Print

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

[GigabitEthernet]

I don't know how there is even any dispute that BT are going to {censored} up EE.

O2 they {censored} up, their network is in a terrible state, largely in part to no investment and money grabbing from BT before they sold it off.

FTTC. A half-arsed solution to a problem that already had good solutions.

Openreach. A half-arsed solution to a problem which already had good solutions.

[kitz]

To me, it shows that OR still works in BT's interest. OR crippled G.INP for everyone because BT don't support it.

False.   g.inp isnt crippled.   Its still there for those on the Huawei cabs if the line needs it.    Gawd knows what is going on with the ECI cabs though. 
This is more to the fact that ECI modems supplied by Openreach doesnt support it.  If half the userbase had ECI modems then they had to do something. 

[kitz]

People say BT are too big, but Sky isn't too far behind.    Sky is the major player wanting BT broken up.   

While I agree with this my point about BTOR needing to be separated from BT is because in fixed line terms they own the vast majority of the estate and therefore effectively control the supply of fixed line telephony and broadband market. Allowing one company to own this while supposedly competing with others who have no alternative but to use OR is just plain wrong. I simply do not accept that this can be 100% fair or 100% transparent, I'm not saying they deliberately do bad things but is just too easy for things to go awry. A separate company would allow the possibility to rebuild the trust of the public in this market operating fairly.

Stuart

My confusion is why should only rules apply to BT.     BT has 6 million retail customers and Virgin has about 5 million.     Why isnt the Virgin Network made open up their backhaul.   Why arent they also made to separate wholesale and consumer?   What about sky's dominance in the satellite service now that triple play and quad play packages are being bundled.   TBH I think there is a huge amount of manipulation going on   

[gt94sss2]

I don't know how there is even any dispute that BT are going to {censored} up EE.

O2 they {censored} up, their network is in a terrible state, largely in part to no investment and money grabbing from BT before they sold it off.

FTTC. A half-arsed solution to a problem that already had good solutions.

Openreach. A half-arsed solution to a problem which already had good solutions.

Really?

O2 demerged from BT in 2001 - if they have any problems now,I doubt they can be laid at BT's feet given 15 years have passed - and o2 have been owned by Telefónica since 2005. IMO BT actually crippled the rest of their business by writing off all of o2's debts before they let them go.

Rolling out FTTC is a perfectly rational choice - certainly more so than rolling out FTTP to everyone which would take longer and be more expensive.

The creation of Openreach was caused by Sky etc. wanting to harm BT - the same reason they want it totally separated now. The competition don't give a toss about new products, lower prices for consumers or better services. Separating OR wil just mean they won't be able to afford to make large new investments like FTTP and G.Fast which they can do as part of BT.

I'm not saying BT are going to make a success of EE - too early to say. The big risk in my own mind is actually to BT since France Telecom/DT will now own 15/16% of BT and have a seat on the board...

[Chrysalis]

For those that see BT as a company run just for wealthy shareholders, why not cash in?   Become a shareholder, easily done with a few click of the mouse on various online brokers.   

Personally, with a small BT shareholding dating back to the original privatisation I'd advise caution, unless you've done all your homework and have very specific reasons for your beliefs.    They have had ups and downs in recent years.  But over that entire period, since privatisation, it is worth comparing share price vs indexes or inflation - form your own opinions.

My family already are shareholders :p

One of the best bets in terms of UK companies, as this company very strongly puts shareholders first.

Also price isnt everything, EE's approach I liked, they are not the cheapest mobile provider, they dont try to hide that, but they cost more because they invest more, they built the best UK mobile network with that revenue.

The CEO when he came to this country blogged about how bad the UK culture was in terms of technology progression.

The warning signs are already here, BT mobile has already started months ago and the packages are way more generous than EE which indicates a pile it high strategy is going to be used.

[Chrysalis]

People say BT are too big, but Sky isn't too far behind.    Sky is the major player wanting BT broken up.   

While I agree with this my point about BTOR needing to be separated from BT is because in fixed line terms they own the vast majority of the estate and therefore effectively control the supply of fixed line telephony and broadband market. Allowing one company to own this while supposedly competing with others who have no alternative but to use OR is just plain wrong. I simply do not accept that this can be 100% fair or 100% transparent, I'm not saying they deliberately do bad things but is just too easy for things to go awry. A separate company would allow the possibility to rebuild the trust of the public in this market operating fairly.

Stuart

My confusion is why should only rules apply to BT.     BT has 6 million retail customers and Virgin has about 5 million.     Why isnt the Virgin Network made open up their backhaul.   Why arent they also made to separate wholesale and consumer?   What about sky's dominance in the satellite service now that triple play and quad play packages are being bundled.   TBH I think there is a huge amount of manipulation going on   

I think BT are a much more dangerous proposition than sky, what infrastructure do sky own that is hard to duplicate? Nothing.  Their assets is sports rights which have to be renewed very frequently, BT quite easily made a big bite into those rights when they decided to get interested.  Sky are now in a bad position, BT been involved made them grossly overpay for the next EPL rights e.g.

Meanwhile BT own a national local loop infrastructure (hull excempted) that is incredibly expensive to duplicate, the companies that built the cable network which VM now owns went bankrupt doing so.  They have an effective monopoly which ofcom has falsely painted as competitive.  Because of this e.g. they are able to ignore the weak regulation on line rental by making the lost revenue back by raising their retail line rental prices, the other companies jumped in on the act by making sure they only slightly undercutting BT and ofcom have somehow classed this as acceptable for the consumer market.

The separation of openreach is not a true separation, one has to be (been blunt) quite ignorant or silly to really believe that business decisions made by openreach have absolutely nothing to do with its parent company.  e.g. When BT retail decided they need to market higher than 24mbit/sec by coincidence openreach decides to roll out FTTC.  BT retail are happy to use DLM, by coincidence thats all openreach provide.  Also its a false picture to claim sky are alone in wanting openreach broken up.  There is sky, vodafone and talktalk, as well as many consumers.  All ofcom require openreach to do is offer the same product to other companies that BT retail uses, thats it.  There is no obligation on openreach to provide a product that BT's competitors ask for.

Sky may well not be totally honest in their public statements, however they are right on the following things.

Openreach investment is a pittance when compared to its operating revenue.
Openreach service quality level's are one of the worst in the world.
Openreach wont adapt their product offerings to what non BT customers are asking for.

BT now have 30+ million customers, that completely towers over what sky have.

[broadstairs]

People say BT are too big, but Sky isn't too far behind.    Sky is the major player wanting BT broken up.   

While I agree with this my point about BTOR needing to be separated from BT is because in fixed line terms they own the vast majority of the estate and therefore effectively control the supply of fixed line telephony and broadband market. Allowing one company to own this while supposedly competing with others who have no alternative but to use OR is just plain wrong. I simply do not accept that this can be 100% fair or 100% transparent, I'm not saying they deliberately do bad things but is just too easy for things to go awry. A separate company would allow the possibility to rebuild the trust of the public in this market operating fairly.

Stuart

My confusion is why should only rules apply to BT.     BT has 6 million retail customers and Virgin has about 5 million.     Why isnt the Virgin Network made open up their backhaul.   Why arent they also made to separate wholesale and consumer?   What about sky's dominance in the satellite service now that triple play and quad play packages are being bundled.   TBH I think there is a huge amount of manipulation going on   

I think BT are a much more dangerous proposition than sky, what infrastructure do sky own that is hard to duplicate? Nothing.  Their assets is sports rights which have to be renewed very frequently, BT quite easily made a big bite into those rights when they decided to get interested.  Sky are now in a bad position, BT been involved made them grossly overpay for the next EPL rights e.g.

Meanwhile BT own a national local loop infrastructure (hull excempted) that is incredibly expensive to duplicate, the companies that built the cable network which VM now owns went bankrupt doing so.  They have an effective monopoly which ofcom has falsely painted as competitive.  Because of this e.g. they are able to ignore the weak regulation on line rental by making the lost revenue back by raising their retail line rental prices, the other companies jumped in on the act by making sure they only slightly undercutting BT and ofcom have somehow classed this as acceptable for the consumer market.

The separation of openreach is not a true separation, one has to be (been blunt) quite ignorant or silly to really believe that business decisions made by openreach have absolutely nothing to do with its parent company.  e.g. When BT retail decided they need to market higher than 24mbit/sec by coincidence openreach decides to roll out FTTC.  BT retail are happy to use DLM, by coincidence thats all openreach provide.  Also its a false picture to claim sky are alone in wanting openreach broken up.  There is sky, vodafone and talktalk, as well as many consumers.  All ofcom require openreach to do is offer the same product to other companies that BT retail uses, thats it.  There is no obligation on openreach to provide a product that BT's competitors ask for.

Sky may well not be totally honest in their public statements, however they are right on the following things.

Openreach investment is a pittance when compared to its operating revenue.
Openreach service quality level's are one of the worst in the world.
Openreach wont adapt their product offerings to what non BT customers are asking for.

BT now have 30+ million customers, that completely towers over what sky have.

I could not agree more with your summary on this. I do have sympathy for Black Sheep's position as BT or part of it pay his salary so he is between a rock and a hard place in these discussions. However I can see no logical reason for NOT splitting OR from BT completely as I have repeatedly said. The current position is untenable.

Stuart

[GigabitEthernet]

Do we think OR is likely to be separated at this point?

[gt94sss2]

Sky may well not be totally honest in their public statements, however they are right on the following things.

Openreach investment is a pittance when compared to its operating revenue.

This statement made me have a look at BT's annual report.

In it, Openreach report:

Annual Revenue of 5,011m
Capital Expenditure of 1,082m

20%+ isn't a pittance  - however, its wrong to compare the two figures in principle anyway - as annual revenue excludes things like operating costs and taxes

Comparing the capex to the Operating profit of 1,252m is probably a better metric.

[gt94sss2]

Do we think OR is likely to be separated at this point?

I doubt it.

A separate OR would likely inherit the bulk of BT's pension liabilities for one thing. For another, I think that most who examine the issue realise OR doesn't have the resources to rollout FTTP/G.Fast on its own (its cost of funding would be higher than BT) and others will be keen to avoid a Railtrack type disaster.

[kitz]

My view is plain and simple that I dont feel it would bring any benefit to the state of broadband.  It wont roll out FTTH any faster.   Of course the likes of of Sky and TT want it pulling to pieces.  The fact is there are companies out there who want access without investment. Im suspect of things that get reported in the media especially when much of the control is under the Murdoch empire.   Heck we all saw what happened just this week with the Murdoch empire trying to influence the UK public opinion on the doctors strike.   

The grass is always greener on the other side and I dont believe it will make things any better, the only people who will benefit are laywers and accountants.  Not us. 

IMHO there are far more important things that could be done such as Openreach accountability and communication to the EU. ISPs also need a more direct communication and accountability with Openreach.  What happens with the backhaul and BT wholesale.  This is what we should be concentrating on as splitting it up wont make that any better.    The 'mistake' was selling off Openreach in the first place, but what is done is now done and it is a company that has to have profits and are accountable to their shareholders.

Yes its fun to slate Openreach or BT and I do it too when deserved, and its easy to say they should have gone straight to FTTP rather than FTTC despite it not being economically viable (that argument has already been done to the death!!!) but I really cannot think of any organisation that could have done it any better way based on the geographic problems that we have in the UK.   If vodafone or sky could have done it any better then they could have put their money in... but they are only interested in the profitable towns and cities.

I think that most who examine the issue realise OR doesn't have the resources to rollout FTTP/G.Fast on its own

This ^

[pooclah]

As for splitting OR from BT I think no.  Where would the investment come from apart from increased prices?

Back to the original topic - as to the BT  acquisition of EE I’m in “the wait and see” corner at the moment.  But I did have an interesting conversation with a lady from the BT retention team last evening.  We touched on mobile phones and she seemed to think that there would be some good deals for BT customers once they hit the high streets.

If that’s the case I’m all for it as a BT customer.  And why not it’s got to be good for their customers and their business.

[Chrysalis]

Kitz you got anything to backup FTTP not been viable? because facts from other countries say otherwise.
FTTP is viable providing the shareholders can accept the reduced profits in the short term. 

pooclah if the only thing you care about is low prices then maybe.

Think of the situation now, the bundling, the penalties for not bundling.  Do you think EE customers who "dont" have BT broadband or BT line rental will be better off?, no we would be subsidising those with bundles. do you think EE will continue to innovate and invest in high capacity compared to their competition?

Kitz sorry but openreach really are that bad.

4+ weeks for installations.
Threat of fee's for a fault callout.
No same day callout's for consumers.
Unable to coordinate end user equipment to match street equipment.
Engineers failing to turn up.
Voice engineers turning up for broadband faults.
Cancelled appointments.
Having an extremely low standard for what passes as a working service.
They cant even rollout FTTP properly, having to put FTTPoD on hold and have FTTP orders lingering for several months.
I think you getting your emotions mixed up with what you think of murdoch vs sky as a company.  Sky as a company compared to BT is not even in the same league in terms of size, grip on the market and influence on telecoms.

You say openreach need more accountability (which I agree), but then you fail to realise why we got in this position, because BT and openreach are the same company, ofcom forced a sort of artificial split and this meant openreach no longer have direct accountability because ofcom specifically didnt want them dealing direct with consumers.

If openreach was a completely separate company then ofcom are more likely to back out of that artificial arrangement and as such accountability could increase.

Pooclah the investment would come from openreach's profit and increased prices (yes wholesale prices are too low in my opinion).

Really ofcom only need to do 3 things and everything would be much better.

Split off openreach as a new company.
Regulate retail instead of wholesale. (this includes stopping misleading pricing).
Encourage investment instead of a race to bottom in prices. 

Both sky and vodafone have said they would be shareholders of the new company and directly finance a better infrastructure.  http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/24/vodafone-shareholder-company-replacing-bt-openreach-fibre-optic

What they dont want to do is rent of openreach to finance BT retail.

[Chrysalis]

Sky may well not be totally honest in their public statements, however they are right on the following things.

Openreach investment is a pittance when compared to its operating revenue.

This statement made me have a look at BT's annual report.

In it, Openreach report:

Annual Revenue of 5,011m
Capital Expenditure of 1,082m

20%+ isn't a pittance  - however, its wrong to compare the two figures in principle anyway - as annual revenue excludes things like operating costs and taxes

Comparing the capex to the Operating profit of 1,252m is probably a better metric.

2.5billion over 5 years is a pittance.

That capital expenditure isnt all what it seems.

[kitz]

Kitz sorry but openreach really are that bad.

4+ weeks for installations.
Threat of fee's for a fault callout.
No same day callout's for consumers.
Unable to coordinate end user equipment to match street equipment.
Engineers failing to turn up.
Voice engineers turning up for broadband faults.
Cancelled appointments.

Im afraid I disagree.   I dont see how splitting them off will specifically tackle these issues.   They should be tackled regardless.