Shared driveway, permission for overhead wire installation

Mickey666

sendu said:

diego_94 said:

Why do you want FTTP, what is wrong with standard ADSL? Fast enough for most normal users.

Netflix advises 25 Mbps for 4k streaming. I think my property would get about 25 average. But there are multiple people in the house, each potentially doing their own 4k stream. Game streaming can use up to 50 Mbps. And I download numerous multi-GB files daily, and faster downloads are greatly appreciated.

Multiple 4k stream-capable internet will become what most normal users want and expect within the next decade I suspect.

Your question is like asking someone who wanted ADSL 10 years ago "what's wrong with dial-up"?

I’m sure that’s true.  It’s the same sort of reason that a typical PC today needs terabytes of storage and gigabytes of RAM, something unheard of, even with military mainframe computers, when I started work in the computer industry in the early 1980s.
But, as ever, the issue is really about whether to pay through the nose to be an early adopter or not.  We might all be watching 4K video streams in 10 years time, but that doesn’t mean I need to pay a premium for 100Mbps internet today.  I’m happy to wait until that’s the basic connection speed for a sensible price.  But each to their own.

sendu

AdrianC said:

sendu said:

diego_94 said:

Why do you want FTTP, what is wrong with standard ADSL? Fast enough for most normal users.

Netflix advises 25 Mbps for 4k streaming.

But, of course, nobody NEEDS 4k streaming.

We have a 32" 1080p HD tv, at one end of a ~4m long living room. We rarely even bother using the HD broadcast channels. Unless you've got a TV the size of your wall, with your nose damn near touching the screen, in some kind of domestic IMAX-wannabe scenario, then 4k is just pointless.

Nobody? I do in fact have a home cinema setup. Seat is about 2.5m from a 77" screen.
Even the living room TV is 65", with the sofa about 3m from it.
I don't think your personal experience with an old, small 32" set can really be applied to what is appropriate for most people, never mind all people.

https://home.bt.com/tech-gadgets/tv/what-good-size-tv-tv-viewing-distance-11364292335951

The average UK viewing distance is 2.5m (8ft). This gives you a 50in Full HD screen and allows you a 65in 4K Ultra HD screen.

Netflix in 4K HDR is glorious, and while I feel sad you don't get to experience it, it certainly doesn't make it "pointless".

sendu

Mickey666 said:

sendu said:

diego_94 said:

Why do you want FTTP, what is wrong with standard ADSL? Fast enough for most normal users.

Netflix advises 25 Mbps for 4k streaming. I think my property would get about 25 average. But there are multiple people in the house, each potentially doing their own 4k stream. Game streaming can use up to 50 Mbps. And I download numerous multi-GB files daily, and faster downloads are greatly appreciated.

Multiple 4k stream-capable internet will become what most normal users want and expect within the next decade I suspect.

Your question is like asking someone who wanted ADSL 10 years ago "what's wrong with dial-up"?

I’m sure that’s true.  It’s the same sort of reason that a typical PC today needs terabytes of storage and gigabytes of RAM, something unheard of, even with military mainframe computers, when I started work in the computer industry in the early 1980s.
But, as ever, the issue is really about whether to pay through the nose to be an early adopter or not.  We might all be watching 4K video streams in 10 years time, but that doesn’t mean I need to pay a premium for 100Mbps internet today.  I’m happy to wait until that’s the basic connection speed for a sensible price.  But each to their own.

Sadly I've been spoilt by having Virgin, where I got 350Mbps for reasonable cost. Going from that down to 25Mbps is just horrible. So while I don't like the increased cost of FTTPoD, I don't have other options in this new house.

Mickey666

I get 29/3Mbps FTTC for around £20/month.

I've enquired about FTTPoD and the installation cost is estimated to be 'in excess' of £4800.  This would give me 300/30Mbps.

At least the choice is there but I would get approximately zero value from such a speed increase, so I'll hang on to my money for the time being.

MobileSaver

sendu said:

AdrianC said:

We have a 32" 1080p HD tv, at one end of a ~4m long living room. We rarely even bother using the HD broadcast channels.

Nobody? I do in fact have a home cinema setup. Seat is about 2.5m from a 77" screen.
Even the living room TV is 65", with the sofa about 3m from it.

+1

I can't think of anyone in my family or circle of friends who has anything as small as 32" for their main TV; even our seventy-something parents both have 42" TVs.

At home we watch 90% of our TV and movies on a 138" screen and similarly the living room has a 65" Plasma. Crikey, even the kitchen has a 40" screen and I can't bear to watch non-HD content on that, let alone on the big screens.

Sadly one of the few downsides to living in my beautiful but rural part of the country is we don't yet have Fibre; streaming 4K isn't yet an option but Openreach are reporting FTTP is "coming soon"... happy days.

AdrianC

But, then, I probably only watch about two hours of tv a week, and I'm not subscribed to any streaming service... Because 99.9% of what's on is utter dribble. 

I don't think there's anywhere in this house where a 138" TV would actually go - and this is a large house. A metre and a quarter wide...? Do you not have bookshelves and pictures?

Ditzy_Mitzy

To put this in simple terms, then: OP wishes for a fibre optic internet wire to be strung from a nearby telegraph pole to his house.  Said pole is situated on a shared drive, which is owned by his neighbour.  BT, responsible for stringing the wire, has stated that the work will only be done if both properties on the drive agree to sign up to a year's worth of fibre optic internet connection.  The neighbour, who hasn't had any involvement up to this point, doesn't want fibre optic internet and possibly feels rather affronted by the OP's efforts to get him to sign into a BT contract he doesn't want to sign, has offered the OP two options: OP goes ahead, on the proviso that OP reimburses the neighbour for the cost of the fibre optic broadband he doesn't want; or OP forgets the whole thing. 
I don't really see what the neighbour is supposed to have done wrong.

eidand

sendu said:

Mickey666 said:

sendu said:

diego_94 said:

Why do you want FTTP, what is wrong with standard ADSL? Fast enough for most normal users.

Netflix advises 25 Mbps for 4k streaming. I think my property would get about 25 average. But there are multiple people in the house, each potentially doing their own 4k stream. Game streaming can use up to 50 Mbps. And I download numerous multi-GB files daily, and faster downloads are greatly appreciated.

Multiple 4k stream-capable internet will become what most normal users want and expect within the next decade I suspect.

Your question is like asking someone who wanted ADSL 10 years ago "what's wrong with dial-up"?

I’m sure that’s true.  It’s the same sort of reason that a typical PC today needs terabytes of storage and gigabytes of RAM, something unheard of, even with military mainframe computers, when I started work in the computer industry in the early 1980s.
But, as ever, the issue is really about whether to pay through the nose to be an early adopter or not.  We might all be watching 4K video streams in 10 years time, but that doesn’t mean I need to pay a premium for 100Mbps internet today.  I’m happy to wait until that’s the basic connection speed for a sensible price.  But each to their own.

Sadly I've been spoilt by having Virgin, where I got 350Mbps for reasonable cost. Going from that down to 25Mbps is just horrible. So while I don't like the increased cost of FTTPoD, I don't have other options in this new house.

Yeah, I am in exactly the same situation as you. Going from 200 down to 25 ish. I've been looking at the same things, broadband voucher schemes etc. No luck so far as the information is either wrong or plain stupid at best.

Example ... East Dorset Council states :

Gigabit Broadband Voucher Scheme with a Dorset top-up

You may be eligible if you are:

• in a location which is primarily rural and remote and with broadband speeds of less than 100Mbps
• considered unlikely to benefit from any commercial investment by 2033
• two or more homes and/or businesses that are applying as a group

they give you a list of providers and to go and check if you an use their scheme with them. I went to BT and they say .. sorry, as you can get a speed of over 10mb ( i my case 25 according to their estimations ) you are not eligible for this ....

facepalm moment  basically.

Takmon

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

To put this in simple terms, then: OP wishes for a fibre optic internet wire to be strung from a nearby telegraph pole to his house.  Said pole is situated on a shared driveway, which is owned by his neighbour.  BT, responsible for stringing the wire, has stated that the work will only be done if both properties on the driveway agree to sign up to a year's worth of fibre optic internet connection.  The neighbour, who hasn't had any involvement up to this point, doesn't want fibre optic internet and possibly feels rather affronted by the OP's efforts to get him to sign into a BT contract he doesn't want to sign, has offered the OP two options: OP goes ahead, on the proviso that OP reimburses the neighbour for the cost of the fibre optic broadband he doesn't want; or OP forgets the whole thing. 
I don't really see what the neighbour is supposed to have done wrong.

No that's incorrect. Openreach are happy to install fibre to the OP's home but the owner of the shared driveway has said that if it needs to be dug up they want fibre too and they want the OP to pay for it or they won't give permission. So the OP is looking to get fibre across the telegraph poles so they won't need permission from the owner of the driveway (they hope) and not have to pay for the neighbor to have it as a bribe.

sendu

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

To put this in simple terms, then: OP wishes for a fibre optic internet wire to be strung from a nearby telegraph pole to his house.  Said pole is situated on a shared drive, which is owned by his neighbour.  BT, responsible for stringing the wire, has stated that the work will only be done if both properties on the drive agree to sign up to a year's worth of fibre optic internet connection.  The neighbour, who hasn't had any involvement up to this point, doesn't want fibre optic internet and possibly feels rather affronted by the OP's efforts to get him to sign into a BT contract he doesn't want to sign, has offered the OP two options: OP goes ahead, on the proviso that OP reimburses the neighbour for the cost of the fibre optic broadband he doesn't want; or OP forgets the whole thing. 
I don't really see what the neighbour is supposed to have done wrong.

No, that's completely wrong.
When I didn't realise the fibre could be strung from the pole, I asked if I could pay the full costs of getting the fibre (just for myself) dug through the road, and pay full costs of resurfacing the road afterwards. The road is owned by my neighbour. He said I'd only have his permission to dig up the road (which he doesn't use himself; he's a landlord) if I got him fibre internet as well. Without him having to pay anything.
My neighbour is asking for a free upgrade to FTTPoD in exchange for doing nothing and not being disadvantaged in any way.
His demand may not be "wrong" (who wouldn't want free fibre?), but I think it's unreasonable. Do you disagree?