Better oversight? Oversight of whom? It's not clear, project oversight or telecom oversight?
Regardless, while people feel cheated I think they're looking at the situation wrong. Inherent business conservatism keeps BT from putting fat pipes to all the little villages. However, if said village shows the initiative to back their grumblings for better service by seeking it out themselves, BT knows there's a market. Digging up the dirt, and not the fiber itself is the cost in growth, so naturally they're going to bury more than necessary. Once the fiber is there, it's likewise obvious to turn it on for customer use. Like it or not, this is the face of capitalism; it's money at work.
Does it give the end-user warm fuzzies? No. Should it? Well, that's another conversation. But, as LandDolphin points out, in the end, consumers benefit with cheaper service.
How could this be done differently? BT offers to lay the pipe to the community once they get X subscriptions. But be warned, X will be inflated because BT knows that 15% of the "subscribed" customers will back out (or some other significant percantage. as this is slashdot, no research into percentages was done). This inflation is may be enough for small towns to think that BT won't come into their area and the same thing still happens; they procure it themselves. In addition, BT isn't likely to want to promote such a program because it means answering questions and training staff when the actual implementation rate is very small.
No, it's not pretty, but it's real. In the end, what's there to cry about? They're not on 56k anymore.