Conflict of Interest Over Gigaclear’s Wholesale Broadband Sees Two UK ISPs Exit
A new report has revealed that two UK broadband ISPs, Exascale and Squirrel Internet, have recently decided to stop selling access to Gigaclear’s alternative full fibre network. The move occurred due to what appears to be a conflict of interest over how the altnet treats their wholesale partners when compared with their own direct retail customers.
Quite a few developments occur behind the scenes of the UK’s broadband industry, some of which are well-known but rarely receive much attention or see the light of day. One of those reflects the complex and sometimes challenging relationships that vertically integrated broadband operators (i.e. those that have built their own physical network and also act as a retail provider) often have with their other retail ISP partners.
The classic market dilemma is that vertically integrated providers are often perceived as being naturally incentivised to give preference to their own retail brand over that of other third-party retail ISP partners, which is perhaps somewhat to be expected (you’ve built the network with your own cash, so you get to set the rules).
Advertisement
However, the situation can become more complex when an operator, such as Gigaclear, has accepted significant amounts of public funding to help construct their network. In this case, the Government’s Building Digital UK (BDUK) agency typically attaches a requirement for network operators to provide wholesale access across their network “without limitation under fair and non-discriminatory conditions” (here).
The problem, as well illustrated by Thinkbroadband’s summary this morning, is that the wholesale provider doesn’t always appear to do precisely as the rules suggest they perhaps should. On the other hand, BDUK’s rules on this aren’t super descriptive (i.e. they’re not comparable to the strict and detailed regulatory requirements that Ofcom places on market incumbent Openreach), which perhaps leaves room for some flexibility of interpretation.
A spokesperson for Squirrel Internet said:
“Customers choosing to switch from Gigaclear over to Squirrel have been consistently retained by Gigaclear with retentions deals that are vastly below wholesale cost. This was generating significant work load for the team taking and cancelling orders from prospective customers. There have even been incidences of Gigaclear’s retention team telling customers to cancel [whose] switch was complete within the cooling off period, which then leads to an early termination charges from Gigaclear to us.
The issues have been discussed many times with Gigaclear over the years and there seems little interest or willingness to make any changes to allow wholesale partners to gain customers on the network.
As such unfortunately we have made the decision to focus working with network partners that have a genuine willingness to work together to drive uptake on their networks.”
In fairness to Gigaclear, plenty of other broadband providers, particularly the largest players, do often play the retentions game when existing customers decide to switch to a different ISP. The situation can sometimes result in the losing ISP making a last-ditch offer (discount) to try and retain that customer. But Gigaclear’s approach to this, particularly when it involves their own wholesale partners and allegedly offering deals that undercut the wholesale price that partner ISPs have to pay, is what creates the conflict of interest.
We should say that none of this is new within the industry and, as Squirrel points out, such issues have been going on for several years. As mentioned earlier, we’ve seen it happening with other vertically integrated providers too, but crucially most such operators do still manage to find a fair balance. In this case the relationship ended up breaking down, which in practice means that Squirrel will continue to support their existing customers on Gigaclear, but will not be taking on any new subscribers via that network.
Advertisement
ISPreview understands that Exascale ran into similar frustrations and also called time on their relationship with Gigaclear. In the case of other vertically integrated network operators with BDUK contracts under their belt, the alternative strategy we’ve seen is for a network operator to offer wholesale products on terms that simply aren’t attractive enough for many partner ISPs to want to sell them (i.e. it ends up being used as a check-box exercise to satisfy BDUK).
The above helps to explain why wholesale-only network operators tend to be more attractive to retail ISPs, as this removes the inherent potential for such conflicts of interest. Still, quite a few altnets went the vertically integrated route as a means of protecting their investment and being able to grow their customer base, without first having to wait for the initial uncertainty of needing to build a pool of supporting retail ISPs.
For its part, Gigaclear continues to have a pool of supporting retail ISPs and did not provide a comment for TBB’s article (we’ve also asked). Overall, depending upon your perspective, it’s possible to understand both sides of the argument.
Mark is a professional technology writer, IT consultant and computer engineer from Dorset (England), he also founded ISPreview in 1999 and enjoys analysing the latest telecoms and broadband developments. Find me on X (Twitter), Mastodon, Facebook, BlueSky, Threads.net and Linkedin.
« UK Team Finds Tiny Atomic Changes Can Create Smarter Wireless Antennas
Advertisement
Leave a Reply
Privacy Notice: Please note that news comments are anonymous, which means that we do NOT require you to enter any real personal details to post a message and display names can be almost anything you like (provided they do not contain offensive language or impersonate a real person's legal name). By clicking to submit a post you agree to storing your entries for comment content, display name, IP and email in our database, for as long as the post remains live.
Only the submitted name and comment will be displayed in public, while the rest will be kept private (we will never share this outside of ISPreview, regardless of whether the data is real or fake). This comment system uses submitted IP, email and website address data to spot abuse and spammers. All data is transferred via an encrypted (https secure) session.
Exascale is still listed as a partner on Gigaclear’s website.
I believe they exited their relationship at the start of this week or thereabouts, so that’s more a reflection of the usual delay between that and web teams needing to update the site.
Now been removed
Surprised that OfCom don’t insist on a complete separation between any wholesaler/network operator and any associated retailers like they do with EE and Openreach… But then I remembered it was OfCom and they only like picking on easy targets.
Gigaclear is a relative minnow next to Openreach, they do not have significant market. Regulation requires some balance and allowance for the usual market forces.
Why would Ofcom insist on that? It would likely just result in smaller players not wholesaling at all. There’s No SMP here and regulated wholesale products are available from Openreach to almost every location.
I’m not sure what you’d expect Ofcom to do, nor what you expect the results of that intervention to be.
The smaller altnets do wholesale because it is a subsidy requirement. They treat it as a paper exercise with no intent to see any real take up. They have also received other regulatory advantages such as cheap access to PIA and endless restrictions on what Openreach is allowed to do.
Therefore they absolutely can and should be treated the same as Openreach with harsh penalties if their retail divisions are getting an unfair advantage. This should apply to all altnets but particularly CityFibre and the VM/Nexfibre combo.
BT Ivor says “(Altnets have) other regulatory advantages such as cheap access to PIA”
Yeah, right. Whatever. Believe me, our community scheme would be utterly unviable of it wasn’t for actual cheap crossings across our farmers’ land. Your so-called cheap access to PIA doesn’t exist.
@Ivor, Cityfibre _only_ wholesale so I am not sure how you can apply the criticism to them. They don’t do retail broadband.
Mike – I know users on this website love to exaggerate based on their own personal circumstances but this has to be a winner. PIA is very heavily used by Openreach’s competitors and is a large reason as to why the altnets are where they are today – still financial basketcases, but less so than if they’d had to plough their own furrow. Even if your so called “community scheme” doesn’t use it.
Rich – true, but I wrote that I was thinking of the entire package of regulations that presently only apply to Openreach. (hence also mentioning Virgin Media, who presently don’t do wholesale on “their” part of the network)
@Ivor – what do you know about our community scheme that means you have to denigrate it with the moniker “so-called”?
As our Parish Council chair, I’ve put months of unpaid work into it. Landowners have, to a man and woman, been incredibly supportive. This also means almost no highways works, which given our village layout, is a real bonus.
When BDUK voucher availability was announced for our area, I approached Openreach (who were one of the BDUK-listed participating ISPs). They told me they weren’t doing any more Community Fibre Partnerships, which rather begged the question of why they were listed.
I was going to make some other points, but thanks to your sneering there, I won’t.
The consumer market isn’t as used to wholesale vs. the more fragmented B2B marketplace. While there have been wholesale options in the past in consumer, everything ended up back at Openreach’s door. BTWholesale, PXC really being the big wholesale operators providing access to that Openreach Infrastructure. The advent of many new infrastructures has created this problem.
Compared to B2B where the channel is established, and wholesale and resale are hugely common and there is a general behaviour of co-opetition, sharing asset where its uneconomical to build etc. The underpinning backhaul fabric of everyone’s networks is residing on somebody elses infrastructure, somewhere.
That said there have been examples of the same behaviour from the likes of Vorboss, G.Network and Community Fibre who are trying to offer both retail and wholesale options into the B2B market. Taking wholesale orders and flipping them to direct, a big no-no in the etiquette which underpins the channel.
“There have even been incidences of Gigaclear’s retention team telling customers to cancel [whose] switch was complete within the cooling off period, which then leads to an early termination charges from Gigaclear to us.”
Wow. I hope they’re claiming those back, if the relationship ends I feel like in their position I’d be looking at legal advice. Gigaclear here have basically made themselves a money maker, milking so called “partners”. Doesn’t look particularly ethical when you look at that statement directly.
I switched from gigaclear to squirrel when my renewal with gigaclear was £89 (1gbps), squirrel was I think £45 for exactly the same so switched, the next day gigaclear rang me, they offered the same for £25 plus new router and a node. This was a few months ago.
This problem is widespread. The problem is that BDUK make Altnets winning gigabit Britain lots go through an elaborate process of creating ‘separate’ wholesale businesses, but then they let the operator undercut their own wholesale prices with their retail offering. This therefore blocks any retail ISP competing with them. BDUK say that isn’t against their rules so lots of Altnets have a total monopoly. Look at companies like Fibrus – 150k retail customers but no wholesale customers in England because their wholesale pricing is higher than their retail services. Staggering market failures created by BDUK incompetence.
I can’t see this ever being a big enough problem for Ofcom or CMA to have a look at other than for a small number of operators. And starting any claim is going to be too costly and risky for companies potentially impacted.
Any reported problems (even if inaccurate) could have a big impact on future wholesale customer acquisition though…..it would be like fighting with one hand behind your back vs the network provider.
Does Squirrel have grounds to sue?
Who? BDUK or Gigaclear? I’d wager the case would pivot over what Fair and Non-discriminatory means. I note BDUK haven’t added Reasonable into that list, which is often used when it comes to licensing patented technology in international standards. In said instances, FRAND has often not turned out as hoped.
Yes. The BDUK contract requires FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) terms. In this case there are several questions: 1) Are the wholesale charges fair if Gigaclear can seemingly undercut? 2) Is Gigaclear being reasonable with their wholesale providers and 3) Are they being non-discriminatory giving the very customer a retention deal. On all 3 cases it is pretty open and shut at least on paper.
Tbf, the whole model is stupid. The govt and Ofcom should’ve mandated any fibre in the ground is operated on a standard regulated price payable to the owner and usable by any ISP meaning anyone could switch to any ISP irrespective of who owns the fibre in the street. The entire concept of owning the fibre being a differentiator is bonkers and people should be able to lay their own fibre and connect it to the national network following a detailed standard. I for one would play my own dark fibre to an aggregation node tomorrow if I could.
Ah an answer as to why I couldn’t migrate from GC to Squirrel as that’s what I was planning to do in September when my contract ran out.
It’s a shame as Squirrel looked to be a decent provider on GC’s network in my area.
Guess I’ll have to keep waiting for OR to finish their 3 year roll out of FTTP….
Sounds exactly like the situation with GoFibre here in the north-east of Scotland. They’re getting significant amounts of government money to cover properties that are already covered or due to be covered. As part of the BDUK deal, they have to offer a wholesale product. However, their wholesale prices are above their own retail prices. In reality, they do offer the product, but nobody will use it because it’s pointless.
I don’t have a problem with government money being used to support alt nets, but if you specify that a wholesale provision must be put in place, then surely that has to carry some weight. The wholesale product must be a genuine wholesale product at a competitive price. When the wholesale price is above that provider’s own retail offer price, then the entire wholesale product is completely moot.