INCA Calls for Clarity from Openreach on Which UK Homes Won’t Get Full Fibre
The Independent Networks Co-operative Association (INCA), which represents many of the UK’s alternative broadband networks, has today called on incumbent network operator Openreach (BT) to clarify which homes it’s likely to sacrifice if they carry out their threat to scale-back the deployment of full fibre (FTTP) broadband. The altnets will then know where to target.
The issue centres on last week’s comments from Openreach’s CEO, Clive Selley, who warned both the Government and Ofcom (here) that he was “going to hold fire” on seeking approval for the final phase of the operator’s plan to expand full fibre gigabit broadband beyond their current 25 million premises target for December 2026 (i.e. the goal to expand FTTP up to 30 million premises by 2030); at least until the regulatory and tax environment showed themselves to be favourable.
Selley’s warning was clearly issued with a view to the threat from both rising business rates and Ofcom’s forthcoming market review (i.e. the desire for softer regulation given today’s more competitive environment). However, any reduction in their deployment would naturally hit rural areas the hardest, since those are often the last to benefit from such upgrades.
Advertisement
The CEO of INCA, Paddy Paddison, has now followed Gigaclear’s earlier remarks (here) by calling upon Openreach to be transparent about which homes it claims it cannot invest in so that altnets can carry the can and bring forward their own business cases without fear of overbuild; something that their investors would very much welcome.
Paddy Paddison, Chief Executive of INCA, said:
“Openreach’s problem isn’t regulation – it’s competition. Nearly a million customers a year are choosing Altnets over the tired old network operator because they offer better products, better value, and better service. That’s what a functioning market looks like.
Investors are backing Altnets because they see innovation and delivery, not dependency on regulatory favours. The danger is that Ofcom confuses BT’s investment interests with the UK’s investment interests. The success of the broadband rollout depends on maintaining competition, not cushioning the incumbent.
Openreach’s threats to reduce investment say more about its struggle to compete than about the regulatory framework itself. The best way to serve consumers and investors alike is to protect the diversity of networks that are already driving real progress.
If Openreach cannot compete on a fair playing field for all, the regulator should not be forced to help them out. Last time Openreach refused to invest, it opened the door to Altnet investment, a move that has since delivered more than 16 million full-fibre homes across the UK.”
The response is a useful way for altnets to remind people – as well as the incumbent itself – that this isn’t a completely Openreach dominated market any more and if the incumbent steps back, then they could step in. On the other hand, there are currently only a few altnets with a strong rural focus and many of those have recently had to scale-back their own build plans and cut jobs, due to the pressures from high interest rates, rising build costs and a highly competitive environment (here and here).
Suffice to say that it’s currently unclear how many altnets would have the drive, funding and scale needed to completely fill any big holes that may be left by an Openreach retreat. At the same time, it remains unclear whether Openreach will actually scale-back their infrastructure deployment plans or are merely applying pressure to help focus minds in their desired direction of travel.
INCA added that they would also be writing to both the Government and Ofcom to set out their concerns and to seek assurances that the UK’s regulatory framework will continue to promote investment, competition, and consumer choice.
Advertisement
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.
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 and display names can be almost anything you like (provided they do not contain offensive language or impersonate a real person's legal name). 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.
Paddy Paddison hits the nail on the head:
“Nearly a million customers a year are choosing Altnets over the tired old network operator because they offer better products, better value, and better service. That’s what a functioning market looks like.
Investors are backing Altnets because they see innovation and delivery, not dependency on regulatory favours. The danger is that Ofcom confuses BT’s investment interests with the UK’s investment interest”
Openreach wants a more free market, the opposite of regulatory favours
as a guess most are from areas where theres no openreach full fibre, hence the alt nets built there in the 1st place. its a no brainer to go from 50mb, 3mb etc etc or less to 900mb for £25pm ( some are less £ some are more £ pm)
Wished I could choose an AltNet over OR! but after almost 9 years of flaky FTTC and way to many complaints to BT and then I lost count how many Engineer visits, I’ll take any FTTP at present, which I have!
Plusnet were the ones with a good deal, but as soon as another operator is in Tylorstown other than just OR and have the network built, I’ll go xgPON over gPON anyday!
But the issue is OR have the Monopoly (if that’s the right word) here in this part of RCT, so customers are stuck, till an AltNet puts the money where their mouth is and builds….
Investors are not. backing AltNets. Many are now looking to write down their investments and to cut their losses.
“Openreach wants a more free market, the opposite of regulatory favours”
The regulatory mandate is a competitive market not a free market. It’s nice if we can also have a free market but that is not possible when you have an incumbent monopolist who, given half a chance, would extinguish all competition. So yes it would be a “regulatory favour” to Openreach if Ofcom lifted restrictions on them before their market power is diminshed sufficiently.
INCA publicly attempting to contravene the non-compete agreements prohibition contained within The Competition Act there. I mean, full points for chutzpah, fewer points for running these things past lawyers before doing your press release.
Threats are just that – threats. If Selley thinks Openreach can afford to abandon the field potentially leaving the field open to other players then that’s up to them.
Most of the AltNets are in a far worse position than BT Group, so it is not clear if they would be able to make anything of such a move, other than to lift the asking price for the business in a sale.
I suspect people choose altnets almost exclusively on one metric – price – for which there isn’t even remotely a “free market” or a “fair playing field” as both BT and Openreach pricing is heavily restricted. Is he saying he wants Openreach’s shackles to be removed – if so, excellent, let’s crack on.
I assume by the 16 mil that they’re taking credit for Openreach’s fibre rollout, and I’m sure altnets did help move things along, but the relative failure of G.fast would have forced it to happen at some point. Openreach still had large chunks of the country on FTTP even before that, mostly in Cornwall, Wales and NI.
What’s “diverse” about a horde of altnets all offering largely identical services and unsustainable business plans built on the assumption that Openreach won’t be permitted to respond, and will be forced to rent its crown jewels to its competitors at knockdown prices? A “fair playing field” indeed.
I choose an altmet, for a few reasons, yes price did come into it, so did a 12-month contract, Zzoomm stuck a leaflet in my door at the right time, when I was iffing and affing about what to do with my Plusnet contract ending and they were pushing FTTP onto me, which I was not interested in.
In the end I thought, stuff it, let’s do it, get away from Openreach and BT network as well, hoping it will work out better than the last time I tried to do it.
You knock Altnets because you want BT and Openreach to have the whole market, but if it was not for altnets, my partner would still be on awful FTTC speed, before Gigaclear put fibre where she lives, she was lucky to get 20Mb/s.
Opoenreach have no interest in stick fibre where she lives, not enough money in it for their shareholders.
Quite right.
Openreach not offering symmetrical services at a sensible price is a big one.
Andrew – the facts speak for themselves, where Openreach are still holding a healthy takeup rate with FTTP in areas with altnet “competition”. Market leading, in fact.
My point still stands. Very few people are choosing an altnet specifically because it offers symmetric service. They are signing up to Sky, TalkTalk, Vodafone etc and it is their ISP who decides which network to use. That won’t be driven by symmetry, it’s driven by wholesale price.
the difference here is between Urban and Rural, or between “customers per mile” versus “miles per customer”
you have got ONE guess as to which of those it is that they would like to leave behind.
If INCA members want the benefit of such information, then there has to be a wider competitive benefit.
I would suggest that any network built by an INCA member into a Openreach declared “notspot” must be opened up to common carriage (so that others can resell the connection) using a regulated pricing model similar to what Openreach has had to offer.
And maybe also being tied to USO requirement, i.e. having to offer to build out notspots using a USO process and pricing similar to what Openreach has to offer (including “free connection if build costs under £3400 per customer). But at the 100mbs level please, not a 10mbs level.
“Periculum privatum utilitas publica” was the motto of the Stockton and Darlington railway 200 years ago, and I think the same could apply here.
Homes missed out by Openreach are likely to include individual scattered properties. It the same way that altnets miss those that are too expensive to connect.
one of the biggest problems is neither Altnets / Openreach really want to deal with the Elephant in the Room which is direct in Ground , Alnets happy to build PIA in where Duct and Poles exist, dont want to do anything that Direct in Ground — my own Premise is in this scenario . Altnet and Openreach 100M from my DID estate , alnet been there (100M away since 2022 , Openreach ahs just followed the alnet PIA — neither have done the DIG – — what covered not covered and why not covered is my area of expertise
They’re both doing DiG. Sometimes poles, sometimes ducts and Toby boxes, and if not those Openreach are doing a fair bit of duct in between boxes and digging the drop when the order comes in.
The Lincoln areas complaining about poles are DiG. Big bits of London are DiG. Garforth in Leeds was on here recently and is DiG. It’s getting done. Natural to do the easier, cheaper, faster stuff when they’re both trying to expand coverage quickly.
If INCA really do believe Openreach’s problem isn’t regulation, why do they complain so much when Openreach offers discounted pricing through schemes like Equinox? I bet INCA would immediately have something to say if OFCOM lifted all the regulation holding Openreach down, they’d scream foul from the rooftops.
INCA’s commentary displays blatant double standards, which BT/Openreach can’t respond to since OFCOM jumps on them whenever they do respond in kind, remember what happened when Jansen made his end in tears comment?
The risk is Openreach abuses its SMP position by lowering its prices to the point that competing businesses become unviable, unable to service their debt/interest and eventually fail and disappear, and then Openreach starts ramping up their pricing to whatever they like as competition has dissolved. This is what (pricing) regulation is meant to prevent (particularly already in areas where there is no competition).
The current market pricing for broadband is good for consumers but it’s really bad for investors and every offer that Openreach presents and OFCOM ignores adds fuel to the fire for the increasingly likely outcome of the Altnet bubble bursting. Altnets HAVE to beat the incumbent on pricing to grow and become sustainable.
Openreach / BT know the strings to pull and are simply playing the long game until the market collapses and they can recover the market share they have enjoyed for decades as the incumbent.
I think BT should resort to the courts if Ofcom does not start cutting regulation in the sector.
So you’d be happy with a less competitive market and paying far more for your broadband
In the future with no choice? Makes sense
The thing is itl be the unprofitable areas OR drops and the alt nets simply won’t pick up areas they can’t profit from. OFCOMS anti monopoly rules have failed the consumer, they are anti consumer, it’s time to nationalise UKs broadband infrastructure.
Nationalisation does not work.
All that would be achieved would be increased tax demands with even less being produced. That is what gave us BT in the first place.
That’s why the government is subsidising the build to unprofitable areas. Since, I assume, it is mainly the initial build that makes it unprofitable not the ongoing service and maintenance costs. Nationalisation is a very bad idea. I don’t know why people keep seeing it as some kind of panacea when all evidence shows the government can’t run a p-up in a brewery, all government run services in this country are dreadful. Using outdated technology, unproductive and expensive.
Sometimes I am curious as to why INCA don’t list their member companies. Then I read their output and realise why altnets don’t want their names associated.
In other words, Altnets are demanding that BT give them access to business plans it does not yet have in place.
If Openreach is not able to fund network construction in high-cost/low-return areas due to the anticipated changes to the tax regime, how will AltNets be any better placed to fill the gap when they are already struggling to survive under excessive amounts of debt and liabilities?
There is a pretty big elephant in the INCA room here: a number of INCA members have bid for BDUK Gigabit contracts and subsequently either descoped a large fraction of the properties contracted to run fttp to or even pulled out before starting the project (often after over a year!), in some cases more than once, and that’s in areas with no competition from OR for the foreseeable future when they got the contracts. Will that change if OR give INCA what they want? Can’t see it will. So, cry me a river, INCA.
I’m resigned to OR sometime in the early 2030s, or hoping the INCA member Airband’s rollout of 1Gbps is successful elsewhere in the region and is made available in my area. But I’m not wholly convinced on FWA on my 40/10 package, as upload/download pings regularly spike over 150 ms and so it’s impossible to run a stable ‘guaranteed’ VoIP connection. However, the reduced need for line of sight with that mm-wave technology could be a game changer.
In my area, OR refused to replaced knackered copper in a duct in 2019. Every time it rained the connection dropped. The reason given was that we were getting FTTP ‘soon’.
In 2025 OR finally deployed FTTP.
I left OR in 2021 and went to Community Fibre. The cost wasn’t the big draw. It was the option of a high bandwidth and more importantly reliable circuit.
Ivor will always defend BT but it treats its direct and indirect customers with utter contempt.
I was referring to customers where both OR and altnet FTTP are available. Most people don’t care about symmetry or, to an extent, maximum download speeds.
It may not even be their choice. They’ve chosen an ISP, but then the ISP decides to place them on an altnet to save a few quid (which will lead to interesting discussions if the customer already has Openreach FTTP and doesn’t want the garden dug up or yet more holes drilled)