FreeHolder not allowing installation of Fiber Optics at the Property

prasadk30

HI there, I was wondering if there is anyway the Landlords can be forced to install fibre optics at the property? The property I stay in is part of a development built by Barratt Homes. Apparently other buildings in the same development have different freeholders and they allowed HyperOptics to be installed at their property. I have been struggling with the Landlord of our building who have bluntly said not to HO past 3 yrs, without giving any valid reason. I find it really unreasonable and keen to see if anything can be done to coerce them to  allow HO at the property. The internet we are currently allowed at the property charge us £39 for 120MB while HO is £32 for 500MB (its a no brainer, if it works as they promise!). But I have used HO in my previous property and it was the best I have ever used till date!

Any thoughts? (fyi I am the owner of the flat, but not sure  if that helps in this case!) 

Neil_Jones

Think the issue here is going to be if something needs to be erected on the land owned by the landlord.  You might own your flat but you don't own the land.

The other possible option might be that the landlord has an arrangement with the existing provider which may be in contract for a while, this is not uncommon with new developments, which can't get access to the rest of the BT network until a few years after the estate was built.

JJ_Egan

OP who is your current provider ??

Does it require digging up pavement for HO fibre cable ??

prasadk30

Thank you, the current providers is some company called seethelight. I am not sure if it does require any digging up. The HO went through the process once 3 yr and they saying it would be really straight fwd, and I think Directors were happy at one point (from what I heard) and then they just changed their mind without giving any reason.

prasadk30

So the property manager came back saying this "Hyperoptic will not be allowed on the development as OFNL (parent company of seethelight) have a wayleave agreement stating that no other infrastructure are allowed to tamper with their equipment." Question is is it possible to get around this? I find it unresonable that some idiot signed and agreement and we are stuff with a retro broadband while the world moves on to fiber optics!

Alter_ego

Are you actually thinking of tampering with their equipment?

iniltous

What sort of building is it , a MDU ( multi dwelling unit ) if so,  the way HO ( AFAIK ) operate, is they effectively install a fibre leased line /switch in the building utility area , and as they sign up customers , the individual customer pays to install an Ethernet cable from HO switch to the apartment/flat, before they do this HO canvas the building residents and only begin work when enough residents commit to taking their service ..this arrangement obviously also requires the building management/freeholder to agree to HO installing kit in the building common areas, they ( as you know ) are under no compulsion to allow it, in addition the building management may well have done a sweetheart deal with OFNL , in effect locking out any competition, this is perfectly legal and no doubt was noted in the terms of purchase, in effect locking you into using a particular network , ( from a ‘landline’ point of view ,obviously they can’t stop you or limit your choice of mobile ) 
Its not just MDU’s either, some new build single dwelling sites ( Persimmon Homes ) provide a similar FTTP network, OR and others are not allowed on site , and until the roads and footpaths are adopted by the council, they have no ‘rights’ to install anything, as it’s effectively private property, much like your buildings utility area

molerat

Alter_ego said:

Are you actually thinking of tampering with their equipment?

No doubt, as part of the deal, the flats were all wired by the original installer so unless another provider is willing to install a complete new service to the individual flat then yes they would be tampering with their equipment.

I suspect "some idiot" received a nice brown envelope for signing that agreement.

prasadk30

Yes it is a building (or MDU). So I understand that there is nothing much I can do to make them let HO install in the building?? HO did say that they wont touch OFNLs equipments but there was a stern "NO" from the directors. and yes I totally agreed those idiots did receive a nice brown bag for their effort. btw I read the below article last night about initiatives from the government. Does this change anything at all? 
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2019/10/new-uk-rules-to-spread-gigabit-broadband-into-big-buildings.html  

Highland76

prasadk30 said:

So the property manager came back saying this "Hyperoptic will not be allowed on the development as OFNL (parent company of seethelight) have a wayleave agreement stating that no other infrastructure are allowed to tamper with their equipment." Question is is it possible to get around this? I find it unresonable that some idiot signed and agreement and we are stuff with a retro broadband while the world moves on to fiber optics!

Ermmmm....i think you'll find your existing broadband service with SeeTheLight is also a pure fibre optic line, so hardly retro broadband!!! Many people would love to be in your shoes, even if it meant being stuck with 1 ISP.

Reason why you have OFNL fibre and not Hyperoptic fibre is because OFNL laid their fibre at the time the propertes were being built - hence it was a lot lot easier wrt wayleaves, digging up etc. With OFNL, you have a choice of 10 different FTTP providers:
https://www.ofnl.co.uk/residents-businesses/available-isps

TBH its a bit of a non-issue, you already have FTTP and whilst it would be nice to have another FTTP provider such as Hyperoptic, its not end of the world being stuck on 120 Mbps. If cost is an issue with Seethelight then downgrade to their cheapest packages - they're not forcing you to take out 120 Mbps.

JamoLew

what are you actually doing that requires you to need 500 Mbps which makes 120 Mbps unsuitable ?
The vast majority of the population wouldn't notice the difference