FTTP Community Scheme

A friend lives on a road of 20+ houses in London but has terrible broadband so I referred him to the BT community scheme and he has now received quotes for a full FTTP deployment. The first quote is for the �core� community which is just his road and the second is for four times as many houses but at only twice the cost (so half the cost per house/flat). I am now helping him think through how to get people to sign-up. A key issue is whether there is a free rider problem - if people do not sign-up at this stage and therefore do do not contribute to the community scheme setup costs, can they order FTTP shortly after the work is done for the standard FTTP price, in which case they would be disincentivised from signing up in the first place?

Thank you

He'd probably have to check with BT on conditions for ordering.

One thing is to be clear that if they don't have a high enough sign up then no-one will get it.

Presumably this is an issue on every community build? Is there no standard approach to address the concern?

He could get everyone on the road signed-up but it probably only makes sense to contact the remaining 90 or so houses if there is a very clear incentive for them to sign-up and not just benefit from others paying the setup costs.

Standard approach is to take the community based approach, i.e. for those contributing they do so in the knowledge that they will benefit and if too many try to freeload then the project will not go ahead.

If the local feeling is already that those contributing do not want others to benefit, then probably best to not go down the community route as seems people want only those paying now to benefit, so a bespoke commercial build might be better.

They can always make it a condition that unless everyone signs up and agrees to pay that they won't progress it - but that could well just be biting off their nose to spite their face. In the end if some really want it then they may have to put up with the fact that others may benefit even if they don't chip in - from BT's perspective it would be silly for them to refuse providing services to people that they can as it would just impact on their profits.

Alternative is just to sit back and wait and see if BT do anything themselves but that could be a long wait.

There really should be a proper clawback clause for the residents, but OR won't undertake such a thing in a million years. Whats worse atm is the proposed pstn to full ip by 2025...

OR should be really looking at full fttp/g.fast by then and cease new vdsl cabs from next year .

I'm not really sure how clawback would actually work with the Community Fibre Partnerships. My understanding is that they are already subsidised, so would think that if they were to do some form of clawback then they would likely quote a larger figure upfront and end up at the same amount if everyone were to order.

Having spent time trying to gain momentum with the community partnership for FTTP on a small number of houses (34) I found it incredibly difficult to get off the ground especially where there are a lot of Sky customers unwilling to move.

I'm not really sure how clawback would actually work with the Community Fibre Partnerships.

It could work in exactly the same way as it did for BDUK as for both BDUK and Community Funded projects the additional funding is to fill the gap between what BT would be prepared to invest based on its own commercial criteria and the actual cost of installation.

For BDUK funded projects following installation when actual take up can be seen BT reassess what level of commercial investment would have been justified and refunds any overpayment to the relevant BDUK authority. There is no reason why community funded installations could not be treated similarly although I suspect this has rarely or ever been the case.

In reply to a post by bluemoon87:

Having spent time trying to gain momentum with the community partnership for FTTP on a small number of houses (34) I found it incredibly difficult to get off the ground especially where there are a lot of Sky customers unwilling to move.

Where I live it was difficult to get 30% to sign up when the alternative was sub 2Mbps ADSL. Took about 9 months and was achieved by people with good sales skills.

PSTN to full IP is about the exchange kit retiring and going full VoIP

NOT ripping out all the copper or forcing all homes to have a xDSL/GPON device

In reply to a post by bluemoon87:

I'm not really sure how clawback would actually work with the Community Fibre Partnerships. My understanding is that they are already subsidised, so would think that if they were to do some form of clawback then they would likely quote a larger figure upfront and end up at the same amount if everyone were to order.

That's easy to imagine. Say we had a scheme that covered 40 houses and will cost £40k. So if everyone signs up it's £1000 plus a connection fee. Turns out only 20 houses sign up so it's £2000 plus a connection fee. Then six months later a "free loader" wants to sign up. They now pay £40k/21=£1904.76 plus connection fee and the first 20 houses get £95.24 back. The next "free loader" pays £40k/22=£1818.18 and the first 21 houses now get £86.58 back. Rinse and repeat as more people sign up.

I would say a time limit of say 7 years would be about right after which any further free loaders would just pay the connection fee. I think 5 years is probably not long enough and 10 years too long. Note some "free loaders" might actually because of a change of occupancy of the property. You can imagine an elderly person who does not use the internet downsizing and a family with teenage children moving in for example.

Basically a simple scheme like that removes any incentive to free load, and would likely make it easier to get sufficient initial traction to get the CFP off the ground.

Who would administer the refunds? If BT then what benefit do BT get out of doing it - it just costs them money for no gain. What if one of the properties changes hands - do they have to track down the person that originally paid, pay it to the new owner or do BT just keep the clawback? Refunding the money would also not be straightforward as every time they would have to contact everyone that is being refunded as their payment details may have changed (or they've got to send out lots of cheques which also costs money).

Implementation details. The point is that it is possible. The main advantage for BT is that if the "free loaders" are neutralized more CFP's will go ahead and BT which basically allows BT to expand it's network for minimal capital outlay, and what's not to like about that?

The not to like is that the more complex and need to continue monitoring and billing will increase the initial build costs

i.e. setting this up, chasing down people etc etc is not free