Re: Typical government thinking!
In an ideal world it would fund 400 B4RN 1Gbps FTTP Type schemes, where the hard work of creating the intial community scheme, gaining the backing/funding has already been thought through/worked through, so in theory the success and lower cost per FTTP connection, could be replicated. We need to be backing proven 'copy cat' schemes like B4RN, going forward.
A Key objective though is that these communities should be 'on-side' and interested/show willing.
Above all, the other key objective should be about puting more Connected fibre in the ground, not talking about it. Not paying people to talk about it, producing glossy bullshit.
The most important thing is for this money not to end up in the hands of BT, because - let's face it, we are needing to allocate/inject £400 million for no other reason, than the failure of Ofcom regulation/BT market dominance (allowing BT's EE takeover was sheer madness) which is preventing the market itself from rolling out competing true/pure FTTP, to BT's obfuscated, bamboozled sweated copper carcass 'upto' infrastructure.
One aspect that rarely gets mentions is true/pure FTTP would allow virtualised operators to co-exist over the same fibre, so you could take multiple subscriptions from various ISPs at once, as there would be sufficient Fibre bandwidth to deliver multiple services.
The main reason BT are pushing Pointless G.fast is so they can place artificial restrictions on the subscriber, by placing an 'artificial tap' between the customer and the cabinet/pole Fibre endpoint, by using sweated copper on the final segment, to keep 'artificially restricted services' under BT's control.