CEO of Broadband Operator F&W Networks Eyes Return to FTTP Build

7. Over the past couple of years’ we’ve seen a rising level of anger and protests from some communities against broadband networks that deploy fibre optic cables by building lots of new telecoms poles, which some people find ugly – particularly when built in areas that have previously only had underground infrastructure.

However, network operators like poles because they’re quick and cost-effective to build, can be deployed in areas where there may be no space or access to safely put new underground cables, are less disruptive (avoiding the noise, access restrictions and damage to pavements of street works) and can be built under Permitted Development (PD) rights with only minimal prior notice.

The Government (both past and present), which has recently called on operators to “end the deployment of unnecessary telegraph poles” and threatened to remove PD rights if the situation doesn’t improve, is now “revising” the existing Code of Practice to help address such concerns. But what changes, if any, do you think should be made to tackle the concerns and is there a limit to how far you think the government should go?

José Luis San Martín said:

The issue of telecoms poles is a delicate one, and we understand the concerns of residents and local communities. However, poles remain a quick and cost-effective way to deploy fibre, especially in areas where underground infrastructure is not feasible. F&W Networks believes in being responsible when it comes to aesthetics and environmental impact, and we aim to minimise disruption whenever possible. That said, the government could provide clearer guidelines on the use of poles, perhaps with stricter requirements for transparency and community consultation, to ensure that the deployment of infrastructure is as non-disruptive as possible while meeting the need for faster broadband.

8. The question of how Openreach, as an operator with significant market power (SMP), chooses to price their own FTTP broadband services – at wholesale – has often been a point of contention for altnets, particularly given the economic and competitive challenges of the current market.

In that sense, how do you view Katie Milligan’s (Openreach CCO) recent pledge not to initiate a further round of Equinox (3) discounts on FTTP “until at least 31st March 2026” and what do you think Ofcom needs to do, if anything?

José Luis San Martín said:

Openreach’s pricing strategy has always been a point of contention for altnets, and its decision to hold off on further Equinox discounts is interesting. While we appreciate that they’re holding back on further cuts, the issue of wholesale pricing and ensuring a level playing field for altnets remains a challenge. Ofcom needs to be vigilant in ensuring that Openreach’s pricing doesn’t undermine competition. We’d support Ofcom taking a more proactive approach in promoting fair competition in the wholesale market, ensuring that altnets can compete on a more equal footing.

9. We can’t speak about Openreach’s wholesale pricing for FTTP without also touching on the wider issues in Ofcom’s next major Telecoms Access Review 2026 (TAR), which will look to make changes that “promote competition and investment” in gigabit broadband and business connectivity.

What are the other top changes or issues that you’d like to see the regulator tackle in this review in order to help unlock and support altnets like F&W? This is a particularly tricky one given the challenge of making big changes in an environment where rising competition may actually give Ofcom more reason to soften regulation against the incumbent, rather than harden it.

José Luis San Martín said:

The upcoming TAR provides a crucial opportunity to support altnets. We would like to see a more robust regulatory framework that encourages investment in fibre infrastructure while addressing pricing challenges posed by Openreach. Altnets like F&W Networks need a fairer playing field, and a key issue is making sure that Openreach’s market power doesn’t distort competition.

We hope that Ofcom will focus on encouraging infrastructure investment, promoting greater transparency, and addressing pricing issues that disproportionately affect smaller players like us.

10. Over the past year there’s also been a lot of talk about fostering greater infrastructure sharing between non-Openreach networks. For example, INCA has set up a new Infrastructure Sharing Group (ISG), which is attempting to encourage altnets to work together and foster more infrastructure sharing.

In theory, this could boost the roll-out of gigabit broadband and reduce the dependence upon Openreach’s existing cable ducts and poles to run new fibre, while also cutting some costs and reducing friction with some communities (e.g. those residents that don’t like duplication or deployment of certain street works and infrastructure, such as poles etc.).

However, getting so many competitive networks to work together can also be a bit like trying to herd cats (each has infrastructure investments they want to protect). Finding that balance between creating a solution / agreement that is affordable (i.e. attractive and fair enough for operators to want to use) and which, at the same time, doesn’t devalue the physical asset for those involved, has historically been difficult – often needing regulation to resolve.

What are your thoughts on this effort, and what is needed to make it workable, or do you think this is the wrong approach?

José Luis San Martín said:

The idea of greater infrastructure sharing has potential, but it’s a difficult balance to strike. On one hand, it could reduce costs and duplication, and it would be an efficient way to deploy broadband infrastructure. On the other hand, there are legitimate concerns about protecting investments and the commercial interests of altnets.

F&W Networks is open to the idea of infrastructure sharing, but any agreement would need to ensure that the value of our network isn’t diluted, and that the terms are fair and sustainable for all parties involved. It’s a complex issue that requires collaboration, but it could certainly help reduce friction and improve deployment speeds.

11. I also wanted to touch on some interesting developments over at Virgin Media, which will in 2025 be opening up their existing network to wholesale via a new NetCo entity. This is obviously occurring at the same time as some of the company’s shared parents are backing Nexfibre, which is separately rolling out FTTP to areas that Virgin Media haven’t covered before, albeit while using Virgin’s existing build engine.

In the future we might well see both networks coming together as one, which is how many observers already view them. But what do you think this might mean for the current regulatory environment and competition, with respect to altnets like yours, and how do you think Ofcom should respond?

For example, would Virgin Media + nexfibre also have significant market power, or does the addition of such a major player simply give Ofcom more reason to soften overall market regulation on Openreach.

José Luis San Martín said:

The move to open Virgin Media’s network to wholesale is an interesting development. It could create more competition in the market, but it also raises concerns about whether it will result in the creation of another dominant player with significant market power. In terms of regulation, Ofcom will need to ensure that such a move doesn’t soften competition too much or allow for unfair pricing practices. Any major players entering the wholesale market must be subject to strict regulatory oversight to maintain a level playing field for smaller altnets. 

12. Finally, Openreach are currently preparing to close roughly 4,600 of their old legacy exchanges across the UK, which will ultimately leave around 1,000 exchanges – the Openreach Handover Points (OHPs) – that are primarily used to provide nationwide coverage of modern “fibre” based broadband and other services (FTTC, FTTP etc.). The first c.100 of these are due to be closed by 2030 as part of an initial pilot phase, but most of the rest will follow during the 2030s.

However, this change creates somewhat of a thorny issue for alternative networks around Ethernet, Inter-Exchange Dark Fibre (DFX), Co-Location and PIA (access to existing cable ducts and poles) services, which are still supplied by some of the “old” exchanges. The costs for at least some AltNet’s of adapting to this could be more than trivial, and Openreach has long been consulting with the industry on how to balance all this.

How much of an impact is the Exchange Exit Programme likely to have on your network, if any, and are there any areas of Openreach’s approach to this that still need improvement?

José Luis San Martín said:

The Exchange Exit Programme is something that will need careful consideration, especially regarding the impact on Ethernet and Inter-Exchange Dark Fibre services. For F&W Networks, the closure of old exchanges could present challenges in terms of access to infrastructure.

However, we’re confident that we’ll be able to adapt, although we’d like to see Openreach provide clearer guidance and more support to ensure a smooth transition. We also believe that this is an area where Ofcom can play a more active role in ensuring that any costs and challenges are minimised for alternative networks.

ISPreview would like to thank José for taking the time to respond to our questions and we look forward to seeing F&W Networks continuing to make progress.