Research and analysis

National impacts

Published 10 September 2026

1. Purpose, scope and limitations

This section examines the extent to which the LFFM programme has influenced broadband markets at a national level. It draws on evidence from the work package one case studies, alongside wider market analysis presented elsewhere in this report, to assess whether LFFN has contributed to changes in supplier behaviour, competition and market development beyond the areas directly supported by the programme.

Assessing national market impacts presents a number of challenges. The evidence base for this work package is primarily drawn from four case studies, selected to reflect different delivery models and market contexts. While these case studies provide valuable insight into how LFFN operated in practice and the mechanisms through which it may have influenced market outcomes, they cannot be treated as representative of LFFN projects or the national broadband market as a whole. As a result, this section does not attempt to attribute changes in national market indicators directly to LFFN. Instead, the analysis focuses on those areas where there is credible evidence that LFFN may have had wider national relevance.

It is also important to recognise the scale of LFFN relative to the wider broadband market and to subsequent public interventions. LFFN was a comparatively small, early programme, delivered during a period of rapid market change and followed by much larger initiatives, including Project Gigabit. Given this scale, and the concentration of LFFN funding among a limited number of projects and suppliers, any national market impacts were always likely to be modest.

For these reasons, the findings presented in this section should be interpreted as indicative rather than definitive. They are intended to help explain how LFFN may have contributed to national market outcomes, where evidence supports this, and to clarify the limits of its influence in the context of wider market trends and policy interventions.

2. Supplier participation in LFFN projects

The LFFN programme was delivered through a limited number of projects and involved a relatively small group of suppliers. Its reach within the national broadband market was therefore concentrated rather than extensive.

The table below summarises the organisations that benefitted from LFFN, either directly by winning LFFN contracts or indirectly through the use of LFFN-funded infrastructure. It distinguishes between projects delivered by traditional suppliers or incumbents, those delivered by alt-nets, cooperative models, and publicly owned networks, some of which were made available for wider market use.

The table shows that a substantial proportion of LFFN projects were delivered by incumbents, particularly Openreach, either alone or in partnership with other suppliers. A smaller number of projects were delivered by alt-nets, most notably CityFibre, VX Fibre and Fibrus (albeit in partnership with Openreach). LFFN also supported a limited number of cooperative and publicly owned network projects, which in some cases have been used by alt-nets.

Type of organisation	Name of organisation	LFFN Projects
Traditional supplier/incumbent	Openreach only (either directly or via an intermediary)	Cardiff; Warkwickshire; Rutland; Norfolk; Plymouth; Pembrokeshire; Northumberland; Tay Cities; Dorset; North Wales; South Wales; Essex & Herts
	Openreach and KCOM	East Riding of Yorkshire
	Openreach and Fibrus	Full Fibre Northern Ireland
	VMO2	Belfast; Greater Manchester
Alt-net	City Fibre	Highlands; Portsmouth; Wolverhampton; Suffolk; Cambridgeshire (as a Public Sector Building Upgrade (PSBU))
	VXFiber (since merged with Freedom Fibre)	Stoke on Trent
Cooperative	Cooperative Network Infrastructure (CNI) – used by ITS, CityFibre and F&W Networks	Blackpool; Mid Sussex
Publicly owned	NYNET	North Yorkshire
	Lightblue Fibre - used by CityFibre, Gigaclear	Cambridgeshire (Public Sector Asset Reuse (PSAR))
	BNET - used by VX Fibre	Avonmouth
	Shetland Telecom	Shetlands
	Colchester Amphora Trading - used by VX Fibre and other small alt-nets	Colchester

3. Market context during the LFFN period

As described in Chapter 4, the LFFN programme was delivered during a period of rapid change in the UK broadband market. From around 2017 onwards, the number of alt-nets increased substantially, alongside a sharp expansion in full-fibre deployment by alt-nets.

This period of growth was supported by a combination of factors, including regulatory reform (notably changes to Physical Infrastructure Access), increased availability of private investment, and a range of government policies and interventions aimed at accelerating gigabit-capable connectivity. Demand for high-speed broadband also increased over this period, reflecting changing consumer and business needs. At the same time, incumbent operators expanded and accelerated their own network upgrade programmes, contributing to the overall pace of national rollout.

Following this phase of rapid expansion, the market has more recently entered a period of consolidation, with mergers, acquisitions and changes in investment conditions reducing the number of active suppliers. This evolving market context provides important background for interpreting LFFN’s role and its potential national market impacts.

4. LFFN’s contribution to changes in market structure

This section considers the extent to which LFFN contributed to changes in market structure during the period in which the programme operated, with a particular focus on the role and development of alt-nets.

As noted above, the period covered by LFFN coincided with rapid growth in the number of alt-nets operating in the UK. In this context, LFFN directly supported only a very small number of suppliers, primarily CityFibre, Fibrus, ITS, F&W Networks and VX Fibre. This means that, in the context of overall market diversification, LFFN’s contribution was limited.

Evidence from the national evaluation of the early gigabit voucher schemes provides an important point of comparison. That evaluation found that hundreds of suppliers made use of vouchers, and that for the heaviest users, vouchers played a critical role in supporting early market entry, expansion and growth. In aggregate, voucher schemes are therefore likely to have made a greater contribution to changes in market structure at a national level than LFFN.

However, this does not mean that LFFN was without impact. The evidence suggests that LFFN made a meaningful contribution in a small number of cases, particularly for CityFibre and Fibrus, which are now among the largest alt-nets operating in the UK. In these cases, LFFN support aligned well with the suppliers’ business models and growth strategies and provided benefits that were distinct from those offered by voucher schemes.

In the case of CityFibre, LFFN delivered both direct and indirect benefits. CityFibre report that LFFN-funded areas continue to account for around 10% of company revenue. In addition, the company believes that experience gained through winning and delivering LFFN contracts played an important role in helping it to secure and deliver ten subsequent Project Gigabit contracts. These contracts are substantially larger in scale than the original LFFN projects and have supported CityFibre’s continued expansion. CityFibre did not use the early voucher schemes, as they were not well aligned with its delivery model, indicating that LFFN and vouchers operated as complementary mechanisms supporting different types of supplier growth.

Similarly, Fibrus reported that delivery of LFFN-funded projects helped to build delivery capability and credibility with public sector clients. Fibrus has since gone on to win larger publicly funded contracts, which it attributes in part to the experience and track record established through LFFN. As with CityFibre, these later contracts have been an important driver of growth.

While it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions on how the growth trajectories of CityFibre or Fibrus would have been different in the absence of LFFN, there is credible evidence that the programme played a supporting role in their recent growth. By providing early revenue, delivery experience and a platform to secure much larger subsequent contracts, LFFN contributed to strengthening the market position of both suppliers.

This contribution is particularly relevant in the context of recent changes in the broadband market. As consolidation has increased and investment conditions have tightened, scale, financial resilience and a strong delivery track record have become increasingly important. Both CityFibre and Fibrus are now understood to be in a stable financial position and well backed by investors. In CityFibre’s case, this has included the acquisition of other operators. By supporting the development and ongoing viability of these suppliers, LFFN is therefore likely to have played a modest but meaningful role in sustaining competition to industry incumbents, including Openreach and Virgin Media O2.

5. Retail competition and consumer choice

This section considers whether LFFN contributed to changes in retail competition and consumer choice within areas covered by LFFN projects. Any such effects would be expected to be confined to these areas, as LFFN did not operate at a scale that would influence consumer outcomes nationally.

LFFN was designed on the basis that improved wholesale infrastructure could support greater retail choice, either by enabling new network entry or, in the case of Openreach-led projects, by expanding infrastructure that is used by multiple retail Internet Service Providers (ISP)s. In both cases, the potential for improved consumer outcomes depended on whether LFFN funding resulted in additional or accelerated network deployment.

Where LFFN facilitated the entry of alternative network providers, evidence from the case studies indicates that retail competition increased within those local markets. In CityFibre areas, for example, ISPs using the CityFibre network consistently offered lower-priced broadband packages across a range of speed tiers, indicating increased consumer choice and downward pressure on prices following new network entry.

Over half of LFFN contracts were delivered by Openreach, either on its own or in partnership with another supplier. Evidence from the Tay Cities case study suggests that Openreach-led projects often accelerated delivery or marginally extended coverage, but that much of the rollout was already planned. As a result, while Openreach’s wholesale model allows multiple ISPs to operate over its network, these projects did not generally lead to greater consumer choice, except for a small number of households that gained access.

If the findings from Tay Cities are broadly representative of other LFFN projects delivered by Openreach, this would suggest that the overall impact of LFFN on retail competition and consumer choice may be modest. In these cases, consumer benefits are more likely to relate to earlier access to improved services rather than additional coverage, resulting in greater choice.

Overall, the evidence suggests that LFFN contributed to improved retail competition and consumer choice in those areas where it enabled new supplier entry. Where projects were delivered by incumbents, the scale of impact depended on the extent to which LFFN funding resulted in genuinely additional or accelerated network deployment.

6. Diffusion of delivery and commercial models

The diffusion of delivery and commercial models developed through LFFN has the potential to support wider market outcomes where these approaches reduce delivery risk, enable access to infrastructure, or make it easier for suppliers to enter or expand in new markets. In this way, the influence of LFFN may extend beyond the original project areas, even where no additional LFFN funding is involved.

LFFN supported a range of delivery models, including public sector building upgrades, anchor tenancy and asset-reuse, and has supported innovative commercial models such as CNI. Evidence from this evaluation suggests that, in a small number of cases, these approaches have subsequently been adopted or adapted by other local authorities.

Examples identified include councils in Wales replicating PSBU approaches, South Essex authorities working with ITS to apply a co-developed PSBU model in other locations (including Lewisham and Newcastle-under-Lyme), and a limited number of areas developing publicly owned fibre networks inspired by PSAR. The evaluation team is also aware of at least one local authority exploring a CNI-type model (Lancaster).

While these examples indicate that LFFN has contributed to learning and experimentation around delivery models, the overall scale of adoption remains limited. As a result, any wider market impacts arising from diffusion are likely to be modest at this stage.

The scale and nature of these effects, and their implications for market outcomes, will be explored in more detail in the Work Package Two report.

7. Conclusions on LFFN’s role in national market outcomes

Taken together, the evidence suggests that LFFN made a modest and targeted contribution to broadband market outcomes at a national level. Its influence was shaped by the scale of the programme, the concentration of funding among a limited number of projects and suppliers, and the wider market conditions in which it operated.

LFFN did not drive large-scale changes in national market structure, competition or consumer outcomes, which were primarily shaped by broader market forces and other public interventions. However, the programme did contribute in specific and identifiable ways. In particular, LFFN supported the growth and development of a small number of alt-nets, helped strengthen delivery capability and credibility among key suppliers, and enabled localised improvements in retail competition and consumer choice where new network entry occurred.

LFFN also contributed to learning around delivery and commercial models, some of which have since been adopted or adapted beyond the original programme areas. While the scale of this diffusion remains limited, it provides a potential pathway for longer-term market effects.

Overall, LFFN’s national significance lies less in its direct impact on headline market indicators and more in its supporting role: helping to build supplier capability, enabling local competition in specific markets, and contributing to the foundations on which later, larger-scale interventions have built.