Shared driveway, permission for overhead wire installation

Ditzy_Mitzy

sendu said:

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?

O.K., sorry and thank you for clarifying.  I think unreasonable is the wrong word to use; the neighbour is simply trying to drive a hard bargain because he knows that he can.  It's unfortunate he has decided to do so, for your sake, but he seems fairly set on it.  What has he got to lose, after all, but the offer of fibre optic internet that he doesn't desperately need?  Perhaps expecting moral behaviour, or someone to do the right thing, is asking too much in a business context. 

MobileSaver

AdrianC said:

only watch about two hours of tv a week, ... 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 - Do you not have bookshelves and pictures?

Getting off-topic but the 138" screen is in a dedicated eight seat home cinema; the HD picture and immersive surround sound is so good that we watch pretty much everything in there.

Obviously everyone has different tastes but I couldn't disagree more about the "99.9% utter dribble" comment; yes some stuff is pants and you wonder why anyone would put their name to it but there are also many fantastic shows from Sky, the BBC and even Netflix and Amazon. In fact, there is now too much good stuff out there (and more being produced all the time) so I have belatedly realised I will never actually get to watch all the TV shows on my bucket list.

Getting back on topic, the difference between SD and HD on all our big screen TVs is like chalk and cheese; I notice immediately if a luddite family member has inexcusably selected a SD channel on one of the Sky boxes. Similarly the 4K picture in the lounge is noticeably better again and I'll be updating the home cinema to 4K as soon as Fibre is available as it will become an absolute "must have."

mattyprice4004

diego_94 said:

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

Why have a quick car, when a Nissan Micra will still do 70? 
Why buy nice food, when an Asda Smart Price microwave curry will fill you up?
Why buy a house, when a cardboard box will keep you dry?