Re: @Grease Monkey
> It's a little more complicated than that, but I can see why it looks that way you describe it.
There is actually quite a bit of evidence to suggest that BT(OR)does (or at least has done in the past) engage in such aggressive anti-competition tactics. For example, round our way there's a lot of rural greenery - ie not exactly the sort of place where BT OR wants to spend a lot of (other people's - our county councils have given them a lot of dosh) money to build out FTTC etc.
So there is a community project that's been steadily over the years been building out gigabit FTTP. On more than one occasion, their announcement along the lines of "our next expansion of the network will be into X,Y, and Z villages and area" has been quickly followed by a BT announcement that "X, Y, and Z will soon be getting fibre". Absolutely nothing whatsoever has changed in the demographics or geography - the only change is that the customers in these areas will soon have an alternative (and much better) option.
I suppose that you could argue that if the residents in a village show that they are prepared to put the effort in (it's a community project remember) and pay for the quite reasonable connection costs, that might influence the guestimate of what the market is for FTTC. But mostly it looks very much like a spoiler operation - to try and prevent that competitor from getting a foothold by stealing their customers with a promise of FTTC at some future date that amazingly keeps slipping and slipping.
Other examples involve villagers clubbing together and contracting with some outfit to do a microwave link to someone's house and distribute from there. Again, BT suddenly announcing that the economics have suddenly changed - and it's completely coincidental - suddenly looks very much like a spoiler to get enough of those villagers to change their mind and make the project uneconomic. For the FTTC install date to keep slipping once the threat of competition is off the table is again a complete coincidence.
.
So yes, there will be some element of different operators making the same economic case and coming to the same conclusion. But there really is too much of a sh*tload of coincidence for anyone to believe there's no spoiling going on on BT(OR)'s part.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
