Huh? Some'at seems wrong there. BT Retail sells FTTC for a lot less than £57.99 a month and I can't believe that BTw charge £519.20 a month for a VDSL2 port either. Something's not right with those figures, surely?
I said as much several years ago when FTTC was just being announced especially in conjunction with WBMC - there just doesn't seem many areas left where LLUOs can undercut BTw based products or provide a better service
Oops the pound signs weren't properly rendering, coupled with the folly of copying BT prices from the comments section of a website. Better stick with GBP and the official price lists!
The current BT Openreach price list shows a wholesale rental charge for an 80/20 VDSL2 DSLAM port of GBP 119.40 per annum. That's GBP 9.95 per month. And then there's a hefty connection fee of GBP 92.00 (masked by lengthy minimum term retail contracts). Prices are ex. VAT 
In May 2013, a "confidential" WIK-Consult report commissioned by TalkTalk plc was "leaked". The authors of that report claim that the base case
cost to Openreach of providing a VDSL2 port (almost regardless of its provisioned speed) is just GBP 4.39 a month. 
In other words, BT Openreach is making a comfortable profit from FTTC.
Back in May 2012, Andrew Ferguson of ThinkBroadband laid out the economics, as they were understood back then, of GEA Wholesale costs.  That was at the time that TalkTalk was first raising its objections to what it claims is a margin squeeze
by BT. We can add to Andrew's figures, the astronomical GBP 2000 cost to LLU operators for the "GEA Cablelink" (an MDF to HDF 1 Gbps fibre optic tie-cable).
It is that poxy cable, worth just a couple of quid, which in part is holding up LLU rollout of fibre products across Britain. TalkTalk apparently has just 5,000 FTTC subscribers compared to over 400,000 for BT Retail and Plus Net. And yet that GBP 2000 bill for a tie-cable while huge is just the tip of the iceberg. The LLU operator still has his opex and possible capex costs for the fibre backhaul to price in, including new layer 2 switching in all the hand-over exchanges.
Okay, so BT officially operates under (somewhat fanciful) conditions of EOA - applying "equivalence" in access costs to its own subsidiary companies and competitors alike. Nevertheless, at BT Group level this condition is irrelevant. The Group can afford to run BT Retail and Plus Net on an artificially low profit margin, or even at a loss, recouping those losses through bumper revenues at Openreach. That seems to be what's happening.
Though it's not all sour grapes over BT. Britain sorely needed this investment, and BT was the only company with the wherewithal to find the GBP2.5bn the fibre rollout has apparently cost. And in a sense it feels like TalkTalk and Sky are behaving like parasites, since they invested nothing of their own in the cabinet rollout itself. However, if we are left with no competition in the faster broadband market place, BT is in a predatory position. Better off under state ownership, then. Where its "profits" could rightly be used to pay for other important investments like Aunty Maud's long-overdue haemorrhoids operation
Edited by asbokid (Wed 19-Jun-13 02:21:52)