BT CEO Talks Shrinking UK Broadband Market Share and Future of Altnets
The CEO of ISP Zen Internet, Richard Tang, has today shared a new interview with the CEO of BT Group, Allison Kirkby, which touches on everything from how they’d “love to” participate in the future consolidation of alternative networks (but not for a while) and the way that building a more valuable asset via FTTP broadband may compensate for having a smaller UK market share.
In case anybody has been living under a rock for the past few years. The BT Group is currently, via network access provider Openreach, investing up to £15bn on rolling out a new gigabit-capable Fibre-to-the-Premises (FTTP) broadband network across the United Kingdom. The effort has already covered 18.3 million premises, and they aim to reach 25 million by December 2026, which is followed by an ambition for up to 30m by 2030.
The BT Group is currently “investing £4.8bn this year, and we did that last year as well,” said Allison, before adding that a “large chunk of that is in the fibre upgrade” via Openreach. This is all in service of helping to create a “new asset for the next 40-50 years.” But despite building at an incredible rate of over 1 million premises passed per quarter, and growing take-up to 36% at the same time, Openreach is still rapidly losing broadband lines to a new generation of rival networks.
Advertisement
Openreach lost 707,000 such lines to rivals in 2024 and line losses reached 243k in just the last quarter to March 2025 (here), although most of these tend to come from the areas where Openreach have yet to build their new FTTP network (i.e. areas on their slower copper-based lines, where rivals may have built something better before them). Hence, the need to build ever faster.
However, Allison said she recognises that, in the future, “we’ll have a smaller market share, but it’ll be a more valuable modern-day asset that delivers a much better customer experience … even with that lower market share” (i.e. cheaper to operate, better experience and more loyal customers = better product that she says will still get a return on their investment). But equally, BT’s boss noted that they’ve still “got to be competitive, rather than just accept that every line we can lose forever“.
Allison pointed out that the company itself is similarly having to evolve with the market. “BT needs to transform. We need to be a more modern day, more nimble company that moves faster … We were about half the productivity of our peers .. that’s what we had to address,” which she said is coming through various stages of modernisation (inc. copper retirement, redundancies, significant fault reduction within their Openreach network etc.).
BT’s CEO also expects Ofcom to deregulate as the market evolves. “My retail businesses do not have monopolistic, you know, incumbent market share positions. I’ve got just under 30% retail market share in mobile, I’ve got about 35% broadband market share in retail. It’s only in the wholesale business of Openreach where we had the 75% market share. But in the future there are now two, sometimes three, providers of fibre access and so over time those areas should definitely be deregulated.. is my view,” said Allison. Ofcom has already indicated that any big changes on this front may have to wait until 2031 or later (here).
Advertisement
The interview then moved to focus on the often-tedious question of consolidation, particularly with respect to the markets many alternative broadband networks. “It’s pretty clear that it will not make sense for the UK to served by a hundred different fibre providers in the future. I don’t think it would be necessarily good for the country’s resilience and not all of those providers will make an economic return on their investment, it’s just not going to happen, it’s a very competitive market,” said Allison.
Most industry folk would probably agree that more consolidation is inevitable, although they might not agree with how BT’s CEO sees things ending up. “The way it’s playing out over here, I think there will only be one nationwide wholesaler in the end. So I think large parts of Openreach will probably stay regulated. I think there will be one, possibly two, other alternative wholesalers across the country, but they might not be everywhere. And then you’ll have a concentration around the city areas with some of the alternative networks, but there will need to be consolidation,” added Allison.
However, Allison notes that consolidation is currently going slower than she expected, which she attributes to a lot of investment having already gone into the ground and high value expectations of those assets, which she thinks are “unlikely to materialise“. BT’s boss said altnets need to get more realistic about the value of their networks, which she believes will “start to play out in the next 2-5 years.. but I think we will be in to the next decade before we really see the end state” of this market.
On the subject of consolidation and whether the BT Group might get directly involved, Allison noted that Openreach is “not planning to build everywhere” itself (i.e. their target is up to 30m by 2030, but that still leaves c.4 million) and “there will definitely be partnership opportunities in the future, but it’s not here at the moment” (i.e. they’re focused on their own Openreach fibre build for now).
Advertisement
“In terms of participating in consolidation, we’d love to. I think it’s problematic at the moment, certainly in wholesale … [yet] priority is not making acquisitions, for the moment“. But clearly there’s a hint that Openreach may look to acquire some rival networks, albeit seemingly only those that cover those in the final c.4m of hardest to reach premises (there’s not likely to be many of those and some, like B4RN, are community benefit societies that cannot easily be acquired).
Finally, on the subject of the BT Group’s dramatic 50% increase in share price over the past year or so, Allison explains that this is more about how they’ve given the market a clearer roadmap: “BT’s share price is very much linked to the free cashflow that it throws off. When we were throwing off £3bn in cash our share price was about £3, when we were at peak investment phase on fibre and were throwing off about £1bn we were about £1.”
Allison explained how she “inherited a guidance to the market” that BT Group were going to get back to the £3bn mark by the end of the decade, but the market “wasn’t giving them any credit” for that. So she “mapped out how they were going to grow” to that target, showing the market a path that it could then give them credit for as progress is made (i.e. in fibre build, company modernisation etc.).
The full interview doesn’t contain any earth-shattering revelations, but it does offer a unique insight into the group’s strategy and that’s relevant for many of those in our wider readership – including consumers, retail ISPs and physical network operators alike.
Mark is a professional technology writer, IT consultant and computer engineer from Dorset (England), he also founded ISPreview in 1999 and enjoys analysing the latest telecoms and broadband developments. Find me on X (Twitter), Mastodon, Facebook, BlueSky, Threads.net and Linkedin.
« World Record as 1.02 Petabits Per Second Sent Over 1808km of Optical Fibre
Advertisement
Leave a Reply
Privacy Notice: Please note that news comments are anonymous, which means that we do NOT require you to enter any real personal details to post a message. By clicking to submit a post you agree to storing your entries for comment content, display name, IP and email in our database, for as long as the post remains live.
Only the submitted name and comment will be displayed in public, while the rest will be kept private (we will never share this outside of ISPreview, regardless of whether the data is real or fake). This comment system uses submitted IP, email and website address data to spot abuse and spammers. All data is transferred via an encrypted (https secure) session.
Good to see the tanks on the lawn re: deregulation. Altnet fans like to cheer on moves such as the Sky/CF deal and claim its a sign that Openreach are past it, but in reality this gives BT the strongest case yet for insisting that fairness should reign and OR gets to engage in actual free market competition, including price.
It has always seemed farcical that “competitors” can use OR’s physical assets to undercut OR without any serious ability for them to respond.
Perhaps a reincarnation of the old market A/B classification depending on altnet availability.
Agreed, OFNL should open up their ducts just like OR and kcom because they have a bigger footprint than kcom and hold a monopoly with their developer exclusive contracts
Every operator having a monopoly for ducts in particular area should be forced by law to share like OR is.
OFNL does have a duct sharing and a dark fibre product. Take up is quite low however
She should change job and become a comedian:
“Allison pointed out that the company itself is similarly having to evolve with the market. “BT needs to transform. We need to be a more modern day, more nimble company that moves faster”
BT Ivor out in force again to try and convince everyone how wonderful BT are, working as fast as possible to deploy a legacy version of FTTP (GPON) but he won’t tell you, ONLY because of competition from Altnets and VM and of course money saved from fault visits for copper and exchanges that can be moved on, not because it was the right thing to do a long time ago anyway (after Thatcher had gone).
I’ll say it again. BT got tax payer funded assets cheap, compared to staring from scratch like Altnets have pretty much had to. They’ve had much longer in the game, and quite frankly, should be leap years ahead of anyone else. The fact they aren’t sums it up and backed by her own statement “We need to be a more modern day, more nimble company that moves faster”….
@anonymous: You are entitled to express your view, but it does not reflect reality.
@ anonymous the users of this site are pretty tech savvy so may have a need for a gigabit synchronous connection but for 99% of the population what BT is offering is more than enough.
I am genuinely interested to know what you are uploading to need a synchronous connection. Are you a YouTuber ?
I’m starting to think anonymous is one of them Russian bots.
@Mark, If you really want to preach morals to someone, first educate yourself. Symmetrical, not synchronous.
‘She should change job and become a comedian:’
Could be worse, at least she has one. It’s a very senior one, she’s a business leader and more successful and wealthy than anyone commenting here is likely to ever be.
Seems very competent at what she does and she’s taken on a very difficult task finishing the job of moving BT away from their legacy.
Refreshing to hear a BT CEO acknowledge a loss of market share is inevitable. They are probably doing so to prep for Equinox III.
Ofcom is exhibiting bureaucratic initiative in failing to consider more fundamental changes to the regulations to protect consumers from lock-in with the comparatively unregulated distribution providers. This will become more of a problem as customers find their options limited when their contracts come up for renewal.
BT CEO’s like to boast about their annualised level of investment, but once the full-fibre targets are hit at the end of 2026, BT will be cutting that investment considerably, perhaps by as much as GBP 2 billion pa in order to achieve the promised free cashflow targets. That might also be the point at which we see a takeover launched.
I don’t really see your point?
Is that a uniquely BT thing or are they just living so rent free in your head that you feel the need to snark at every answer BT people give to perfectly reasonable questions?
Doesn’t every business leader like to point out the investments they make? Especially the ones that benefit customers and, in this case, the country?
Equally doesn’t every business ultimately aim to become efficient and make a return on those investments? Which presumably involves not hemorrhaging billions of pounds a year forever.
The country isn’t benefiting from BT that’s why a lot of people (and growing) are ditching them and signing up with Altnets.
They don’t want a legacy FTTP product (GPON) that costs more than competition, and has knee capped offerings like lack of symmetric speeds or future tiers of (expensive) upload tiers.
It’s great news that BT are suffering, hopefully after some ALTNET consolidation, a few years down the line, and BT will be on its knees and can be run by a more competent outfit. No idea, who that is at the current time, but the UK has to be in better shape going forward other than 2 dinosaur companies that just want to milk customers (BT and Vermin Media). At least Vermin Media have invested and brought new speed tiers throughout history, even if the underlying network was coax mostly and pile of debt. BT sweated copper telephone cable LOL, until they found the reality that they no longer could. The PSTN was on its knees, replaced by modern VOIP and competition was going to deploy full fibre.
@Alex: Usually, I am attacked for being a pro-BT or BT-employed commentator. However, in common with those critics you have resorted to an ad hominem attack rather than discuss the topic.
It is quite clear what I am saying; BT is making a push to renew the core network but in the period after 2026 it will shift mode to make it more attractive as a take-over target.
@anonymous: The country is benefiting from BT’s investments. There is far more going on than you seem aware of.
@anonymous: BT is focused on a sustainable business model. Not all its competitors take that view and have instead overspent on infrastructure without the revenue to make their businesses sustainable.
BT is installing the capabilities to deploy XGS and beyond as the market demands, not as PR loss-leader.
@anonymous: You appear to have gripes about BT, but your feelings will not change the outcome. BT is likely to be sold, but the majority of the AltNets will still disappear without making a profit and the market might well shrink to about 10 key players or less.
@Fara82Light: Would totally agree with you regarding the number of AltNets you think will remain, but wouldn’t expect BT to be taken over, in the near term aleast.
@anonymous – It’s a great piece of bait. Perhaps the fact you’d label any variant of FTTP as ‘legacy’ shows quite how far up your own duct you’ve travelled. So far in fact that you’ve successfully reached beyond myopia. Suggesting £18bn+ of capital investment, not to mention the jobs and indirect impacts, isn’t benefitting the country. Lol. So salty.
Fara82Light says:
“BT is installing the capabilities to deploy XGS and beyond as the market demands, not as PR loss-leader.”
– that’s why the EVIDENCE is that BT is starting to suffer losses to Altnets who deploy better XGS-PON (with Netomnia doing 50PON) and Cityfibre would have upgraded the older part of their network by end of 2025 latest.
No need to wait for the BT dinosaur and clearly, those who can and in the know, are doing so. Who wants to wait around for years until BT decides to do something?
They’ll just deploy the next out of date technology taking years to achieve, whilst the others press ahead.
fara82Light says:
“You appear to have gripes about BT, but your feelings will not change the outcome”
I don’t have any personal gripe about BT or ever had a fall-out. I am just fed up with the way they have held the country back when other countries were forward thinking. They sweated copper as long as they could, and only competition changed their minds when they called their bluff and BT lost (Altnets + Vermin). Yes, there was the Thatcher period which BT fans hang onto as an excuse, but that was over 2 decades ago.
Even now, people wax lyrical about them STILL deploying a legacy technology (GPON) when no one else in UK is (even Vermin Media has deployed XGS-PON from the start).
Vermin Media did more for broadband than BT ever did with their old, decayed copper telephone cable that could be affected by wind and rain and storms. No lottery over distance from cabinet with VM. Sure, they had a separate issue with some oversubscribed areas as a limitation, but BT suffered that with FTTC cabs and wait lists when full etc.
@Fibre Scriber: Thank you.
Business mergers can in reality, take an average of 18 months to 2 years to complete, tend to be more protracted than expected, and rarely achieve the original expectations. It might be more practical in some cases to wait for the businesses to collapse and pick up the assets from administration. Those considerations might be a factor in the slow rate of consolidation.
I am of the opinion that BT is being structured for a sale. Consolidation in the CP sector is a big theme across Europe now. BT is no longer one of the big players, and its dominance in the UK is waning. Major players already hold most of the equity in the business. Assets are being sold to simplify the business and improve margins. Overseas operations have either been sold or are mostly now packaged into the new unit. Debt is rising but that may be containable with the end of the big push on full-fibre roll-out. So it would seem to be down to the timing of an offer being made. The cash flow will not reach the target until the second half of 2026-2030, but once it does, the business becomes ripe for acquisition.
@Fara82Light Don’t forget the government have the right under The National Security & Investment act to intervene and veto any takeover it deems to be a threat to the national interest. Any takeover of BT would certainly attract their attention.
‘Even now, people wax lyrical about them STILL deploying a legacy technology (GPON) when no one else in UK is’
People wax lyrical about them deploying FTTP at a million premises a quarter. Most of the people waxing lyrical about that couldn’t care less what they are lighting it with right now as it’s a tiny detail in the bigger picture.
Your fixation on the optics while claiming the fibre itself contributes nothing really shows how obsessed you are over something so ridiculous in the grand scheme.
The UK is getting billions in investment on an asset that’ll last decades and you entirely disregard it because the optics either side, less than 10% of the cost and a tiny amount of work to upgrade relative to the actual build, don’t provide symmetrical.
4 posts on this topic. 3 banged on about legacy GPON, the other one mentioned XGSPON. Going back it’s got to be well over 90% of all your comments talking about GPON, XGSPON or symmetrical bandwidth. Most of the rest are responses to other people calling you out, occasionally agreeing with you or smarmy comments aimed at BT.
Not that you care as it’s not serving customers this second but Openreach stopped installing hardware only capable of GPON well over a year ago. They’ve been installing kit ready to go with XGSPON for a while.
Is this where you ask why they haven’t been turning it on as they’ve been installing it?
I can’t tell you how to spend your time but might want to have a read of other comments, see how few people have your level of narrow fixation and repetition, and reevaluate.
If this is intentional trolling nicely done, I admire your tenacity. I really hope it’s that but doubt it.
@Big Dave: Indeed, however, the current British government has demonstrated no willingness to protect British interests.
The market has changed, and the provision of government services has also changed. Further, despite the initiative of Ofcom, the market will be somewhat different by the time any bid for the business does materialise.
@ anonymous:
XGS:
No, the roll-out was driven by the availability of a suitable product that would facilitate the delivery of a range of BT services, and by the availability of funding.
@anonymous:
EVIDENCE
You have no evidence to support your claims. You have a particular set of opinions that seem driven by some grievance, but they do not match reality.
I had an agreement with BT that when fttp was available in my area I would get it fitted free of charge well it’s available in my area I orderd the broadband open reach came out too do a survey then I get a message from BT I have to pay just over £2109 to have it fitted even though I have a fibre optic box just outside my front gate theytold me they can’t use that as it’s not there’s I cancelled my order straight away I’m stuck with BT until January 26 and after 30+ years I’m leaving BT
From what you describe, I can only assume the Toby box at your gate must belong to an Altnet and not Openreach. Openreach Toby boxes are rectangular with their name on. Perhaps you may be describing a Fibre cabinet from another supplier.
I would have thought that the BT offer would only be if there was an OR fibre point near the property, not some AltNet that has stuck a CBT on one of their poles.
Which checker is showing FTTP is available?
If it’s the OR website fair complaint,
Otherwise it would appear to be the same as having an agreement with Tesco that they will offer you home delivery when there’s a store in your area. Then complaining when Iceland move into an empty store in your town and won’t deliver Tesco produce?
@David Tyreman: The £2019 figure you have been quoted is for BT fibre on Demand, which means Openreach haven’t built their Network to everybody in your local area.
£2019 is too cheap for FTTPoD, it might be an ECC if they have an extremely long driveway.
God, I hate BT Group! Never liked BT!
Don’t hold back. LOL
I am not a fan of them to be honest, only went to Plusnet because they were the only ones that could get me onto FTTC quickly at the time and then I was just too lazy to change, not that it mattered because it would have still be on the Openreach network.
It is just another large company with too much power. As someone have already posted, BT are moving their backside now because of Altnets and changing to FTTP because it is cheaper to maintain.
Then you’ll stop emailing them asking when they’re building fibre to you and stop using them for copper services if you hate them so much? Virgin Media and mobile networks can serve you.
@Polish Poler, you can hate a service/company, but still use it if there is no or little choice. I know a a few people who detest BT/Openreach more than me and yet have little choice but to use Openreach. I went to a I suppose what you would call Altnet a few years ago, it was a local company that started up a Wireless network, sadly it did not turn out as planned and I had to go back onto openreach network after a couple of years
No other choice if I wanted internet.
I admit, I got lazy and stayed with plusnet for far too long, not that it made much difference, it was still openreach network where I ever I went.
When Zzoomm came here i should have moved straight to them and not if and affed, but again, laziness and a bit worried about going with another network after the wireless network thing. Now I have moved, I am glad I have. unless something drastic happens or I moved where there is not a alt network, I don’t plan to go back to openreach.
I have seen a fair few Zzoomm vans around this week, so hopefully they are getting more customers.
Congratulations on missing the point entirely in your eagerness to put the boot in, Ad. The comment was clearly directed at the individual in question and their options were mentioned in the last sentence.
People who hate BT hate it because it was privatised, not because of any of its behaviours.
The same agenda narrative applies to any privatised UK business.
I always enjoy these interviews. Richard let’s people speak instead of constantly interrupting or going for boring gotcha questions as in mainstream media.
Maybe being tech bro he was extremely excited by it ? Zen does use Openreach Heavily maybe he was trying not to displease their suppliers Perhaps ?
I agree – these interviews are always so much more illuminating. Even with non-Zen partners he’s very fair and accommodating. As someone who works in the industry looking at many of the subjects he discusses I can attest it’s a genuinely valuable resource for my job.
I wish we had a national network like they do in Australia where all providers use this to provide service to properties because the current system of multiple providers digging up roads and running their own cables is a mess. Currently I have a Voryin (Nexfibre) FTTP service and a Zen FTTC connection via Openreach. Once Openreach and any number of operators come to the area, moving between them will result in me ending up with multiple wall boxes and fibres coming into my property.
The Australian approach isn’t much to write home about. As originally designed under a Labor (sic) government it was a fantastic idea, but that is rather different to what has transpired
It is well known that their equivalent to the Conservative Party changed the plans from a mostly FTTP network to a “multi technology mix”, where they bought up all of the copper networks and claimed this would be a “better, cheaper, faster to build” network. It wasn’t, and now money is being put in to replace it all with FTTP anyway. This is different to Openreach in that their FTTC never worked anywhere near as well as it generally does in the UK, and the HFC (former cable TV network) is even more of a basketcase.
They are also probably the only country to commercialise what BT called “FTTdp”, where literally the last few metres remain on copper (because doing FTTP would be an admission that the other party was correct)
What’s worse is that the NBN generally doesn’t overbuild other FTTP networks. Altnet fans would probably be ecstatic if Openreach gave itself the same restriction, but it isn’t the best way to serve customers.
Rik,
See https://shorturl.at/syLKo
Best Wishes
John
What concerns me with my interpretation of the interview is that BT/OR fire won’t reach every property so those of us who live at the end of pole route will lose service when the exchange network is ‘switched off’ because there is no competition at that point.
BT has been hamstrung with FTTP since the early 1990’s when Ofcom on HMG orders (on US orders) that BT could not start the provision. That delayed the country getting Fibre to the customer by at least 5 years most likely 10 or 15 years.
I would say in the long run the delay helped. The technology nowadays is far superior, and is designed with upgrades in mind EG GPON-XGSPON is only a card swap and can be carried down the same fibre. If BT would have built in the early 90s the network would have been rebuilt at least twice by now. My guess is the current chassis will be going strong for 25/30 years, with card upgrades supporting any transitions
Out of curiosity, if the fibre had been laid twenty yeas ago, would it be ok today?
I appreciate that the end equipment would change over time.
In addition BT appear to have utilised every possible technology possible (isdn, adsl, vdsl,g-inp?,) and then grudgingly went to fibre.
Why, when other countries have overtake the UK did this occur?
Was it political decisions?
Disgruntled of Dankshire, How right you are.
The UK is about average for Europe and top 20% worldwide for fibre – certainly not miles behind everyone else. It’s not true that other countries all went straight to fibre g.fast was and remains popular as a ‘to the basement’ tech in countries with more MDUs.
A significant issue in the UK was the timing of the last Ofcom strategic review. It made BT/OR’s funders sit on their hands until it was complete. No-one will lend you billions for a roll-out if there’s a chance the network that gets built might not end up belonging to you.
Querying perplexity (AI) with
why has the uk lagged behind implementing fibre broadband
provides some interesting answers.
For example
Historical Underinvestment and Policy Choices
The UK fell behind many European and Asian countries in fibre broadband coverage due to years of underinvestment and a lack of competition, particularly because Openreach, a BT subsidiary, held a dominant position in the market.
Operators initially focused on rolling out other broadband technologies, such as Fibre-to-the-Cabinet (FTTC), which relies on existing copper lines for the final connection to homes. This technology was once world-leading but is now outdated compared to full fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) solutions.
And
International Comparison
Country Full Fibre Coverage (2023)
Spain 94%
France 80%
Portugal 95%
UK 57% (2023), 69% (2025 est.)
The UK’s coverage has improved rapidly in recent years but still lags behind many European neighbours, where earlier investment and more aggressive rollout policies have delivered near-universal fibre access.
Lifespan of Fibre Optic Cable in Telecommunications
Fibre optic cables used in telecommunications typically have a standard lifespan of 20 to 25 years, but with proper installation and maintenance, they can remain operational for much longer—often 30 years or more. In practice, some fibre optic infrastructure has already exceeded 35 years of service, and network builders often expect a minimum of 30 to 40 years, with some even anticipating up to 100 years under ideal conditions.
perplexity (AI)
BT group has never been in control of its own destiny, stuck between heavy government regulation and future tech investments stiffled by major shareholders that want maximum returns , and investment banks that don’t see the value of lending huge sums when they are still dominant . Now they aren’t dominant and their market share is shrinking, shareholders and investors now see the value of investing in the network.
The delay compared to the rest of the world is really simple. BT don’t compete with the rest of the world, they compete in the UK. Until there was a genuine business case they couldn’t raise the finance to build.
Regulation ensured they couldn’t do what Telefonica did in Spain and build fibre they could keep mostly to themselves then turn off the copper so no business case there. They didn’t until recently have major full fibre competition as kickstarted the build in Portugal.
Their peers either started FTTP due to competition or remain partially nationalised with government a shareholder and regulation less onerous than Openreach whether on sharing what they build or copper withdrawal.
Can usually trace the differences back to one of those.
Either way the UK despite relying on copper so heavily remained very high up in the lists for using Internet access. UK and Ireland were pretty recently the most prolific streamers in Europe, haven’t seen really recent statistics. Among heaviest users of bandwidth in Europe, etc.
“on HMG orders (on US orders)”
Agenda myth.
@Disgruntled-of-Dankshire:
In the case of mono-mode fibre runs, the capabilities are constrained by the equipment at either end. This kit has already gone through several iterations using the existing fibre.
@Disgruntled-of-Dankshire: Not all countries had made the level of investment in the switched network that BT had inherited. Other countries’ roll-outs tended to be driven by the nature of their existing networks (Eastern Europe and parts of SE Asia/Latin America/Africa), thriving business sector demand (East Asia) and state funding (much of continental Europe), so the comparisons tend not to be like for like.
Further, BT was in severe financial difficulty by 2002 due in part to decisions made at various levels by management brought up through the public sector, and the excessive charges made in the wireless license auctions.
@Disgruntled-of-Dankshire:
If you use AI to answer politicised topics, you are more than likely to get a distorted answer. Remember the old adage: “garbage in, garbage out”.
You will not lose service. It will be provided via either FTTP or FTTC.
It is particular SNIs and businesses that are most at risk due to being edge cases, but those scenarios are being identified and addressed. In terms of residential customers, those most likely to be stuck on FTTC are those living in MDUs in urban areas, not rural residents.
I love how Alison kept going on about “My Company”. No Alison, the shareholders own the company and you are employed to run it on their behalf.
Personally I’m a fan of CEOs taking responsibility for things even though they’re abundantly aware they don’t own them. YMMV.
BT Group third largest climber on FTSE100 today as Allison’s promised land gets closer.
Yes, how is the pension fund going at BT?
Its a case of watch this site. Altnets chip-chip-chipping away. Enough for the BT CEO to pass comment publicly, so the rot started.
If you look at the share price since the company was privatised, the take is not so impressive.
I would suspect this has nothing to do with BT, but instead with comrade Rachel Thieves forcing pension funds into failed UK stock market rather than growing their customers pensions
@ John: The pension funds rejected Reeves’ proposals.
The recent rise in the BT share price has been driven by leadership and by improvements to the business. The resolution of some items and the change of ownership have helped. However, if you compare the current price with the launch price, the company still has a lot to do to restore value.
@anonymous:
“… BT … held the country back …”
You have a gripe exhibited by the language you use.
BT is a private business, it is not a charity. It has also not been the only national player in the UK these last 30-odd or so years, yet you have targeted all of your invective at this one entity.
Since privatisation, the UK economy has been impacted by confidence in the Pound Sterling, several major wars, major terrorist attacks, a global financial meltdown, a global epidemic, global trade wars and regulatory inertia. All of which have impacted financial markets and commercial prospects, and thus undermined investment due to elevated risks.
BT’s competition has shown little inclination during most of that period to make the level of investment necessary to build their own networks and has thus driven the unbalanced regulation of the UK market in order to use BT’s infrastructure at significant discounts.
Further, UK governments have set back investment in the UK with escalating business costs – including high energy costs, employment costs, and agenda-driven costs that successive governments have determined must be covered by businesses. Add to that Brown “No more boom and bust – (ended up contributing the biggest bust in the history of the world)” initiating extortionate licensing fees for access to the airwaves (which almost triggered the collapse of BT).
All of this undermines long-term investment, yet you still insist that BT is solely responsible for your pet gripes.
The BT fanboys on here (or BT plants for some of them), always come up panting with excuses.
They must be exhausted. Other businesses have invested OK in that time, and that includes telecoms providers.
There is no need to fret, after all, ALTNETS are no worry for the BT fanboys aren’t they. Everything is rosy and life is good at BT Towers. What storm outside?
He’s just trolling for the sake of it. Pretty pathetic really.
@ anonymous: Yu are just spouting nonsense that you have most likely picked up on social media.
No trolling. I am entitled to an opinion as much as the BT fan boys or BT sycophant.
I am making it as a customer of services and no allegiance to any company.
You certainly are entitled to your opinion. Other people are entitled to an opinion on your opinion. Given you say the same things on pretty much every remotely related story you’re likely to get some pretty hostile opinions in response. Only reason I don’t think you’re AI is AI has progressed past that stage and would be far less repetitive.
You aren’t expressing a view as a customer of services given you can’t get the GPON service you constantly criticise, you’re using Virgin Media’s cable. You have some odd fixation with PON standards and focus it on Openreach when by a mile the more important thing is that they’re finally getting the fibre to homes and businesses.
Given you’re so delighted with the increased competition to Openreach you won’t mind not banging on about their using GPON instead of XGSPON for right now as it’s a great thing for competition given you think tons of people care how the optics are lit rather than silly concerns like price, performance, brand recognition, support and all that nonsense.
@ anonymous: In your post above you are not posting comments relevant to the topic; you are labelling and attacking others for holding different views.
Well they can always pass the cost onto their customers. Oh, wait a minute, the cutomers are leaving for cheaper ISP’s.
Point is, yes they are a business and not a charity but does it really serve them to be driving long term customers into the arms of the altnets? I’ve been a customer for 10 years and, frankly, I just can’t afford them anymore.
It is to be expected that BT and other major players will lose custom to the AltNets when the latter are charging debt-funded discount prices. For the level of service, some of the AltNets are offering a more realistic sustainable price might be closer to GBP 100 pm.
So BT never been over priced then? LOL
The Altnets have done the costing and some are backed by MAJOR banks like Goldman Sachs for example or major equity investors. BT are inefficient, same as VM, hence smaller nimbler players can deploy at similar cost rates (Netomnia). I’d say competition is working at the moment.
Looks like the tide is turning, and both BT CEO and the BT sycophants are starting to get nervous. May it continue, We don’t need 2 dinosaur companies milking everyone. Thanks.
The major altnet backed by Goldman Sachs is CityFibre. They’ve been trying to raise half a billion for months, they initially looked to do it via equity but no takers so having to do it via debt.
Raising presumably means the c. £7 billion they’ve raised in debt and equity is running down with around 4.5 million premises ready for service. Compare that to their cost forecasts and where they expected to be by now on coverage.
They charge less than Openreach. You do the maths on how long it’s going to take them even if they were paying 0% on their debt to pay that back on 20-30% take up.
Timing of the Sky deal not a coincidence.
Their major saving grace is when they raised their debt. When they have to refinance it those costs are going up a ton.
This is all public record.
A bunch have stopped increasing coverage or reduced the build rate to almost zero. Wouldn’t be surprised if the vast majority of CityFibre work is publicly subsidised right now. They abruptly stopped build in many towns and cities to preserve cash.
Big investors were behind the cable company build at the end of last century. They were behind many of the dotcom bubble companies. Their involvement really isn’t a guarantee of results.
Competition is great. Altnets are providing innovative products at often attractive prices, I use one myself. Most of them are in real trouble. Some have been run really badly. Those are not mutually exclusive.
@ anonymous:
BT is inefficient in terms of capital utilisation and lease costs arising from the heritage network, but also due to the regulatory inertia.
Many AltNets, meanwhile, are funded to grow their customer base with heavily discounted prices, not yet to create sustainable businesses. Few if any, have moved to a sustainable model and would themselves have difficulty retaining customers if they set prices at a level to make their businesses sustainable, or to be able to compete with the majors once they have restructured their businesses.
@Fara82Light says:
If you use AI to answer politicised topics, you are more than likely to get a distorted answer. Remember the old adage: “garbage in, garbage out”.
House of Lords
Select Committee on Communications
INQUIRY INTO SUPERFAST BROADBAND
Dr Cochrane: Let me relate to you a very sad story from my past. In 1986, I got fibre to the
home. By 1990, BT, with DuPont, had built two factories, one in Ipswich and one in
Birmingham. The Ipswich factory employed nearly 1,000 people manufacturing the
components. The Birmingham factory was manufacturing the systems. We were rolling out
fibre to the home as an active programme. It was stopped by a little problem called the
Thatcher Government and Sir Keith Joseph. They wanted the American cable companies in.
The programme was stopped, and who was right behind us? Who were we working with?
The Japanese and the Koreans. They looked on aghast as we stopped and they carried on.
They have had the benefit of a lead since about 1991, where they have rolled out fibre to the
home and we went backwards in time. That is the political failure.