Returns for unbundling an Exchange

I've always thought that instead of a new LLU operator unbundling
every London exchange, why don't they concentrate on other places? It
seems that every LLU operator has equipment in every London exchange
and are competing against each other. Why don't they expand a bit and
target the areas where there is, as yet, NO LLU'ing, and therefore no
competition?

Just a question

Richard Sobey <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I've always thought that instead of a new LLU operator unbundling
> every London exchange, why don't they concentrate on other places? It
> seems that every LLU operator has equipment in every London exchange
> and are competing against each other. Why don't they expand a bit and
> target the areas where there is, as yet, NO LLU'ing, and therefore no
> competition?

Because presumably, there is a large per-exchange cost component.

This means that you want to activate exchanges where there are a large
number of people close to the exchange, rather than more spread out ones
that may be as large (so that many people get higher speeds, and stick
with you).

Activating more rural exchanges so that you can put on lots of customers
that may only get 512K may not be worthwhile.

Richard Sobey wrote:
> I've always thought that instead of a new LLU operator unbundling
> every London exchange, why don't they concentrate on other places?
> It
> seems that every LLU operator has equipment in every London exchange
> and are competing against each other. Why don't they expand a bit
> and
> target the areas where there is, as yet, NO LLU'ing, and therefore
> no
> competition?
>
> Just a question

For the same reason the cable co's cherry picked the areas which they
thought would be more profitable ignoring others because they
weren't..