How often does BT overbuild on other providers?

Hi I’m just wondering if BT has a habit of overbuilding on other FTTP providers or not.

Reason I ask is a few weeks ago I saw and spoke to a virgin engineer who said they were installing full fibre on our estates as they were pulling cable through the ducts etc but then yesterday I saw about 4 BT vans all pulled up round the area walking round etc which is a lot more than there is usually when they are just doing a bit of work on one of the cabinets.

Also all this started a month after I signed up and got Starlink after been left in the slow lane for so long. When it rains it pours 😂

Yes they do, all the time.

They are probably more likely to roll out to an area with another FTTP provider than to an area with only their own FTTC available.

there will be a reason why this is being done , what it asked for by a community , its it being covered by a commercial programme or is openreach doing for another provider under PIA -- , nothing is ever black and white

what utter rubbish and disinformation why would you overbuild something you have not made any return on -- - clearly someone with no understanding of the Openreach commercial case or its lead time to build and determine its roll out

dont beleive all the hard done by nasty BT and nasty openreach which is peddalled as fact on a number of forums

there is an example in ascot where tooli , Zzzzooom and gigaclear are all building the same area and premises

Can you repeat that in English?

Edit: i just can't get what your point is.

You say my comment is utter rubbish, then agree with it with examples of other providers overbuilding each other.

why would you overbuild something you have not made any return on

Return on what? Their own FTTC?

If OpenReach roll out FTTP to an area with no competition, only their own FTTC available, then they are only competing with themselves.

OpenReach would only make a small amount of increased revenue from each customer who takes FTTP.
Everyone's already an OpenReach customer.

In an area with an Alt-Net OpenReach are competing for customers.
Each customer who comes from another network to OpenReach FTTP makes more profit/revenue for OpenReach than from customers upgrading from FTTC.

The financial case for OpenReach rolling out FTTP is greater in areas with a competing provider.
Nothing to do with big bad OpenReach or whatever you meant above.

Edited by j0hn83 (Wed 26-May-21 14:23:18)

In reply to a post by Fastman3:

clearly someone with no understanding of the Openreach commercial case or its lead time to build and determine its roll out

Let's think about commercial cases then. If there is an area served by OR FTTC which then becomes part of the plan for another operator's FTTP service what will be the reaction of the customers for internet services in that area? A proportion will move away from FTTC service to take advantage of the benefits of the FTTP service. The net result is that BT OR's customers (the ISPs) will either migrate such customers to the new FTTP platform or lose such customers to another ISP supplying the FTTP. Either way BT will lose the revenue from the wholesale charges they levy for that traffic. Therefore there is a commercial case, not built on additional revenue as would normally be the case but built on protection of existing revenue.

Now let's think about an area where there is OR FTTC and no plans for any incursion by an FTTP provider. There is no commercial case to be made for BT to invest in supplying FTTP as they will not gain any customers, only see a switch in mode by customers to FTTP vice FTTC. If OfCOM have the charging regime correctly calculated the net revenue for BT will not rise because of this change of mode. Therefore there is no commercial case for BT to invest in FTTP where there is no competition.

Is this how you understand commercial cases to work or do you have some other commercial interpretation rather than a comparison of benefits and losses against investment? The only reasons for BT to invest in FTTP where there is no direct competition is if they are being paid or are under political pressure to create the infrastructure.

Edited by GonePostal (Wed 26-May-21 12:07:50)

Exactly this comment ^^^

Somewhat matches my edit above.

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

Exactly this comment ^^^

Somewhat matches my edit above.

Both typing at the same time to try and introduce some commercial reality to the conversation!

In reply to a post by GonePostal:

Now let's think about an area where there is OR FTTC and no plans for any incursion by an FTTP provider. There is no commercial case to be made for BT to invest in supplying FTTP as they will not gain any customers, only see a switch in mode by customers to FTTP vice FTTC. If OfCOM have the charging regime correctly calculated the net revenue for BT will not rise because of this change of mode. Therefore there is no commercial case for BT to invest in FTTP where there is no competition.

Exactly this. Whilst there is a small and vocal minority who want to take Ultrafast services, the vast majority do not; they want cheap and reliable (in that order).

I had enough trouble convincing my dad to upgrade from 8/1 ADSL to 40/10 FTTC, even with a cabinet just around the corner. He did in the end, when Talktalk made the FTTC price the same as ASDL. Previously it was something like £1 or £2 per month more expensive.

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

In an area with an Alt-Net OpenReach are competing for customers.
Each customer who comes from another network to OpenReach FTTP makes more profit/revenue for OpenReach than from customers upgrading from FTTC.

What take up rate do Openreach need in an area to make rolling out FTTP to be economically viable?