What is “Fibre” Broadband? UK ISPs Respond to Ofcom’s Call for Clarity

A few months ago Ofcom launched a new consultation that proposed to only allow broadband ISPs to use the terms “fibre” and “full-fibre” on their sites and in contracts “if their network uses fibre-optic cables all the way from the exchange to the home” (FTTP). But feedback suggests that the biggest providers are not supportive.

The debate over what should and should not be considered a “fibre” service has been going on for well over a decade. Hopefully by now most people should already know that fibre optic cables are made of glass (silica) or plastic, which allow information to be transmitted in the form of laser light. This makes them significantly more capable (speed, reliability etc.) than traditional metal (copper, aluminium etc.) based cables, which transmit data using electrical signs and are more prone to significant signal degradation over distance.

Despite this unavoidable fact, numerous ISPs have spent over a decade selling slower “part-fibre” or “hybrid-fibre” (e.g. FTTC / VDSL2, G.fast, Hybrid Fibre Coax) solutions as “fibre broadband” products, which is one of the reasons why so many people continue to be confused about the terminology today (i.e. if you think you’ve got a “fibre” service already, then you may be less likely to contemplate an upgrade to true FTTP).

Over the years’ there have been various attempts to correct this, such as a review conducted by the ASA / Advertising Standards Authority (here) and a failed court challenge by CityFibre (here). Back in 2021 the Gigabit Take-Up Advisory Group (GigaTAG) also proposed several changes (here), including clearer labelling of broadband packages, but so far nothing has really succeeded.

The Regulator Takes a Stand

Back in May 2023 (here) the regulator, Ofcom, pointed out that pure Fibre-to-the-Premises (FTTP) lines were due to become the dominant broadband delivery technology in the UK, and thus they felt it was finally time to address how the term “fibre” was still being “used inconsistently” by internet providers. The biggest ISPs, with a legacy of FTTC/HFC style solutions, have historically been the worst offenders on this front.

The regulator isn’t due to publish the outcome of this consultation until sometime in the coming Autumn, but they have recently published a summary of the responses they’ve had from various ISPs (credits to GreenLantern22 on our forum for spotting), which makes for interestingly reading.

Overall, the alternative networks (e.g. CityFibre, CommunityFibre, Gigaclear, Fern Group, Ogi and toob), most of which are building FTTP, were almost universally in favour of Ofcom’s proposals. The exception was Hyperoptic, which agreed with Ofcom’s push, but they also wanted it extended to include Fibre-to-the-Basement (FTTB) connections (they’ve built a lot of those) because, they said, such connections deliver “comparable services” (there’s usually only a little bit of Ethernet/LAN style cable involved); it will be interesting to see which way Ofcom goes on that one.

Elsewhere, Openreach, which has less of a stake in this one (i.e. they use technical definitions and don’t advertise their products directly to consumers), said they fully support Ofcom’s proposals and believe that this is an important first step in “helping end customers understand the difference in speed, reliability and service levels that different broadband technologies can provide.”

However, the most interesting feedback came from the biggest ISPs and the ASA, which in the past have generally opted to retain the status quo. We’ve summarised some of those responses below, as these are the ones that may have the biggest impact on Ofcom’s position.

Summary of Key Responses to the Consultation

➤ BT’s Response

NOTE: BT says they understand Ofcom’s view but will need 12-months, rather than the proposed 12-weeks, for implementation. The provider also highlights that Ofcom’s position conflicts with that of the ASA’s.

“We understand why Ofcom has reached the view that providers should no longer use the term ‘fibre’ to describe anything other than FTTP. However, as we currently call our FTTC packages ‘fibre’ this will require us to make significant changes to multiple touchpoints and systems across our three consumer brands and also in our business customer facing unit.

We want to do this properly and ensure there is consistency across all channels and customer touchpoints in the order journey and in-life. For reasons explained further below, this means we will need 12 months to complete all the changes required, far longer than Ofcom’s current proposed 12-week implementation period.

We are still in the process of carrying out a full impact assessment, but it is likely that we can implement some aspects of Ofcom’s proposals, once confirmed – such as more overt links on our websites to existing explanations of the difference between FTTC and FTTP – sooner than the more complex changes including the renaming of all our FTTC-based portfolio.

Whilst we understand that Ofcom’s assessment is based on how to give customers more information to ensure they are making the right purchase decision, there is an inconsistency with the ASA’s approach to the term ‘fibre’. We would like Ofcom to make it clear that their position has no reflection on the ASA’s established position that using the term ‘fibre’ to describe FTTC in advertising is not misleading.”

➤ ASA’s Response

NOTE: The ASA broadly sticks to their guns, although they admit that Ofcom’s change is likely to prompt a review of their current policy, although they avoid making any predictions about the outcome. Just to be clear. Ofcom’s proposals cover residential and small business services, but they “do not cover advertising“, although they do cover point-of-sale information and contractual information. Advertising, including online advertising on companies’ own websites, falls within the remit of the ASA.

“At the conclusion of Ofcom’s work we will, as an evidence-led regulator, consider any evidence provided by contributors if it has a bearing on our position. Assessing what impact any new standards have on wider advertising practices around fibre, we will evaluate whether the time is right to review our 2017 decision again in the light of more recent developments and any related new compelling evidence.”

➤ KCOM’s Response

NOTE: KCOM said customers who live in areas where FTTP is available usually have a choice of different technologies to deliver their broadband and often confuse FTTC with FTTP, making it more difficult to engage with them regarding the benefits of FTTP. So, they support Ofcom’s proposal, but they’d prefer a 6-month implementation period and want Ofcom to encourage the ASA to adopt a consistent approach.

“While KCOM does support the inclusion of a customer specific description of the underlying technology in Contract Summaries and Contract Information, if required to do so then an implementation period of 6 months would be more realistic.

We would urge Ofcom to engage further with the ASA to ensure consistency in terms of the approach to describing broadband technology. “

➤ Sky Broadband’s Response

NOTE: Sky rejected Ofcom’s proposal and said that the 12-week implementation period was unrealistic (they want at least 9-months).

“While Sky agrees that there is value in consistent use of terminology across industry, we should not be forced into describing our services based on the underlying technology when Ofcom’s own research shows this information is not material to the decision being taken by most customers. In any event, 12 weeks is an unrealistic timeframe to implement the proposals put forward in Ofcom’s Consultation as the changes would require significant development work.

Ofcom has not fully considered the impact of providing additional mandatory information on customers who are already overloaded with information. Ofcom wrongly concludes that information about the underlying technology will clarify rather than confuse. Sky believes that increasing the volume of mandatory information with descriptions of underlying technology is more likely to confuse customers or result in disengagement with the information provided to them.”

➤ TalkTalk’s Response

NOTE: TalkTalk initially seemed to welcome Ofcom’s “wish” to address the issue, but they pointed out that the regulator was acting “rather late” and questioned whether banning its use to describe any products except FTTP will be beneficial. The ISP also said it would be expensive to implement and requires 9-12 months.

“Earlier intervention before ‘fibre’ became a ubiquitous term used for FTTC products may have had an impact, but action at this late stage may increase rather than lessen customer confusion. As Ofcom notes, its research indicates that only 46% of respondents who claimed they had FTTP actually lived in an FTTP area (§A3.10). As discussed further … below, we do not think that re-visiting the use of the term ‘fibre’ is the best remedy. We favour an approach that focuses on establishing FTTP as the superior, future-proof technology through further using ‘full fibre’ terminology, which is already gaining traction in the market.“

➤ Virgin Media’s (VMO2) Response

NOTE: Virgin Media gave the strongest opposition of any provider to Ofcom’s proposal. The ISP criticised the regulator’s lack of an proper impact assessment and warned that the regulator was departing from its past position of technology neutrality. Instead, they want Ofcom to allow the natural competitive market to work itself out. None of this is surprising given that most of VM’s network is Hybrid Fibre Coax and won’t be fully FTTP until 2028.

“We refute Ofcom’s position that the Consultation document functions as an Impact Assessment. It is woefully lacking in sufficient detail and fails to take into account the wide-ranging effects of the proposals to the extent that we do not believe that it has sufficiently satisfied its requirement under the Communications Act to undertake an impact assessment. This is of particular concern, given that Ofcom’s proposals afford one type of technology a competitive advantage over others through a regulatory intervention. Ofcom has also failed to provide sufficient evidence of consumer harm to justify its proposals.

Moreover, Ofcom’s departure from technology neutrality is inconsistent with both its own regulatory principles and, critically, Government policy. Again, such a divergence necessitates a full and separate impact assessment to ensure it is warranted.

Rather than intervene – unjustifiably – in a competitive market, we believe that Ofcom should permit the competitive dynamics of the market to prevail and allow providers to continue to compete on the merits of their products, services and technologies. Ofcom should maintain a monitoring role, intervening only if there is clear evidence of harm, for example consumers being explicitly misled about the products that they are purchasing.”

➤ Vodafone’s Response

NOTE: Despite their current focus on FTTP plans, Vodafone generally does not support Ofcom’s proposal and says they have not demonstrated that the proposed intervention is needed. The ISP also states that “the market has now largely adopted the use of the term “fibre” to mean FTTC services“, although this is wrong as that term has been used for lots of different technologies, even some wireless services, which is part of the problem that Ofcom wants to fix.

“We do not believe that the proposals set out in the Guidance and consultation (the ‘Consultation’) will materially support full fibre growth. We are also of a view that Ofcom has failed to provide sufficiently strong evidence in support of the introduce this guidance.

We consider that Ofcom should not issue the Guidance. Instead, we propose that Ofcom should explore other ways of supporting customers during a time of change in the broadband market. To the extent that Ofcom considers that is should proceed to issue the Guidance, we consider that it should be changed to reflect the scope of the relevant General Conditions of Entitlement (‘General Conditions’) and the actual needs of customers.

There is no legal requirement on Ofcom to issue this guidance, and, as shown above, the case for introducing this guidance is insufficiently strong so as to outweigh a bias against intervention. We are of a view that Ofcom has not properly reflected on the costs and challenges of implementing this guidance as part of a cohesive impact assessment. Implementing these changes will create significant costs and resource demands for all providers, for potentially very limited customer benefit.”

Most of the responses agree that, whatever the outcome, the ASA’s policy will also need to be updated in order to avoid inconsistencies. On top of that, there are clearly some shared concerns about implementation costs and timescale, although no doubt more than a few of our readers will be wondering why it’s so hard for some ISPs to simply change the word “fibre” to something else.

We don’t really have a clear answer to that one because ISPs redacted related details in their responses and Ofcom hasn’t produced its own research (something a few of the providers would like to see). On the other hand, ISPs change the branding and naming conventions of their packages all the time, so we can’t help but wonder if some of them might be artificially inflating their cost concerns around this.

In any case, it will be interesting to see what Ofcom concludes in the coming weeks or months, when they publish their decision.