others to pay you amounts to a breach of clause X and possibly clause viii.
Plus the bit at the bottom of allowing the connection to be possibly used by unknown third parties (I guess that really means TOR relays)

Also T&C's
Clause 4.9 " The customer undertakes not to assign or in any other way transfer the services, without the company's prior consent"
I know of no retail ISP that allows a customer to become a re-seller by sharing a connection and receiving money contribution for that sharing.

onomatopoeia99

asdv wrote: »

Gigaclear seem very much like a monopoly here because 1-3MB can't really be described as broadband these days and because they don't have to lease it to anybody.

BT are the only infrastructure provider obliged to offer wholesale services by OFCOM. Virgin Media can potentially be in the same position as you describe, serving properties where due to the distance from the BT exchange an ADSL connection cannot achieve its full potential, but VM aren't obliged to open up their network or do special prices in these areas either.

It seems you have three choices:
1. Put up with what you have
2. Pay for the service you want.
3. Move house to somewhere nearer a BT exchange or FTTC enabled.
option 4 of changing the entire regulatory framework for telecoms infrastructure in the UK is somewhat beyond the scope of MSE.

asdv

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

BT are the only infrastructure provider obliged to offer wholesale services by OFCOM. Virgin Media can potentially be in the same position as you describe, serving properties where due to the distance from the BT exchange an ADSL connection cannot achieve its full potential, but VM aren't obliged to open up their network or do special prices in these areas either.

It seems you have three choices:
1. Put up with what you have
2. Pay for the service you want.
3. Move house to somewhere nearer a BT exchange or FTTC enabled.
option 4 of changing the entire regulatory framework for telecoms infrastructure in the UK is somewhat beyond the scope of MSE.

2. If only (that's the whole point of my first post)
3. Joking (far more expensive than paying for Gigaclear)
4. Seems I was mistaken in thinking MSE might have forum users with knowledge of the rules.
1. Thanks for your support.

JJ_Egan

asdv wrote: »

4. Seems I was mistaken in thinking MSE might have forum users with knowledge of the rules.
.

What rules ?? None that apply to what you want in a cut price service .

Chiefgrasscutters post summed it up .

asdv

JJ_Egan wrote: »

What rules ?? None that apply to what you want in a cut price service .

OFCOM rules.

Chiefgrasscutters post summed it up .

(Originally posted by ChiefGrasscutter) You have got the order sequence totally back to front. The reason Gigaclear has brought the service to your area is precisely because your areas has been excluded from the BT/BDUK roll out by your local council...

Not as straightforward as that. Yes, they may have pulled out if we'd got some BDUK funding but Gigaclear used the BDUK funding announcement date to reach their 30% sign up. They were struggling to get the required 30% and so threatened to pull out if not enough people signed up by a date set a week or so before the BDUK funding announcement results.

Just found some detail on OFCOM's site that says it's regulations on duty of service and on fair competition etc. in situations like this are mainly imposed on just the national operators, BT and Kingston Communications only, and that newer technology networks like fibre (as opposed to copper and cable) networks are not yet included.

I still would love to know why Gigaclear only want such a low proportion of potential customers in the areas they cover when they are in a position to wipe all the other providers out.

JJ_Egan

I know what i would do and that is to see how many locals would sign up for a cheaper lower quality service and if enough approach the provider .

ChiefGrasscutter

asdv wrote: »

I still would love to know why Gigaclear only want such a low proportion of potential customers in the areas they cover when they are in a position to wipe all the other providers out.

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here?
From what I gather of their way of working they need a MINIMUM of 30% of the residents to sign up to them upfront as a way of ensuring they will cover long term through the monthly charges from the residents taking their service year after year the very considerable costs to them of putting in the new fibre network.
If they get more than 30% signing up then that is all good for them. I'm sure they also factor in that more will sign up once the network is up and running and being talked about locally.

Its a standard project appraisal situation: Spend say £1m now in capital costs installing the network and recover that over XX years in the future from the monthly income. Then you need to factor in inflation, that you have borrowed the £1m in the first place, interest rates to repay the loan, more residents joining, some leaving, what level of service they take and a few more things and you end up with an answer that to make a long term profit you need 30% minimum signups.

So this 30% target is just a way of determining whether or not any village is financially viable or should they just push off and try somewhere else.
It also helps the residents who then have a specific target to reach by some date rather than some non-specific vague promise of what they might do........which just drags on an on with no cut off date.
Obviously they need solid signed commitments with direct debits at the ready rather than mere vague "expressions of interest" if they are putting in umpteen £100K's of investment.

asdv

ChiefGrasscutter wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here?

I don't understand what you're saying either.
I'm simply asking why Gigaclear don't make the other 70% of residents an offer that would make them switch ? They are deliberately not taking customers away from the existing Openreach based service and the existing BT and 3rd party providers, other than to offer what the other cannot offer. It seems too neat - like they are all dividng up the market by agreement (which of course they are not be because that is illegal).

OFCOM granted Gigaclear exemption from normal regulations regarding planning and digging up public highways etc. to speed up and lower the costs of their installations. In return they are required to share their infastructure with 3rd parties and their service should be of benefit to the public. I'm not yet seeing any evidence their service is benefitting any but the wealthy minority in the community that need it least.

asdv

JJ_Egan wrote: »

I know what i would do and that is to see how many locals would sign up for a cheaper lower quality service and if enough approach the provider .

Great idea - thanks.

corf999

I wish gigaclear was available for me rather than a crappy exchange only non-fibre line that is my only option.

Why should the original 30% subsidise the remaining 70%? Gigaclear made a commercial decision to roll out to your area and need to make their investments back. The price seems reasonable to me when compared to the options like satellite which for similar unlimited deals of approx £70 with high upfront costs.