Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Black Sheep]

Announced on ITV news ...... no split confirmed. 





[Admin] Edited title slightly

[WWWombat]

http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2016/digital-comms-review-feb16/

Ofcom’s decisions are designed to achieve:

• A choice of networks for consumers and businesses. Openreach must open up its network of telegraph poles and underground tunnels to allow rivals to build their own, advanced fibre networks, connected directly to homes and offices.
• Reform of Openreach. Openreach needs to change, taking its own decisions on budget, investment and strategy, in consultation with the wider industry.
• Better quality of service across the telecoms industry. Ofcom intends to introduce tougher rules on faults, repairs and installations; transparent information on service quality; and automatic compensation for consumers when things go wrong.
• Better broadband and mobile coverage. Ofcom will work with the Government to deliver a new universal right to fast, affordable broadband for every household and business in the UK. We also intend to place new obligations in future spectrum licences to improve rural mobile coverage.

[WWWombat]

The output is a 100-page document of "initial conclusions". The plan is to move onto consultations on everything over the next year.

I'm going to need a stock of earplugs and patience, I think.

[Black Sheep]

Ha ha ..... cheers for further info W3, I'm obviously working and only had time to post up a quick few words. I'm sure there'll be more 'condensed info' to follow ?? 

[broadstairs]

Just to point out that on BBC Breakfast this morning the CEO of OFCOM said that the split is OFF FOR NOW, they reserve the right to do it IF these changes are not implemented or effective in improving things. So its clear that BT OR has to significantly improve or it WILL be split.

Stuart

[Black Sheep]

With respect, I feel that's just a bog-standard caveat OFCOM have added to appease the pro-split camp as much as they can. Yes, there will be changes that I sincerely hope are for the better, and not just done for changes sake, but OFCOM have hade all the info to hand and decided it is not in the best interests of the UK to split off OR from BT. That is definitely the right decision IMHO.

[broadstairs]

With respect, I feel that's just a bog-standard caveat OFCOM have added to appease the pro-split camp as much as they can. Yes, there will be changes that I sincerely hope are for the better, and not just done for changes sake, but OFCOM have hade all the info to hand and decided it is not in the best interests of the UK to split off OR from BT. That is definitely the right decision IMHO.

Well I hope you are correct for all our sakes. BT have a mountain to climb to restore faith in themselves with a huge swath of the public and they need to do what OFCOM want quickly. The current situation with regard to investment in broadband infrastructure is woeful and they need to focus on the needs of the public and less on their shareholders profiting.  BT must not be allowed to feel they have got off the hook here and they must change their culture, they should be servants of the public first and foremost, we cannot allow them to keep us in the digital dark ages which is what has happened up to now.

Stuart

[WWWombat]

What I like about what I've read so far:

• Ofcom focus: "We will make a strategic shift to encourage large-scale deployment of new ultrafast networks, including fibre direct to homes and businesses, as an alternative to the copper-based technologies currently being planned by BT." (they include VM in other variants of the statement in the document).
  In particular, they want to see one or more new entrants competing head-to-head with BT and VM as network operators. I assume they mean a scale new entrant, otherwise Gigaclear would obviously qualify.
• Pushing forward the USO of 10Mbps, but recognising it must increase: "However, the broadband USO will need to rise over time, particularly over a ten-year time frame. "
• Quality of service improvements, with financial carrots and sticks, including compensation. This isn't just aimed at Openreach, but at all ISPs too. The whole segment needs to raise support standards.
• A realisation that, while the idea of full separation, a total split, is the ultimate sanction, such a split would also be a final, inflexible solution that could not be undone. Ofcom said "In a rapidly changing sector, there would be risks with establishing a fixed ‘boundary’ for Openreach. In other words, splitting BT once and for all reduces the flexibility to re-set the boundary if future technologies or competition means change is appropriate."
  Although Ofcom threaten that Separation could still happen, my take is that Ofcom have realised there is cake to be had and eaten simultaneously. I think they want to keep dual-access to the cake, so don't perceive the threat to be realistic.
• Woohoo: A realisation that LLU was not such a good idea after all: "Service-based competition has delivered good outcomes, but does not promote major network investment". Plus a mention that most of the events that have spurred BT onward have come from competing with cable. Edit: This realisation might have spurred the statement above. If they got LLU a bit wrong 10 years ago, they could be getting a split wrong now.
• This realisation that LLU was good for prices, but not network building, comes alongside an admission that perhaps the goal of "cheapest" isn't always right, either: "We are keen to see investment in new infrastructure, but interventions to achieve these aims must also take into consideration the risk that they result in higher prices to consumers. However, in some cases, the risk of harm through a lack of investment may be greater than the risk of harm where policy choices temporarily result in higher prices."

What I'm not sure about:

• Ofcom's intent to create this new FTTP network is based on improved access to Openreach ducts and poles. Can they really make that work? They've written plenty about it, so it will take a while to digest.
• There's still a lot of focus on the mechanisms of Opereach's independence, but there is almost nothing that relates back to Virgin's operations. Given that, on the network investment side, they are quick to point out how much has come from BT competing with VM, there is little analysis of how independence might hamper BT's ability to compete there - or with a vertically-integrated "new entrant". That is disappointing.

[WWWombat]

BT's response from Gavin:

http://btplc.com/News/#/news/bt-statement-ofcom-digital-communications-review-152613

Includes

We welcome those comments. The focus now needs to be on a strengthened but proportionate form of the current model and we have put forward a positive proposal that we believe can form the basis for further discussions with both Ofcom and the wider industry.

“Our proposal includes a new governance structure for Openreach as well a clear commitment on investment. Openreach is already one of the most heavily regulated businesses in the world but we have volunteered to accept tighter regulation to bring matters to a clear and speedy conclusion.

“We are happy to let other companies use our ducts and poles if they are genuinely keen to invest very large sums as we have done. Our ducts and poles have been open to competitors since 2009 but there has been little very interest to date. We will see if that now changes.

“We are keen to understand and address Ofcom’s concerns so we will review their paper in detail. A great deal of what they are proposing is already in place and we are open to discussions about how the current rules can be amended and updated. A voluntary, binding settlement is in everyone’s interests and we will work hard to ensure one is reached”

[William Grimsley]

No split? I'm in outrage! It would have been the best decision for them to split!

[Black Sheep]

With respect, I feel that's just a bog-standard caveat OFCOM have added to appease the pro-split camp as much as they can. Yes, there will be changes that I sincerely hope are for the better, and not just done for changes sake, but OFCOM have hade all the info to hand and decided it is not in the best interests of the UK to split off OR from BT. That is definitely the right decision IMHO.

Well I hope you are correct for all our sakes. BT have a mountain to climb to restore faith in themselves with a huge swath of the public and they need to do what OFCOM want quickly. The current situation with regard to investment in broadband infrastructure is woeful and they need to focus on the needs of the public and less on their shareholders profiting.  BT must not be allowed to feel they have got off the hook here and they must change their culture, they should be servants of the public first and foremost, we cannot allow them to keep us in the digital dark ages which is what has happened up to now.

Stuart

If you read the documentation/debate that's taken place on here and other public sites, you'll see that investment is already huge and the best in Europe (I think that was the claim ?).

Also, we are far from keeping the public in "The dark ages" ........... again most, if not all statistics show completely different. I wish I had time to go trawling through the various 'Links' to back up this claim, but I don't. However, OFCOM have obviously listened to the facts as presented and agree.

I will again say that of course change needs to happen, but we can't be "Public servants" as you wish us to be, we are a share-holding company first and foremost, we have a duty to the shareholders, not Joe Public. We didn't ask for it to be that way, MT dictated it would BE that way.

I think this decision has been correct and it will bear fruit.

[Black Sheep]

Just dropped into my in-box ................. from the man at the very top, a guy in the know. 

Ofcom digital communications review

Last year Ofcom announced a review of the UK’s digital communications markets and this morning they have published their initial conclusions document.

As we have said all along, the UK benefits from Openreach being part of the BT Group. So today we are pleased that Ofcom haven’t felt the need to refer this issue to the CMA and that they see structural separation as a last resort. The focus now needs to be on a strengthened but proportionate form of the current model.
 
We have put forward a positive proposal that we believe can form the basis for further discussions with both Ofcom and the wider industry. Our proposal includes a new governance structure for Openreach as well as a clear commitment on investment. Openreach is already one of the most heavily regulated businesses in the world but we have volunteered to accept tighter regulation to bring matters to a clear and speedy conclusion.

Our ducts and poles have been open to competitors since 2009 but there has been very little interest to date. We are happy to let other companies use our ducts and poles but they will need to invest large sums and accept long paybacks as we have done.
The UK is already ahead of its European peers when it comes to superfast broadband and we want it to maintain that position. That’s why BT is keen to make significant additional investments. These would address slow speeds in the final five per cent of the UK, give SMEs more options and deliver a new ultrafast network.

We want to build an even faster network and we also plan to address slow speeds in the final five per cent of the country. It is also important that we give small businesses further options aside from dedicated lines, which suit many but not all. Customer expectations have increased dramatically in recent years and we are keen to work with Ofcom and industry to meet those expectations. We all want to improve service. Openreach is already subject to regulated service standards and we are happy to work with Ofcom to improve them.
 
I know for colleagues, particularly those in Openreach, Ofcom’s review has been unsettling. We now stand ready to move on from this debate and very much hope that Ofcom and industry will both take a constructive approach.
 
We are keen to understand and address Ofcom’s concerns so we will now review their paper in detail. A great deal of what they are proposing is already in place and we are open to discussions about how the current rules can be amended and updated. We believe a voluntary, binding settlement is in everyone’s interests and we will work hard to ensure one is reached.

Gavin

[broadstairs]

With respect, I feel that's just a bog-standard caveat OFCOM have added to appease the pro-split camp as much as they can. Yes, there will be changes that I sincerely hope are for the better, and not just done for changes sake, but OFCOM have hade all the info to hand and decided it is not in the best interests of the UK to split off OR from BT. That is definitely the right decision IMHO.

Well I hope you are correct for all our sakes. BT have a mountain to climb to restore faith in themselves with a huge swath of the public and they need to do what OFCOM want quickly. The current situation with regard to investment in broadband infrastructure is woeful and they need to focus on the needs of the public and less on their shareholders profiting.  BT must not be allowed to feel they have got off the hook here and they must change their culture, they should be servants of the public first and foremost, we cannot allow them to keep us in the digital dark ages which is what has happened up to now.

Stuart

If you read the documentation/debate that's taken place on here and other public sites, you'll see that investment is already huge and the best in Europe (I think that was the claim ?).

Also, we are far from keeping the public in "The dark ages" ........... again most, if not all statistics show completely different. I wish I had time to go trawling through the various 'Links' to back up this claim, but I don't. However, OFCOM have obviously listened to the facts as presented and agree.

I will again say that of course change needs to happen, but we can't be "Public servants" as you wish us to be, we are a share-holding company first and foremost, we have a duty to the shareholders, not Joe Public. We didn't ask for it to be that way, MT dictated it would BE that way.

I think this decision has been correct and it will bear fruit.

This is not the tread for me to re-hash all the things as to what is wrong and why I do believe we are in the digital dark ages, suffice to say that there is loads of evidence about what has gone wrong and why the investment has all been in the wrong place, there is so much that BT could have done which they have not and now need to be 'encouraged' to do. Try living more than a mile from a cabinet or running a business in a rural area it is nothing short of hopeless. As to what MT did I'm sure she did not think at the time that BT would become the behemoth it has and would be so slow to move and invest. You will have to forgive me for not thinking that change will happen in the timeframe or scale that is needed.

Stuart

[kitz]

I dont feel that BT should be too smug about the changes as there could still be areas of difficultly in maintaining more independence.  They still have a lot of work to do too.    I havent had time to digest everything yet as there's a heck of a lot of reading to do.

Our ducts and poles have been open to competitors since 2009 but there has been very little interest to date. We are happy to let other companies use our ducts and poles but they will need to invest large sums and accept long paybacks as we have done.

That was the one thing that struck me when scanning.....  [leads to]

"Openreach must open up its network of telegraph poles and underground tunnels to allow rivals to build their own, advanced fibre networks, connected directly to homes and offices."

We know that Vodafone was offered access several years ago, then backed out. 

“Competing providers should be incentivised to build their own networks where this is viable. It must not be too ‘easy’ for competitors to rely on ‘buying’ access to another’s network when there is the potential to invest in their own,”

So now the public is aware that the others can do this, Its perhaps time for some to put their money where their mouth is.  Although saying that IMHO there is very few that would look at rural areas, which is where the most investment needs doing - ie not necessarily full fibre, but actually give USO speeds. 

I wonder where Virgin fits in here too and even wonder if it would be beneficial for Virgin to provide wholesale services. 

There was a wimpish comment in the OFCOM report about not controlling retail prices somewhere.  I believe they need to look at the practice of cross subsidisation from telephony to broadband.   I dont believe the current practice is fair on vulnerable members of society who need a landline but are not bothered about broadband.


It was interesting to read a couple of comments in the review from a few SPs [TT and one other] about higher retail prices to commercially unviable areas.   It would be interesting to see responses from those consumers in difficult to reach areas if they would be prepared to pay a premium.  In a way there is already a half baked situation of higher prices due to Market exchange categorisation.

“So today we’ve announced fundamental reform of the telecoms market - more competition,

More competition is something that I often see spouted from the mouth of OFCOM.   So how come the UK consumer now has a lot less choice of SPs these days.  Everything seems to revolve around the big 5.  Cheap pricing at the expense of CS and investment isn't necessarily 'more competition".

consult on introducing automatic compensation;
Broadband, landline and mobile customers will no longer have to seek redress themselves, but will instead receive refunds automatically for any loss or reduction of service.

Good. Although I need more info before making a judgement as to how this will work in practice.   Too often in the past it is difficult for the EU to get compensation with some ISPs making it difficult using the excuse they have to claim from Openreach.   I fail to see what difference this makes to any other industry.  If you bought a kettle from Argos and it didnt work, then you take it back to Argos and its up to them to take it up with the wholesaler.  If you are going to retail anything, then the consumer has recourse with the the retailer.   TBH though I would still like an option that the EU could contact Openreach direct in certain circumstances.
Im also wondering where and if MBORCs fit in here too.

[Bowdon]

I haven't read the full report yet. I've just been listening to the news and reading peoples reactions to it.

I'm glad that the split didnt happen as no alternative idea was ever actually spoken about. It would have been a leap of faith in to darkness.

I am concerned though that there won't be much action pressed at all from Ofcom. The things that are mentioned to regulate OR internally were already going to happen and had already been announced by BT a while ago.

The only part so far that I've read with the interaction between the BT-OR fibre ducts and allowing rivals to use them, in the BT reaction statement it said

Our ducts and poles have been open to competitors since 2009 but there has been very little interest to date. We are happy to let other companies use our ducts and poles but they will need to invest large sums and accept long paybacks as we have done.

So what is going to change now? Apart from making a statement nothing is going to change, unless another company actually does push forward with using them. Also if they do and they meet perceived roadblocks by BT-OR (or whatever is stopping them), then what? It'll still end up in the stalemate that it currently is.

I think Ofcom missed a real opportunity here. They took their eyes off the ball having been lured in to the split question. They should have instead worked on tweaking the smaller things that will help change the foundation.

Also I have to add about the LLU issue. Though I agree that these days it holds back fibre technology advancement and with hindsight people say LLU shouldnt have happened. Hindsight is 20/20. Back then the LLU ISP's were making advancements way before BT did as it was many years until BT themselves introduced similar technologies. If BT back then had been at the forefront of pushing new technologies then LLU's might not have been needed.

Ok, I'm heading off to read more.