Original article ISPreview UK:Read More
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.
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.
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 (Read Response)
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.