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