Cable operators and ISP competition

This seems such an obvious question, I expect it has been asked many times before - apologies if so.

The question relates to the current rollout of FTTP infrastructure in what seems a very haphazard way by a large number of companies.

I live in a suburb of Bath and so far FTTP has impinged in two ways:

1. Virgin Media have just cabled the entire neighbourhood
2. Truespeed (a local organization) are offering to cable the neighbourhood if 30% of homes sign up in advance (at a price not supplied), which I feel is unlikely since everyone in the area can get > 25Mbps via FTTC at the moment, which would be good enough for most at the present time.

There is no sign of Openreach planning to do anything hereabouts.

When everything came over the existing BT copper, you could choose any ISP you wished, so could select them on low price or customer support or other criteria, in a similar way to other utilities (gas, electricity). With FTTP it seems to me that the owner of the fibre also insists on being the ISP, so in order to have any reasonable ISP competition you would have to have a large number of competing fibre installations running past the door! If I'm right about this, it seems wasteful, and unlikely that most people would ever get much choice of ISP over FTTP.

As I understand it the only exception to this is OpenReach FTTP: if you get this connected you can still have any ISP (that offers FTTP packages) the same as with ADSL/FTTC. Is that correct? Are they the only cable installers that allow this? Is it the intention for OR to eventually cover the entire country, albeit very slowly?

Why does the Govt. not insist that all FTTP cable installers offer the use of their infrastructure to other ISPs in a properly competitive way?

The only explanation I can think of is that allowing local monopolies over FTTP is the only way to get reasonable coverage in a short timeframe (because nobody would install any cable if they couldn't have the near-monopoly and so get a quick ROI)? Otherwise the Govt. would have people breathing down their necks to fund the OpenReach rollout properly and set decent coverage goals. The stated aim of 50% coverage by OR by 2025 is pathetic in my opinion, if the country wants to remain competitive in the modern world. But that's me getting political now.

So, are my assumptions above correct, and if I want FTTP any time soon do I have to bite the bullet, abandon my much loved ISP and go with one of these unknowns? (or in the case of VM, all too well known, for rubbish service)?

By the way, before you flame me, I am well aware that many people out in the sticks don't have a hope of getting any kind of FTTP or even FTTC. But there are other compensations in living out in the country...

Truespeed is a rural provider so there not going to cover your area unless there's no competition that can offer speeds above 20mbps since they are a small provider right now that are targeting communities that have no other choice except BT's ADSL/Slow FTTC speeds.

Here's a map of True Speeds Current rollout

OFCOM regulate BT because they are the largest provider and considered by many to have a "monopoly". Therefore they require BT to wholesale most of their services and so other ISPs can use their equipment.

Other than that the government expectation is that in order to encourage investment other operators are allowed to provide services without the same wholesale requirement. If they all had to wholesale their services then they wouldn't be able to build a business case so they wouldn't invest at all - plus if they only have a small number of premises covered then ISPs wouldn't use their wholesale services as it isn't worth the investment in contracts, support, etc.

The alternative is to nationalise the infrastructure and wholesale it to everyone. But, the current government don't want to do that - the next government might. It does mean though there would be no competition at all at the wholesale infrastructure level and so innovation may be stifled.

In reply to a post by tinklerj:

With FTTP it seems to me that the owner of the fibre also insists on being the ISP

Not always true. For example, Gigaclear sell wholesale via other ISPs, as well as direct. https://www.gigaclear.net/get-connected

There are rumours that Virgin might open up its network as wholesale too. https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2019/04/virgin...
(of course, most of Virgin's network is not FTTP)

In reply to a post by tinklerj:

Why does the Govt. not insist that all FTTP cable installers offer the use of their infrastructure to other ISPs in a properly competitive way?

Because it only regulates those companies which have Significant Market Power.

Put another way: generally speaking, companies are permitted to spend their own money however they like. If you put constraints on how fibre networks can be built, you're likely to see less of them being built, not more.

Because it only regulates those companies which have Significant Market Power

How does VM not get included? I don't know what percentage coverage VM has but probably 60% or more which I would have thought of as being "Significant".

http://labs.thinkbroadband.com/local/

45.9%

Thanks Andrew. I'd missed that. Nevertheless I feel that many would consider 45.9% and increasing to be pretty significant. Perhaps the situation will change if VM hits 50.1% unless they choose to stop at 49.99%.

The Truespeed prices are on their website. I have a Gigaclear service and I think it better to deal with them directly rather than via any 3rd party, perhaps especially because the router which has an internal ONT, is remotely managed.