OpenReach (which was "split off" from BT) puts the infrastructure in place, and OFCOM (our telecoms regulator) defines the price they can charge to ISP's for a connection - so you have a raft of ISP's who compete on price or service.

There are other infra providers though, Virgin Media (DOCSIS Cable) cover some of the country, CityFibre are doing a massive expansion (I now have all three available at my property), Hyperoptic (mostly focuses on apartments).

And then there's Hull ... which is a special case that never became amalgamated to BT back in the day and instead is served by Kingston Communications.

For the most part it works well, but heavy regulations is anethema to some over the US side of the pond and therefore YMMV.

In many if not most areas in the United States DSL (digital subscriber loop) based Internet access was originally delivered over PVCs established through a layer 2 ATM network. There were interesting problems with that so PPP or PPP over Ethernet is more common these days, even when the telco no longer really lets anyone compete with them in the provision of broadband Internet access services at layer 3 over the network they maintain thanks to a rather convenient federal court decision.

Layer 2 mostly Ethernet access over VLANs (virtual local area networks) to a chosen provider does live on in certain mostly municipally owned multi-provider networks though, and in some countries that is normal, although usually with the incumbent telco or ILEC (incumbent local exchange company) installing and maintaining the last mile to homes and businesses rather than a municipal operator as in some parts of the United States. Either way more than one provider can provide layer 3 Internet service on the same physical facilities that way, with layer 2 (e.g. switched Ethernet) virtual lans or virtual circuits operated by one company or municipality.

In my setup I don't think the ISP has any local hardware - they're all national, and run on the hardware provided by the fibre guys.

British Telecom own Open Reach who provide infrastructure for the country.

There is cable, for a second option in cities, and there are some regional fibre networks that provide a second infrastructure option, but for the most part Open Reach is the only option.

I had massive issues with my line, I had engineers come out and we were able to test the cables and show that there was a fault between my house and the exchange. I don't have a relationship with Open Reach so I had to rely on my ISP opening tickets and it disappearing into a black hole.

After 6 months of basically not being able to use it I had to switch to BT and magically I was able to get an engineer come out and it's all good.

Fuck BT, and the conflict of interest system where the infrastructure is managed by someone who also provides the service.

Luckily an Alt Network is laying fibre outside and should hopefully be able to supply service in the next 6 months and I'll be dropping BT infrastructure as soon as possible.

I don't care whether the system is multiple infrastructure options, or one infrastructure and multiple services over the top but in that case my infrastructure provider should be separate from my service provider.

Line sharing in the US extended to DSL served from COs, but faster DSL came from remote terminals that were closer to users and didn't have space for CLEC equipment.

Under the US Telecominications Act of 1996, the FCC likely could have mandated more line sharing arrangements for cable and DSL from remote terminals, which isn't the same as fully separating wiring from service, but gets some things good enough so people have at least a chance at having an option for getting better routing or getting a static IP or ...

    It fails basic civil engineering on so many levels.

I bypass the AT&T router: https://github.com/jaysoffian/eap_proxy

(I'm a crazy person so I also relocated their ONT to inside my home to keep it out of the summer temperatures.)

Sigh....

They bought out TW and then proceeded to make the service even worse.

https://www.deseret.com/2014/5/20/20541836/wi-fi-available-a...

I know people who have Google Fiber, and love it - super fast Internet at reasonable prices. If it got turned off, they would just go with someone else. What exactly do you think the downside is? As a municipality, sure, as the article explains. But as an end consumer, what's the problem?

Isn't that for people to decide for themselves? Few reasons I can think of: preference, trust, integrations, better features, don't want to support Comcast, etc.

This logic doesn’t make sense. I only have Apple devices and it’s quite awesome. Android is buggy as hell and not integrated at all. My Apple devices are completely integrated with the entire Apple ecosystem. Spoken as an android fanboy from the G1 until the pixel 3xl.