Barratt homes say they're not responsible for broadband
 

See these 2 links:

https://www.cable.co.uk/news/barratt...lem-700001313/

https://www.cable.co.uk/news/labour-...mes-700001296/

I think the attitude from new build developers is all wrong, when the likes of Virgin are willing to pay to put the service on a new build estate but the developer is stopping them then the government or ofcom should intervene and make then allow it.
Its cheaper and less disruptive to do it while there are no roads and paths, while the other utilities go in, and lets face it broadband is now a necesity.

Like they are legally obliged to provide a telephone socket they should be legally obliged to allow ALL AND EVERY other telecoms provider in the area they are building, on to the development. Especially when a property in an area with good broadband is worth more money

Thoughts and opinions?

Re: Barrett homes say their not resposible for broadband
 

Indeed. http://telcotorment.blogspot.co.uk/2...-problems.html

Re: Barrett homes say their not resposible for broadband
 

Look at it from their perspective. They get an area all neat and tidy and then VM and perhaps others come along and dig everything up. If it was all that simple, why wouldn't they allow it?

Re: Barrett homes say their not resposible for broadband
 

VM have contracts in place where the ducting and pits are installed by the home builders before and roads/paths are laid. VM get the cabinets built and install the network equipment. They are tee'd to the door and all internals rewired as the house is built. Win win for everyone

Re: Barrett homes say their not resposible for broadband
 

As is the case with Openreach should the developer contact them.

Re: Barrett homes say their not responsible for broadband
 

Without reading all the links - wonder who gets hit for repairs if something fails. Is it the telecoms company or can they pass buck to the builder. Twisted pair copper likely nice and simple so they do it, after all they just have to supply a "phone" socket. Actually putting in coax or something intended for "high speed" data is different.

Re: Barrett homes say their not resposible for broadband
 

So, they organise it so that the various companies come in and do their work BEFORE it's all tidy.

I suspect the problem is contracts. If a builder builds a new estate, the operator would have to cable up maybe a couple of thousand houses and/or flats. That's probably not cheap, so they'll probably want some sort of exclusivity. I am not defending them, as I don't think those sorts of deals are good for the consumer.

What I think, with an increasing amount of government services going online, is that the government should be intervening to ensure fair competition between the broadband providers in *all* areas, including rural and new build. This includes ensuring that all broadband providers at least have the chance to build on all new estates, regardless of what deals are in place.

Re: Barrett homes say their not responsible for broadband
 

Depends on the agreement in the case of the in-home stuff. BT would have a clear demarcation point at the master socket or, in the case of FTTP, the ONT.

VM's fault if they don't have a demarcation point really :)

Re: Barrett homes say their not responsible for broadband
 

A developer is obliged to ensure all utilities are available, the quality of those utilities is not their concern, which is fair enough.

NTL had exclusive deals with developers back in the day......when they went into Chapter 11 they pulled the plug on expanding their network overnight, leaving half built estates, half built......Since then there's been a certain amount of suspicion by developers allowing cable into their sites.

Re: Barrett homes say their not responsible for broadband
 

My thoughts are that all future builds should have fibre straight into them. Of course, the problem is where the fibre is terminated (At the service end), someone has to own it and look after it.

Shame it can't be some neutral government company that leases it to the likes of Virgin and BT.

Re: Barratt homes say they're not responsible for broadband
 

..... I lobbied the politicians for such a thing 20 years ago (a nationwide fibre network into ever home with various companies offering services over the cables), but they decided to go down the DTT route instead...:(

With the calls for Openreach to be hived off from BT, which is now a real possibility, a neutral network operator may emerge.

Re: Barratt homes say they're not responsible for broadband
 

We can only hope. It would make a lot of sense for Openreach to start investing big in technologies like fibre, then.

Re: Barratt homes say they're not responsible for broadband
 

The issue is who puts in the plant?

If barrats let VM and whoever else to install infrastructure fine.

But if people are expecting barrats to lay the duct themselves then that's were it gets a bit murky. Because if they install a duct then they have to let everyone use it, then who owns and maintains the duct?

It's not straight forward

Re: Barrett homes say their not responsible for broadband
 

To be fair, for customers they normally they do, but it depends on the service.

For broadband the general assumed customer demarcation point is where the broadband kit creates a network point (either Wired or Wireless). Everything past that is the responsibility of the customer, everything before that is for VM to ensure it works.

For TV it's the RF / SCART / HDMI output of the set top box.

For a standard phoneline it's VM's master socket.

I'd agree that in a new build senario then it's a bit more complicated, and (this is a guess on my part) it's probably part of the discussion and agreement between VM and the developer as to who is responsible for what.

Re: Barrett homes say their not responsible for broadband
 

Yet again Openreach are ahead of the game.

I would upload the developer's handbook but it exceeds the forum filesize by 0,01Mb

Re: Barratt homes say they're not responsible for broadband
 

It is.

At the moment when there are new developments, the developers create the space for the services, ie leave big ugly holes everywhere.

The Gas, electricity and water then come in and lay the pipes which they own and control. Of course, there are now a choice of which electric and gas company you use for service, but the pipes are still owned by a regional operator regardless of whom you use for the service.

If, and it is if, Openreach were to be separated from BT, Openreach would then lay the ducting alongside the gas, electric and water pipes. OPenreach would own that ducting and be responsible for the maintenance of it.

Of course, OPenreach would not necessarily need to install fibre in those ducts, even dark fibre. As long as there are access points in pavements, any operator can come along and install their own cable and street cabinets as necessary.

So, I don't see why it would be complicated. In fact, if Openreach were nationalised becoming say Netcom (to borrow a name from the past..), all the government needs to do is pass a law stipulating that new developments must allow Netcom to install ducting in the same way that gas, electric and water are allowed to install their pipes.

OR, just get one company to install ALL the pipes and ducting and they own them all and are responsible for their maintenance. But, allow different companies to offer services over the pipes/ducts like these folks:

http://www.gtc-uk.co.uk/

Re: Barratt homes say they're not responsible for broadband
 

On the new build sites I've been on VM and BT pay the builders to lay duct, supplied by VM and BT. So the home builder is carrying out the work on behalf of VM/BT meaning it is VM/BT who own the duct.

Re: Barrett homes say their not responsible for broadband
 

We were talking about new builds. For other stuff the demarcation is pretty clear.

---------- Post added at 09:16 ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 ----------

Indeed. VM/BT supply the kit, builder deploy according to an agreed plan, VM/BT inspect and any defects are remedied.

Re: Barrett homes say their not responsible for broadband
 

VM create the plan of where network will be laid. The developer is responsible for laying ducts and chamber, VM are responsible to build cabinets. And yes it's hugely complicated, and as a rule of thumb, all arrangements and agreements between VM and developer are made before the footings go in.

Re: Barratt homes say they're not responsible for broadband
 

As I said, if the home builder is paid by VM to install ducts for VMs sole use. Or if VM come in an lay their own ducts then that is all fine and dandy and clear cut.

How ever, if there is no such agreement then the homebuilder is under no obligation to install ducts.

However, let say that Barratts were feeling a bit altruistic and decided to install a duct for "other broadband" providers. Then a) who owns the duct, b) who maintains it c) who decides who can use it d) what happens if it runs out of space etc etc etc

Forget about Openreach, due to Openreach's USO nearly all developers will contact BT from the start, there isn't the same compulsion for them to contact any other providers.

Re: Barratt homes say they're not responsible for broadband
 

.... but you're talking about a situation that doesn't happen though, or at least I've never come across it.

A developer would not just lay ducts, at cost to them, for the fun of it. Companies are NEVER altruistic, they exist to make money

Talking about Openreach is relevant.

There is no USO upon Openreach to lay ducting and install cables for a broadband service. The USO only applies to a telephone service which then allows "functional internet access". But this "access" is not legally binding and besides, is extremely out of date as the internet has expanded massively in capabilities and speeds since the regulations were made.

The only way to alleviate the problem as highlighted in the first post, is to have a USO upon Openreach to lay ducts for broadband cables and allow service providers access to these ducts, in the same way that broadband companies have access to exchanges.

---------- Post added at 15:57 ---------- Previous post was at 15:32 ----------

A law needs to be passed to make this happen. As said in the articles, gas, electricity, water needs to be put in anyway, so laying ducting for telecoms should be a breeze on new build estates.

Re: Barratt homes say they're not responsible for broadband
 

No-one said there was no ducting for telecoms and I've no idea why Openreach should have a USO on them to supply open-access ducts for new build; it should be on the developer's shoulders, not Openreach.

The complaint was about broadband. Ran into much the same issues here as discussed and still do have them.

A solution is, as Tom Mockridge has suggested:

Re: Barratt homes say they're not responsible for broadband
 

FFS, that is was pretty much my point. Developers, such as Barratts will not put in the infrastructure, which is what the article was bemoaning, because a) who pays for it and b) who owns it

And how would they do that without installing infrastructure? Fairy dust?

It's the same thing, the infrastructure requires for open reach to provide telephony and Internet is the same fir broadband cables, when you get to residential developments it would be twisted pair from a nearby or new cab.

So you would force openreach to pay for the infrastructure to be built, but then give other operators access to the ducts?


Ease of installation isn't the issue.

Re: Barratt homes say they're not responsible for broadband
 

By putting a USO on Openreach would then give them "right to access" by default.

Lets not forget that once the new built estates are completed, they are "handed over" to the owners of the new houses. The bulk of those electricity, gas, water pipes/cables then run under public roads and pavements. It's the situation before the handover which is the issue here, as those public pavements and roads are not public until the developer hands them over.

---------- Post added at 20:32 ---------- Previous post was at 20:24 ----------

OPenreach. Openreach.
Openreach installs it, pays for it, owns it, maintains it.
No, no, no.... for new builds, why bother with copper wires?

The only reason copper wires are used, as it was/is a cheap way for BT to provide internet access. For new builds, it should be a legal requirement on Openreach to provide open access ducting to all and/or, provide fibre optic cables to all.

Dump the copper wires in the bin where they belong along with the ugly street cabinets.
Yes, or Openreach would blow the fibre cables along the ducts themselves and allow other operators access to that cable, to light it up.

Correct, it's access. It's no different to the electricity network, gas network, or water networks.

---------- Post added at 22:13 ---------- Previous post was at 20:32 ----------

Just reading this now, you should post this on your original thread too.

All I can say is, what a mess! I thought you were in the council areas of Middleton where VM had ducting but no cables, or at least that's what I thought you said on your thread. Didn't realise you were in a new build area.

It'll probably take me 2 or 3 reads of your blog it to properly digest, then I might say something on your original thread. Having been on American forums this evening, an American idea/solution is forming in my head...

Re: Barratt homes say they're not responsible for broadband
 

Thinkbroadband have this story on the matter:

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/7...-premises.html

Re: Barratt homes say they're not responsible for broadband
 

Barratt are tight as hell. I pointed out defects in my road, that was coming up to final adoption inspection. They were aware and indicated to me that they expected to have to fix them in order for adoption to go through, but rather than fixing them they did nothing and the adoption failed.

I full imagine they were hoping to get away with not fixing one of them. Absolutely no reason to not fix them before inspection and ensure the roads were no longer their issue.