I think if OR in particular was much more pro-active in expanding FTTP then there wouldn’t be an issue. It probably does come down to money. Why is BT paying millions for football games when they are in the phone business? That is wasted money. It's not attracting people to BT as you still need a Sky system to view it.
I'm not sure why you believe that you need a Sky system to view "it".
Here, we're watching the rugby (no football here) on the BT sports channels, using just a YouView box. No Sky here. No satellite dish. No "Now TV". Not even BT Retail as ISP either - Plusnet instead. The channels are just multicast IPTV via the FTTC cabinet.
Wasted money? Well, I guess it depends what you think BT is up to. I happen to think they're finally going after Sky and VM in the part of the market that generates their biggest income: TV, and TV content. They want subscribers to be pulled off Sky's satellite, and off VM's cable, onto IP-based TV. They want them to stick too - all aimed at increasing the number of users *and* increasing ARPU.
For too long, Sky have treated broadband (and phone) as a "free extra", a commodity to be given away alongside their profitable market. VM haven't been much different ... and it is designed to make BT (Retail) look like a commodity player, with no product worth the "big bucks". BTRetail's job is to change the landscape entirely, and turn them into an equal of Sky, as far as TV content goes. Kinda like
MEO in Portugal, part of the Portuguese incumbent.
That's why, whenever Sky tells Ofcom they should split Openreach, BT tells Ofcom they should regulate the TV market better. Both companies want to attack in the others' home market.
They need to stop chasing television dreams and focus on what they are good at.
BT's core market, nowadays, is moving data from A to B, but the profitable thing is when that data is TV content - just like it was in the eighties, when BT were banned from doing this.
The TV also happens to be the source (OK, sink really) of the greatest volume of data over the network.
Ironic: BT will invest more in the capability of the access network if, ultimately, we spend more money on TV content from them. Even if you don't want to watch their TV offering, your access network will benefit if more and more of your neighbours do!
It all comes down to money.
Yup. Even the money from BT is based on the guess/hope that they can break into the TV market enough.
But that money is mainly coming from one source, BT. This needs to change imho.
I think the Sky interview happens to tell us that Sky aren't interested in putting more money in. They want things even cheaper - and they want Ofcom to continue to regulate a split Openreach just as heavily as when it was within BT - when surely the obvious reason to pull Openreach out would be to free it of a lot of regulation.
This is the ISP market share trend:
If TT can't afford to invest, and VM won't invest, in Openreach's network, that really only leaves us with BT and Sky. But the one thing we don't see from Sky is an indication that they will invest.
I like the analysis in this story:
"Sky's Mai Fyfield's counterargument, also in the Telegraph, is equally unpersuasive" (where, for balance, the author doesn't like Joe Garner's response either).