Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

£0-£100

10 (41.7%)

£100-£500

3 (12.5%)

£500-£1000

7 (29.2%)

£1000-£2000

2 (8.3%)

£2000+

2 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 24

[michty_me]

Hypothetical question time...
As FTTPoD is a hugely expensive affair and unlikely to be purchased by many people due to this cost, It had me thinking on what would be your limit on cost, if any to get FTTP?
Would you be willing to pay something like £500-£1000 to cover the work from say your house to connect to fibre run into the street? If not, What sort of price range would you be willing to pay?

I realise there may be other issues involved with this such as old copper still being around but it was just something that popped into my head.

[Ixel]

As I'm renting I wouldn't be prepared to pay much more than around 1000 GBP for the installation of FTTPoD. If I owned the property I currently live in then I would be prepared to pay a bit more, definitely a few thousand.

[michty_me]

I didn't consider persons renting to be fair. I don't think I would spend that much if I were renting unless I knew it was going to be a long term rental.
For a permanent residency, I would seriously consider slightly more than my original question.

[shambly]

Virgin Media are, in effect, trialing this approach in the Test Valley area. They are asking households that want to be connected to their service to pay an additional £300 rural levy to contribute to the additional cost of building out their network in such a rural area.

Original ideas were banded charges based on council tax band but in the end a flat fee was decided upon.

It will be interesting to see how it works out, though in our village (part of the scheme) BT will have got their house in order prior to VMs arrival.... (been waiting for a cabinet expansion for 9 months but now due by November)

[Weaver]

I would definitely pay for a short run of fibre. Absolutely.

[michty_me]

£300 is a bargain. I would hope people would sign up to it but I guess it's down to requirements. I doubt I would grudge paying more than that either.

[michty_me]

I've added a poll to see what peoples MAXIMUM willing spend would be.

[johnson]

I'd pay over £1K in a permanent residence as long as it was real fibre to the house not the stupid contention ratio 330/30 nonsense BT are peddling. Thats no better than coax to the house from virgin in some case. If you have a fibre reaching your property then it should be close to symmetric gigabit.

The 330/30 stuff would be palatable if they allowed all houses passed to pool to cover the cost and still allowed choice of provider. But still £10K+ divided by 10-15 houses is too much for 330/30...

[michty_me]

I'd pay over £1K in a permanent residence as long as it was real fibre to the house not the stupid contention ratio 330/30 nonsense BT are peddling. Thats no better than coax to the house from virgin in some case. If you have a fibre reaching your property then it should be close to symmetric gigabit.

The 330/30 stuff would be palatable if they allowed all houses passed to pool to cover the cost and still allowed choice of provider. But still £10K+ divided by 10-15 houses is too much for 330/30...

Yes, that's another issue with package limits which I would hope would change as time passed.
Would it be similar to LLU where ISPs would have to have equipment available in exchanges to allow for changing ISPs (Assuming they didn't use BTs backhaul)

[Deathstar]

It would depend on what the guaranteed speed was.
Yes I would pay for FTTP, however there would have to beba substantial increase in actual throughput.
The trouble is, 1 Gbps would be the minimum speed I'd be willing to pay for, but what would I actually gain?

Not much to be honest, my speeds at the moment are good, I can stream UHD with no issues, granted only one user at a time.
There would have to be a lot more content out there for it really to be a benefit in my opinion.
In all honesty, Ofcom should be pushing for greater competition, the issue with that is, population density. Modern housing estates that were built in the last 15 years or rural towns villages do not have the population density to make it viable. Where as city's, and dare I say it "council" estates do.

For example where I am, there is no Virgin in the area, but it's in the more densely populated areas, the same whete my parents are.

[Chrysalis]

Given I am on 80/20 now with actual performance of about 74/20 and I live in rented accommodation then not very much.

If I was on say 15/2 and owned the property, and the service I Could buy was something like 100/100 then I would pay maybe £500, if was 1000/1000 then maybe up to about 2k.

[michty_me]

So it appears if product caps were the limit then it would be a less viable option for many or at least a reduced amount willing to spend for a fibre cable install.

Would it still not be tempting if you were the home owner so you knew that you are 'future proofing' for eventual speed increases?

[chenks]

i have 80/20 and sync pretty much bang on that.
i don't need faster and don't value fast internet any more than i pay at the moment (which is £20pm).

would i pay more for 100% fibre? probably not.

[burakkucat]

My answer is to the question posed in the subject line of this topic . . . "No".

It is not "required", as I can do all that I need to do with my current service.

[roseway]

Likewise.