Ofcom Fixed Line Installation and Fault Repair Summary Report

Transcription

1 Ofcom Fixed Line Installation and Fault Repair Summary Report April 2013 For: Tim Barber/ James Myring Tel:

2 Contents Page No. 1. Background, objectives and method Background Objectives Research Method Notes on interpretation Executive summary Detailed findings Service provision and usage: context for findings Usage of landlines/ internet Respondent s involvement in telecoms decision making Usage of telecoms providers Switching behaviour Reliance on fixed line telephone and internet Potential contact with Openreach service Openreach service elements Importance of Openreach service elements when selecting a provider Key elements in Openreach service provision Interest in enhanced service options Amount reasonable to pay for appointment sooner than is initially offered Amount reasonable to pay for appointment in AM/ PM timeslot Amount reasonable to pay for premium service Wait times considered to be reasonable Installation scenario Switching scenario Fault-fixing scenario Fault-fixing prompted timescales Impact of adverse service Claimed actions prompted by finding installation scenario unreasonable Actions prompted fault resolution taking longer than reasonable Residential consumers Timescales that may prompt switching behaviour Non-switchers Compensation

3 3.5.6 Attitudes to size of providers and service levels Sample Profile of business respondents Residential consumer profile Annexes A. Quotas and weights... 1 B. Questionnaire... 6 C. Utility scores

4 1. Background, objectives and method 1.1 Background Openreach is the infrastructure division of the BT Group, and was established to ensure that all telecom operators have equal access to BT s local network. This comprises the copper and fibre connections between telephone exchanges and consumer and business premises. Under regulation by Ofcom, Openreach is required to sell services to all Communications Providers (CPs) on an open and equal basis. This means that all providers can purchase Openreach services on the same basis as BT, and because of this Openreach s operational, engineering and system capabilities are separate from the rest of BT. Understanding of how business and residential consumers respond to Openreach quality of service has been limited. In particular, information is required to ascertain how important these service elements are in the overall customer experience. Ofcom therefore commissioned research in order to better understand the hierarchy and expected service levels for customers. 1.2 Objectives As discussed above, the main purpose of the research is to understand the value residential consumers and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) place on those elements of service performance which are directly attributable to Openreach s service quality. Specifically, research is to uncover end-user views on timings and pricing, specifically to: Establish what is considered to be a reasonable length of time for: o a new connection when setting up in a new home/ premises; o changing provider; and o fault repair. Ascertain tolerances to timing delays: o What constitutes an unacceptable period; o How end-users would react to delays (e.g. look for an alternative supplier). Measure the relative importance end-users attach to certainty of date (or time) of an installation or repair, compared to the overall time taken and/or quality of service; Find out how much more an end-user could be willing to pay for a given improvement in the timing of installation/repair or for a choice in timing of repair/installation; Establish end-users expectations with regard to compensation for any failures e.g. engineer not turning up/rescheduled appointment or a delay in getting an appointment; 1

5 Determine how shortfalls in performance (timing or quality) influence businesses and residential consumer perceptions of a CP in terms of switching provider; and Understand if there is a difference between businesses and residential consumers views of BT vs. other CPs (e.g. do shortfalls in performance lead to either reluctance to move away from BT, or a propensity to choose BT over other CPs?). 1.3 Research Method In order to deliver research which met Ofcom s information objectives, a quantitative research programme was undertaken amongst residential fixed-line users (residential consumers) and small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Data was collected via telephone, which offered both a cost effective means of reaching a representative sample, but also was appropriate given the research subject was concerned with fixed-line telephone services. Suitability for inclusion in the research was properly considered. Not all members of a household are necessarily concerned with fixed-line service provision, and therefore only those with a role in choosing a provider or liaising where there are issues were included in the research. These residential consumers were felt to be best placed to discuss quality of fixedline telephony. Amongst businesses, a senior IT decision maker was the target respondent. This was because they would be best placed to have a view on the quality of service that they would like to receive from suppliers. For the residential consumer research, quotas were set by demographic parameters of age, gender, social grade and region. In order to ensure that research was representative of fixedline users, quotas were also set by BT customers, purchasing services in bundles and cabled/ non-cabled areas. Full details on quotas can be found in Annex A. 2

6 Quotas were also applied to the business survey by number of employees, region and sector to deliver a representative view of SMEs. Businesses of the smallest and largest scale were excluded from the research which focussed on those with 10 to 250 employees. Readers can find exact quotas detailed in Annex A, which were set to be representative of the group overall, but also to allow subgroup analysis by size. Therefore larger businesses were oversampled and then down-weighted during analysis to their correct proportions in the overall population. The residential consumer sample was sourced by random digit dialling from Sample Answers, a supplier for BDRC Continental. No automated diallers were used in the research; all calls were instigated by a trained telephone interviewer. Residential consumer interviewing was conducted from 20 th March to 16 th April The business sample was sourced from Dun and Bradstreet and a business database called OneSource. Interviewing amongst businesses was conducted from 19 th March to 12 th April The interviewing response rate was 21.4% for the business sample and 12.4% for the residential consumer sample. Whilst the views of both groups (residential consumers and businesses) are clearly different in many respects (as detailed in this report), it was important that the data collected has common elements. Therefore a single questionnaire with variations tailored for each segment was used (see Annex B). The questionnaire was not technical or otherwise difficult to comprehend; however, it did require respondents to provide answers to hypothetical scenarios. Interviews were observed at the start of fieldwork in order to ensure that respondents were able to provide these theoretical reactions. This was considered especially important when the subject area could be considered to be low involvement given the sporadic nature of engagement in issues of installation, switching and fault repair. Results from the interviewing can be found in section 3 and are summarised in section Notes on interpretation Residential consumer and business results are reported in most cases separately and comparisons are drawn between the two groups where this is appropriate. Where there are significant differences in the data, this is to the 95% confidence level. This means that we are 95% confident that the difference between results that we are commenting on is reflective of the whole group. 3

7 2. Executive summary Method and objectives A robust sample of telephone interviews was conducted amongst both business (500 interviews) and residential consumer (2011 interviews) audiences in order to determine priorities in areas of Openreach service provision and understand customers expectations in this regard. Service provision, the context Amongst both businesses and residential consumers, there were a range of contacts responsible for telecoms decision making. o In the business arena, a variety of job roles encompassed telecoms (including Financial Decision makers, but also Office Managers) but in the larger companies it was more likely a Telecoms/ IT Manager had responsibility. o Whilst not always responsible overall for decision making, residential consumers interviewed were involved in many elements of managing their relationship with their telecoms provider. Switching either service to another provider (telephone or internet) was more prevalent amongst businesses, with three in five (59%) having reported at least one service switch compared to half of residential consumers (49%). Where residential consumers and businesses differed was in their reliance on their fixed-line services. Over three in five businesses said they would struggle to function without their landline (62%) and the same proportion without their internet (64%). Eight in ten (81%) claimed they would struggle to function without at least one of these. This is not surprising when considering the high proportion of businesses that later claimed to rely on landlines and the internet for sales and for simply running their businesses. In comparison, one in five (19%) residential consumers said they would struggle to function without their landline and this rose to 30% for internet. Approaching one in three businesses (30%) and 17% of residential consumers claimed Openreach engineer contact in the last year, mainly comprising fault fixing. 4

8 Openreach service elements The research used a trade-off analysis technique (MaxDiff 1 ) to establish the relative importance of different service elements in the overall selection of a communications provider. o o o Amongst businesses, responsiveness to faults and performance emerged as the most important factors determining choice of communications provider. For residential consumers, price was the most important factor, this was followed by performance and customer service. Responsiveness to faults, whilst not bottom was ranked at a lower level than amongst businesses. For both businesses and residential consumers, speed of installation, value added service, and service bundling were less important components of service. A different trade-off technique (conjoint analysis 2 ) was employed in the research to establish a priority ranking for different service elements in a service installation scenario. Respondents were given an opportunity to appraise a scenario as a whole as either reasonable or unreasonable. With different combinations of service elements provided in the multiple scenarios evaluated by respondents, a hierarchy of service elements was later extracted during data analysis in terms of what elements were responsible for driving a reasonable outcome for respondents. The most important quality for residential consumers and businesses in an installation contributing to a reasonable outcome was that work is completed in a single visit (52% businesses, 51% residential consumers). Of the elements of the service tested, next available appointment was the next most important contributor (34% businesses, 36% residential consumers), with a 5 days or to a lesser extent 10 working day window drivers of scenarios being reasonable. o Service elements also had an impact on the types of actions that residential consumers and businesses may take if the installation they receive is not considered to be reasonable. o A decision to consider switching provider was more likely to be triggered by the length of time for an appointment than work not being completed in a single visit (67% vs. 33% businesses, 57% vs. 33% residential consumer). 1 Maximum difference scaling (MaxDiff) is a method of establishing the relative importance of various attributes, in which respondents are shown pairs of attributes and asked to indicate which is more important. From this a ranking of relative levels of importance can be derived. 2 Conjoint is a statistical technique used to determine how people value different features that make up a product or service. Respondents are asked to evaluate multiple scenarios with various features, and then the conjoint analyses these answers to determine the contribution of the component parts in driving particular responses. 5

9 o Other factors were less likely to contribute to a scenario being reasonable, including the all-day appointment slot vs. morning and afternoon appointment windows, and immediate appointment confirmation compared to being called back. The level of interest in different potential upgrade options was tested in terms of consideration and also what was thought to be a reasonable sum to pay. These options were: being provided with an appointment sooner than that than initially offered, being provided with an appointment in a morning or afternoon timeslot rather than an all day window, and an overall premium service. o The overall premium service emerged as the most popular option amongst businesses with 30% very/ quite likely to consider compared to 13% of residential consumers. o o Paying for an appointment sooner than originally offered was also something that was considered to a greater degree amongst businesses (23% vs. 14% residential consumers. A majority of businesses and residential consumers did not feel that faster appointments or timeslots should have to be paid for (ranging from 55% to 77%). Wait times what is thought to be reasonable Amongst both businesses and residential consumers, there was a range of responses given about the length of wait considered to be reasonable or that would be expected for fixed line installations or provider switches. o o Whilst some would require an instant resolution, others would find it reasonable to wait. For example, 22% of businesses found a wait of 1 working day to be reasonable for an installation, whereas for 12%, in excess of 10 working days would be reasonable. Over half would find 0, 1, 2 and 3 working days to be reasonable (53% businesses, 57% residential consumers for installation, 53% businesses, 52% residential consumers for switching) and around three quarters would find 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 working days to be reasonable (75% businesses, 76% residential consumers for installation, 73% businesses, 71% residential consumers for switching). Therefore the average (median) for installations and switches for businesses was 2.8 and for residential consumers 2.6 and 2.8 respectively. 6

10 Businesses typically provided a shorter timescale for fault fixing, with most (83%) placing their reasonable wait at 1 working day compared to 38% of residential consumers. o A greater proportion of residential consumers would find a wait of 2 working days to be reasonable (31% vs. 9% businesses), but nevertheless, a shorter wait time on average (median) was considered reasonable amongst residential consumers compared to installations or switches (1.6 vs. 2.8, 2.6). Impact of adverse service For a repair taking longer than considered reasonable 27% of businesses and 20% of residential consumers would consider switching provider. However, it was complaints that were the most likely course of action for both customer types (71%, 75%), and this pattern was the same amongst respondents who had not found installation scenarios reasonable. o o The level of wait which would trigger a switch consideration ranged considerably, with 0, 1, 2 or 3 working days prompting consideration for 45% of businesses for installation and 65% for a fault fix, but fewer residential consumers (33%) would claim to consider switching at this point. Residential consumers who have received a fault fix visit provided a longer average wait point than the mean average for the total sample (8.3 days vs. 6.5 installation, 8.6 days vs.7.1 fault wait) However, amongst those considering a switch, most businesses (78% for telephone, 19% for internet) could not name the provider they would move to. More residential consumers were able to (51%). Approaching one in four businesses (23%) and over a third of residential consumers (37%) agreed strongly or slightly that companies that are well known offer better service to customers when installing services or repairing faults than less known brands. More businesses disagreed with this statement (48%) than residential consumers (28%). Looking specifically at BT, one in four (28%) businesses agreed that you are less likely to have a problem with service installation or repair from BT than with competitors, and a greater proportion disagreed (36%). Amongst residential consumers 35% agreed and 29% disagreed. 7

11 3. Detailed findings 3.1 Service provision and usage: context for findings This section reviews what services are being used by businesses and residential consumers and from which companies, their level of involvement in telephony, their behaviour in relation to switching providers, their stated reliance on the service they have and any activities they claim to have undertaken which relate to Openreach Usage of landlines/ internet As shown in figure 1, businesses surveyed claimed to use a variety of communications tools, from standard landlines (84%) and dial-up internet (9%), to Ethernet services (11%). Respondents who only used mobile phone services and leased lines were excluded from the survey. Figure 1 Telecoms services used Businesses 84% 75% Mobile phone and leased line only users excluded from the research 50% 50% 41% Those with only leased lines were ineligible for interview Standard PSTN landline telephone ADSL Broadband Smartphones (internet via fixed line) Standard mobile phones ISDN 2/2e Source: S2. Which of the following do you have in your business? Base: All businesses (500) 22% Mobile broadband through a USB Modem or dongle 18% Cable Broadband (internet via cable) 14% 11% 10% 9% 9% ISDN 30 Ethernet Leased lines or private circuits Dial up internet (via normal telephone line) Voiceover Internet Protocal of VoIP 5% Video conferencing 5 8

12 All residential consumers were contacted on a fixed-line number and, as illustrated in figure 2, almost eight in ten respondents (79%) claimed to have an internet connection through their fixed line. Figure 2 Fixed line usage Residential consumers Fixed line internet No 21% 79% Source: S1 Which of the following do you have in your household? All residential consumers (2011) 6 9

13 3.1.2 Respondent s involvement in telecoms decision making To ensure residential consumers were able to give an informed opinion about expected fixedline service levels, only those who had joint or sole responsibility for selecting communications providers or in liaising with providers were eligible for interview. As shown in figure 3, respondents had a strong degree of involvement in many aspects of the telecoms decision making process, with over three in five wholly responsible for each element. Figure 3 Fixed line responsibility Residential consumers Wholly responsible 61% 61% 65% 63% Joint/ part responsible Not involved 36% 34% 32% 33% 3% 5% 3% 4% Selecting provider Paying bill Liasing with provider Liasing with provider on service issue on installation Source: C1 Please indicate what level of responsibility you have in your household for each of the following areas. It doesn t matter if you haven t had direct experience of these issues for any reason, please indicate what your level of involvement would be if the situation arose. All residential consumers (2011) 7 10

14 The residential consumer survey indicated a gender bias towards males being wholly responsible for the different interactions. This difference was most marked when it came to liaising with providers on faults (+16 points compared to females) as illustrated in figure 4. Respondents from social grades C2DE were more likely to claim to be wholly responsible for the different contacts, than those from social grades ABC1. The same observation could be made for those aged 55 or more, compared to the youngest age group (16-24) who were less likely to take sole responsibility for these types of decisions; for example, 44% said they were wholly responsible for selecting their provider compared to 72% of those aged 55+. Figure 4 4. Proportion wholly Selecting provider Paying bill Liaising with provider (fault) Liaising with provider (install) responsible for each element Male 68% 68% 73% 71% Female 55% 55% 57% 56% % 48% 49% 47% % 73% 76% 74% ABC1 57% 57% 62% 60% C2DE 67% 66% 68% 67% Source: C1 Please indicate what level of responsibility you have in your household for each of the following areas. It doesn t matter if you haven t had direct experience of these issues for any reason, please indicate what your level of involvement would be if the situation arose. Base: Male (983), Female (1028), (262), 55+ (676), ABC1 (1190), C2DE (821) 11

15 Figure 5 breaks down the different job roles that encompassed responsibility for telecoms/ IT in the business survey. Whilst Telecoms/ IT Manager was the most frequently provided single job title (20%), others had a wide range of responsibilities of which telecoms are only one aspect, in roles such as Office Manager (4%) or Accounts Manager (6%). Respondents from larger companies were more likely to be Telecoms/ IT Managers than in smaller organisations (44% were telecoms/ IT manager in sized companies). Figure 5 Job title Businesses Before I start the interview can I just check that you are one of the people in your company who makes decisions at a senior level about the telephone and IT services of your company. By decisions we mean choosing providers for calls and internet and liaising with providers about any installations or repairs Telecoms/IT Manager Managing Director/MD Financial Director/FD/ Controller 12% 15% 20% Larger companies more likely to be talking to Telecoms/ IT Manager: 33%, 50-99/ 44%, Owner/Proprietor 7% 3% or fewer job title Incidence Other Financial Manager 6% Telecoms/ IT Director 3% Accountant/Accounts Manager 6% Administrator 3% General Manager 3% Other Director 6% Marketing/ Sales Manager 2% Company Secretary 5% Technical Manager 2% Chief Accountant 1% Office manager 4% Chairman/ CEO 1% Source: B3 What is your job title? Base: All businesses (500) 9 12

16 4.1.1 Usage of telecoms providers Figure 6 displays the providers of business landline telephone and the main Internet Service Provider (ISP) used where there was more than one. Claimed usage of BT was at 46% for landline and 44% for ISP. This placed BT statistically higher than the nearest competitor as the competitive set was fragmented with many different smaller suppliers. Figure 6 Business landline supplier and main ISP Landline supplier 46% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% BT TalkTalk Alternative Networks O2/ BE Daisy Chess Unicorn Virgin Media Alcatel Southern Titan Vodafone Main ISP used 44% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% BT Talk Talk Alternative Networks Virgin Media Daisy O2/ BE Eclipse Demon Plusnet Vodafone Unicorn Source: B7 And which of those supplies your line? IF NECESSARY: By that I mean which company you pay your line rental to/ B10 And which of those is your company's MAIN ISP? : All businesses (500) 14 13

17 This leading market position resulted in three in five business surveyed claiming to use BT for either landline provision or as their ISP, as detailed in figure 7. There was no significant variation in BT usage by company size, however, those organisations spending less than 2,000 per month on their telecoms bill were the least likely to use BT (46%). Figure 7 Any service provision (voice/ line/ ISP) Businesses 49% 45% 60% No difference in BT usage by size Range from 51% Wholesale to 72% Retail < 2k per month spend least likely to use BT (46%) 8% 5% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Source: B5-7, 9-10 any provision of calls/ telephone line/ internet Base: All businesses (500) 15 14

18 As shown in figure 8, BT was also the single largest supplier in the residential consumer market, with almost half (47%) using BT for at least one service. Virgin Media and TalkTalk were the next largest, with 22% and 15% share respectively, which was a higher share than the next largest competitors in the business sector. This was particularly the case for internet provision where BT was ahead of the competitive set in claimed usage (25% BT Internet vs. 19% Virgin Media). Figure 8 Any provision (telephone/ internet) Residential consumers Youngest and oldest age groups most likely to use BT and 55+: 51% Non bundle customers higher (70% BT) Non switchers (64% BT) 46% 47% 25% 22% 15% 12% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% Use BT LL 21% Virgin Media 13% Talk Talk 11% Skytalk Use BT Internet 19% Virgin Media 12% Talk Talk 11% Skytalk Use BT LL or Internet Virgin Media TalkTalk SkyTalk / Sky Orange O2 AOL Plusnet Post Office Utility Warehouse Source: C6 Which company provides your landline for making and/ or receiving calls? CLARIFY IF NECESSARY: This is the company which you pay your line rental to. C8 And which company provides your home broadband connection? CLARIFY IF NECESSARY: This may be the same company you pay your line rental to or another provider specifically for your internet connection. Base: All residential consumers (2011) 16 15

19 Those that purchased their landline in a bundle with other services accounted for two thirds (68%) of the residential consumer sample, the majority of whom purchased their internet along with their landline (94%), as shown in figure 9. BT customers were less likely to be bundle customers, indeed, 70% of those who did not purchase their landline in a bundle were BT customers. Figure 9 Residential consumers usage of services bundles Use a bundle Services in bundle Landline as part of a package Landline not part of a package Internet 94% TV service 44% 32% 68% Mobile 1% Other 1% Don't know 2% Source: C9a Do you receive your landline phone along with other services as part of an overall package or deal from the same supplier? C9 Which of these services (if any) do you receive in a package or bundle from the same provider? Base: All residential consumers (2011) / All with landline bundle (1430) 17 16

20 4.1.2 Switching behaviour Amongst SMEs, switching a landline provider was more common than switching ISP (52% vs. 35%), with 59% having switched at least one service as outlined in figure 10. Switching supplier in the last 12 months was also more common for landlines, with almost one in five (17%) claiming to have done so, compared to 11% for ISP. Current claimed BT landline users were less likely to have switched (37%) compared to those with another provider (65%). The same was true for ISP providers, with BT-user switchers at 25% vs. 43% for other providers customers. Figure 10 Length of time with supplier/ switching Businesses Any switch (net) Last 12 months 1 to 3 years ag o More than 4 years ago Not change d supplier Don't know 52% 35% 11% 17% 15% 18% 9% 17% 59% 44% 4% 6% Landline ISP Summary of switching behaviour Landline switcher 52% ISP switcher 35% Any switcher 59% Both switcher 28% Incidence Landline switch ranges from 36% hotels/ catering to 62% education/ health Internet switch range from 17% hotels/ catering to 55% other Landline switch 2-5k band (40% lower than <2k (66%) and 5K+ (58%) Landline BT users less likely to have switched (37% vs. 65% non BT user). Internet 25% vs. 43% Those having a visit from an engineer in the last year (mainly fault) are more likely to be internet switchers (44% vs. 31% no visit) No difference by size or dependence on landline or internet Source: B8 Have you ever changed (any of) the company(s) which provides your fixed line telephone service? IF YES ASK When was this? B11 Have you ever changed your ISP? All businesses (500) 18 17

21 Two in five residential consumers claimed to have switched providers (43% each for landline and ISP provider), as illustrated in figure 11. Around three quarters said they had been with their current provider for 2 years or more (79% telephone, 74% ISP). It was those from social grades AB (48% landline, 47% ISP) and those that claimed BT was not their current provider who were more likely to claim to have switched (65% telephone, 51% ISP. Figure 11 Telephone: length of time with provider/ switching Residential consumers Over 2 years ago A year to 2 years 6 month s to a year Last 6 months 79% 8% 6% 7% Te lepho ne You switch ed from an existing supplier You moved into a property and continued with the existing supplier You started a new connection when moving house You did not previously have a landline connection Don't know 20% 20% 15% 1% 43% Summary of switching behaviour Landline switcher 43% ISP switcher 43% Any switcher 49% Both switcher 28% Incidence 16-24s least likely to have switched: 35% ABs most likely to have switched: 48% Non-BT customers most likely to have switched: (65% vs. 18% BT customers) No difference in dependence on service Source: C12 When did you start using INSERT NAME OF LANDLINE PROVIDER the provider for your landline?/ C13 When you joined INSERT NAME OF LANDLINE PROVIDER for your landline which of these best describes the circumstances? Base: All residential consumers with telephone (1989) 19 18

22 As illustrated in figure 12, switching was the most common route to joining a provider amongst residential consumers. Other methods of connection included continuing an existing connection (20% landline, 12% internet), starting a new connection from a move (20% landline, 18% internet), and the current supplier being the first provider of a new service (15% landline, 26% internet). Figure 12 Internet: length of time with provider/ switching Residential consumers Over 2 years ago A year to 2 years 6 month s to a year Last 6 months Don't know 74% 11% 6% 8% 1% Internet You switch ed from an existing supplier You moved into a property and continued with the existing supplie r You started a new connection when moving house You did not previously have an interne t connection Don't know 12% 18% 26% 1% 43% Summary of switching behaviour Landline switcher 43% ISP switcher 43% Any switcher 49% Both switcher 28% Incidence 16-24s least likely to have switched: 34% ABs most likely to have switched: 47% Non-BT customers most likely to have switched (51% vs. 32% BT customers) No difference in dependence Source: C10 When did you start using INSERT NAME OF INTERNET PROVIDER for your internet provision? / C11 When you joined INSERT NAME OF INTERNET PROVIDER for your internet which of these best describes the circumstances? Base: All residential consumers with internet (1604) 20 19

23 4.1.3 Reliance on fixed-line telephone and internet Businesses Business respondents were asked to indicate how much their business relied on their landline telephone and their internet connection. As shown in figure 13, levels of claimed reliance were very high, with 92% indicating that their business would either struggle to function or could only manage for a limited period without their landline and 94% for internet for the same responses. Indeed, in excess of four in five (81%) said they would struggle to function without at least one of these services. Figure 13 Reliance on landline and internet Businesses Struggle/ manage for limited time (net) My business would struggle to function without it My business could manage but only for a limited period without it 92% 94% 62% 64% Struggle to function (either): 81% Landline: Customer facing business sectors such as Retail, Hotels and Catering and Education/ Heath/ Public services most likely to rely on landline 5M+ also higher at 72% My business would rather the service was available but could manage without it My business would not be impeded without this service 30% 30% 3% 5% 2% 4% Landline Internet Internet: Businesses in Production/ Agriculture/ Mining, Finance/ Property Business Services the most likely to rely on internet 1m+ higher but not significant (66%) Source: Q8 Thinking about your landline/ internet connection, how much do your business rely on your landline telephone/ broadband/ internet connection Base: All businesses (500) 20

24 Residential consumers Compared to businesses, a greater proportion said they would be able to manage without either service although they would prefer to have it (33% landline, 23% internet compared to 3% landline, 2% internet for SMEs). Whilst the level of dependence on landline and internet were similar amongst the business sample, for residential consumers, it was the internet which was more important amongst the overall sample. This is not to say that this was the case for every individual, but that a greater proportion of respondents (64%) said that they would struggle to function / could manage but for a limited period without their internet connection compared to 49% for their landline. Results are fully outlined in figure 14. Figure 14 Reliance on landline and internet Residential consumers Struggle/ manage for limited time (net) My household would struggle to function without it My household could manage but only for a limited period without it My household would rather the service was available but could manage without it My household would not be impeded without this service All service users 49% 64% 19% 30% 30% 34% 33% 23% 17% 13% Landline Struggle to function higher for females (21% vs. 17% Males) 55+ highest: 26% C2DE highest: 22% Internet 55+ least likely to struggle to function Landline Internet Source: Q8 Thinking about your landline/ internet connection, how much do your business rely on your landline telephone/ broadband/ internet connection Base: All residential consumers (2011) / Base: All residential consumers with each service (1989/ 1604) 21

25 Businesses reasons for reliance on landline Business respondents were asked for the reason for their reliance on their fixed-line services. Their open-ended responses were grouped into categories of similar answer types which were then counted and analysed at a quantitative level. The results of this analysis are shown in figure 15. The categories of responses were then grouped together by similar types of answers into overall themes. Of the 92% of businesses that would struggle to function or manage for only a limited period, the most common type of reason for reliance on landline was that landlines were used for customer communications (61%). This broke down into sales-related reasons (27%), general customer contact (33%), or indeed that the business was telephone-based (5%) amongst other types of responses. Usage for general communications (24%), for example with suppliers/ contacts (12%), and a general reliance (20%) were the other main reasons given for why landlines were considered to be vital to some businesses. A minority claimed they could survive using other forms of communication for a limited period (14%); however, the example comments below illustrate some of the strength of feeling. Because nobody would be able to contact us and this is essential because we run hotels and restaurants so would lose so much money as would be unable to take reservations. Because we are a financial company and we need phones to trade with people Because we would not get calls from customers or other branches/our business would grind to a halt/ we work on a very tight schedule 22

26 Figure 15 Reasons for heavy reliance on landline (92%) Businesses How we communicate with customers/ they can call 33% We run a telephone based service 5% Mention of other telephone based business 3% Customer communication: 61% We rely on the phone for our business/ take orders/ sales 27% We are a hotel, guests make bookings over the phone 2% It is how we communicate with other contacts et suppliers 12% It is how we communicate/ our main channel of communication 7% We get a lot of incoming calls 4% Open ended responses have been grouped and counted. Results have then been organised into different overall themes General communications: 24% We use phones a lot 3% General reliance 20% We can use other forms of communication 7% We have mobile phones / diverts 2% We cannot manage without it 19% Some people do not have mobile phones 1% We use the internet/ / rely on the internet for business 6% Manage for limited period: 14% Source: Q8b Why would your household/ your business struggle/ manage for a limited period without your LANDLINE TELEPHONE OPEN ENDED Base: All businesses which would not function/ struggle without landline (459) Residential consumer reasons for reliance on landline Of the 49% of residential consumers who said they would struggle to function or manage for a limited time only without their landline, the explanation given for that reliance was primarily that it was relied on for contacting the outside world (17%). This included to contact emergency services (9%), or if they or a family member are disabled (3%, 2%), are elderly (2%, 2%), or live on their own (2%). For example: Because we're both OAPs, we live in the country; we use the phone if someone is ill and if there's an emergency. It's our main contact with friends and family. We don't use the phone a lot because we can't afford it but we use it when necessary. A more frequent response was a general need for their landline for communications, cited by just under half (47%) which encompassed factors such as need it to speak to family members (18%), and need it for work (9%) amongst others. Preferring a landline to a mobile phone (15%) was also given as an explanation, with responses such as a mobile phone being more expensive (4%), living in an area with poor mobile reception (4%), and not having a mobile phone (5%) amongst others. Results are detailed in figure

27 There were those that could manage with their mobile phone (28%), which would typically be those who could manage for a limited time only. However, for those that did claim to rely on their landline, as the comment below conveys, the impact of not having the service available could be very serious: I have got an elderly father that I need to contact several times a day. I am disabled as well I and need to communicate with the outside world. Figure 16 Reasons for heavy reliance on landline (49%) Residential consumers Need it to contact emergency services 9% Family member/ relative is disabled/ has health problems 2% I am elderly/ a pensioner 2% Lifeline :17% I am disabled/ have health problems 3% Family member/ relative is elderly 2% I live on my own 2% It is my main means of contact/ would not be able to communicate without it 13% I use the phone a lot/ use it all the time/ every day 4% Need it to speak to friends 3% General communications: 47% Need it to speak to family members/ relatives 18% Need it for work/ work from home/ partner does 9% Need to connect to internet 6% People phone me/ receive a lot of incoming calls 3% Do not have a mobile phone/ do not use/ prefer landline 5% Have mobile phone 28% Mobile phone expensive/ landline cheaper 4% Family/ friends do not have mobile phones 2% Live in a remote/ rural area/ mobile reception poor 4% Manage for limited period: 31% Prefer to mobile: 15% Do not use landline much 5% Source: Q8b Why would your household struggle/ manage for a limited period without your LANDLINE TELEPHONE OPEN ENDED Base: All residential consumers finding it difficult to function without landline (973) Businesses reasons for reliance on internet As with the reasons given for reliance on their landline telephone, for businesses the most frequently given type of reason for reliance on the internet (amongst the 94% who would struggle to function/ manage for limited time only) was sales-based (45%). Results are illustrated in figure 17. Other explanations included using the internet to take orders (11%), doing a lot of work over the internet (18%) and using for customers/ clients and suppliers (16%). For one in five (20%), the internet was also required for their business to function on the IT side, providing access to information/ data (10%), use of a remote server (5%), internet-based systems (6%), or for external staff (1%). 24

28 More generally, the internet was required for general communications (23%), such as for (20%) and staff communications (3%). Just over one in ten (13%) claimed they would be able to manage for a limited period using phones (5%), or back-ups (1%). That said, as the following example highlights, some businesses would be inconvenienced: Figure 17 Because we move a large amount of data around internally for example our payroll bureau trying to pay people without it would be painful. We remote monitor our customers so we need broadband we cannot function without broadband, that s what we do. Because our staff are spread many sites every one need their Our suppliers are international so broadband/ are essential for communication Reasons for heavy reliance on the internet (94%) Businesses Business is internet based/ do a lot of work on the internet 18% We need to communicate with customers/ clients suppliers 16% Take orders/ bookings/ sales by internet/ 11% Sales: 45% Use internet banking/ make receive payments online 5% Need internet to access information/ data etc 10% Our systems are internet based 6% External staff need to log onto our systems 1% IT: 20% We have a remote server/ need to access server 5% Do not rely on internet for our business 4% We rely on / critical we would not be able to send/ receive 20% Can manage using phones 5% We have a back up/ emergency system 1% General communications: 23% Need internet/ to communicate with our staff/ connect with different sites 3% Manage for limited period: 13% Can use mobile/ smartphones to access internet 4% Source: Q8b Why would your household/ your business struggle/ manage for a limited period without your internet OPEN ENDED Base: All businesses which would not function/ struggle without internet (468) 25

29 Residential consumers for reliance on internet Around one in four (29%) of the 64% of residential consumers who would struggle to function or manage for a limited period only without the internet relied on the internet at home for work related functions (29%). This included running a business (4%), or for their work (15%), using it to work from home (6%), or used by their partner (6%). Various day-to-day functions, which included banking (8%), entertainment (5%) and shopping (10%), were cited by 41% of residential consumers. Another frequently mentioned area for internet at home was general communication (39%), including 20% who rely on the internet/ use it every day/ all the time. Just over one in ten felt that they would be able to manage for a limited time (12%), using their mobile (6%), or because they do not use a great deal (6%). Some typical comments are shown below and results detailed in figure 18. Figure 18 Well I will struggle because I occasionally work from home and my daughter uses it for entertainment. And we do our home shopping as well. I would manage without it but as keeps me in touch with my family who lives in Australia, England, and France so I wouldn t like to be without it for any length of time. Because we use the internet system for ing, banking, booking holidays and social networking sites Reasons for heavy reliance on the internet (64%) Residential consumers I rely on the internet / depend on it all the time/ use it every day 20% Everyone uses the internet today/ it is important for all of us 8% I do everything on it/ use it for everything 3% General communication: 39% Can work from home 6% Work related: 29% Need it for my work 15% Can run my own business on it 4% My partner uses it for work 6% Use / can check my s 11% I use the internet for shopping, eg ebay 10% Day to day functions: 41% I do internet banking 8% Use it for communication/ to contact family and friends 9% I enjoy browsing/ surfing the net 2% Manage: 12% Do not use much 6% I pay bill online 3% Use it to study 3% Use it for leisure/ entertainment eg netflicks 5% My children use it for study/ homework 8% Use it for networking/ social media 5% Have mobile 6% Children use for games 3% Use internet for research/ to find information 5% Source: Q8c Why would your household struggle/ manage for a limited period without your internet OPEN ENDED Base: All residential consumers which would not function/ struggle without internet (1033) 26

30 4.1.4 Potential contact with Openreach service Businesses In figure 19, the graph portrays how recently those businesses surveyed moved into their current premises; for one in twenty (5%) this was reported to be less than a year. As engineers were required to visit for the service installation in most cases, this resulted in 4% of SMEs indicating they received an engineer visit for a service installation in the last year. Fault reporting was much more common, with 50% of SMEs specifying that this was something that they had done in the last year and in the majority of instances (57%) resolution of the fault required an engineer s visit. This therefore equated to 28% of SMEs receiving an engineer s visit for a fault repair and when combined with installation visits, 30% of SMEs surveyed claimed to have received a visit from an Openreach service engineer in the last year. Figure 19 Businesses: installation and repairs When moved into premises Reported a fault in the last year (landline/ internet) Openreach related activities in last year Less than 6 months 6 months to a year 1 to 2 years 2 to 5 years 3% 3% 6% 13% 75% Of the 5% which had moved in less than year ago, 19 (72%) required an engineer s visit 48% 2% Yes No Don't know 50% Installation Fault repair Any activity Engineer visit (installation) Engineer visit (fault repair) 5% 4% 28% 50% 52% Engineer visit (any) 30% Over 5 years ago 57% of faults required an engineer s visit Business Source: Q21 When did you move into your current premises?/ Q22 How was your fixed line connected?/ Q23 Have you had any occasion in the last year to report a fault on your business landline or broadband?/ Q24 When you reported the fault, did it require an engineer to visit or was it resolved without this? Base: All businesses (500) 27

31 Residential consumers In the case of residential consumers, the proportion who reported receiving an engineer installation visit was 2%, although a similar proportion had moved into their current residence in the last year (4% vs. 5% businesses). Results are shown in figure 20. As with businesses, fault repair was a more common occurrence than installation, however, 30% of residential consumers claimed to have reported a fault compared to 50% of businesses. Around half (49%) of those reporting a fault claimed it required an engineer s visit, which based on the overall sample of residential consumers corresponds to 14% of residential consumers. When combined with those receiving an installation visit, 17% claimed to have had contact with an Openreach service engineer. Figure 20 Residential consumers: installation and repairs When moved into premises Reported a fault in the last year (landline/ internet) Openreach related activities in last year Less than 6 months 6 months to a year 1 to 2 years 2 to 5 years 2% 2% 4% 13% 78% 4% moved in less than a year ago, of these 53% required an engineer s visit to connect their line 70% 1% Yes 30% No Don't know Installation Fault repair Any activity Engineer visit (installation) Engineer visit (fault repair) 4% 2% 14% 30% 33% Engineer visit (any) 17% Over 5 years ago 49% of faults required an engineer s visit Consumer Source: Q21 When did you move into your current home?/ Q22 How was your fixed line connected?/ Q23 Have you had any occasion in the last year to report a fault on your household landline or broadband?/ Q24 When you reported the fault, did it require an engineer to visit or was it resolved without this? Base: All residential consumers (2011) 28

32 4.2 Openreach service elements Importance of Openreach service elements when selecting a provider One of the key elements for the research to uncover was the relative importance of Openreach service elements in the overall choice of communications provider. If respondents were simply asked to rate service features on how important they are, it could be difficult to see any differentiation or hierarchy, as all may be thought of as important. Therefore a technique called Max Diff was used (also known as pairwise comparisons, or stated importance), which forces a choice for respondents and produces a hierarchy of importance. Respondents were asked to select the most important factor from a series of pairs. The pairs were pre-selected using a statistical process to ensure that all elements were covered to provide an adequate trade off to give a score for each element. The question in this survey was as follows. When selecting your communications provider for your business we would like to know what factors are important to you. I am going to read out some different pairs of items. For each pair, please tell me which item is the most important to you when choosing between communications providers. In conducting this exercise, please assume that you do have a choice between at least two different providers? 29

33 Businesses importance ranking Results were then analysed and a ladder of importance produced, which is illustrated for businesses in figure 21. In order to establish a hierarchy, based on their scores, attributes have been grouped into top importance, mid-range and low. Importance rankings take the form of a ratio scale, which means, for example, that an attribute scoring twice that of another is twice as important. Using this classification, areas of most importance to businesses were responsiveness to faults and performance (e.g. broadband speed) with scores of 29.6 and This 1 st and 2 nd ranking for these attributes was similar by all the key subgroups. Price was a middle range ranking quality, emerging a few points below customer service at 15.1 vs Businesses reporting spend of less than 5,000 per year, along with those with annual turnovers of less than 5 million rated price as more important, at 17.3 for less than 2,000 and 15.9 for 2,000 but less than 5,000 compared to 10.9 for 10,000+ spenders (ranking was the same). Responsiveness to faults was stronger for those spending over 5,000 per year (33.8 vs for less than 2,000) and BT customers (30.8 vs non-bt customers). Non-BT customers placed price above customer service in the overall ranking. At an overall level, being a trusted supplier brand was only half as important as price (6.8 vs. 15.1). Speed of installation (2.4), value added service available (2.1) and bundling opportunities (0.8) were ranked lowest. Figure 21 Businesses hierarchy of attributes in selecting a communications provider Scores derived from Max Diff analysis Top importance Responsiveness to faults Performance (e.g. broadband speed) Higher for 5k+ spend, BT customer Customer service 16.5 Higher for < 2k spend, non BT LL Middle range Price Trusted supplier brand Non BT customers place price ABOVE customer service. Price score higher for < 5k spend/ < 5m turnover Low Speed of installation Value added service available Higher for non switchers Bundling opportunities 0.8 Source: Q1A When selecting your communications provider for your business we would like to know what factors are important to you. I am going to read out some different pairs of items. For each pair, please tell me which item is the most important to you when choosing between communications providers. In conducting this exercise, please assume that you do have a choice between at least two different providers? Base: All businesses (500) 30

34 Residential consumer importance ranking For residential consumers, price was above other elements by some distance as the highest rated attribute, it scored a third more than performance, the next highest (30.4 vs. 20.5). Responsiveness to faults (11.7) followed performance (20.5), and customer service (17.1). This was different to the ranking for businesses where price was less important than responsiveness to faults. Results are shown in figure 22. Non-BT customers had a greater importance score for price (32.9 vs. 27.6) and conversely BT customers attributed more importance for performance (21 vs. 20), customer service (18.3 vs. 16), responsiveness to faults (12.3 vs. 11.1), and trusted supplier brand (9.9 vs. 8.2). Performance was an area which was ascribed more importance by those who placed their dependence as high on their fixed-line internet connection (22.2 vs for the total sample). Those who had experienced a fault on their fixed line also gave a relatively higher importance score for performance (21.4 vs overall), and for responsiveness to faults (12.3 vs. 11.6). Trusted supplier brand (9.0), value added service (4.9), speed of installation (3.4) and bundling opportunities (3.2) were ranked lowest. Importance scores given by residential consumers were above those by businesses for these attributes at 6.8, 2.1, 2.4, and 0.8 respectively. Figure 22 Residential consumers hierarchy of attributes in selecting a communications provider Scores derived from Max Diff analysis Higher scores for Top importance Price 30.4 Non BT customer 16-24s and 35-54s Upper middle Performance Customer service BT customers, switchers, high dependence on LL/ Internet, experienced a fault, ABC1 BT customers Lower middle Responsiveness to faults Trusted supplier brand BT customer, experienced a fault BT customer, non Switcher, 55+ Low Value added service Speed of installation Non BT customer Bundling opportunities 3.2 Non BT customer Source: Q1A When selecting your communications provider for your business we would like to know what factors are important to you. I am going to read out some different pairs of items. For each pair, please tell me which item is the most important to you when choosing between communications providers. In conducting this exercise, please assume that you do have a choice between at least two different providers? Base: All customers (2011) 31

35 4.2.2 Key elements in Openreach service provision The Max Diff analysis establishes where Openreach services (installation/ fault repair) at an overall level fit into the overall choice of communications provider. In order to understand how businesses and residential consumers react to different service components in a fixed-line installation a different technique was used, called Conjoint analysis. Rather than compare one service attribute against another, respondents were asked to respond to an entire installation scenario. Each scenario comprised 5 different attributes, which each contained 2 or 3 different potential levels of service. Respondents were provided 4 different scenarios and each scenario provided included a different level of service. There were 384 statistically designed scenarios evaluated in total to ensure an adequate trade off was made of all the different attribute levels. The impact of changing the different levels was then ascertained during analysis to establish their importance in driving particular responses to the scenarios by respondents. The utility scores represent the contribution different levels of each attribute make in driving a specific response from people, e.g. a service installation scenario being described as reasonable. Figure 23 shows how the different attributes and levels were substituted in the questionnaire, and hence how the technique worked during data collection. In the dialogue box the different coloured circles around text indicate the attribute level being tested in the example scenario and the letter refers to the attribute. It was the levels in the scenarios that were changed (second line of boxes) rather than the attributes themselves (top boxes). After the scenario had been outlined to them, respondents were asked to indicate how reasonable they felt this level of service to be, using a 5 point scale from very reasonable to completely unreasonable. If they indicated that the scenario was not reasonable to them, a question then followed asking what actions they would be likely to take in response. This question was unprompted so as to not unduly bias results. 32

36 Figure 23 Process of conjoint questioning A How soon appointment is B Appointment confirmation C Appointment offered D Engineer turns up as scheduled E Work complete on a single visit ATTRIBUTES 5 working days 10 working days 14 working days Immediately given Called back same day with Specified timeslot All day window Arrives as scheduled Re-arranges 1-2 days before visit Completes the work on single visit Requires a second visit to complete the work LEVELS Conjoint program then selects a balanced sub-set to test, with different levels placed into scenarios evaluated by respondents. Letter indicates the attribute type and colour for level You are called back the same day with (B) an all day window for an appointment (C) in 5 working days (A). The engineer then arrives as scheduled (D) on the day of the appointment and then requires a second visit (within 2 days of the first) to complete the work(e). Thinking about the entire scenario just outlined to you, how reasonable would you find this level of service? If not reasonable: What actions would you be likely to take? Evaluation based on CONJOINED features Collation of results and statistical analysis IMPORTANCE (attributes) UTILITY (levels) Businesses conjoint analysis Figure 24 illustrates the different levels of importance attached to the attributes when evaluating scenarios by businesses. The top bar deconstructs the attributes for the scenario being appraised as reasonable. The blue bar is the largest at 52% and this refers to attribute E : and level work completed on a single visit. This was therefore the most important attribute and level for a business in determining an installation scenario as reasonable. An appointment in 5 and to a lesser extent 10 working days was also an important component at 34% (purple). These time periods had utility scores of 16.4 and 7.9 respectively, indicating their relative levels of discrimination (further detail of the utilities can be found in Annex C). The engineer turning up as scheduled (rather than re-arranging) also registering as a factor at 14%. Confirming an appointment immediately or being called back the same day did not feature as discriminators in scenarios being reasonable. The same was true for the type of timeslot offered, whether it was all day or specified as morning or afternoon. Using this technique it was also possible to determine if any of the attributes emerged as more important in discriminating actions to be taken if scenarios were not thought to be reasonable. In the case of complaining to providers, engineers re-arranging appointments before the visit became a more important attribute (24%), although not outweighing completing work on a single visit (45%) or how soon appointments are (31%), which were still the major contributors. 33

37 Where the response to an unacceptable scenario by businesses was considering switching provider this was more driven by the speed of appointment initially provided (67%) than by work not being completed on a single visit (33%). Figure 24 Conjoint attribute importance: businesses Attribute importance A How soon appointment is B Appointment confirmation C Appointment offered D Engineer turns up as scheduled E Work complete on a single visit Importance attributes in.. 5 working days 10 working days 14 working days Immediately given Called back same day with Specified timeslot All day window Arrives as scheduled Re-arranges 1-2 days before visit Completes the work on single visit Requires a second visit to complete the work Scenario being reasonable 52% 34% 14% 0% Complaint if scenario not reasonable 45% 31% 24% 0% Switch if scenario not reasonable 33% 67% 0% For an installation scenario to be reasonable, the key component is attribute E, work completed in a single visit Source: Q7a Base: All businesses (500) 39 Residential consumer conjoint analysis Residential consumers had a very similar response to the scenarios to businesses although there were some differences. As shown in figure 25, it was again work being completed in a single visit which emerged as the most important element in driving an installation scenario as being viewed as reasonable (51%). An appointment in 5 and to a lesser extent 10 working days was also an important factor (36%). These time periods had utility scores of 17.7 and 7.4 respectively, indicating their relative levels of discrimination (further detail of the utilities can be found in Annex C). with engineers arriving as scheduled rather than re-arranging with a couple of days prior notice a less important factor (9%). Where residential consumers differed a little to businesses was that timeslots did emerge as a discriminator, but at 3% importance compared to 51% for completing work, an all day window vs. AM or PM slot is still not a very important factor. 34

38 As with businesses, considering switching providers when a scenario was not reasonable was triggered to a greater extent by how soon the initial appointment offered is than by if work is completed on single visit (57% vs. 33%). Engineer turns up as scheduled was a more important attribute amongst those who claimed they would seek compensation in an adverse scenario (16%), but still below speed of appointment (45%). Information that relates to the utilities of the different attribute levels, which provides more detail on the discrimination can be found in Annex C. Figure 25 Conjoint attribute importance: residential consumers A How soon appointment is B Appointment confirmation C Appointment offered D Engineer turns up as scheduled E Work complete on a single visit Importance attributes in.. 5 working days 10 working days 14 working days Immediately given Called back same day with Specified timeslot All day window Arrives as scheduled Re-arranges 1-2 days before visit Completes the work on single visit Requires a second visit to complete the work Scenario being reasonable 51% 36% 9% 3% Complaint if not reasonable 55% 36% 9% Compensation if not reasonable 39% 45% 16% Switch if not reasonable 33% 57% 9% Importance for next available appointment decreases with age 16-24s next available appointment time almost as important as work completed in a single visit Arriving at appointment as originally scheduled is most important for age group Source: Q7a Base: All residential consumers (2011) 40 35

39 4.2.3 Interest in enhanced service options Consideration Businesses and residential consumers were asked whether they would consider using different potential upgrades when installing a new service or when receiving a fault repair. Results are detailed in figure 26. Amongst businesses the highest claimed consideration was for a premium service which was described in the questionnaire as follows: This could be where you paid more than for the standard service for your landline and/ or broadband but received fast-track or priority service on any installations or fault resolutions. Approaching one in three (30%) businesses indicated that they were very or fairly likely to consider using the premium service, compared to just 13% of residential consumers. Of those not likely to consider, the most frequent response was very unlikely (44% businesses, 63% residential consumer). Almost one in four businesses (23%) claimed they would consider upgrading to a sooner appointment than one initially offered, and this corresponded to 11% of residential consumers, with very unlikely at 50% and 66% respectively. There was less differentiation between businesses and residential consumers for the AM/ PM timeslot option, with consideration for this option at 13% for both customer segments. Businesses with more employees (41% with 100 more more) were the most interested in a premium service option, compared to 27% of those with employees. Higher telecoms spend was also a factor, with claimed consideration for such an upgrade at 45% for those businesses spending more than 10,000 per year on telecoms. 36

40 Figure 26 Likelihood to consider using each service Very/ quite likely to (consider net) Very likely Fa irly likely Neither likely nor unlikely 30% 23% 13% 13% 13% 11% 5% 4% 3% 3% 3% 11% 9% 10% 10% 8% 18% 7% 6% 4% 4% 19% 16% 15% 17% 7% 21% 8% 18% 16% Fa irly unlikely Very unlikely 44% 50% 58% 63% 66% 66% Don't know 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% Sooner AM/ PM slot Prem ium AM/ PM slot appointment service' Prem ium service Business Residential consumers Sooner appointment Source: Q15 Thinking about all the options we just discussed, please tell me how likely or unlikely would you be to consider using each one? So firstly paying for.. How likely or unlikely would you be to consider using this service? Base: All businesses (500)/ All residential consumers (2011) 37

41 4.2.4 Amount reasonable to pay for appointment sooner than is initially offered Businesses Before business respondents were asked whether they would consider the various upgrade options (discussed in section 3.2.3) a series of questions were asked about how much they would be willing to pay for each option. The results in figure 27 display the range of opinions provided by respondents when asked how much they would find to be reasonable to pay for an appointment sooner than was initially offered to them. Around one in four (24%) businesses were able to provide a sum they would consider reasonable for fast-tracking an installation appointment and fewer (17%) were able to do so for a fault repair. Of those unable to give a figure, the majority felt that they should not pay anything for a sooner appointment (55% installation, 63% fault repair), and one in five (21% installation, 20% fault repair) reported they don t know. Around one in twenty (6%) believed a sum up to 25 to be reasonable, and 15% specified a figure of 15 or below for an installation and 12% for a fault repair. The average sum was 44 for installation/ 46 for fault repair as measured by the median (data mid-point). Figure 27 Amount reasonable for appointment sooner than is initially offered Businesses 6 to to to 50 2% 4% 9% 6% 2% 1% 4% Median: 44 6 to 10 7% Median: 46 5% 1% 16 to 25 Willing to pay: 24% Willing to pay: 17% Up to 25: 6% Up to 25: 5% Up to 50: 15% 26 to 50 Up to 50: 12% 51 to % 51 to % 101 or more 101 to 200 Nothing Nothing Don't know 21% Don't know 20% Installation Fault repair Source: Q12ai An engineer needs to visit in order for a landline telephone or broadband service to be installed, or a fault repaired, and you are arranging an appointment. How much do you think would be reasonable to pay for an appointment sooner than the one you are initially offered? Base: All businesses asked question (415) 38

42 Residential consumers A smaller proportion of residential consumers than businesses were able to specify a sum they considered reasonable to pay for a sooner appointment than initially offered for an installation (18%) and for fault repair (15%). Results are detailed in figure 28. The average (median) amount residential consumers were willing to pay was less than half that for businesses ( 19). There were also more responses of being willing to pay nothing (73% for installation, 75% for fault repair vs. 55%, 63% amongst businesses), with fewer in the don t know category (9%, 10% vs. 21%, 20% businesses). Figure 28 Amount reasonable for appointment sooner than is initially offered Residential consumers 1 to 5 6 to to 25 2% 5% 3% 5% 1% 2% 1% Median: 19 1 to 5 4% 3% Median: 19 6% Willing to pay: 18% Up to 10: 5% Up to 25: 10% 6 to to 15 Willing to pay: 15% Up to 10: 5% Up to 25: 10% 26 to 50 73% 16 to 25 75% 51 to or more Nothing Nothing Don't know 9% Don't know 10% Installation Fault repair Source: Q12ai An engineer needs to visit in order for a landline telephone or broadband service to be installed, or a fault repaired, and you are arranging an appointment. How much do you think would be reasonable to pay for an appointment sooner than the one you are initially offered? Base: All residential consumers asked question (1705) 39

43 4.2.5 Amount reasonable to pay for appointment in AM/ PM timeslot Businesses Another service appointment option which respondents were asked to evaluate in terms of pricing was paying for an appointment within a specified morning or afternoon timeslot. Results for businesses are broken down in figure 29. At 15% for installation and 12% for fault repair, fewer businesses indicated they were willing to pay for this option compared to fast-tracking an appointment (24%, 17% respectively). A majority said they would find nothing a reasonable amount to pay (67% installation, 71% fault repair). This was a less frequent response than for the sooner appointment service where 55% and 63% placed themselves into this category. Figure 29 Amount reasonable for appointment in AM/ PM timeslot Businesses 1 to 10 2% 4% 7% 2% 2% 4% 1 to 10 Median: 39 4% Median: 42 3% 16 to to 50 67% Willing to pay: 15% Up to 25: 6% Up to 50: 13% 16 to to 50 71% Willing to pay: 12% Up to 25: 6% Up to 50: 10% 51 to Nothing Nothing Don't know 18% Don't know 17% Installation Fault repair Source: Q12ai An engineer needs to visit in order for a landline telephone or broadband service to be installed, or a fault repaired, and you are arranging an appointment. How much do you think would be reasonable to pay for an appointment within a specified morning or afternoon timeslot? Base: All businesses asked question (415) 40

44 Residential consumers A minority of residential consumers (16%) were able to name a reasonable price for an appointment in an AM/ PM timeslot when arranging an installation or in a fault repair scenario (14%). The average (median) price when one was provided was 16, as detailed in figure 30 below. Figure 30 Amount reasonable for appointment in AM/ PM timeslot Residential consumers 1 to 5 6 to to 25 3% 3% 4% 4% 1% 3% Median: 16 1 to 5 5% 1% 3% Median: 16 Willing to pay: 16% 6 to 10 Willing to pay: 14% Up to 10: 6% Up to 10: 6% Up to 25: 10% 11 to 25 Up to 25: 11% 26 to 50 75% 26 to 50 77% Nothing Nothing Don't know 9% Don't know 9% Installation Fault repair Source: Q12ai An engineer needs to visit in order for a landline telephone or broadband service to be installed, or a fault repaired, and you are arranging an appointment. How much do you think would be reasonable to pay for an appointment within a specified morning or afternoon timeslot? Base: All residential consumers asked question (1705) 41

45 4.2.6 Amount reasonable to pay for premium service Businesses Respondents were asked to provide a monthly fee that they thought would be reasonable for a premium service described as where you paid more than for the standard service for your landline and/ or broadband but received fast-track or priority service on any installations or fault resolutions. Figure 31 illustrates that one in three were able name a sum they thought would be reasonable to pay (35%), with the average (median) price point being 24 per month. Following what they considered reasonable, respondents were also asked to indicate what they would expect to pay and the average (median) was 28. Figure 31 Amount reasonable/ expect to pay (monthly) for a premium service Businesses 1 to 5 6 to to to to 100 4% 5% 9% 8% 5% 4% 37% 3% 1 to 5 5% Median: 24 Median: 28 9% 6 to 10 Willing to pay: 35% Up to 25: 18% Up to 50: 26% 11 to to to 100 8% 6% 4% 34% Willing to pay: 35% Up to 25: 17% Up to 50: 25% or more Nothing Don't know 28% Nothing Don't know 31% Reasonable Expect Source: Q13 Thinking now about if your communications provider offered a premium service for your business. This could be where you paid more than for the standard service for your landline and/ or broadband but received fast-track or priority service on any installations or fault resolutions. How much do you think would be reasonable to pay for such a service on a monthly basis? / Q14 And how much would you expect to pay? Base: All businesses (500) 42

46 Residential consumers Around one in four residential consumers (28%) were able to name a sum they felt was reasonable, fewer than for businesses (35%), and an average (median) monthly payment was suggested of 9 ( 24 business respondent). 11% felt a price of 1 to 5 would be reasonable. Results are broken down fully in figure 32 below. Figure 32 Amount reasonable/ expect to pay (monthly) for a premium service Residential consumers 1 to 5 6 to to 25 11% 6% 6% 4% 1% 1 to 5 10% Median: 9 Mean: 10 Willing to pay: 28% Up to 10: 17% Up to 25: 23% 6 to to 25 7% 6% 5% 1% Willing to pay: 29% Up to 10: 17% Up to 25: 23% 26 to to to % 51 to % Nothing Nothing Don't know 15% Don't know 15% Reasonable Expect Source: Q13 Thinking now about if your communications provider offered a premium service. This could be where you paid more than for the standard service for your landline and/ or broadband but received fast-track or priority service on any installations or fault resolutions. How much do you think would be reasonable to pay for such a service on a monthly basis? / Q14 And how much would you expect to pay? Base: All residential consumers (2011) 43

47 4.3 Wait times considered to be reasonable Respondents were provided a scenario and asked to comment on what they would consider to be a reasonable waiting time (in working days) in that circumstance, and what waiting time they would expect. In order to ensure that interpretations to reasonable and expect were standardised, the following explanation was provided in the interview: Reasonable does not have to mean your ideal situation, but one that would be generally satisfactory to you. Your expectation does not necessarily have to reflect your ideal or satisfactory situation, but the time that you feel you would be likely to be offered in these circumstances. Respondents were not prompted with any timescale, their response was recorded as an exact figure, in units of working days. 4.4 Installation scenario You have moved into new home/premises and call a communications provider to set up your fixed telephone line and/or internet connection. They advise you that an engineer will need to come out to your premises in order to activate the line. How long do you think it is reasonable for the maximum wait until the first suitable appointment for an engineer to visit and activate your service? And how long would you expect it to take? 44

48 Businesses As shown in figure 33, there was a wide variation in response times for installations considered to be reasonable by businesses. Just over half (53%) specified a wait of 0, 1, 2 or 3 working days, and the average (median) fell into this time period (2.8). A greater proportion indicated an expected timescale of 1 day (31%) compared to 22% who thought 1 day was reasonable. At the other end of the scale, there was also a greater proportion specifying more lengthy timescales as expected with 10 or more days at 17% compared to 12% considering this to be reasonable. Those with higher telecoms spend ( 10,000 or more per year) and larger companies ( employees) gave a longer mean expected time (6.9, 6.7) than the overall sample (5.2). Figure 33 Installation scenario, time reasonable and expected (working days) Businesses or more Don't know 3% 22% 16% 12% 3% 19% 10% 12% 3% Reasonable Mean: employees: k+ telecoms spend: 6.9 Recent switcher: 6.1 To 3 days: 53% To 5 days: 75% % 7% 2% 14% 8% 1% Median: or more 17% Median: 2.2 Don't know 3% 31% 3% Expect Mean: 5.7 To 3 days: 56% To 5 days: 72% Source: Q1 You have moved into new home/premises and call a communications provider to set up your fixed telephone line and/or internet connection. They advise you that an engineer will need to come out to your premises in order to activate the line. How long do you think it is reasonable for the maximum wait until the first suitable appointment for an engineer to visit and activate your service? / Q2 And how long would you expect it to take? UNPROMPTED Base: All businesses (500) 45

49 Residential consumers Residential consumer views were broadly similar to that of businesses, with 57% providing a response of 0, 1, 2 or 3 working days to be reasonable and 66% expecting this timescale (53%, 56% for businesses respectively). Again, a full spectrum of responses was provided, with some finding longer timescales to be reasonable, with 7% specifying a wait of 11 days to be either reasonable or expected for an installation. Results are fully illustrated in figure 34. Respondents in the 55+ age bracket suggested a shorter mean timescale, particularly in terms of what was expected (3.3 days vs. 4 days overall). Those who had recently had a line installed gave a longer mean timescale at 5.9 days for reasonable and 7 days for expectation compared to 4.2 and 4.0 respectively for the overall sample. Figure 34 Installation scenario, time reasonable and expected (working days) Residential consumers or more Don't know 1% 16% 22% 18% 3% 16% 14% 7% 2% Reasonable Mean: : 3.8 BT customer: 4.0 Recent line connection: % 31% 16% 14% 3% 11% Mean: 4.0 England: 3.9 vs. 4.8 Scotland/ Wales 55+: 3.3 Recent line connection: 7.0 To 3 days: 57% 7 To 5 days: 76% Median: or more 9% 7% Don't know 3% Median: 1.9 Expect To 3 days: 66% To 5 days: 80% Source: Q1 You have moved into new home/premises and call a communications provider to set up your fixed telephone line and/or internet connection. They advise you that an engineer will need to come out to your house in order to activate the line. How long do you think it is reasonable for the maximum wait until the first suitable appointment for an engineer to visit and activate your service? / Q2 And how long would you expect it to take? UNPROMPTED Base: All residential consumers (2011) 46

50 4.4.1 Switching scenario You have decided to change communications provider for your business telephone line and/ or internet connection. Your new provider advises that it is necessary for an engineer to visit to perform the switch over. How long do you think it is reasonable for the maximum wait for a suitable appointment for the engineer to attend and the change to occur? / And how long would you expect it to take? Businesses Results for the switching scenario were similar to installation, as detailed in figure 35. Just over half (53%) found 0, 1, 2 or 3 working days to be reasonable and 56% expected this timescale. As with installation, a similar pattern can be observed where a greater proportion expect a switch to be conducted in a day (33%) compared to those finding a day to be reasonable (23%). The mean number of days considered reasonable was higher for those spending more than 10,000 per year (6.8) and 5,000 up to 10,000 (6.2) compared to the overall sample (5.4). Figure 35 Switching scenario, time reasonable and expected (working days) Businesses or more Don't know 3% 23% 17% 10% 1% 19% 11% 14% 2% Reasonable Mean: k+ telecoms spend: to <10k: 6.2 Recent switcher: 6.4 To 3 days: 53% To 5 days: 73% Median: or more Don't know 3% 33% 13% 7% 1% 13% 7% 18% 3% Expect Mean: 5.4 To 3 days: 56% To 5 days: 70% Median: 2.1 Source: Q3 You have decided to change communications provider for your your business telephone line and/ or internet connection. Your new provider advises that it is necessary for an engineer to visit to perform the switch over. How long do you think it is reasonable for the maximum wait for a suitable appointment for the engineer to attend and the change to occur? / Q4 And how long would you expect it to take? UNPROMPTED Base: All businesses (500) 47

51 Residential consumers As with businesses, residential consumers attitudes to timescales on switching were similar to their attitudes to installations. Just over half (52%) specified 0, 1 2 or 3 working days as reasonable and 62% would expect these number of days (57%, 66% respectively for installation). As with the installation scenario, those who had experienced a recent line installation provided a longer mean response time, of 10.5 days for reasonable and 10.2 days expect compared to 4.9 and 4.3 amongst the overall sample. Results are shown in figure 36. Figure 36 Switching scenario, time reasonable and expected (working days) Residential consumers % 16% 19% Mean: % 31% Mean: or more Don't know 16% 3% 16% 16% 16-24: 6.6, 55+: 4.4 Non BT customers: 5.4 Recent line connection: 10.5 To 3 days: 52% To 5 days: 71% 14% Median: 2.8 2% Reasonable or more Don't know 14% 12% 3% 12% 11% 8% 4% Expect Recent line connection: 10.2 To 3 days: 62% To 5 days: 77% Median: 2.1 Source: Q3 You have decided to change communications provider for your household telephone line and/ or internet connection. Your new provider advises that it is necessary for an engineer to visit to perform the switch over. How long do you think it is reasonable for the maximum wait for a suitable appointment for the engineer to attend and the change to occur? / Q4 And how long would you expect it to take? UNPROMPTED Base: All residential consumers (2011) 48

52 4.4.2 Fault-fixing scenario Responses were noticeably different with regard to fault fixing compared to installation and switching, with reduced timescales common. The scenario here was as follows: Your business/ household fixed telephone line and/or internet connection has stopped working; you have called your communications provider and they have said that an engineer needs to visit your premises/ home to fix the problem. How long do you think it is reasonable for the maximum wait until the first suitable appointment for the engineer to attend and successfully resolve the fault? And how long would you expect it to take? Businesses Over four in five businesses (83%) considered a wait of up to and including 1 working day to be reasonable, and 77% would expect a wait of this scale. Results are illustrated in figure 37. Figure 37 Fault scenario, time reasonable and expected (working days) Businesses 3% 0 4% 0 Mean: Mean: To 1 day: 83% 2 To 1 day: 77 % 3 73% 3 80% or more Don't know 9% 1% 2% 1% 2% Reasonable Median: or more Don't know 9% 5% 1% 4% 1% 2% 1% Expect Median: 1.0 Source: Q5 Your business fixed telephone line and/or internet connection has stopped working; you have called your communications provider and they have said that an engineer needs to visit your premises to fix the problem. How long do you think it is reasonable for the maximum wait until the first suitable appointment for the engineer to attend and successfully resolve the fault? / Q6 And how long would you expect it to take? UNPROMPTED Base: All businesses (500) 49

53 Residential consumers A greater proportion of residential consumers considered a wait of 2 or more working days to be reasonable, as illustrated in figure 38, with 38% selecting 1 working day as reasonable compared to 80% for businesses. The mean reasonable wait was 2.6, a day more than for businesses. Figure 38 Fault scenario, time reasonable and expected (working days) Residential consumers or more Don't know 1% 38% 31% 14% 2% 7% 5% 1% Reasonable Mean: 2.6 Recent line connection: 3.2 To 1 day: 39% To 2 days: 70% To 3 days: 84% Median: or more Don't know 5% 42% 23% 12% 3% 6% 5% 4% Expect Mean: 2.5 To 1 day: 47% To 2 days: 70% To 3 days: 82% Median: 1.2 Source: Q5 Your business fixed telephone line and/or internet connection has stopped working; you have called your communications provider and they have said that an engineer needs to visit your home to fix the problem. How long do you think it is reasonable for the maximum wait until the first suitable appointment for the engineer to attend and successfully resolve the fault? / Q6 And how long would you expect it to take? UNPROMPTED Base: All residential consumers (2011) 50

54 4.4.3 Fault-fixing prompted timescales Businesses A similar pattern of response for fixing timescales was found when respondents were prompted with specific timescales, as shown in figure 39. Business respondents were asked to rate how reasonable each level of working day(s) was to them to wait for a suitable appointment for the engineer to attend and the fault to be fixed? A wait of 2 days was considered by more to be reasonable than unreasonable (59% vs. 41%), but at 3 days and 5 days the scales were tipped in the opposite direction (33% vs. 67%, 14% vs. 86%). A wait of 1 day was considered to be very reasonable by just under half (47%) of the sample, and at 2 working days, more considered this level of wait to be completely unreasonable than very reasonable (25% vs. 13%). Figure 39 How reasonable time taken for fault fix considered Businesses 100% 90% 91% reasonable 9% unreasonable 59% reasonable 41% unreasonable 33% reasonable 67% unreasonable 14% reasonable 86% unreasonable 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 73% 47% 48% 32% 25% 24% 21% 17% 17% 19% 12% 13% 12% 14% 6% 4% 5% 7% 4% 2% 1 working day 2 working days 3 working days 5 working days Very reasonable Quite reasonable Only just reasonable Slightly unreasonable Completely unreasonable Source: Q7D Thinking now about if there were a fault on your fixed telephone line or broadband. How reasonable are the following periods of time to wait for a suitable appointment for the engineer to attend and the fault to be fixed? Base: All businesses (500) 64 51

55 Residential consumers More residential consumers than businesses indicated they find longer timescales to be reasonable for fault fixing. At 3 working days, there was a majority that considered this wait to be reasonable (66% vs. 34% unreasonable), whereas for businesses the reverse was true (33% vs. 67%). Over three in four (78%) found 1 working day to be very reasonable. At 5 working days completely unreasonable was the most common answer provided by residential consumer respondents (43%). Results are fully detailed in figure 40. Figure 40 How reasonable time taken for fault fix considered Residential consumers 110% 90% 97% reasonable 3% unreasonable 88% reasonable 11% unreasonable 66% reasonable 34% unreasonable 33% reasonable 67% unreasonable 70% 50% 30% 10% -10% 78% 46% 43% 30% 31% 23% 24% 17% 19% 15% 17% 12% 12% 12% 7% 2% 4% 4% 1% 1 working day 2 working days 3 working days 5 working days Very reasonable Quite reasonable Only just reasonable Slightly unreasonable Completely unreasonable Source: Q7D Thinking now about if there were a fault on your fixed telephone line or broadband. How reasonable are the following periods of time to wait for a suitable appointment for the engineer to attend and the fault to be fixed? Base: All residential consumers (2011) 65 52

56 4.5 Impact of adverse service Claimed actions prompted by finding installation scenario unreasonable Businesses As shown in figure 41, the most common claimed action for businesses to take in installation scenarios that they did not find to be reasonable was to complain to provider at 58%. This course of action was preferred significantly more by recent switchers (65%), and those who had not switched recently were more likely than average to claim they would look into switching provider 42% vs. 36%. One in five (21%) said they would not take action of any kind, whereas 10% indicated they would look to seek compensation from their current provider. Other types of action were cited by 3% or fewer, including complain to Ofcom at 2%. Respondents were not prompted by any particular response types. Figure 41 Actions would take if installation arrangements not reasonable Businesses Complain to provider Look into switching to an alternative provider of the same service Would take no action 21% 36% 58% Recent switchers: 65% Not recent switchers: 42% Request compensation from provider Look to switching to an alternative service (e.g. Cable (Virgin Media), mobile for voice calls/ Look into using mobile services as a temporary measure Complain to Ofcom Complain to other organisation/individual Cancel it / Cancel order / Remain with existing supplier Contact them / Contact them for an update 10% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% Source: Q7C (All finding installation scenario not reasonable) In the event of this scenario happening to you what action or actions, if any, would you be likely to take? UNPROMPTED Base: All not finding at least one installation scenario reasonable (353) 68 53

57 Residential consumers A similar hierarchy of response types was highlighted by residential consumers as by businesses, although a larger proportion said they would complain to their provider (67% vs. 58% businesses). Female respondents were significantly more likely to indicate complaints as their course of action at 72% vs. 61% males, and males conversely were more likely to consider switching at 40% vs. 31% females. There was also a difference by social grade, with social grades AB displaying more interest in switching (43%) than those from C2DE social grades (32%) who were more likely to consider complaining (70% vs. 60% AB). Just over one in ten (13%) said they would request compensation, and 7% said they would look into switching to a different mode of service provision (i.e. cable). A minority said they would take no action (15%). Results are illustrated in figure 42 below. Figure 42 Actions would take if installation arrangements not reasonable Residential consumers Complain to provider 67% Look into switching to an alternative provider of the same service Would take no action 15% 36% Wales: 76%, Female: 72%, 16-24: 77%, C2DE: 70%, Request compensation from provider Other (specify) 13% 10% Male: 40%, ABC1: 39%, AB 43% Look to switching to an alternative service (e.g. Cable (Virgin Media), mobile for voice calls/ broadband) 7% Look into using mobile services as a temporary measure 3% Source: Q7C (All finding installation scenario not reasonable) In the event of this scenario happening to you what action or actions, if any, would you be likely to take? UNPROMPTED Base: All not finding at least one installation scenario reasonable (793) 69 54

58 4.5.2 Actions prompted fault resolution taking longer than reasonable Businesses All respondents were asked what they would do if a fault resolution was taking longer than they felt was reasonable. As with the installation courses of action examined previously, respondents were not prompted with any particular response type. The most frequent claimed action was to complain to provider which accounted for 71% of responses, reaching 85% for businesses with 10 to 250 employees. Looking into switching to an alternative provider of the same service was something that 27% of businesses claimed that they would do. This was less than the proportion that claimed they would look into switching for an unreasonable installation (36%). Over one in ten (13%) said they would request compensation, and 4% said they would complain to Ofcom. Just 5% said they would take no action. Other responses were mentioned by 2% or fewer. Figure 43 Actions would take if repair taking longer than was felt reasonable Businesses Complain to provider 71% : 85%, Look into switching to an alternative provider of the same service Request compensation from provider 13% 27% Not recent switcher: 30% Would take no action Complain to Ofcom Contact them / Contact them for an update Look into using mobile services as a temporary measure Use an existing back-up e.g. Re-route to our Look to switching to an alternative service (e.g. Cable (Virgin Media), mobile for voice calls/ 5% 4% 2% 2% 1% 1% Source: Q9a In the event that a fault repair to your business fixed line or broadband service was taking longer than you felt was reasonable, what actions, if any would you take? UNPROMPTED Base: All businesses (500) 70 55

59 Residential consumers As show in figure 44, amongst the residential consumer sample the pattern was similar to businesses, with complain to provider the most commonly claimed option that they would take if a fault repair was taking longer than they felt was reasonable (75%). Look into switching to an alternative provider was an action that one in five (20%) claimed they would take and this was a smaller proportion compared to the 36% who asserted they would do so in an adverse installation scenario. Just over one in ten (12%) claimed they would request compensation, and other actions accounted for 3% or fewer responses. There were some significant differences by the key subgroups. Females had a stronger disposition to complain to provider at 80% vs. 69% males, whereas for males, whilst complaining was still the most frequently cited action, switching was something that was considered to a greater degree than by females (24% vs. 17%). Figure 44 Actions would take if repair taking longer than was felt reasonable Residential consumers Complain to provider Look into switching to an alternative provider of the same service Request compensation from provider 12% 20% 75% Male: 24%, 16-24: 25%, High dependence on internet: 25% Female: 80% ABC1: 77% Would take no action Contact them / Contact them for an update Look to switching to an alternative service (e.g. Cable (Virgin Media), mobile for voice calls/ broadband) Look into using mobile services as a temporary measure Don't know Complain to Ofcom 6% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% Source: Q9a In the event that a fault repair to your fixed line or broadband service was taking longer than you felt was reasonable, what actions, if any would you take? UNPROMPTED Base: All residential consumers (2011) 71 56

60 4.5.3 Timescales that may prompt switching behaviour Businesses Businesses that claimed they would look into switching for either an installation that was not considered to be reasonable or a fault wait that was taking longer than reasonable were asked what level of wait would lead them to consider this course of action. As shown in figure 45, the trigger level of claimed wait time varied considerably. Over a quarter (29%) said they would consider a switch for an installation with a wait time of 7 or more working days, compared to 13% for fault fixing. For the majority, the claimed wait that would trigger a switch consideration was much less than 7 days. For installation, 45% asserted that a wait of 0, 1, 2, or 3 days would be sufficient to trigger this course of action and for fault fixing 65%. Figure 45 Claimed level of wait that would lead to consideration of switching provider Businesses Don't know 2% 11% 18% 0 Mean: % Mean: To 3 days: 45% 3 To 2 days: 46% 14% 23% To 5 days: 61% To 3 days: 65% 1% 4 To 7 days: 67% To 5 days: 83% 15% 5 19% 2% Median: 4.1 Median: % 2% 11% 7 16% 10 14% 2% 2% 11+ 5% 10% 6% Don't know 5% Installation wait Fault wait 5% Source: Q9b What level of wait for a fixed line phone and/ or internet installation for your business would lead you to consider switching to an alternate supplier? / Q9c What level of wait for a fixed line phone and/ or internet repair for your business would lead you to consider switching to an alternate supplier? UNPROMPTED Base: All business would consider switching if installation seemed unreasonable (128)/ All residential consumers would consider switching if fault repair seemed unreasonable (133) 72 57

61 As illustrated in figure 46 the 78% of businesses that claimed they would consider switching were actually unable to name an alternative provider they would look to move to. Where businesses were able to name companies they might switch to, BT was the top mentioned brand at 11% for landline and 9% for ISP. As BT was the most commonly used brand, this will be reflecting BT s market share in this sector (as indicated in figure 7), as other companies are also named as beneficiaries, just not at very high levels. Figure 46 Alternative providers considered for a switch Businesses Companies would consider switching to for telephone Companies would consider switching to for internet BT Virgin Media Vodafone Plusnet Talk Talk/ Zen Eclipse Cable and Wireless Don't know 11% 5% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 78% BT Virgin Media Plusnet Sky/ Skytalk Talk Talk/ Zen Eclipse Don't know 9% 5% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 79% Source: Q10 If there were a level of wait in the repair/ installation process which you would not consider to be reasonable, which provider(s) would you consider switching to for your UNPROMPTED Base: All businesses that would consider switching if installation/ fault repair considered unreasonable (189) 73 58

62 Residential consumers As illustrated in figure 47, a third of residential consumers (33%) claimed they would consider a switch for a wait of 0, 1, 2 or 3 days for installation and fault repairs, and this compares to 45% and 65% for businesses for the same timescale. Two in five (38%) claimed they would tolerate a wait for 7 or more working days before consideration of a switch in an installation scenario and slightly more (41%) for a fault. Those who reported receiving an engineer s visit gave a longer lead timescale on average (mean) at 8.3 days for installation and 8.6 days fault fixing compared to 6.5 and 7.1 days for the overall sample. Figure 47 Claimed level of wait that would lead to consideration of switching provider Residential consumers Don't know 5% 6% 9% 13% 4% 22% 1% 17% 10% 11% 3% Installation wait Mean: % 4% 1 9% Mean: Received fault fix 3 16% Received fault fix engineer visit: 8.3 engineer visit: % To 3 days: 33% 5 To 5 days: 59% 7 17% To 7 days: 77% 8 Median : % 10 1% % Median : 4.8 Don't know 13% 5% Fault wait To 3 days: 33% To 5 days: 55% To 7 days: 70% Source: Q9b What level of wait for a fixed line phone and/ or internet installation for your business would lead you to consider switching to an alternate supplier? / Q9c What level of wait for a fixed line phone and/ or internet repair for your business would lead you to consider switching to an alternate supplier? UNPROMPTED Base: All residential consumers would consider switching if installation seemed unreasonable (483)/ All residential consumers would consider switching if fault repair seemed unreasonable (409) 74 59

63 There was more knowledge of alternative providers to switch to amongst residential consumers that would consider this move than their business counterparts, with over half (51%) able to name a supplier they might move to for either service compared to around one in five businesses (23% landline, 21% internet). BT was the most mentioned brand (22% landline, 20% ISP) which mirrored the overall distribution of usage as shown in figure 8. Other brands were also mentioned - SkyTalk/ Sky and Virgin Media were the closest with over one in ten indicating that they would consider these companies for each service type, as shown in figure 48. Figure 48 Alternative providers considered for a switch Residential consumers Companies would consider switching to for telephone Companies would consider switching to for internet BT SkyTalk / Sky Virgin Media Talk Talk/ Carphone Plusnet Post Office Don't know 22% 12% 11% 6% 1% 1% 49% BT Sky/ Skytalk Virgin Media Talk Talk/ Plusnet Orange AOL O2 Don't know 20% 13% 13% 4% 2% 1% 1% 0% 49% Source: Q10 If there were a level of wait in the repair/ installation process which you would not consider to be reasonable, which provider(s) would you consider switching to for your UNPROMPTED Base: All businesses that would consider switching if installation/ fault repair considered unreasonable (668) 75 60

64 4.5.4 Non-switchers Businesses The majority of businesses claimed they would not consider switching (62%) where installation scenarios were unreasonable or a fault fixing wait was not reasonable. The complexity of the process was the most commonly provided reason for not doing so cited by 18% of nonswitchers. Other responses have been grouped into similar types in the following report text, and are broken down in figure 49. One in ten (11%) responded that switching was not worth the effort, due to limited savings available. 6% quoted risk of delays and 3% said they already had bad experience with other providers. 11% said that they were signed into a contract and 9% that they were happy with current provider/ no reason to change. 7% were willing to give provider another chance to fix the problem, and 8% would consider a switch if not fixed/ happened more than once. All responses provided were unprompted. Figure 49 Reasons would not consider switching Businesses Complex process Not worth the effort/ risks, due to limited savings available We are signed into a contract Happy with our current provider / no reason to change Would consider if not fixed/ happened more than once Willing to give provider another chance to fix the problem Risk of delays Will consider switching in the future Good service from current provider / no problems Already had bad experience with other providers Because of cost/price Loyalty / Have been with our provider a long time 18% 11% 11% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 3% 3% All mentioned by 3% or more Source: Q11 You did not mention you would consider switching provider if an installation or a fault were not done in what you would consider to be a reasonable timescale. What are the main reasons why you would not consider switching provider for your business? UNPROMPTED Base: All businesses that did not indicate they would consider switching (311) 78 61

65 Residential consumers Two thirds (67%) of residential consumers claimed they would not consider switching, and for one in five (21%) of these it was the complexity of the process they claim that puts them off. This was similar to businesses (18%) and indeed, the types of reasons for non-switching were broadly comparable, and grouped by similar responses in the report text and are broken down in figure 50. One in five (20%) felt that switching was not worth the effort/ risks, due to limited savings available, similarly 10% cite a risk of delays, 7% always had a bad experience with other providers. 13% were happy with our current provider/ no reason to change, 8% received good service from current provider/ no problems, and 3% loyalty/ have been with our provider a long time. Figure 50 Reasons would not consider switching Residential consumers All mentioned by 3% or more Complex process Not worth the effort/ risks, due to limited savings available Happy with our current provider / no reason to change Risk of delays Good service from current provider / no problems Already had bad experience with other providers Because of cost/price Willing to give provider another chance Would consider switching if problem was not fixed/ if it happened more than Loyalty / Have been with our provider a long time 21% 20% 13% 10% 8% 7% 5% 3% 3% 3% C2DE: 24% 55+: 17% 16-24: 20% Source: Q11 You did not mention you would consider switching provider if an installation or a fault were not done in what you would consider to be a reasonable timescale. What are the main reasons why you would not consider switching provider for your business? UNPROMPTED Base: All residential consumers that did not indicate they would consider switching (1343)

66 4.5.5 Compensation Businesses All businesses were asked to indicate what level of daily compensation that they would consider reasonable if there was a failure to install or mend fixed-line services as promised by their provider, results are illustrated in figure 51. One in three were unable to name such a sum and a minority provided answers that were not numeric, such as refund on bill (2%), equivalent to loss of earnings (4%). There was a range of figures provided considered to be reasonable, from 10% specifying up to 25 to 9% over 500. The average using the median (mid-point) was 91 per day, but the mean was much higher (at 758) illustrating that there some companies placing more value on their compensation. Telecoms spend and company size were drivers for increasing the level of compensation considered to be reasonable, with the mean level for those spending over 10,000 per year on telecoms and with employees at twice the overall level ( 1,434, 1404 respectively). Figure 51 Compensation required by provider for failure to install/ mend fixed line/ internet Businesses Up to to to to 500 Over 500 (to 10k) Refund on bill Make service free every day not available Month rent free Equivilent to loss of earnings Other Don't know 10% 6% 18% 8% 9% 2% 1% 1% 4% 6% 33% Median: 91/ Mean: 758 Larger companies require a greater mean level of compensation: 10-49: 665, 50-99: 922, : 1404 Level also increases with telecoms spend: 10k To 200: 34% To 500 : 42% Source: Q20 What level of compensation per day would you consider to be reasonable for failure to install or mend fixed line/ broadband services for your business as promised by your provider? Base: All businesses (500) 76 63

67 Residential consumers For residential consumers, the level of compensation thought to be reasonable for failure to install or mend fixed-line services was less than claimed to be reasonable by businesses, with the average (using the median) at 9 compared to 91 for businesses. There was variation between the price points provided by respondents, with 6% finding 1-2 to be reasonable and at the other end of the scale, 4% 50 or more, as shown in figure 52. Two in five (39%) said they would find a compensation level of 15 or less to be reasonable. There was a significant difference by social grade, as AB respondents specified a third more compensation using a mean average, at 31 compared to 21 for those from social grades C2DE. A quarter (27%) were unable to name a reasonable level of compensation. As found amongst businesses, a minority provided non-numeric responses such as make it free for every day without service (1%), or refund on bill/ refund whatever it costs (4%). Figure 52 Compensation required by provider for failure to install/ mend fixed line/ internet Residential consumers to (to 1000) Not interested, just want service Make it free for every day without service Give a month rent free Refund on bill/ refund whatever it costs Don't know 6% 11% 13% 9% 12% 7% 4% 2% 1% 1% 4% 27% Mean: 24 AB require more: 31 compared to 21 C2DE Median: 9 To 15: 39% To 50 : 58% Source: Q20 What level of compensation per day would you consider to be reasonable for failure to install or mend fixed line/ broadband services as promised by your provider? Base: All residential consumers (2011) 77 64

68 4.5.6 Attitudes to size of providers and service levels Businesses Businesses were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with a range of attitude statements relating to what service providers of different sizes deliver in terms of service for installations and fault repairs. As shown in figure 53 there was a spectrum of opinion. Approaching one in four (23%) agreed strongly or slightly that companies that are well known offer better service to customers when installing services or repairing faults than less well known brands. Smaller-sized companies in turnover terms were more likely to agree with this statement (30% for less than 1m turnover vs. 15% for 1m to 5m). Overall disagreement exceeded agreement levels at 48% compared to 23%. Higher telecoms spenders ( 2,000 or more per annum) were the most likely to disagree, with 31% of less than 2,000 spenders disagreeing compared to 60% of those spending 2,000 to 5,000 per annum. Experience may also influence opinion, as 59% of those having received an engineer visit for a fault repair disagreed compared to 48% amongst the overall sample. Over one in four (28%) agreed strongly or slightly that you are less likely to have a problem with service installation or repair from BT than with competitors. BT customers were more likely to agree with this statement (36% vs. 17% non-bt customers). Disagreement with this statement exceeded agreement, at 37% vs. 28%, and those who claimed to have received an engineer visit were more likely to disagree (46%). Three in five (58%) agreed strongly/ slightly If I had a bad experience with a provider other than BT with service installation or repairs I would consider switching to BT. It should be borne in mind that 60% of businesses surveyed used BT for either service. One in five disagreed strongly or slightly (19%), with non-bt customers more likely to disagree (26% compared to 14% amongst BT customers). 65

69 Figure 53 Attitudes to larger providers and installations/ fault repair Businesses Agree 23% 58% 28% Agree strongly Agree slightly Neither agree nor disagree 10% 13% 29% 31% 28% 13% 15% 34% Disagree slightly 25% 23% 18% Disagree strongly 23% Companies that are well known offer better service to customers when installing services or repairing faults than less known brands 8% 11% If I had a bad experience with a provider other than BT with service installation or repairs I would consider switching to BT 18% You are less likely to have a problem with service installation or repair from BT than with competitors Source: Q24b Thinking now about your opinion about the level of service that you might receive in installation or fault repairs for your business. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements. Base: All businesses (500) Residential consumers Views expressed by residential consumers are detailed in figure 54. Approaching two in five residential consumers (37%) agreed strongly or slightly that companies that are well known offer better service to customers when installing services or repairing faults than less well known brands. This was a greater proportion than amongst businesses, where agreement was expressed by 23%. Male respondents were more likely to agree strongly to this statement (18% vs. 13% females). There was also more agreement amongst those in the age bracket (46% compared to 37% overall). BT customers were more likely to agree strongly (18% vs. 13%) and conversely, non-bt customers were more likely to disagree (33% vs. 24%). 66

70 Over a third (35%) of residential consumers agreed strongly or slightly that you are less likely to have a problem with service installation or repair from BT than with competitors and this slightly exceeds the proportion that disagreed (29%). This compares to 28% amongst businesses. BT customers were more likely to agree with this statement (49% vs. 22% non-bt customers). Male were also more likely to agree with this statement (38% vs. 32% of females). Around half (53%) agreed strongly or slightly that if I had a bad experience with a provider other than BT with service installation or repairs I would consider switching to BT. Agreement was below the level found amongst businesses (58%) and again, mirrors penetration at 47%. Around a quarter (24%) disagreed that they would consider BT. Figure 54 Attitudes to larger providers and installations/ fault repair Residential consumers Agree 37% 53% 35% Agree strongly 15% 25% 17% Agree slightly Neither agree nor disagree Disagree slightly Disagree strongly 22% 34% 18% 12% 10% 12% 14% Companies that are well known offer better service to customers when installing services or repairing faults than less known brands Source: Q24b Thinking now about your opinion about the level of service that you might receive in installation or fault repairs. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements. Base: All residential consumers (2011) 28% 23% If I had a bad experience with a provider other than BT with service installation or repairs I would consider switching to BT 18% 35% 15% You are less likely to have a problem with service installation or repair from BT than with competitors 67

71 4.6 Sample Profile of business respondents A range of companies were included in the research by company size, as shown in figure 55. As described in more detail in Annex A, larger (50 to 100 and 100 to 250) companies were oversampled and weighted to their correct incidence to allow analysis by size to take place. Turnover was not used for quota purposes but a good range of turnover was achieved, with the majority (57% of those specifying a turnover) falling between 500,000 and 5 million per year. Figure 55 Employees and turnover 10% 10% 6% 16% 19% 39% Number of employees 100 to to to to to to 19 Over 50,000 to 100, ,000 to 250, ,000 to 500, ,000 to 999,999 1 million to 2 million Over 2 million to 5 million Over 5 million to 10 million Over 10 million to 15 million Over 15 million to 20 million Over 20 million to 25 million Over 25 million to 100 million 100 million or more 2% 4% 4% 8% 4% 1% 7% 2% 12% 18% 20% 19% Source: B1. How many employees (including yourself) are there in the company in the UK, including both full and part time workers?/ Q28. Into which of the following bands does the company turnover s in the UK fall is it... Base: All businesses (500)/ All businesses excluding DK/ Refused (371)

72 Telecoms spend per annum varied considerably amongst SMEs and is detailed in figure % were unable to describe their annual spend. Of those that did, 47% reported spend of up to 5,000 per annum and 53% above this level. Figure 56 Annual spend band Incidence Up to 500 7% 500 to 999 7% 1,000 to 1,999 11% 2,000 to 2,999 9% 3,000 to 3,999 5% 4,000 to 4,999 8% 5,000 to 7,499 14% 7,500 to 9,999 8% 10,000 to 12,499 7% 12,500 to 14,999 4% 15,000 to 19,999 5% 20,000 to 24,999 5% 25,000 to 29,999 3% 30,000 to 39,999 3% 40,000 to 49,999 1% 50,000 to 59,999 2% 60,000 to 99,000 1% 100,000+ 1% Source: Q29 Into which of the following bands does your companies annual telecoms spend fall into is it... Base: All businesses excluding DK/ Refused (380) 69

73 The regional spread of the sample was as follows: Figure 57 Northern Ireland was excluded as Openreach does not service this area of the UK. A spread by sector was achieved in line with the SME population, as detailed in figure 58. Figure 58 Sector Incidence Hotels and Catering 3% Other services 4% Transport/ 8% Communication Education/ Health/ 10% Public Admin Construction 13% Wholesale 13% Retail 13% Production/ Agri/ 16% Mining Finance/ Property/ 21% Business services Source: Sample 70

74 4.6.2 Residential consumer profile As shown in figure 59 a representative spread by gender and age was achieved and quotas were applied as detailed in Annex A. Figure 59 Gender, Age and Household size Gender Age Adults in household 51% 49% % 13% 6% 9% 7% 13% 9% 10% 14% 15% 37% % 52% 30% have at least 1 under % 12% 8% 33% 4+ 15% 11% Total Source: C2 / C3 To ensure we interview a wide cross section of people can you please tell me your age? / C26 How many adults (aged 16+) live in your household? / Q27 And how many children? Base: All residential consumers (2011) 71

75 Working respondents accounted for 60% of the sample, with 45% working full time. Social grade quotas and weights were applied as outlined in Annex A. Figure 60 Working status and social grade Working full time (30+ hours per week) Working part-time (8-29 hours per week) Not working (ie under 8hrs/week) retired 45% Working: 60% AB C1 27% ABC1: 57% Not working (ie under 8hrs/week) Unemployed registered/not registered but looking for work 15% C2 31% Not working (ie under 8hrs/week) student Not working (ie under 8hrs/week) housewife/disabled Don't know 23% 3% 4% 3% 6% 1 Total D E 21% 8% 13% Total C2DE: 43% Source: Q4 Are you yourself? / C5 What is the occupation of the Chief Income Earner in your household, that is the person with the largest income whether from employment, pension, state benefits, investments, or any other source? Base: All residential consumers (2011) 72

76 A representative regional spread was achieved with quotas to ensure a robust base of interviews in Scotland and Wales as detailed in Annex A. Northern Ireland was excluded as Openreach does not service this area of the UK. Figure 61 73

77 As shown in figure 62 the majority of the sample were owner occupiers, with an even split within this group between those who owned their home outright and those purchasing via a mortgage. Figure 62 Home ownership Being bought on mortgage 35% Owned outright by HH Owner Occupier: 70% Rented from local authority/ Housing Association/ Trust Rented from private landlord Other/ DK 35% 14% 10% 7% Total Source: Q25 Is your home Base: All residential consumers (2011) 94 74