I look at this rather differently to el Reg...
When you read carefully, you do NOT see that BT is handing cash back because it has reached (and exceeded) the clawback targets (reputedly 20%). Journalists seem to think it says this, but the announcements don't quite say that.
My take is that it says something a little different - with the result that it (probably) ends up with the same amount of money, but allows it to be used differently than originally intended by clawback.
First, I don't think it says anything about reaching clawback targets because you would see that money go back in dribs and drabs, over the course of 7 years. And the money would then be available for the LA to choose how to spend, including the option of going to an altnet, FiWi, or the LA coffers.
Instead, I think this all comes about because BT have agreed to rework their entire "spreadsheet" of cabinet viability, putting in new "expected takeup" figures (30% for subsidised cabinets, 28% for commercial cabinets); no word on whether the "rate of takeup change" changes. That "spreadsheet" will then likely change a lot of cabinets, making everything slightly more viable. Those cabs that were almost viable will cross the threshold, and need no subsidy; all other cabs will likely need a little less subsidy ... and in the end this creates a pool of now-unused subsidy for each LA project.
Now, each of those cabinets will have cost (in actual expenditure) exactly the same amount to deploy; it is just the subsidy that has reduced. To balance the books, BT has to use more of its own money to fund the cabs. Unsurprisingly, this will come out to the tune of £129m in total.
The effect is that BT have to pour an extra £129m of their own money into the subsidised rollout *now*, rather than in dribs and drabs over the next few years. And, of course, because BT will rework its takeup figures to 30%, you must then assume that the clawback contract terms adjust to only kick in at 30% too.
And this seems to be what has happened in practice. While we just don't have a set of LA's suddenly reporting 30% take-up, the money does appear to be being "made available" to projects *right now*.
Why do I think it is important to think of things this way?
I think there are a couple of advantages - one for the LA, and one for BT.
For the LA, the money becomes available immediately. That allows it to be decided/contracted in one go, planned in one go, and (fairly importantly) used while there is still a BDUK team at the LA to help deliver reports to users. One reason SFNY got some extra money 18 months ago was to keep their team together, doing things, to fill the gap between phase 1 and SEP.
For BT, it would (probably) be because that pool of now-unused subsidy money remains available to BT, rather than it going back to the LA for them to spend with altnets. BT then get to announce that they'll be able to cover more within the terms of the phase 1 contract. Crafty, eh? It probably helps them that they can plan in one go, too.
I'm not saying this is a bad thing, though - on the contrary, it's really good to see both the progression of take-up, and the extra money come out, and the extra coverage that we'll get as a result. It's also great that BT are showing their belief in the extra take-up too, as that probably sets some investor's minds, and may have longer ramifications on things like the G.Fast rollout. I'm only commenting because I just don't think anyone has managed to describe the actual turn of events correctly. At least not in a way that makes sense.
