Rural Broadband ISPs

ChiefGrasscutter

asdv wrote: »

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.

1. As I understand the rules Gigaclear are only required to offer wholesale access to their network if they took public money in part towards subsidising their roll out in your village. They have not taken any money so they are not required offer it.
This is exactly the same as the other FTTP on demand type suppliers work such as Hyperoptic who operate in multiple dwelling units in cities (ie apartments). Also the community fibre project B4RN up north. None take public money and with all of them you either take the service at their rates or not.
Same with Virgin media where they operate alongside BT in mostly urban areas. You have two options: pay Virgin media or pay BT based ISP's for your broadband and if you can only get a Superfast BB from Virgin and want it then that is your only option: you pay their rates.

2.. The mater of digging up the streets is a totally different and unconnected matter and they (like the B4RN community project) have applied to be registered as a "responsible entity" with insurance cover in place to be allowed like some other companies (eg Virgin,Water etc) to dig up public streets and restore them afterwards without requiring specific planning permission. They are like the rest are still required to inform and coordinate such activities with the local council highways and obtain permission........They cannot just dig at will! Sometime permission is not granted, for instance many councils impose a moratorium on any non emergency digging over the Christmas run up and sales period.
Note that on private land and streets everyone from gas to water to telecoms have to come to a private agreement with the owner for access - they cannot use their granted 'code powers' to dig private land except in very very limited almost emergency situations.

asdv

ChiefGrasscutter wrote: »

1. As I understand the rules Gigaclear are only required to offer wholesale access to their network if they took public money in part towards subsidising their roll out in your village. They have not taken any money so they are not required offer it.
This is exactly the same as the other FTTP on demand type suppliers work such as Hyperoptic who operate in multiple dwelling units in cities (ie apartments). Also the community fibre project B4RN up north. None take public money and with all of them you either take the service at their rates or not.
Same with Virgin media where they operate alongside BT in mostly urban areas. You have two options: pay Virgin media or pay BT based ISP's for your broadband and if you can only get a Superfast BB from Virgin and want it then that is your only option: you pay their rates.

2.. The mater of digging up the streets is a totally different and unconnected matter and they (like the B4RN community project) have applied to be registered as a "responsible entity" with insurance cover in place to be allowed like some other companies (eg Virgin,Water etc) to dig up public streets and restore them afterwards without requiring specific planning permission. They are like the rest are still required to inform and coordinate such activities with the local council highways and obtain permission........They cannot just dig at will! Sometime permission is not granted, for instance many councils impose a moratorium on any non emergency digging over the Christmas run up and sales period.
Note that on private land and streets everyone from gas to water to telecoms have to come to a private agreement with the owner for access - they cannot use their granted 'code powers' to dig private land except in very very limited almost emergency situations.

Here is a section from OFCOM's granting of Direction (Code powers) to Gigaclear:

"... willing to share apparatus where feasible and that they are in discussion with both other utilities and local government as to how best to share their apparatus..... Gigaclear .....intend to seek to maximise the use of that infrastructure through entering in to appropriate commercial relationships with other operators and service providers."

asdv

corf999 wrote: »

Gigaclear made a commercial decision to roll out to your area and need to make their investments back.

Of course, it goes without saying, but in this country government intervenes to help find a balance between the shareholders' need for profits as fast as possible and the public's need not to be taken for a ride.

Small startups are particularly prone to turning a blind eye to some of their regulatory obligations because they know few if anyone will be scrutinisng exactly what they are doing.

asdv

corf999 wrote: »

Why should the original 30% subsidise the remaining 70%?

Why would they be subsidising the remaining 70%? By that measure the people and businesses paying £100s/month would be subsidising those only paying the entry level £38.80. I think you are falling for the marketing story.

If I buy a top-of-the-range car am I subsidising those buying the cheaper models ? Perhaps so, but then what is wrong with it ? The car insurance industry could not operate legally without the good and/or lucky drivers subsiding the errors of the bad and/or unlucky drivers.

asdv

I have to say I am quite amazed at the general tide of love for Gigaclear on this thread. So British and un-questioning.

What happened to the MSE Forum rules... "the one place where consumers can collect together and fight back"?

nidO

The point is, there's nothing to fight back over here.

Gigaclear are a private business operating a business model that suits them. They are not a monopoly and are under no obligation to provide leased access to other providers, because you have BT for that.

The fact that you want the moon on a stick for the same minimal price you're paying now really isn't their problem.
Note: This also goes far beyond the headline speed of services offered - This forum often makes too big a deal of just going for the cheapest broadband "deal" going and forgets that the actual service offered by the big ISP's generally sucks, whereas providers like Gigaclear actually offer a decent service.

If the extra £15 a month ish vs the cost of even the cheapest of cheap fibre + line rental deals with their resulting shoddy service is too much for you, then your option is to stick with what you've got.

A sizeable portion of the country would love to be in the position you're in, because the choice between £25-50 a month for DSL, line rental, and anytime calls with a crummy provider or £45 a month for 50/50 fibre and the same anytime calls from a quality provider (note, quality ADSL/Fibre providers typically run to £25-40 for the net connection alone with line rental + calls on top of that, it's you that's choosing to compare a quality fibre service to the cheapest of the cheap BT-leased providers), really isn't a choice at all, it's obvious.

I would also note your top-of-the-range vs cheaper car analogy doesn't work, as your whole argument in this thread is that you want the top-of-the-range car in all but name and expect the dealer to sell it to you for the price of the cheap model which is not good enough for you, and feel that it's jolly unfair when they don't.

ChiefGrasscutter

asdv wrote: »

I have to say I am quite amazed at the general tide of love for Gigaclear on this thread. So British and un-questioning.

What happened to the MSE Forum rules... "the one place where consumers can collect together and fight back"?

This is my last comment on this thread (you'll be glad to hear!)
Well it is you bringing up Gigaclear.
They operate no differently to say Virgin, or the true FTTP companies like Hyperoptic, KC, City Fibre, C4L and a few more I've not heard of so why are you singling them out other than it is them in your area.
Gigaclear publicly canvass local opinion as to whether they want the service or not. Indeed Ashley village said no thanks.
Virgin for example simply decide based on some confidential commercial decision process as to whether they are going to roll out the service in some area.

The net result to the inhabitants is the same as I've previously said. Either they take a poor service from BT or they take a good superfast service from the other provider at the prices they are offering the service levels at.
Take it or leave it.
Limited public money to subsidise superfast BB is only going to be spent in those areas which for commercial/technical/physical reasons no one wants to go anywhere near - neither BT nor any altnet.

There are a few places where you can get a SuperFastBB service from an altnet (mostly Virgin) and from a BT line. These are mostly urban area because the population density is very high so the average cost per house passed of putting in the infrastructure lower and there is scope for two suppliers to compete without any subsidy: Villages are just uneconomic
This is why so many villages in the UK do not have mains gas and have to rely on either oil tanks or propane cylinders in the property - which is a LOT more expensive to run: its just not economic.

The sad fact is that the UK plc cannot offer improved broadband at the current rock bottom prices and in the UK BB just seems to be sold on ever cheaper prices. Upgrades which everyone seems to want are going to have to be paid for by someone whether that is by the residents themselves, or by taxpayers though subsidies, and tapping taxpayers for ever more funds is out of current thinking.

Indeed the EU recently started signaling a change of tack in the entire telecoms field with the new EU commissioner. It has now realised that excess competition has resulted in lower prices - but at the cost of no investment in the infrastructure. So expect a lot more mega mergers, and some exclusivity to companies resulting in captive customers to ensure they have some long term certainty of recouping their investments, and yes higher prices.

Oh yes and I'm in a village 5 miles from a city and my cabinet serving some 180 house is excluded totally from the BDUK rollout and the SEP extension program.... though I do have better BT/plusnet broadband speeds than the OP.
I'm out!

asdv

I perhaps haven't made my point clear but I would ask please that you (nidO) read all my posts and don't misquote me.

nidO wrote: »

The fact that you want the moon on a stick for the same minimal price you're paying now really isn't their problem.

I have never asked to pay Gigaclear the same as I currently pay BT: £26/month for a 2MB package of Unlimited broadband and minimal calls. I have been suggesting something to bridge a big gap between 2MB and 50MB and between £26/month and £45/month.

nidO wrote: »

Gigaclear are a private business operating a business model that suits them. They are not a monopoly and are under no obligation to provide leased access to other providers, because you have BT for that.

In my location they now have a monopoly on all-fibre internet. There is no "BT for that" here.

BT's service is no shoddier than Gigaclear's, who use sub-contracted installers with almost no communication skills and barely the right tools (I lent a standard wood drill set to enable them to complete my neighbour's installation). Another neighbour waited weeks before they would accept the supplied router was out-of-the-box faulty.

Yes, Gigaclear are a private business operating a business model that suits them but

• their network utilises public infrastructure so they have to operate in the interests of the public
• broadband is not a luxury (even if the present government decide not to classify it a utlility)

For the unemployed, those on low incomes or struggling on Pensions and almost zero interest savings this Gigaclear offfering is not helpful. It has done nothing but divide this community.

asdv

Iain_L wrote: »

Being stuck on a max of 512kbps from my outdated exchange I do feel for you, and have to say I wish Gigaclear operated up here in Scotland, because they would quickly get the 30% uptake they want from those connected to my exchange.

You could do worse than register interest with http://ionnet.co.uk/ 30MB for £36/month.

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.

According to Thomas Newton writing on recumbu.com in July 2013 Gigaclear announced plans with Fluidata to open up their network to upto 50 other ISPs.

This tallies with what appears to be a requirement by OFCOM in the Granting of Code powers (giving things like special exemptions for digging up in public and private land) to Gigaclear in March 2011, in which Gigaclear make a statement that includes "...willing to share apparatus where feasible" amongst other committments toward the public interest.