It seemed to me odd - if 20% of BDUK funding was targeted at mostly FTTP, presumably BT is contractually bound to implement FTTP where that's required to meet the coverage target in their bid.
You are still getting confused between FTTP and FTTPoD. Or N4A is. Or both of you.
Remember that BT are currently (or intending) to supply FTTPoD anywhere that FTTC has been made available. The only service available with FTTPoD is the hugely expensive 300Mbps, 3-year deal. But note that preparing the ground for FTTPoD, when deploying FTTC, requires some initial "over-provisioning" work, to allow for both technologies to co-exist.
Meanwhile FTTP (or "native FTTP") is in places where FTTC does not exist. Base-level services are available over this native FTTP, at base-level prices.
As far as I can make out, N4A doesn't assert that 20% of BDUK funds are for native FTTP. His assertion is that 20% of the funds for an FTTC cabinet area is actually used for the over-provisioning necessary to support FTTPoD. He then further asserts that BT has no plan for FTTP, when, in context, he really means FTTPoD.
To my mind, he seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. BT has *always* positioned FTTPoD as a business niche, even if they have put the price up and made it more obviously so.
So to clarify my understanding: This particular 20% isn't being budgeted for the council/BT to use FTTP to target widespread residential coverage (as you suggest in your post). It is there to use FTTPoD to target niche business coverage in places where FTTC coverage already exists but isn't fast enough for the business.
I believe you need to see FTTPoD as a component in a business service (ie the access component of a leased-line) rather than a consumer product.
I then see business ISPs bundling Openreach's FTTPoD access product with a wholesale-level leased-line core product with uncontended bandwidth - giving an entry-level leased-line offering. And this kind of product/marketplace will support the pricing that Openreach currently has for FTTPoD.
[As an aside, you are already seeing business ISP's making entry-level leased-line products this way, but using FTTC as the access component. These give 2/2, 10/10 and 20/20 products for £200pm. Quite cheap, really.]
In this guise, I *do* see that BT has a plan: That it intends to remove the need for digging or pulling fibre as dedicated leased lines, and that it intends to integrate future leased-line fibre into a unified fibre-based access network. The start of this unified network is the "over-provisioned" setup for FTTPoD.
Should council's/BDUK be paying for this over-provisioning?
In considering this, you need to remember that the councils aren't just aiming at widespread residential coverage (which is the aspect we punters think most about). They also want to get good focussed coverage for businesses too - and most councils seemingly prioritise the economic benefits of the latter. While consumers might want an 80/20 FTTC internet access (contended, but cheap), businesses would probably rather have a 20/20 uncontended leased-line service that costs.
Note too that the ERDF funding that some councils have added is *specifically* meant for business coverage.