to be fair BT did actually suggest all of this over a decade ago and did investigate more widespread FTTP deployments (as did their counterparts in other CEPT nations).
I know a few very brainy older dudes who worked at the BT research for many years and were involved with this and the development of ADSL/VDSL (a lot of which happened in the UK) and have independently stumbled across “old” BT presentations and some from other European telecoms companies which confirm this.
What BT found that it took way too long for the engineers to connect up the bit of the fibre that ends up in the building compared to providing copper based circuits; when there is already a shortage of skilled engineers even for analogue technology – and neither the government nor the other telecoms companies was willing to fund the extra costs of training the engineers.
In other CEPT countries where the network is still part nationalised and the land ownership rules are less complex (making it easier to lay cables etc) there was initially further progress with FTTP but even then the telcos have cherry picked easy to reach locations which turned out to not be the places which would benefit from the faster broadband and most are now using a mixture of FTTP and FTTC.
There are also other issues such as conflicts with EU-wide laws about at least some telecoms circuits having to keep working if the mains electricity has failed; much more difficult with FTTP as opposed to copper as its not possible to use the circuit cable for powering endpoints (like the old fashioned analogue telephones).
TBH this also means it isn’t that daft starting off with copper (provided enough spare room is left in ducts etc) as when FTTP is eventiually deployed, the copper can be re-used for delivering power to equipment independent of the local mains supply.
