But with one whole, singly own fibre network, you wouldn’t have where we are now … altnets picking and choosing where they roll out … based on where they think they can make the quickest buck.
And in my scenario, there is still choice for the customers, with different networks available if they choose to put links in to ‘the exchange’.

No overloaded poles (you watch this get worse)
Consistency in the provision of network.

The current ‘Thatchers Dream’ approach, of allowing business to dictate which areas get enabled, and which don’t hasn’t exactly nailed the widespread availability of FTTP has it ?

You could argue the former incumbent could have moved faster and been ahead of the altnets. The altnets only appeared due to the requirement not being satisified by either OR or VM, and they could get the borrowing (cheaper money before covid!)

Much easier for a small company with venture funding to start rolling out in small areas than it is for a behemoth like BT/OpenReach to build a business case and get it signed off by everyone (including being agreed by the regulator). You also have to consider that anything BT build is regulated by Ofcom which makes that business case even harder to build. The altnets generally aren't regulated and can move faster but only cover very small areas in comparison (they can cherry pick for the best return).

In reply to a post by ian72:

Much easier for a small company with venture funding to start rolling out in small areas than it is for a behemoth like BT/OpenReach to build a business case and get it signed off by everyone (including being agreed by the regulator). You also have to consider that anything BT build is regulated by Ofcom which makes that business case even harder to build. The altnets generally aren't regulated and can move faster but only cover very small areas in comparison (they can cherry pick for the best return).

What ian72 said .

In reply to a post by ian72:

Much easier for a small company with venture funding to start rolling out in small areas than it is for a behemoth like BT/OpenReach to build a business case and get it signed off by everyone (including being agreed by the regulator). You also have to consider that anything BT build is regulated by Ofcom which makes that business case even harder to build. The altnets generally aren't regulated and can move faster but only cover very small areas in comparison (they can cherry pick for the best return).

True, I work for a huge company, and smaller outfits are more nimble, but they also don’t have the scale or bank trust to borrow the large sums. I don’t blame OR for running a business, but they did have plenty of time with no competition when they could have done some fibre. I recall Ben Verwaayan (BT Group CEO at the time) being interviewed and frustrated they as a group were not installing fibre.

As current CEO has said, the future doesn’t mean OR will be everywhere, this is no longer the state owned universal service. Possible in 10/15/20 years that OR are relieved of such onerous terms by regulator. We will have to wait and see!

Edited by jchamier (Tue 22-Jul-25 20:06:52)

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by ian72:

Much easier for a small company with venture funding to start rolling out in small areas than it is for a behemoth like BT/OpenReach to build a business case and get it signed off by everyone (including being agreed by the regulator). You also have to consider that anything BT build is regulated by Ofcom which makes that business case even harder to build. The altnets generally aren't regulated and can move faster but only cover very small areas in comparison (they can cherry pick for the best return).

True, I work for a huge company, and smaller outfits are more nimble, but they also don’t have the scale or bank trust to borrow the large sums. I don’t blame OR for running a business, but they did have plenty of time with no competition when they could have done some fibre. I recall Ben Verwaayan (BT Group CEO at the time) being interviewed and frustrated they as a group were not installing fibre.

As current CEO has said, the future doesn’t mean OR will be everywhere, this is no longer the state owned universal service. Possible in 10/15/20 years that OR are relieved of such onerous terms by regulator. We will have to wait and see!

Been mentioned before , but worth repeating
https://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/how-the...

Edited by Iniltous (Tue 22-Jul-25 20:24:49)

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

I think the easiest answer has been missed …

A national FTTP network, all rolled out and owned by one company, and the various providers just bring links to a central exchange.

But many would complain for sure.

So that would be an Open network with a wide Reach? And the Links to the central exchange would be on Cables?

Anyway, regardless of the technology used, the network still has to be built and paid for. While OR had a national copper network, there was no business case for them to deploy fibre: they would only be moving their existing copper customers onto fibre. The end users would be happy with a better service, but there would be almost zero incremental revenue.

It took the altnets threatening to poach their customers to kick them into action.

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

Been mentioned before , but worth repeating
https://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/how-the...

Thatcher was kicked out in 1990. Of course decisions she made were wrong; high speed broadband only started in 1999 with NTL's cable modem service, and BT Group ADSL and this site sprung up around 2002. Technology changes faster than governments.

OR (after structural separation from group) were in charge... like IBM not using the 386 processor and sticking with the 286 allowed Compaq to overtake them, the cable firms, and now Alt Nets have run rings around OR in delivering what consumers wanted to pay for. Investment cases of 2020 were easier than now in 2025, budgets are tight for smaller firms, cost of borrowing much higher, so Alt Nets are now more of a risk of course.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

It took the altnets threatening to poach their customers to kick them into action.

along with cellular taking phone revenue from the cable TV companies, so they pushed hard into high speed internet....

change is normal, it is ignoring change and resting on laurals that means you get statements such as that from current BT Group CEO expecting to no longer be the "de facto" network operator.

Missed opportunities for OR.

How many of those altnets have yet made a profit? I suspect not many. The business model is different for OR who need to show a profit to their shareholders with a relatively quick ROI whereas altnets tend to be able to go much longer and their investors may just be waiting for the altnet to be swallowed up by someone larger to get their money back.