Integration vs aggregation: The battle for fibre’s future  | Total Telecom

Original article Total Telecom:Read More

silhouette of road signage during golden hour

Contributed Article

by Strategic Imperatives

Two models are emerging to solve the UK’s wholesale complexity. One promises convenience, the other flexibility — but which will sustain growth? 

At Connected Britain 2025, one theme came through loud and clear: the UK fibre market has never offered more choice, but that choice is creating new layers of complexity. Service providers are navigating a landscape that includes both established incumbents and a wave of AltNets, each with different systems, processes and commercial terms. 

The question is no longer whether fibre is available, but how providers can access it efficiently and at scale. Two distinct models have emerged to tackle that challenge: integration platforms and aggregation networks. At first glance they appear similar, but their approaches — and their long-term implications for providers and networks — are very different. 

The integration model: Standardising complexity 

Integration platforms act as the technical and operational “glue” between networks and service providers. Instead of building and maintaining multiple bespoke integrations, providers connect once to a standardised set of APIs and gain access to many suppliers. 

The role is not to resell services but to harmonise processes such as availability checks, ordering, fault management and billing — all of which vary by network. By translating them into a single, consistent framework, integration platforms reduce engineering overhead, operational risk and time to market. 

The result is flexibility: providers retain control over their commercial agreements, while networks of all sizes can expose their services to a wider base of buyers without additional development. 

The aggregation model: Consolidating scale 

Aggregation networks take a different approach. They bundle multiple networks under one commercial and operational framework. Service providers sign a single wholesale agreement with the aggregator, who manages the relationships, commercial terms and operational processes. 

The most established example is PXC, which brought together a broad footprint of networks including CityFibre, Community Fibre, Freedom Fibre, Trooli, Netomnia and MS3, alongside its own exchange infrastructure. PXC showed the appeal of a unified wholesale model, giving providers access to millions of premises through one contract and one interface. 

Other aggregators follow similar principles. Zen’s Fibre Hub combines CityFibre, Trooli and Freedom Fibre into one proposition, while AllPoints Fibre’s Aquila aggregates Openreach, BT Wholesale, CityFibre and its own consolidated altnets. These models offer reach and efficiency, often supported by added tools such as migration support or self-service portals. 

The trade-off is independence. Providers are limited to the networks and terms the aggregator defines, with the aggregator effectively acting as an intermediary.

Two philosophies, two outcomes 

The distinction is more than technical. It reflects two strategic philosophies: 

  • Integration platforms empower choice and flexibility. Providers retain control of their commercial strategy while benefiting from standardised technical processes. 
  • Aggregation networks reduce the number of contracts and integrations a provider must manage, but at the cost of flexibility and independence. 

Both approaches add value. The question is whether a provider values control and flexibility more, or the convenience of a single commercial framework. 

Market implications 

The implications are significant. 

  • Integration supports inclusivity. By standardising technical processes, it lowers barriers for AltNets to join the market, allows incumbents to interoperate more easily with new entrants, and gives providers the flexibility to craft differentiated supply chains. 
  • Aggregation supports consolidation. It delivers immediate scale, particularly appealing to partners in the channel, but also concentrates influence in the hands of a few large networks. 

As the market matures, both models will continue to coexist. Aggregators already rely on integration platforms behind the scenes. While the boundaries between the two models can sometimes appear blurred, their strategic philosophies remain distinct. 

Looking ahead 

The UK’s fibre rollout has created unprecedented choice, but without mechanisms to reduce friction, that choice risks becoming unmanageable. Integration and aggregation are now essential parts of the ecosystem. 

Both will continue to play a role. Aggregators provide a route to scale for partners that value convenience. But the trade-offs are clear: dependence on a single intermediary and limited flexibility. Integration, by contrast, sustains long-term growth. It lowers barriers for AltNets, supports incumbents and allows providers to retain control over their strategies. 

Ultimately, the health of the UK connectivity market will depend on the balance the industry strikes between short-term consolidation and long-term flexibility — a choice that will shape outcomes for providers, networks and customers alike. 

Keep up to date with all of the latest telecoms news from around the world with the Total Telecom newsletter

Also in the news
Connected Britain Award winners 2025 announced!
Netomnia announces ‘powerful and ambitious’ rebrand ahead of Connected Britain
VodafoneThree drops Samsung, relies on Nokia and Ericsson for £2bn network upgrade

Recent Posts