Persimmons & Fibrenest?

iniltous

The OP is about Persimmon not ONFL, last time I looked at ONFL the choice was less, perhaps their business model is now to buddy up with smaller ISP’s, but you chose to use ONFL to ‘defend’ Persimmon , I’ll admit ONFL have apparently done ‘deals’ with ISP’s hardly anyone will have heard of, no proof that Persimmon will follow ONFL .

As far as mixing up issues, I’m not, whilst Persimmon own the site , they have the right to allow or deny others access to the roads and footpaths because it’s their private property, when the council adopt the roads footpaths etc, the terms of the NRSWA allow  registered  ‘utility’ company’s access, but as mentioned , it won’t necessarily be an attractive proposition to other network builders to build where an incumbent already has the market stitched up.

Proof of Persimmon offering any sort of fair access is no more than a statement you quote from an article where a Persimmon spokesperson is defending their monopoly, no detail etc, you cannot provide a link to Fibrenest wholesale , and even you they did, under what terms , it’s easy to say access is available whilst making the terms so poor that no one will bother and of course , they are under no obligation to offer equivalent access to all providers , based on costs plus margin, they can do sweetheart deals if they  want, they don’t have significant market power , so the regulator won’t be involved.

As far as Ofcom coming down hard on a throw away defensive ‘line’ in an article on a niche forum , l doubt Ofcom are aware of that statement , and given the relatively small number affected by these local monopolies, Ofcom are hardly likely to bother , that means ( obviously) the OP currently has a limited choice of one, you optimistically think other ISP will be available at some indeterminate time in the future ,  I think you are being naive, and any real competition will only be available if they are forced to offer PIA 

brewerdave

KitKat_Shuffler said:

iniltous said:

KitKat_Shuffler said:

iniltous said:

KitKat_Shuffler said:

iniltous said:

KitKat_Shuffler said:

Yk2021 said:

 I dont mind paying fibrenest temporary but not permanent when other providers offer a better deal and package. Thank you

Fibrenest's FTTP pricing is fairly competitive, eg £14/m for a 20 Mbps service which is fine for emails and basic web browsing or £31/m for a 75 Mbps service. Not that different to the likes of BT, EE, Plusnet etc. Look on the bright side, at least you would be getting full fibre (FTTP), rather than a copper (adsl) or hybrid-copper (FTTC) solution from Openreach, which is not unheard of on new build estates. I'm sure many people would prefer being stuck with a single FTTP provider rather than have a choice of 700 CPs on Openreach copper...

If ‘BT’ built a FTTP network in an area , and basically said , ‘You don’t have a choice, it’s us or no one’ , but the price was in line with other providers elsewhere, I’m sure you wouldn’t be so sanguine to the lack of competition , it’s true that the prices are reasonable and not much different to industry average, but what if the service turns out to be poor, unreliable, or over subscribed, or the customer service is poor , what’s the consumers alternative then ?
As far as non FTTP in new estates from Openreach, it’s been  the case for quite a while that any developments that request OR FTTP can have it,( at no cost ) so if you know of any ‘new’ developments that are getting copper pair infrastructure, that’s hardly OR’s fault is it ?, but I doubt you know of any , effectively the only new developments that are not getting OR FTTP,  with the choice of providers that come with that , are developments that are locking out OR to do a sweetheart deal with someone ( probably linked to the developers ) or small one man band  developers who haven’t approached OR 

1.  Fibrenest's situation isn't that much different to when BT retail first launched FTTP on the Openreach network. BT were pretty much the only ISP available on the Openreach FTTP network for a few years and it was a common complaint from new build homeowners that they didn't have a choice of ISPs, other than BT. However other ISPs chose not to offer their services over the Openreach FTTP network at the time. Exactly the same as Persimmon/Fibrenest:

"Equally, we have already and continue to encourage other providers to use our existing fibre infrastructure for their services.”

ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2021/06/persimmon-homes-criticised-over-fttp-broadband-monopoly-claims.html

2. Its only in the last few years, that Openreach has offered FTTP 'free' (ie at no additional cost versus copper) to most new build sites. Prior to that, developers were asked to pay a hefty premium for Openreach FTTP and as a result, most were just ordering copper from Openreach. It seems to be for this exact reason that Persimmon decided to create their own FTTP network:

"It was because of the significant number of complaints from customers who were not connected that we created FibreNest in the first place."

So maybe if Openreach had offered FTTP cheaper/free to developers earlier, then perhaps the likes of Fibrenest wouldn't exist at all. 

But I would be very surprised if more CPs didn't start using Persimmon's FTTP network in the future, once their FTTP network has a big enough footprint. Pretty much the same as Openreach FTTP.

1.Not true though, BT never had any exclusivity on OR FTTP , because a new build had FTTP and BT was available didn’t stop Sky or Talk Talk or whoever also offering service, the fact that they didn’t want to was nothing to do with ‘BT’, even at the start there were alternatives to BT, it’s just they were smaller ‘niche’ providers , generally more expensive than BT as they tend to trade on quality rather than cheapness 
2. You obviously don’t know anything about who pays who what when it comes to new sites , OR pay developers for installation of the physical access infrastructure ( duct boxes etc ) there is no difference between what a developer gets paid for a joint box for copper or fibre….years ago ( when FTTP was less commonplace ) if there was no fibre spine close by , then copper may have been a more economical choice.
Perhaos you can link to something where it was customers clamouring for the builder to lock them into a choice of one ( them ) for FTTP, when OR offer FTTP to every new build site , 
if Persimmon were doing this 5-10 years ago your assertion any carry some weight but they have only been doing this very recently.

You can spin it anyway you like, but a monopoly like these are impossible to defend , your attempts to do so are not based on facts but at best your assumptions  .

Persimmon may offer access to their ducts and boxes , but they may have to be forced to do so, your comment ‘pretty much the same as Openreach is fatuous, OR have no choice but to offer access to anyone who wants it , Persimmon don’t have and ( so far ) dont offer any access to competitors 

So are you suggesting Persimmon are telling porkies when they have clearly stated

"Equally, we have already and continue to encourage other providers to use our existing fibre infrastructure for their services.”

ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2021/06/persimmon-homes-criticised-over-fttp-broadband-monopoly-claims.html

Funnily enough that is what Openreach used to say when some people complained that they had no choice but to use BT Retail for FTTP back when Openreach first began installing FTTP. There's nothing stopping BT Retail, TalkTalk and Sky etc offering FTTP over  Persimmon FTTP fibre, but they've CHOSEN not to. The exclusivity for Persimmon FTTP applies to others providers not being able to physically install their cables on Persimmon sites for X years or indefinitely, not for other providers not being able to access their network. There's a hueg difference between the 2.

So you are claiming that much like Openreach, Fibrenest is a wholesale provider , that provides the infrastructure but isn’t allowed to offer retail customers service, but has to offer wholesale equivalent access to any Telco /ISP that wants to offer service ?, 

Interestingly you take a quote from an article critical of Fibrenest as proof of them being open and available to all….no mention of what basis they supposedly make this ‘offer’, Openreach have to make the costs if it’s provision known to Ofcom , who then allow a margin, this then becomes the price all CP’s pay ( so for example a OR copper local loop is about £9 a month, what the individual ISP charges you is up to them ) there is no evidence that Fibrenest have a wholesale price , that is cost based so that others could undercut them at a retail level.

The actual price is irrelevant, it’s the process, if Fibrenest offer retail customers service for £25 ( for example ) but also allow rivals to sell , but charge the rival £25 wholesale ( the same as their retail price ) , then it’s impossible for the rival to undercut , if Fibrenest charge £25 retail , then are they going to offer wholesale at £10 ( probably the cost plus margin price ) leaving a margin for the rival to work with ?, nothing the article suggests that, only the bland, political answer ‘ encourage other providers’ ,
I don’t need  to accuse them of telling porkies, just provide a link to their wholesale division that offers access to others, if they don’t have a website how do others know of their generous offer to allow others access ?, 

Before you post more dubious facts , often in these locked in sites , several ISP are available , but when you look at the ownership, they are all part of the same group….it would be like OR saying we offer service to lots of company’s , BT , Plusnet and EE….you no doubt would be quick to complain if OR only offered service to them, as they are all BT Group.

Im not sure where you get your info , if you do have some insider knowledge, please share , or at least indicate how you supposedly know what you present as fact, otherwise , you are doing nothing more than sharing your opinion which is based on nothing more than your assumptions, which happen to be , when referencing OR, incorrect.

You appear to have a short memory and don't seem to understand that it wasn't that long ago (~ 5 years) that BT were being wrongly accused by many of the exact same thing you're accusing Fibrenest of - being a monopoly on their FTTP wholesale network. There were loads of articles written on the likes of thinkbroadband and ispreview about the lack of choice of providers on the Openreach FTTP network, around 2015. BT were pretty much the only residential ISP to offer any internet service on Openreach FTTP new build sites for a few years.  In fact even to this day, some new build homeowners at Openreach FTTP  only sites still wrongly assume BT Retail is their only option on FTTP - most likely down to the fact that the builder has told them that its 'BT FTTP' rather than Openreach based FTTP. 

Its still happening on new build sites - my daughter was told by Taylor Wimpey when recently moving in , that they could only use BT Retail for the first 12 months.

iniltous

brewerdave said:

KitKat_Shuffler said:

iniltous said:

KitKat_Shuffler said:

iniltous said:

KitKat_Shuffler said:

iniltous said:

KitKat_Shuffler said:

Yk2021 said:

 I dont mind paying fibrenest temporary but not permanent when other providers offer a better deal and package. Thank you

Fibrenest's FTTP pricing is fairly competitive, eg £14/m for a 20 Mbps service which is fine for emails and basic web browsing or £31/m for a 75 Mbps service. Not that different to the likes of BT, EE, Plusnet etc. Look on the bright side, at least you would be getting full fibre (FTTP), rather than a copper (adsl) or hybrid-copper (FTTC) solution from Openreach, which is not unheard of on new build estates. I'm sure many people would prefer being stuck with a single FTTP provider rather than have a choice of 700 CPs on Openreach copper...

If ‘BT’ built a FTTP network in an area , and basically said , ‘You don’t have a choice, it’s us or no one’ , but the price was in line with other providers elsewhere, I’m sure you wouldn’t be so sanguine to the lack of competition , it’s true that the prices are reasonable and not much different to industry average, but what if the service turns out to be poor, unreliable, or over subscribed, or the customer service is poor , what’s the consumers alternative then ?
As far as non FTTP in new estates from Openreach, it’s been  the case for quite a while that any developments that request OR FTTP can have it,( at no cost ) so if you know of any ‘new’ developments that are getting copper pair infrastructure, that’s hardly OR’s fault is it ?, but I doubt you know of any , effectively the only new developments that are not getting OR FTTP,  with the choice of providers that come with that , are developments that are locking out OR to do a sweetheart deal with someone ( probably linked to the developers ) or small one man band  developers who haven’t approached OR 

1.  Fibrenest's situation isn't that much different to when BT retail first launched FTTP on the Openreach network. BT were pretty much the only ISP available on the Openreach FTTP network for a few years and it was a common complaint from new build homeowners that they didn't have a choice of ISPs, other than BT. However other ISPs chose not to offer their services over the Openreach FTTP network at the time. Exactly the same as Persimmon/Fibrenest:

"Equally, we have already and continue to encourage other providers to use our existing fibre infrastructure for their services.”

ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2021/06/persimmon-homes-criticised-over-fttp-broadband-monopoly-claims.html

2. Its only in the last few years, that Openreach has offered FTTP 'free' (ie at no additional cost versus copper) to most new build sites. Prior to that, developers were asked to pay a hefty premium for Openreach FTTP and as a result, most were just ordering copper from Openreach. It seems to be for this exact reason that Persimmon decided to create their own FTTP network:

"It was because of the significant number of complaints from customers who were not connected that we created FibreNest in the first place."

So maybe if Openreach had offered FTTP cheaper/free to developers earlier, then perhaps the likes of Fibrenest wouldn't exist at all. 

But I would be very surprised if more CPs didn't start using Persimmon's FTTP network in the future, once their FTTP network has a big enough footprint. Pretty much the same as Openreach FTTP.

1.Not true though, BT never had any exclusivity on OR FTTP , because a new build had FTTP and BT was available didn’t stop Sky or Talk Talk or whoever also offering service, the fact that they didn’t want to was nothing to do with ‘BT’, even at the start there were alternatives to BT, it’s just they were smaller ‘niche’ providers , generally more expensive than BT as they tend to trade on quality rather than cheapness 
2. You obviously don’t know anything about who pays who what when it comes to new sites , OR pay developers for installation of the physical access infrastructure ( duct boxes etc ) there is no difference between what a developer gets paid for a joint box for copper or fibre….years ago ( when FTTP was less commonplace ) if there was no fibre spine close by , then copper may have been a more economical choice.
Perhaos you can link to something where it was customers clamouring for the builder to lock them into a choice of one ( them ) for FTTP, when OR offer FTTP to every new build site , 
if Persimmon were doing this 5-10 years ago your assertion any carry some weight but they have only been doing this very recently.

You can spin it anyway you like, but a monopoly like these are impossible to defend , your attempts to do so are not based on facts but at best your assumptions  .

Persimmon may offer access to their ducts and boxes , but they may have to be forced to do so, your comment ‘pretty much the same as Openreach is fatuous, OR have no choice but to offer access to anyone who wants it , Persimmon don’t have and ( so far ) dont offer any access to competitors 

So are you suggesting Persimmon are telling porkies when they have clearly stated

"Equally, we have already and continue to encourage other providers to use our existing fibre infrastructure for their services.”

ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2021/06/persimmon-homes-criticised-over-fttp-broadband-monopoly-claims.html

Funnily enough that is what Openreach used to say when some people complained that they had no choice but to use BT Retail for FTTP back when Openreach first began installing FTTP. There's nothing stopping BT Retail, TalkTalk and Sky etc offering FTTP over  Persimmon FTTP fibre, but they've CHOSEN not to. The exclusivity for Persimmon FTTP applies to others providers not being able to physically install their cables on Persimmon sites for X years or indefinitely, not for other providers not being able to access their network. There's a hueg difference between the 2.

So you are claiming that much like Openreach, Fibrenest is a wholesale provider , that provides the infrastructure but isn’t allowed to offer retail customers service, but has to offer wholesale equivalent access to any Telco /ISP that wants to offer service ?, 

Interestingly you take a quote from an article critical of Fibrenest as proof of them being open and available to all….no mention of what basis they supposedly make this ‘offer’, Openreach have to make the costs if it’s provision known to Ofcom , who then allow a margin, this then becomes the price all CP’s pay ( so for example a OR copper local loop is about £9 a month, what the individual ISP charges you is up to them ) there is no evidence that Fibrenest have a wholesale price , that is cost based so that others could undercut them at a retail level.

The actual price is irrelevant, it’s the process, if Fibrenest offer retail customers service for £25 ( for example ) but also allow rivals to sell , but charge the rival £25 wholesale ( the same as their retail price ) , then it’s impossible for the rival to undercut , if Fibrenest charge £25 retail , then are they going to offer wholesale at £10 ( probably the cost plus margin price ) leaving a margin for the rival to work with ?, nothing the article suggests that, only the bland, political answer ‘ encourage other providers’ ,
I don’t need  to accuse them of telling porkies, just provide a link to their wholesale division that offers access to others, if they don’t have a website how do others know of their generous offer to allow others access ?, 

Before you post more dubious facts , often in these locked in sites , several ISP are available , but when you look at the ownership, they are all part of the same group….it would be like OR saying we offer service to lots of company’s , BT , Plusnet and EE….you no doubt would be quick to complain if OR only offered service to them, as they are all BT Group.

Im not sure where you get your info , if you do have some insider knowledge, please share , or at least indicate how you supposedly know what you present as fact, otherwise , you are doing nothing more than sharing your opinion which is based on nothing more than your assumptions, which happen to be , when referencing OR, incorrect.

You appear to have a short memory and don't seem to understand that it wasn't that long ago (~ 5 years) that BT were being wrongly accused by many of the exact same thing you're accusing Fibrenest of - being a monopoly on their FTTP wholesale network. There were loads of articles written on the likes of thinkbroadband and ispreview about the lack of choice of providers on the Openreach FTTP network, around 2015. BT were pretty much the only residential ISP to offer any internet service on Openreach FTTP new build sites for a few years.  In fact even to this day, some new build homeowners at Openreach FTTP  only sites still wrongly assume BT Retail is their only option on FTTP - most likely down to the fact that the builder has told them that its 'BT FTTP' rather than Openreach based FTTP. 

Its still happening on new build sites - my daughter was told by Taylor Wimpey when recently moving in , that they could only use BT Retail for the first 12 months.

But that’s Taylor Wimpey’s error, the new sites rep turns up in an Openreach van, the ‘engineers’ fitting the Splitter Nodes, CBT’s , and ONT’s ( all generally within the confines of the site ) turn up in an Openreach vans, or if contractors their van says working on behalf of OR, the kit even says OR on it ( no mention of  BT anywhere) so there is not much more that can be done (by OR ) ….if they TW person says  ‘BT’ , perhaps your daughter should challenge that info so the Taylor Wimpey employee doesn’t continue to mis inform buyers.

brewerdave

iniltous said:

brewerdave said:

KitKat_Shuffler said:

iniltous said:

KitKat_Shuffler said:

iniltous said:

KitKat_Shuffler said:

iniltous said:

KitKat_Shuffler said:

Yk2021 said:

 I dont mind paying fibrenest temporary but not permanent when other providers offer a better deal and package. Thank you

Fibrenest's FTTP pricing is fairly competitive, eg £14/m for a 20 Mbps service which is fine for emails and basic web browsing or £31/m for a 75 Mbps service. Not that different to the likes of BT, EE, Plusnet etc. Look on the bright side, at least you would be getting full fibre (FTTP), rather than a copper (adsl) or hybrid-copper (FTTC) solution from Openreach, which is not unheard of on new build estates. I'm sure many people would prefer being stuck with a single FTTP provider rather than have a choice of 700 CPs on Openreach copper...

If ‘BT’ built a FTTP network in an area , and basically said , ‘You don’t have a choice, it’s us or no one’ , but the price was in line with other providers elsewhere, I’m sure you wouldn’t be so sanguine to the lack of competition , it’s true that the prices are reasonable and not much different to industry average, but what if the service turns out to be poor, unreliable, or over subscribed, or the customer service is poor , what’s the consumers alternative then ?
As far as non FTTP in new estates from Openreach, it’s been  the case for quite a while that any developments that request OR FTTP can have it,( at no cost ) so if you know of any ‘new’ developments that are getting copper pair infrastructure, that’s hardly OR’s fault is it ?, but I doubt you know of any , effectively the only new developments that are not getting OR FTTP,  with the choice of providers that come with that , are developments that are locking out OR to do a sweetheart deal with someone ( probably linked to the developers ) or small one man band  developers who haven’t approached OR 

1.  Fibrenest's situation isn't that much different to when BT retail first launched FTTP on the Openreach network. BT were pretty much the only ISP available on the Openreach FTTP network for a few years and it was a common complaint from new build homeowners that they didn't have a choice of ISPs, other than BT. However other ISPs chose not to offer their services over the Openreach FTTP network at the time. Exactly the same as Persimmon/Fibrenest:

"Equally, we have already and continue to encourage other providers to use our existing fibre infrastructure for their services.”

ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2021/06/persimmon-homes-criticised-over-fttp-broadband-monopoly-claims.html

2. Its only in the last few years, that Openreach has offered FTTP 'free' (ie at no additional cost versus copper) to most new build sites. Prior to that, developers were asked to pay a hefty premium for Openreach FTTP and as a result, most were just ordering copper from Openreach. It seems to be for this exact reason that Persimmon decided to create their own FTTP network:

"It was because of the significant number of complaints from customers who were not connected that we created FibreNest in the first place."

So maybe if Openreach had offered FTTP cheaper/free to developers earlier, then perhaps the likes of Fibrenest wouldn't exist at all. 

But I would be very surprised if more CPs didn't start using Persimmon's FTTP network in the future, once their FTTP network has a big enough footprint. Pretty much the same as Openreach FTTP.

1.Not true though, BT never had any exclusivity on OR FTTP , because a new build had FTTP and BT was available didn’t stop Sky or Talk Talk or whoever also offering service, the fact that they didn’t want to was nothing to do with ‘BT’, even at the start there were alternatives to BT, it’s just they were smaller ‘niche’ providers , generally more expensive than BT as they tend to trade on quality rather than cheapness 
2. You obviously don’t know anything about who pays who what when it comes to new sites , OR pay developers for installation of the physical access infrastructure ( duct boxes etc ) there is no difference between what a developer gets paid for a joint box for copper or fibre….years ago ( when FTTP was less commonplace ) if there was no fibre spine close by , then copper may have been a more economical choice.
Perhaos you can link to something where it was customers clamouring for the builder to lock them into a choice of one ( them ) for FTTP, when OR offer FTTP to every new build site , 
if Persimmon were doing this 5-10 years ago your assertion any carry some weight but they have only been doing this very recently.

You can spin it anyway you like, but a monopoly like these are impossible to defend , your attempts to do so are not based on facts but at best your assumptions  .

Persimmon may offer access to their ducts and boxes , but they may have to be forced to do so, your comment ‘pretty much the same as Openreach is fatuous, OR have no choice but to offer access to anyone who wants it , Persimmon don’t have and ( so far ) dont offer any access to competitors 

So are you suggesting Persimmon are telling porkies when they have clearly stated

"Equally, we have already and continue to encourage other providers to use our existing fibre infrastructure for their services.”

ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2021/06/persimmon-homes-criticised-over-fttp-broadband-monopoly-claims.html

Funnily enough that is what Openreach used to say when some people complained that they had no choice but to use BT Retail for FTTP back when Openreach first began installing FTTP. There's nothing stopping BT Retail, TalkTalk and Sky etc offering FTTP over  Persimmon FTTP fibre, but they've CHOSEN not to. The exclusivity for Persimmon FTTP applies to others providers not being able to physically install their cables on Persimmon sites for X years or indefinitely, not for other providers not being able to access their network. There's a hueg difference between the 2.

So you are claiming that much like Openreach, Fibrenest is a wholesale provider , that provides the infrastructure but isn’t allowed to offer retail customers service, but has to offer wholesale equivalent access to any Telco /ISP that wants to offer service ?, 

Interestingly you take a quote from an article critical of Fibrenest as proof of them being open and available to all….no mention of what basis they supposedly make this ‘offer’, Openreach have to make the costs if it’s provision known to Ofcom , who then allow a margin, this then becomes the price all CP’s pay ( so for example a OR copper local loop is about £9 a month, what the individual ISP charges you is up to them ) there is no evidence that Fibrenest have a wholesale price , that is cost based so that others could undercut them at a retail level.

The actual price is irrelevant, it’s the process, if Fibrenest offer retail customers service for £25 ( for example ) but also allow rivals to sell , but charge the rival £25 wholesale ( the same as their retail price ) , then it’s impossible for the rival to undercut , if Fibrenest charge £25 retail , then are they going to offer wholesale at £10 ( probably the cost plus margin price ) leaving a margin for the rival to work with ?, nothing the article suggests that, only the bland, political answer ‘ encourage other providers’ ,
I don’t need  to accuse them of telling porkies, just provide a link to their wholesale division that offers access to others, if they don’t have a website how do others know of their generous offer to allow others access ?, 

Before you post more dubious facts , often in these locked in sites , several ISP are available , but when you look at the ownership, they are all part of the same group….it would be like OR saying we offer service to lots of company’s , BT , Plusnet and EE….you no doubt would be quick to complain if OR only offered service to them, as they are all BT Group.

Im not sure where you get your info , if you do have some insider knowledge, please share , or at least indicate how you supposedly know what you present as fact, otherwise , you are doing nothing more than sharing your opinion which is based on nothing more than your assumptions, which happen to be , when referencing OR, incorrect.

You appear to have a short memory and don't seem to understand that it wasn't that long ago (~ 5 years) that BT were being wrongly accused by many of the exact same thing you're accusing Fibrenest of - being a monopoly on their FTTP wholesale network. There were loads of articles written on the likes of thinkbroadband and ispreview about the lack of choice of providers on the Openreach FTTP network, around 2015. BT were pretty much the only residential ISP to offer any internet service on Openreach FTTP new build sites for a few years.  In fact even to this day, some new build homeowners at Openreach FTTP  only sites still wrongly assume BT Retail is their only option on FTTP - most likely down to the fact that the builder has told them that its 'BT FTTP' rather than Openreach based FTTP. 

Its still happening on new build sites - my daughter was told by Taylor Wimpey when recently moving in , that they could only use BT Retail for the first 12 months.

But that’s Taylor Wimpey’s error, the new sites rep turns up in an Openreach van, the ‘engineers’ fitting the Splitter Nodes, CBT’s , and ONT’s ( all generally within the confines of the site ) turn up in an Openreach vans, or if contractors their van says working on behalf of OR, the kit even says OR on it ( no mention of  BT anywhere) so there is not much more that can be done (by OR ) ….if they TW person says  ‘BT’ , perhaps your daughter should challenge that info so the Taylor Wimpey employee doesn’t continue to mis inform buyers.

She did - the "after sales" manager admitted the error in the TW blurb and "promised" that they would make sure that other new owners were informed correctly. She actually went with Sky !