Daft for a building owner to object, having 1G+ speeds in a flat is a advertising bonus, especially if it costs them nothing?

Sometimes buildings are managed through agents. For the agent there is a cost: doing something. They'd rather collect their cut for doing nothing.

Our first flat was an attic flat with a dormer window that let in showers of water onto our dining table when it rained. It took a lot of haranguing to get it fixed although the leak must have been causing deterioration to the structure of the building. They were also uninterested in a crack opening up where the back staircase seemed to be falling away from the main building.

Depends, one approach to wiring blocks is install rooftop distribution box(es) then run trays and external cabling over the outside of the building with at least one tail left outside each flat.

Then when the flat gets connected, drill through the external wall, or window frame if possible, to run the cable into the flat.

It doesn't cost the building owner anything, but it leaves the building entwined in cable, that traps crud, looks nasty, may start popping loose and flapping around if poorly done, and makes maintenance more fiddly (i.e. expensive) as there's cable all over the place.

My block is now on the fourth generation of being externally cabled this way, first the GPO for telephones, then 1980s cable TV, 1990s coax interweb/TV, now fibre. Whenever the old cable dies, it gets left in place, old operator(s) won't take it away, the new operator won't clear it, and the owner would want leaseholders to cough up for it.

Having seen the standard of cabling run locally by one of the non-Openreach fibre networks I can have sympathy for landlords. This company has left cables hanging loose, some from poles they've erected, some as loops on the outside of street facing properties (in a few cases, on the verge of being classed as a public hazard). In some areas of the country local yobs would have had great fun.

I suppose there's more money to be made from installing fibre in flats than providing an effective service to rural properties.

"I suppose there's more money to be made from installing fibre in flats than providing an effective service to rural properties."

I would expect so. A block of flats is likely in a place with a concentration of people therefore nearer to existing infrastructure. The flats likely containing a number of residents more likely to take up the offer of faster internet.

Compare that to ass end of nowhere which is out of the way of existing infrastructure and few residents who may or not care about faster network speeds and it does make some sense. One of the appeals of ass end of nowhere is to get away from the usual infrastructure that makes up population centres.

Only if the owner/manager permits access, and there's no technical challenges to running the fibre. There's a surprising number of absentee landlords (often overseas) for some HMO type properties, some are simply lazy, inconsiderate types, or even bungling and obstructive housing associations or service companies. Even with permission there's often technical challenges some of which will be obvious if you think about it - eg no suitable ducting within the premises, ducting that's blocked or inaccessible, no safe access for routing cables up walls, electrical, fire, or building code problems uncovered when work starts etc etc.

The flats that haven't been served will often have at least one, sometimes many of these problems, so even with a legal obligation to allow installation, it doesn't follow that it will be economic for the networks, especially if take up rates are low or customer quality is poor.

The first time (and very probably the last) I have seen that phrase with the word service omitted especially when discussing telcos.

Presumably means "below zero" (bozo) [profitability] customers.

True, although, having fallen tired of London (Yes, I hear Samuel Johnson's quote in my head), I've been looking in the Yorkshire dales for properties, and there is the very excellent https://b4rn.org.uk/ that provides rural broadband through access to farmer's fields, etc. Easy to dig up one of those than a road. So, almost every property I've seen has had 1Gbps fibre broadband, even some 500m from the nearest road :-)

might be a bit confusing to a non Brit.

I only have a vague idea about the difference between Renters, Lease Holders and Freehold Owners in the UK or do I mean England and Wales? (Scottish Law is bound to be different. ;)

In AU it is pretty much Torrens title (~Freehold) xor Strata Title (and older Company title); Residential (and Commercial) Tenancy.

Every few months I receive an offer for a free upgrade to fiber for the existing NBN connection that isn't actually connected (which is a bit Matt 25:29.) The suburb must have been cabled for fiber when developed in the early noughties (also has underground power which is surprisingly rare in these storm prone areas.)

Two mobile 4G/LTE connections are still cheaper than a single bottom tier NBN connection.

No, there are plenty of leases in Australia.

There is no freehold in the ACT. In the ACT leasehold is the only possibility. The ACT government owns all the non-national-park land and only makes it available under a 99-year Crown lease.

Can I now sue the landlord?

Yes, yes I know it's impossible to actually get it round here, but they've promised I can demand it off my landlord!

How about the government get rid of leasehold residential tenure instead! The right to fast broadband (along with other more important matters) follows once commonhold exists.