FWIW My view is that BT has a de facto monoply over teh 'last half mile' and indeed of a lot more than the last half mile for the majority of UK subscribers.
It doesn't make economic sense to run cables or fibre from half a dozen suppliers to everybodies door.
Ergo, there will always be a monopoly. Thats the first issue.
The second issue is the value of the infrastructure to the nation: Again its incalculable. To get traffic of fthe monopoly supplied ROADS we have to put as much as possible over the Internet. So its in the country's interest to have te best high speed network going everywhere.
That argues for a state regulated infrastructure, not a commercially driven one.
So teh final issue is, whopays and how?
Well, in the final analysis we, the taxpayer or consumer, pay.
BUT how we pay is a good question.
I argue for a partial re-nationalisation of BT at the infrastructure level, where the de facto monopoly exists. Like Railtrack or whatever its called these days, there needs to be a commercial but NOT FOR PROFIT operation dedicated to implementing new infrastructure at a common cost to all carriers.
That is politically more acceptable than out and out re-nationalization, which risks turning BT back into the inefficient behemoth it once was.
I.e. that copper and teh last mile circuits, together with the fibres and microwave links to them, become public property.
The kit in the exchanges, and the services offered, are the private competing parts of the overall business.
This is the only way I can see that BT can be freed of its need to make a profit for itself using what is essentially a monopoly network. And ensure good connectivity irrespective of geographical location.
Something like a 'bond for share' swap would take place with BT's shareholders..Shares would be replaced with fixed income bonds in the new company. Further capital could be raised in the same way, and a charter drawn up and regulated by OFCOM. Any surplus profit would go either to more infrastructure, or be given back to customers. The aim being a 99.9% coverage with fiber in say 15 years.
This is the only politically acceptable way in which I can see BT's conflict of interest being solved. It should have been done from the word 'go' with the services and customer equipment supply being privatised as a normal commercial enterprise, and the infrstructure privatised in a not for profit state regulated (but NEVER state RUN) monopoly. We don't want another NHS do we? 8)
I wonder which party 'has the mettle to grasp the nettle'..some years back, when BT's share price was similar to what it is now, a telecoms analyst remarked that BT was worth about 4 times its current value if broken up..
