Nearly all new homes built in England must include gigabit internet access

[Daniel Sims]

Forward-looking: The expansion of work-from-home has made high-speed internet a necessity for more people. Lawmakers seem to be catching up to that new reality in some countries, the latest evidence being new legislation to expand gigabit connections in the UK.

Around 98 percent of all new homes built in England must include access to gigabit internet according to a new law enacted the day after Christmas. Another law simultaneously went into effect giving tenants a new path to gigabit if landlords are unresponsive to requests.

Ministers in England amended the Building Regulations 2010 to require builders to install gigabit-compatible infrastructure into new homes during construction. The law caps connection costs for developers at £2,000 per home.

The UK government estimates that about two percent of new homes might exceed the cost cap, in which case builders must install the next-best internet option. Even in those cases, the law still requires installing gigabit-compliant ducts, chambers, and termination points, so gigabit internet can reach those homes in the future.

Furthermore, the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act (TILPA) lets block and apartment tenants across England and Wales more easily upgrade to gigabit. The law goes into force in Scotland this summer.

Before, tenants would need to go through landlords when requesting gigabit, but broadband companies say that about 40 percent of requests go unanswered. Now, if a landlord doesn't respond to the request within 35 days, a broadband company can go through the courts to reach blocks and apartments.

Gigabit access in the UK has expanded rapidly over the last few years. The government estimates it has reached over 72 percent of the UK compared to just six percent in 2019. However, around 12 percent of new homes each year – about 25,300 units – lack gigabit access upon construction.

The new law mandating installation upon construction will likely be easier to comply with than adding gigabit internet to existing buildings. Additionally, the TILPA might help connect an extra 2,100 residential buildings each year.

The UK ranked number four in a 2022 internet accessibility index from broadband choices, behind Liechtenstein, the United States, and Denmark. Liechtenstein and Denmark show significantly higher average download speeds than all other countries at 75.7 and 69.4 Mbps, respectively. The US, meanwhile, sits at 27.4 Mbps, while the UK averages 23 Mbps. Their high rankings despite relatively low average speeds are explained by good affordability.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/97213-nearly-all-new-homes-built-england-must-include.html

 

[RudyBob]

Sounds great! I'll take one

 

[Lounds]

I live in a brand new apartment block and it has Open Reach full fibre to premises or Virgin media Gigabit broadband but theirs is coaxial to cab and then fibre to their exchange. I book VM's 250Mb broadband for £23 a month. Bargain.

 

[jonny888]

Was already law in Wales

 

[Mr Majestyk]

How much does a Gb plan cost in UK. In Australia we have pathetically asymmetric 1000/50 plan for $149 per month and the 1000/400 is only for business' at $400+ per month. Most of us are only lowly 50/20 or 100/20 plans costing $80-100 per month.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

It's a real shame this isnt a thing in america. We've paid for it, repeatedly, the government has granted BILLIONS over the last 20 years, and the telecoms have eaten it up with nothing to show for it.

 

[kira setsu]

It's a real shame this isnt a thing in america. We've paid for it, repeatedly, the government has granted BILLIONS over the last 20 years, and the telecoms have eaten it up with nothing to show for it.

We have nothing in america, I mean we sure can shoot the s**t outta anybody around the planet, but for actual things that help citizens we have squat.

America, where a cold could bring death or financial ruin, or both!

 

[brucek]

As a US resident I'm having trouble following this article, possibly because situations are so different?

Here in the US, if you can't get high speed internet, it's usually because there is no service provider with a fat pipe running near your house. Creating a new building regulation saying a builder has to provide that connection would just mean there are large parts of the country that would become unbuildable. A home builder can not miraculously hook you up to a network when the closest physical connection to it may be dozens of miles away.

Conversely, if there is a fat pipe, you can probably get service even if say your older home has no wiring at all. Adding that wiring is typically included in your initial installation, which itself is often free as part of a promotion.

Anyway, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around a law that makes it a builder's responsibility to provide a high speed connection when I don't see how that can reasonably be done if there's no network to connect to.

 

[ddferrari]

I'm paying $70/month for Xfinity Gigabit service, no bundle. Just internet service. I'd never go back now that I've been spoiled by these speeds.

 

[realgamer]

As a US resident I'm having trouble following this article, possibly because situations are so different?

Here in the US, if you can't get high speed internet, it's usually because there is no service provider with a fat pipe running near your house. Creating a new building regulation saying a builder has to provide that connection would just mean there are large parts of the country that would become unbuildable. A home builder can not miraculously hook you up to a network when the closest physical connection to it may be dozens of miles away.

Conversely, if there is a fat pipe, you can probably get service even if say your older home has no wiring at all. Adding that wiring is typically included in your initial installation, which itself is often free as part of a promotion.

Anyway, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around a law that makes it a builder's responsibility to provide a high speed connection when I don't see how that can reasonably be done if there's no network to connect to.

'the law still requires installing gigabit-compliant ducts, chambers, and termination points, so gigabit internet can reach those homes in the future' the builders have to just provide the infrastructure not the connection.

 

[yRaz]

As a US resident I'm having trouble following this article, possibly because situations are so different?

Here in the US, if you can't get high speed internet, it's usually because there is no service provider with a fat pipe running near your house. Creating a new building regulation saying a builder has to provide that connection would just mean there are large parts of the country that would become unbuildable. A home builder can not miraculously hook you up to a network when the closest physical connection to it may be dozens of miles away.

Conversely, if there is a fat pipe, you can probably get service even if say your older home has no wiring at all. Adding that wiring is typically included in your initial installation, which itself is often free as part of a promotion.

Anyway, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around a law that makes it a builder's responsibility to provide a high speed connection when I don't see how that can reasonably be done if there's no network to connect to.

I do a lot of commercial construction but I also see plans for large residential plans where they are building 100+ homes. If the developer can pay for water, sewage, gas and electric all to be run to and around these sites I would find it trivial for them to add highspeed internet into them. And, it's unfortunate, because I see many of these housing plans still without "high speed" internet. Or, something that I find really annoying when look at these plans is that 1 telecom will install internet for the entire neighborhood and setup some requirement like "you have to purchase X cable plan to receive internet speeds above 100/25. Which I think 100/25 is the minimum allowed to be sold, at least in my area.

However, we are getting to the point were gigabit is starting to be "slow", atleast for home network use. I was working on moving to 2.5gigabit but I might move straight to 10

 

[Kam7r]

How much does a Gb plan cost in UK. In Australia we have pathetically asymmetric 1000/50 plan for $149 per month and the 1000/400 is only for business' at $400+ per month. Most of us are only lowly 50/20 or 100/20 plans costing $80-100 per month.

omg it's very costly... in France I pay 30€ for 2000/1000 , but the country is a lot smaller, and I live 30km south of Paris it's may be why ... with a country the size of a continent, infrastructure cost must be very high

 

[neeyik]

How much does a Gb plan cost in UK.

This site should give you a rough idea -- https://www.cable.co.uk/broadband/gigabit-broadband-deals/

with a country the size of a continent, infrastructure cost must be very high

Well, it cost $165 million to install the 6500 km Atlantic (US-Spain) MAREA cable system, which was paid for by Telefonica, Microsoft, and Facebook. Routing cables across land is obviously somewhat different, but it shows that with sufficient interest, and only a relatively small investment in capital, distance isn't that much of a problem.

 

[Tams80]

As a US resident I'm having trouble following this article, possibly because situations are so different?

Here in the US, if you can't get high speed internet, it's usually because there is no service provider with a fat pipe running near your house. Creating a new building regulation saying a builder has to provide that connection would just mean there are large parts of the country that would become unbuildable. A home builder can not miraculously hook you up to a network when the closest physical connection to it may be dozens of miles away.

Conversely, if there is a fat pipe, you can probably get service even if say your older home has no wiring at all. Adding that wiring is typically included in your initial installation, which itself is often free as part of a promotion.

Anyway, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around a law that makes it a builder's responsibility to provide a high speed connection when I don't see how that can reasonably be done if there's no network to connect to.

Because the entirety of the UK could fit inside most states and still have room to spare. That's why. As is the case with many European countries.

But good luck finding a new build in the UK, let alone affording it, lol.

 

[SirDigby]

This is a pretty decent law, but its only actually a small upgrade over a previous rule that said they all had to have FTTC, and now its FTTP - and many of them are already built FTTP to futureproof. Welcome, but not a huge change is the point I'm trying to make.

How much does a Gb plan cost in UK. In Australia we have pathetically asymmetric 1000/50 plan for $149 per month and the 1000/400 is only for business' at $400+ per month. Most of us are only lowly 50/20 or 100/20 plans costing $80-100 per month.

In the UK we've only just reached 1000Mb lines residentially in the last 2 or 3 years and don't think anyone goes beyond that yet, but they're not too expensive, usually about £40-£50 a month, and cheaper bundled with TV packages as our main ISPs are also broadcasters (Sky, Virgin, BT/EE)
Upload speeds aren't normally advertised as most customers don't care too much, but you can normally expect it to be a fraction of the download. 10-20%

 

[d5aqoep]

I am paying

How much does a Gb plan cost in UK. In Australia we have pathetically asymmetric 1000/50 plan for $149 per month and the 1000/400 is only for business' at $400+ per month. Most of us are only lowly 50/20 or 100/20 plans costing $80-100 per month.

I don’t know about UK but I am paying ₹2800 ($28) per month for 1000Mbps up/down TataPlay Fiber here in Mumbai.

 

[trgz]

And why isn't this same government insisting that all newbuilds have compulsory solar panels on the roof? It may have something to do with zero profit margin for anyone further down the road I suspect - someone, somewhere, is getting rich off of consumers contracted to using this gigabit broadband (whereas solar panels are effectively lost profit to the energy companies)
Also, if you know your UK telecommunications history then you'd be aware of a certain 'Thatch the Snatch' who destroyed the potential for this to have happened decades ago https://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/how-the-uk-lost-the-broadband-race-in-1990-1224784

 

[Bobbydpue]

As a US resident I'm having trouble following this article, possibly because situations are so different?

Here in the US, if you can't get high speed internet, it's usually because there is no service provider with a fat pipe running near your house. Creating a new building regulation saying a builder has to provide that connection would just mean there are large parts of the country that would become unbuildable. A home builder can not miraculously hook you up to a network when the closest physical connection to it may be dozens of miles away.

Conversely, if there is a fat pipe, you can probably get service even if say your older home has no wiring at all. Adding that wiring is typically included in your initial installation, which itself is often free as part of a promotion.

Anyway, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around a law that makes it a builder's responsibility to provide a high speed connection when I don't see how that can reasonably be done if there's no network to connect to.

Here you go: " to install gigabit-compatible infrastructure into new homes during construction" It's just the in-home infrastructure and that could just be a box that would accept a 1000Mbps connection.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

And why isn't this same government insisting that all newbuilds have compulsory solar panels on the roof? It may have something to do with zero profit margin for anyone further down the road I suspect - someone, somewhere, is getting rich off of consumers contracted to using this gigabit broadband (whereas solar panels are effectively lost profit to the energy companies)
Also, if you know your UK telecommunications history then you'd be aware of a certain 'Thatch the Snatch' who destroyed the potential for this to have happened decades ago https://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/how-the-uk-lost-the-broadband-race-in-1990-1224784

Because if you knew anything about the UK you’d know that it is a TERRIBLE spot for solar. Also solar is *** expensive, new homes are already unaffordable.

 

[Bobbydpue]

How much does a Gb plan cost in UK. In Australia we have pathetically asymmetric 1000/50 plan for $149 per month and the 1000/400 is only for business' at $400+ per month. Most of us are only lowly 50/20 or 100/20 plans costing $80-100 per month.

I have no idea where I live in the UK I only get 40MBps.

 

[NumberSix]

Because if you knew anything about the UK you’d know that it is a TERRIBLE spot for solar. Also solar is *** expensive, new homes are already unaffordable.

If you knew anything about solar in the UK you'd know a south'ish facing 4.4kW system will generate over 700kWh a month in the summer and 100kWh in the depths of winter, hardly terrible.

 

[gamerk2]

It's a real shame this isnt a thing in america. We've paid for it, repeatedly, the government has granted BILLIONS over the last 20 years, and the telecoms have eaten it up with nothing to show for it.

Because we still have the mindset that if only we subsidize the costs the corporations will do the work themselves. All we need to do is REQUIRE it done, and force them to eat the losses. Wall Street will just have to live with these companies making a few Billion instead of Tens of Billions every year.

 

[kira setsu]

As a US resident I'm having trouble following this article, possibly because situations are so different?

Here in the US, if you can't get high speed internet, it's usually because there is no service provider with a fat pipe running near your house. Creating a new building regulation saying a builder has to provide that connection would just mean there are large parts of the country that would become unbuildable. A home builder can not miraculously hook you up to a network when the closest physical connection to it may be dozens of miles away.

Conversely, if there is a fat pipe, you can probably get service even if say your older home has no wiring at all. Adding that wiring is typically included in your initial installation, which itself is often free as part of a promotion.

Anyway, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around a law that makes it a builder's responsibility to provide a high speed connection when I don't see how that can reasonably be done if there's no network to connect to.

The big issue is that the gov't has already given millions to the isp's on the promise that they'll build out the infrastructure, the isp's then get that cash and come up with some bs reason it cant be done, keep the money(which they probably use to bribe our inept reps with) then tack on another fee to the customers bills as a nice f**k you in the end.

 

[toooooot]

And a data cap, Comcast added.

 

[p51d007]

How much does a Gb plan cost in UK. In Australia we have pathetically asymmetric 1000/50 plan for $149 per month and the 1000/400 is only for business' at $400+ per month. Most of us are only lowly 50/20 or 100/20 plans costing $80-100 per month.

In larger cities & towns, perhaps, but, you do realize how spread out America is? England & most of Europe will fit inside the USA with room to spare.