Broadband Altnets Spar with Ofcom Over Openreach UK Copper Line Retirement
The UK telecom regulator’s proposal in their Telecoms Access Review 2026 (TAR), which sought to adopt a different approach to copper line retirement in favour of full fibre optic (FTTP) broadband lines on Openreach’s national UK network, has, perhaps predictably, attracted criticism from rivals that worry it may hand the incumbent an advantage.
Just to recap. As part of the recent TAR, Ofcom also launched a consultation on changing the thresholds for when certain measures are triggered as part of the gradual move away from legacy copper-based phone and broadband networks, with customers typically then being migrated to either Openreach’s Fibre-to-the-Premises (FTTP) network or to rival networks with similar technology.
The current approach to copper line retirement, which has been largely retained by Ofcom for the 2026 to 2031 period, is based around two key thresholds. The thresholds reflect the point at which Openreach can stop selling new copper lines and the point at which Ofcom’s price controls are removed from copper-based services.
Advertisement
The Two Copper Retirement Thresholds (Current)
• First Threshold:
Openreach can stop selling new copper lines once it has reached 75% FTTP coverage in an exchange area and has provided 12 months’ notice of its intention to stop selling copper.• Second Threshold:
Openreach is no longer subject to price controls on copper services once (a) it has reached 100% coverage in an exchange area; (b) 24 months have passed since stop sell was introduced; and (c) Openreach has provided 12 months’ notice of its intention to raise prices above the charge controls.
However, the TAR and its related consultation proposed to change the second threshold, such as by allowing Openreach to exclude certain premises from the second threshold’s calculation for reaching 100% coverage. Ofcom’s new proposal for this included setting a fixed percentage approach to excluding premises, set at 10% of premises in an exchange area (i.e. Openreach would only need to reach 90% coverage, rather than 100%). But the exclusions could only be applied from 1st April 2029 onwards, otherwise the 100% target would remain.
The change is designed to reflect the reality that, in some exchange areas, it may be practically impossible to reach a 100% FTTP build due to a very small number of exceptional premises (e.g. apartment blocks that refuse access, difficulties obtaining wayleaves for certain locations, premises like certain farms that may exist too far away from the road, areas already covered by rival full fibre networks etc.).
The favoured proposal reflected a simplistic Fixed Percentage Approach (FPA), but they also proposed a more complex alternative via a Defined Exclusions Approach (DEA). The DEA would define the specific circumstances under which premises could be excluded when assessing whether the second threshold is met (e.g. excluded premises might be those Openreach couldn’t reach or couldn’t afford to reach and those covered by rival networks). Ofcom viewed DEA as being “attractive in theory“, but they feared implementation would result in “practical difficulties” due to its complexities.
The first responses to all this have now come in from broadband ISPs and rival alternative networks, which reveal plenty of disagreement and some wider gripes (usually coloured by vested interests). We’ve attempted to summarise just a few of these below.
Advertisement
Sky favoured the DEA approach as “this provides better incentives to maximise FTTP coverage than the alternative“, but failing that they said they’d also support FPA if DEA couldn’t be made to work, albeit with a catch. Sky called for FPA to have a higher baseline threshold (e.g. 95%) as this “mitigates the consumer risk” of higher prices by delaying removal of the charge control on copper products.
“Sky is not convinced that the removal of copper price controls and the resulting scope for higher retail prices will, by itself, be an effective incentive to migrate to FTTP for many customers. That said, Sky considers that allowing Openreach greater wholesale pricing flexibility and new (discounted) full fibre offers are a more effective way of encouraging migration, both before and after April 2029, which avoids the risk of consumer harm from higher retail prices.”
CityFibre favoured DEA too, albeit with tougher requirements for exclusions (e.g. only excluding premises where all avenues have first been exhausted, the cost to serve exceeds £4,500 and publicly funded premises should only be excluded once subsidised premises have actually been built). The operator also made a particularly relevant point:
“All respondents to the TAR Consultation, including Openreach, favoured the Defined Exclusions Approach and CityFibre would therefore have expected any further consultation to have covered the implementation of the Defined Exclusions Approach rather than rejecting it in its entirety.”
CityFibre also questioned Ofcom’s proposal to use a 10% figure for exclusions, which they said lacked any “any meaningful reasoning” to support the figure.
Virgin Media / O2 (Read Response)
VMO2 supported DEA and said that, contrary to Ofcom’s viewpoint, it could be “calibrated by Ofcom in a proportionate and practicable manner” if they so wished. The operator said this would better target the “underlying rationale for exclusions (i.e. genuinely except ional or high – cost premises), avoids the risks associated with blunt, broad – brush thresholds, and provides a clearer basis for monitoring potential impacts on competition and consumers”.
Even if Ofcom were to proceed with a n FPA , VMO2 suggested that a uniform national threshold of 10% is “not appropriate” and that a more granular approach (for example, at exchange level, informed by Openreach’s commercial build plans and subject to appropriate safeguards) “would better reflect underlying conditions and mitigate the risks of distortion by limiting (but not eradicating) the risk of estimation error“.
Independent Networks Co-operative Association (Read Response)
INCA supported DEA and warned the Fixed Percentage Approach (FPA) would be “unnecessarily crude and arbitrary and risks material harm both to consumers and to the viability of network competition“. Instead, the trade body for altnets called for a hybrid DEA/FPA solution, which counts government ratified BDUK-funded Altnet FTTP deployments together with a low FPA (INCA proposes 3%).
“Ofcom’s statutory role is to further the interests of citizens and consumers, including by promoting competition where appropriate. It would be inconsistent with that role for Ofcom to design a Threshold 2 framework that incentivises or effectively compels Openreach to overbuild existing or planned Altnet networks for regulatory reasons rather than because of normal competitive market forces.”
Openreach (Read Response)
The incumbent similarly seemed to support DEA and said that copper retirement should be linked to fibre availability at the premises rather than to exchange -level averages. “Ofcom’s approach risks creating a disconnect with government policy which calls for a more supportive, less cautious approach and for agile, responsive regulation that encourages innovation to support growth“, said the operator.
However, should Ofcom go with the exchange-based approach, they called for thresholds that are “achievable” to be adopted. “The proposals should be refined by recalibrating a realistic threshold, which we consider should be no higher than 80% … and by removing the unnecessary delay to the implementation date. If delay is retained nationally, qualifying exchanges in Northern Ireland should be allowed to progress earlier“.
Openreach said they were also surprised that Ofcom hadn’t defined a third threshold, albeit without clearly saying what that would look like. The operator added that Ofcom’s “proposed framework provides very limited support for our exchange exit programme“.
Further responses, which were published yesterday, can be found on the consultation page and Ofcom intend to publish their final decisions in Autumn 2026. However, overall, it’s fairly clear that the FPA approach doesn’t have much support and some respondents fear Openreach might be able to “game” the FPA method if adopted, although the incumbent doesn’t want FPA either, it seems.
Several respondents also expressed concern that the second threshold must be set in a way that it does not cause additional overbuild of alternative networks, beyond what Openreach choses to do commercially.
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.
« BDUK Tweak Connect Fibre’s Derbyshire Project Gigabit Broadband Rollout
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.
Wouldn’t this be better done on a premises by premises basis? OR should be obligated to provide universal fibre service so altnet availability should be ignored.
If a premises has OR full fibre available, then all price controls on copper are removed and the fibre is subject to the usual controls. OR is allowed to remove the copper.
If no OR fibre is available, then there is a very low price cap on the amount OR can charge for the circuit (e.g. £5/month). OR has to maintain FTTC or ADSL until fibre is available., with no time limit.
This will incentivise OR to get on with the full copper to fibre transition, which is better for everyone.
Why do you think OR should have that obligation?
I got stuck on “obligated”. “Obliged” perhaps.
“OR should be obligated to provide universal fibre service…” This is laughable.
Tricky balance. It would be moot point if there was a government pot to deal with the remaining tricky installs (with altnets allowed to bid for provisioning projects) and legislation to force an override of landlord approvals and wayleaves after a notice period. Soft long term economic payback as well as supporting social cohesion
On the one hand you want to fairly encourage FTTP build out and 100% copper removal (but perhaps not at any price for difficult to serve areas), on the other you do want to nudge copper laggards to switch with a pricing mechanism. Or continue to offer FTTC/VDSL as an exception with a modest line rental uplift (may need to install some dedicated cabinets for the few remaining lines)
I wonder if there should also be a requirement generally to provide interest free long term loans to fund the more expensive cases of fibre provision, from a industry provided pot (mostly funded by Openreach with proportional small contributions by altnets and mobile broadband providers). The loan to
So Ofcom did a consultation and totally ignored the responses in favour of its own preferred option. Great use of taxpayers’ money.
About par for the course.
Surely a key aspect is the ‘openess’ of the fibre provision to any particular premises… E.g. if OpenReach are not going to serve it, it should only be considered ‘served’ if an AltNet that is legally bound to support ‘Open Access’ is serving the premises? Otherwise people are going to be forced to the ‘only provider in town’ with no competition or cost controls.
Personally I think with the huge ‘gift’ of the heritage network BT got when it was privatised, there should be a fibre USO on Openreach for all premises! Just my 2ps worth…
That last point would carry more weight if Openreach were not already forced to rent out access to its duct and pole network at peppercorn rates. The entire altnet “industry” exists because of this.
Successive government policy has demanded that this industry needed “competition” and Openreach would be well within their rights to demand that it works both ways, ie no fibre USO where they have to shoulder costs that no other operator does.
There’s also the question of the infrastructure that did not exist in 1984 – what rules would apply to that?
@Ivor, oh poor Openreach, I feel sorry for them,they are part of a company that have been raking it in for years, before they had competition.
I do laugh at their adverts, where they put on about them running the 99 service, that is because they had no choice and for many years they were the only ones around.
A well written rebuttal as ever.
I suspect that if a competitor did think they could do a better job of 999, BT wouldn’t get in the way. It’s a huge regulatory risk (since it has to work perfectly or people will die), with no monetary reward, hence no one else wants to touch it.
Anti-BT types are probably seething over the fact that the altnets are generally all financial basketcases, even with the enormous assistance given to them by the regulator, while the BT Group is still doing pretty well. Very weird British mindset to hate success like this.
I would have more sympathy and generosity for BT/Openreach if it had not rinsed the assets for such large profit for such a long time, whilst also blocking/holding off on things like PIA for decades… stifling innovation and these other networks to create meaningful competition. They are effectively still a monopoly when it comes to local access – and from what was primarily a public asset they have built upon.
I’ve been building networks (including on dark fibre) for >20 years, and BT has always been a constraint – traditionally only allowing their ‘managed’ products with dark/PIA capabilities only being viable over their network over recent years. I honestly believe it has created a huge drag on the UKs broadband capabilities – and we could have been much further ahead much earlier.
Sadly I also find BT/Openreach very arrogant at times – very recently I’ve experienced how they have basically just ignored their requirements under code powers, and effectively forced a situation where you can only hold them to account by taking them to tribunal… e.g. putting a financial bar in the way of holding them to account!
As another example – just look at the standard wayleaves required for a usual new residential connection – give them way more rights than they need (including building onwards etc), but you either have to just accept or not take it… And if there are no alt nets locally – you have no choice!
I think if they behaved better and brought people with them, rather than use their weight in opposition, people (OK, maybe just me) would be more accepting.
I think it’s fair for the BT Group to determine how they wish to use their assets, which their shareholders bought at the prevailing market rate of the time or built post-privatisation.
The cable companies also had to plough their own furrow (er, ducts) – why shouldn’t the altnets have had to do the same. We are not the US, there is no restriction on any licenced operator going down that path if they wished.
You seem to have forgotten the part where BT was prevented from modernising its networks for about the same length of time, because the government again didn’t want proper competition against the new cable industry. Maybe if they’d been allowed to get on with the FTTH networks they wanted to build in the 80s we’d have been further ahead!
I am not sure how the altnet industry, in general, is creating “meaningful competition”. They are all financial basketcases that rely heavily on favourable regulations and burning through debt to offer unsustainably cheap service. Only one altnet has anything approaching a decent retail selection and, aside from symmetric service, no one really offers anything different to what Openreach can offer. A few people with CF 5Gbps or YouFibre 8Gbps services don’t count.
@Ivor, you are full of bull, BT had no choice but to take over the emergency service when they grabbed hold of the network for next to nothing. The days when the telephone network belonged to the country and not there to make money for shareholders.
The 999 service could be improved, as a mate and me found out on Saturday, for a start having people that have no idea about the local aerial is not good.
As for being anti-BT, more anti Openreach than anti BT. The network should be run by a non-profit making company.
I prefer not to use an altnet, would rather use a network that is not owned by a profit making company, but sadly that is not possible
@Simon, can’t win, really can’t.
When the altnets start digging to lay fibre, people complain, when they use what is already there, people complain.
£What do people like BTIvor want, the whole country with a load of poles in one road next to each other and a load of trenches dug out. I have a pole outside here, if the altnet I use had to stick another pole in, there would be nowhere to put it. I know that would please BTIvor, no altnets to take money away from his precious BT.
BT gets paid by the altnets for using their infrastructure and yes, before he or anyone else says it, if Openreach want to use an altnet infrastructure, they should be allowed to. But a lot of BT/Openreach infrastructure have been around for many years. The pole outside my place have certainly been here for many years.
Ofcom will have to change course now
as no one wants the FPA approach including Openreach
We have to wait until all the responses are in
but it is looking likely that no one wants the FPA approach
I think Kcom has yet to supply a response/submisson
OR in North Shropshirechas not committed to FTTP. No dates are forecast and Altnets now have a monopoly over BT customers. What are OFCOM doing to protect BT customers that remain on Copper connections from the exchange with no program of FTTP. Loyal BT customers should be given a FTTP service having OR to updateand replace the existing infra that is PISBD.
Nothing stopping BT from taking wholesale services from Altnets…
If I didn’t know better, I’d say the broadband installation policy, by not extending the universal service obligation from analogue to digital has created the patchwork installation chaos that is UK broadband today. . . slowing down economic recovery and giving the old school tithe collectors and vassal managers a lfe extension they don’t deserve.
BT should be broken up, they still control 80% of the GB market and really do eff all to warrant that position apart from making it extremely difficult to change anything.
I’ve just goven BT the elbow after 41 years, after they buggered up my broadband service and then denied they’d done anything and refusedto put it right. They are chaotic.
Openreach are the reason most of the country can get a full fibre service and a thoroughly competitive choice of ISP on either fibre or copper. The altnets are too busy chasing the same urban customers, with a relatively tiny amount of infrastructure in previously unserved areas where they received government subsidy to do so.
None of what you have said therefore really makes any sense.
I agree it should be broken up Ivor have posted what I knew he would post. When a company have been raking it in for years from a network that was virtually given to them, then they should be able to afford to stick FTTP in.
Also, the only reason Openreach/BT is moving as fast as they are because of competition and they need to replace old technology that is costing them a lot of money to keep going.
They are certainly not doing it for us that is for sure. They are doing it to stick their shares up for their share holders.
No company do things for the public, just like our government really.
All in it for one thing, MONEY.
The government, not a particular person or part, the whole thing, is in it for money. The entire state. What a ridiculous comment.
‘a network that was virtually given to them’
Nonsense as usual, Ad74UK.
In today’s money the government raised over £35Billion ‘giving away’ BT.
30-40 years later BT capitalises at £18Billion.
@FibreBubble, another Bt shareholder, you have to say good things about BT. We all know that the network and everything else BT had was given away for pittance, the shares was sold cheap, cheap and cheap, so people would buy them. That was the same for electric and gas. The government as normal just sold stuff and did not care who got it and how much it went for as long as they had nothing to do with it after.
The government in this, I mean all governments are interested in one thing, money. I don’t trust any, not one politician. What have happened over the last few weeks have proved that they don’t give a monkeys about wasting public money.
By elections cost money and yet we had one by election not so long ago for no reason and any one soon for no reason.
Most people are in things for the money and the more they have, the more they want and people who don’t think so are deluded,.
“Its love actually” !!!! That’s woke off-the-scale.
In the past the vestiges of pre-BT behaviour i.e. Post Office Ethos prevailed in BT namely staff first, customers next, shareholders last. Now its a complete volte-face, with Mr Bharti’s organisation holding 25% of the shareholding and Deutsche Telecom 12% . .its shareholder first, staff a poor second and stuff the customers (If my recent experience is anything to go by). OpenReach may have performed monumental efforts in the past installing fibre but that counts for increasingly little (That’s is until a dis-consulate ex- employee puts 5 lb of Semtex down a network centre) in the face of much cheaper competition from the alt.nets, both wired and wireless.
It is somewhat unfair that BT and Openreach have been caught “Holding-the-baby” after undertaking so much capital expenditure on the trunk network and other parts which enable the alt nets to function, and that the capabilities of alternate technologies have risen so fast to assume a viable competitive position, but that’s where we find ourselves.
Unfortunately, what’s now happening is that BT appear to have become ultra defensive regarding market share and seem to be taking it out on the weakest link the customer – unless my recent experience was exceptional ?
As always, the approach set out by Ofcom is operationally expensive and just creates more jobs for the bureaucracy. Either policy will add to the further fragmentation of the network and increased costs.
The easiest way to address the problem is to simply set a date for the withdrawal of price controls.