Print

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

[Weaver]

The dragging it out thing is a very good point. It has a lot of implications.

I just hope to goodness that Ofcom has some sense and walks away. It would be madness to try and break up BT which I thought was a private company. If the government doesn't like what BT is doing with Openreach then the best thing for them to do is to buy a substantial shareholding in BT and take some partial control that way. Even better would be to do that and give the results to an association of small ISPs (or ISPs which are currently customers of Openreach).

[niemand]

Plus, what will happen to BT FTTC / FTTP research and trials? g.fast and vectoring progress could suffer.

Anything that costs money will stop pretty much immediately. I would imagine.

G.fast will certainly not progress past the CP trials. FoD 2 won't either.

Nothing substantial will happen during the inevitable years of wrangling first between BT and Ofcom then BT and the CMA.

BT would likely complete their current BDUK contracts and not enter into any more.

BT would probably stop further commercial FTTC rollout in areas they are infilling.

As it became clear there was no way around it business as usual maintenance would drop off and workforce would be reduced if feasible and financially sensible.

Still Ofcom would feel good that they'd promoted competition, while their navel gazing ensures they get to ignore all the fallout.

[Black Sheep]

Very, very insightful and educational mootings, Ignitionet. The excellent blog you also wrote, sums up the total lack of knowledge of Shapps and the other MP's.

Have you per-chance forwarded a copy to each 'pro-MP's' e-mail for their perusal ....... a lengthy task I will admit, but perhaps a fruitful one ?? 

[Bowdon]

I think the only justifable reason to split OR away from BT would be if another company was willing to take it over and invest more money in to it.

Though even in that situation it wouldnt be fair on BT. This other company should be named, and facts and figures should be made known to BT, so the BT/OR plan can be tested against this new offer.

If this Ofcom decision decides to split it and have no company in mind, or say its to promote competition then its just wrecking things out of frustration. Unfortunately in this day and age 'outsiders' to the industry will hear more complaints than good things because people rarely write down good things, yet they are the first to post when its a complaint.

I do wonder what influence former BT CEO Ben Verwaayen will have on the Ofcom decision, if any.

http://www.mobilenewscwp.co.uk/2016/01/15/ex-bt-ceo-ben-verwaayen-joins-ofcom-board/

Ex-BT CEO Ben Verwaayen joins Ofcom board

I also found this story while looking around the net.

http://www.cwu.org/media/news/2016/january/26/cwu-slams-ill-judged-bt-break-up-demand/

The CWU is seeking an urgent meeting with Ofcom as following Saturday’s publication of a Parliamentary report that uses highly questionable statistics and assumptions to justify demands for BT and Openreach to be split up.

[WWWombat]

Have you per-chance forwarded a copy to each 'pro-MP's' e-mail for their perusal ....... a lengthy task I will admit, but perhaps a fruitful one ?? 

I was pleased my MP didn't add himself to the list, because he most certainly would have received a missive from me about his lack of judgement.

So then I went looking to see if any of the MPs who were active in making sure our superfast project got going - and regularly comment (positively) on progress - had joined the club. Nada. It seems like knowledgeable MPs kept away from this.

So then I went looking to find out just who the nearest MP was, and found Nigel Adams MP of Selby and Ainsty.

Interesting, I thought, because he's on the DCMS committee investigating "Establishing world-class connectivity throughout the UK". I wondered whether his signature would endear him to his boss

Anyway, I recalled something from a recent session in parliament, where that DCMS committee were questioning people from Gigaclear and Hyperoptic (it makes good reading on some things about investment for the final 5% - far more interesting than Grant Shapp's document). Gigaclear, for instance runs at just under £1,000 per home for fibre in their commercial areas, and about 50% higher in their BDUK areas.

In that account, Nigel Adams started to ask questions about Gigaclear and Hyperoptic interactions with Openreach ... but before he did so, he put on record the fact that he was a director and shareholder of two telco companies who had dealings with Openreach. Definitely not a hidden agenda there, then.

[kitz]

My MP is on the list.  However she is in B4RN land.
https://twitter.com/catsmithmp/status/631487666694029312

[kitz]

I do wonder what influence former BT CEO Ben Verwaayen will have on the Ofcom decision, if any.

http://www.mobilenewscwp.co.uk/2016/01/15/ex-bt-ceo-ben-verwaayen-joins-ofcom-board/

Ex-BT CEO Ben Verwaayen joins Ofcom board

I cant help but wonder how it will be viewed by the likes of the other telco's either.     
Ben Verwayeen was the driving force behind rolling out broadband and has always been one of his main areas of interest. 
That said didn't he carry the can for something after he left BT, all in all it could prove interesting to watch.

[phi2008]

Anyway, I recalled something from a recent session in parliament, where that DCMS committee were questioning people from Gigaclear and Hyperoptic (it makes good reading on some things about investment for the final 5% - far more interesting than Grant Shapp's document). Gigaclear, for instance runs at just under £1,000 per home for fibre in their commercial areas, and about 50% higher in their BDUK areas.

Video of the session - http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/60ecb09f-cee2-4ac6-b495-212e7ccd5b0e?in=14:15:10

[Chrysalis]

loads of threads on this lately on various forums.  I think I already said my piece, so my comment here is "no comment" to avoid arguments.

[Chrysalis]

Phase 2 of Ofcom's review is supposed to have been completed by the end of 2015, surely Ofcom have reached their decision already and it doesn't really matter what the MPs have concluded?

As I said I wont comment on my views, but will comment on this.

Ofcom have a remit, that remit can be changed by government so MP's do indirectly have a way to change ofcom's leaning but I think what they say is unlikely to have much impact on ofcom's decision unless its a minister leaning ofcom one way or the other.

I think this is one of those situations where ofcom has to be seen to do something (hence their early publicised comments about not keeping the status quo) but also will do as little as possible to not upset the apple cart.  So for this reason regardless of what my views are I think a split is unlikely.  I think we will just see more aggressive regulation.

[Chrysalis]

The dragging it out thing is a very good point. It has a lot of implications.

I just hope to goodness that Ofcom has some sense and walks away. It would be madness to try and break up BT which I thought was a private company. If the government doesn't like what BT is doing with Openreach then the best thing for them to do is to buy a substantial shareholding in BT and take some partial control that way. Even better would be to do that and give the results to an association of small ISPs (or ISPs which are currently customers of Openreach).

I agree with what's been said in that BT will likely drag it out, take it to the courts etc. (if split)

But I think its harsh to blame ofcom for what I think would be basically BT sabotaging the company and the split off just out of spite.

The decision here really is what is more important, the short term or the long term, BT is a short term company, and a split would have short term implications.

[Black Sheep]

We know your view, but have you actually read the full blog from Ignitionet, posted above ?? Have you read the inputs from Kitz and WWWombat

Theirs aren't just posted because the have an 'axe to grind' or are anti-BT in whatever they do,
There posts are ram-packed with FACT, they address (especially the blog) the outcome of every scenario and have pretty much blown apart the 'Shapps report' by presenting the same FACTS.

Of course, we're all entitled to an opinion ...... but the pro-split camp have no idea where it will take them, it's purely based around a generally well-founded but on the whole, limp, argument about Openreach accountability.
I actually agree with this, we should be able to interact with the EU directly, but to split us off from the ONLY non-Govt cash-cow providing investment is sheer madness.

Edited by admin

[kitz]

[mod cap on]
Discuss, but no personal attacks or references please....  or this thread will just go the way of the others.   

[kitz]

But I think its harsh to blame ofcom for what I think would be basically BT sabotaging the company and the split off just out of spite.

I dont think Ive seen anyone directly blame ofcom for this.   They are acting on the calls from the LLU providers to split.
We can see it is getting dirty.  Shapps of all people has a long history.  It was only a matter of weeks ago that he was in the midst of bullying allegations.

The fact is Shapps wrote a misleading and biased report that obviously had an agenda.    The result was this is an example how it was presented to the public via the Murdoch Press.


I dont think BT would deliberately split off and sabotage out of spite.   It stands to reason they aren't going to pour money into something that they are forced to split off.    Ive said since practically year dot that the only beneficiaries would be lawyers and accountants and not the consumers.

The fact is that BT (and its shareholders) own the network.   That deed is done and dusted thanks to Maggie and we cant go back.   Regardless of the fact that it is the incumbent, I dont feel that splitting it off would suddenly make everything better.  There are far more efficient ways of doing this without pouring money down the drain.

I go back to the simplistic argument of why should BT be forced to split up.   Why not Virgin who also have a hefty network.   Why not force Virgin to wholesale like BT?   Should Sky be broken up - its subsidisation from their media & satellite arm that subsidises their broadband arm.   Should the Murdoch monopoly on the media be broken up.     See where Im heading with this.    There will always be one company that contains a majority [of something] and therefore influence.     

At the end of the day it could be seen that this battle is between BT and Sky.   Virgin are keeping well out of it, for reasons of their own.

[phi2008]

The head of Gigaclear believes it will benefit BT shareholders and Openreach(in terms of performance and serving the country) if it is split off - to the detriment of Gigaclear having a better competitor. I'm selfish and just care about improving the broadband network, not shareholders or better performance.