So you are sticking with "the network has problems because it's old and fragmented, and we haven't fixed it in 20 years because we don't want to spend the money"? I guess you do work for VM's network planning department! That's pretty much the excuse I've been hearing from VM/Telewest/NTL for the last 20 years every time a fundamental issue shows up.
At the same time we see other countries build better, faster, cheaper high-speed networks.
Remember when NTL was 12bn in debt and it’s CEO publicly stated NTL was facing imminent bankruptcy if it couldn’t refinance? They had no money, they had done the absolute bare minimum to keep things going for years and owed almost twice the value of the combined TW and NTL merged business to creditors, that was only a few short years before TW did a reverse buy-out creating what would become VM which was circa 16 years ago. To put it in context OR are currently predicting over 15bn to do 80-85% UK coverage in fibre, that’s exactly what the LG buyout valued the whole of VM at in 2013, so BT - even with ducting or poles in place to provide copper to each property and the option of using poles for access - is expecting to spend the equivalent of VM’s entire value to re-build with fibre, and that’s after significant planning/wayleave changes to make it simpler and cheaper and massive tax breaks. Does that sound like network re-build was historically viable to you?
Without government subsidy/planning reforms it was bordering on financial suicide to do large scale network build, let alone rebuild. BT refused decades ago as they couldn’t get tax payers to pickup the bill. OR made token gestures in recent years, but was happy to keep milking the user base on copper and would have just continued to push g.fast out. Small private or local city partnerships existed, but they were usually small scale and often heavily subsidised by or dependant on contracts with local councils who strangely managed to part the planning/wayleave waters when it suited them. Other than that you have a small number of off-shore islands and KCOM, that’s about it in terms of HFC migrations at scale.
Oh and no, I don’t work for VM or it’s network/planning departments (those are two quite separate functions you’ve combined), I have worked for TW/VM previously, but left to do my own thing long enough ago that I don’t have to worry about an NDA. For context I was more CMS/process orientated, though wayleave and planning were part of that on a daily basis and we regularly ended up at various multi department meetings/calls, so I have some knowledge of the process/budget for Liverpool etc to be converted from analogue to digital for example or the SEoS re-grade when that was a thing, as it tied in with what I was doing at the time as well as knowing some of the people who actually supervised build in various parts of the country - by then they tended to move in-house teams around nationally rather than having regional contractors like Kelly’s or Avonline do the job.
Are we any closer to you availing us of your presumably considerable expertise in HFC migrations and explaining why it’s so easy and when exactly it should have been done? Or are you sticking with ‘It’s been ages and they should have done it by now because I think it’s easy’. Just like many things in life, when you have almost no grasp of the costs and complexity of a project, it often seems simple from the outside, in reality it’s often very different when you actually know what’s involved. Especially with large scale network build in the UK.