Print

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

[Chrysalis]

This isnt a news article, however I am not sure the best part of the forum to post, mods can move it if they need to.

I just have 2 simple questions I want to ask the people who are strongly against a BT, openreach split.  This is not really aimed at those who are only slightly leaning towards not having a split, but those who think its critical a split doesnt happen.  This appears to be from my observation, Black Sheep, kitz and ignition.

1 - Do you think anything needs to be improved in terms of regulation, investment levels and openreach performance levels with end user customers.  So basically do you think there is even a problem in the first place to fix.
2 - If yes to #1, what do you propose could be carried out instead of moving openreach to a shared ownership across the industry.

I am not interested in the squabbles (legal battles) that will occur immediately after a split is announced but rather what the long term reasons are for moving things forward whilst keeping openreach under BT ownership.

[kitz]

Im certain Ive given my opinions why in plenty of other threads

1) I have NEVER said "truly believe keeping the status quo with no changes at all is the way forward" as you imply in the other thread.  I have said time and time again that more accountability needs to be given to the EU and there are plenty of areas which need improvement.

2) Nor have I ever said its critical that it doesn't happen.  I just that I don't think it would benefit the EU and it could actually make things worse.  There's in depth reasons why in the other threads.

I've said repeatedly that the difficulty with the split would be the deciding factor of what belongs to Openreach and what belongs to BT Wholesale.   Its been brought up numerous times in the parliamentary debates and even many of the anti-BT brigade have admitted that it would be difficult  and involve years of legal battles deciding who owns what.   One of witnesses who wasn't pro-BT even admitted that there was no inventory for all of the BT estate and it would take years to resolve.   Id prefer that time, money and effort put into making a better network.

I don't think the grass would be any greener on the other side, because at the end of the day it would still be owned by shareholders and the company would have a duty to ensure a profit and ROI. 

I've said from the get go that IMHO the only winners would be accountants and lawyers. 
 
Ive said several times that is there was any splitting off to do, then IMHO it would be more logical to split off BT retail.   That way the SPs could just buy the services they need, where they need it and the consumer and BT retail aspect doesn't come into the equation anywhere thus totally avoiding any accusations of conflict of interest. 

[Dray]

A simple answer is to merge BTW into Openreach before the split from BT.

[kitz]

Separation from BTw is what IMHO will cause most of problems.   The way things are atm Openreach is reliant on BTw and vice versa.     Ive given plenty of examples in the past.   Most of my argument against the split purely revolves around the complication with wholesale.    But that seems to have gone totally ignored.   

You have Wholesale using Openreach fibre for their backhauls and even core.   Openreach needing equipment designated belonging to wholesale.   The RAS's are wholesale.  DLM is owned by wholesale.    Btw dslams are wholesale yet in Openreach property, these would need securing and handover frames similar to LLU. 

A simple answer is to merge BTW into Openreach before the split from BT.

and why Ive said in the past that it would be easier to merge the 2 and instead split off retail.   

[Chrysalis]

Thank you for replying kitz, but if I understand you correctly the only reason you dont want it to happen is due to BT making it diffilcult with legal battles.

What I wanted to hear is "another" reason to not split the company, and how you think BT can solve the current problems with openreach.

As I said before I am open to a non split, but then realised the only reason given has been because BT will make it difficult. which to me would mean any large private entity could bully regulators in the same manner.

[kitz]

but if I understand you correctly the only reason you dont want it to happen is due to BT making it diffilcult with legal battles.

You misunderstand. 

It is a FACT that it will be complicated.   Go listen to the Parliamentary debates, its been disclosed on there why it will be so difficult and legally complex.  Even some of the pro-split reluctantly agree that its due to the complication of who owns what.   It will take years of legal battles even if BT aren't being awkward about it. 
 
What I dont think you're understanding that even if BT gave it all away for free without any objections what so ever, the legal costs would be enormous and take years.  This is FACT.  That is why I say I would prefer the money to go into a better infrastructure rather than lining the pockets of lawyers and accountants.

and how you think BT can solve the current problems with openreach

Better accountability to the EU...  but Sky et al put the mockers on that one a few years ago. 


I feel that Im going round in circles here.   Im not saying anything new.

[Chrysalis]

Kitz the problem is you havent said much at all.  Thats why I am asking.

The complication seems a very weak reason.  Its like letting a criminal go free because it would be too complicated to get a successful prosecution.
Its a short term reason.

How would BT provide the better accountability, where have they said in public they want that and how they would do it?
Also where is the public information on sky putting a blocker on improvements?  I agree that's a bad thing "if" it happened which I also said in another thread, but I would like to see evidence as its otherwise speculation.

[kitz]

I just don't see that splitting them is the right course of action and wont make everything right nor can I see how it would suddenly magic things better.  If Openreach need to improve lead times then they can do that without a split being required.    I feel it is a waste of resources and distraction.    They haven't committed any criminal offence just being told to improve their service.  If you want someone to run faster then you don't do that by cut off their foot.

Ofcoms reason for suggesting the split is about increasing competition.   I'm afraid I have little faith in OFCOM and its idea of competition.  Where has that got us so far.   We as consumers have far less choice now than before ofcom started meddling with their definition of competition for the EU. 

In fact when it comes to OFCOMs other options, how about deregulation?  Has OFCOM really done anything of benefit, some even suggest it hinders. Did MST really benefit the consumer.   Yeah we got low prices and 'free introductory broadband', but at what cost to quality.   Do I want to be chasing and swapping providers every year,  I care about quality of service for the customers and big introductory cheap headline offers arent the way to do this.     The media is all about calling for a split.   They totally gloss over all the other options open to OFCOM.     

you havent said much at all.

I've said things that I thought were relevant.  There's plenty of others that have said more, perhaps because they may have more time than me.   

I have other concerns, but Im not much into conspiracy theories and speculation so I keep those thoughts to myself.
The world of broadband is currently a dirty place and has dirty players.  I believe all is not as it seems.    Ask yourself who is muddying the waters and to what aim and who would be the real beneficiary if Openreach was to split.   

How would BT provide the better accountability, where have they said in public they want that and how they would do it?

This was the Openreach Charter to address consumers complaints that they could not speak to Openreach directly.

“[We will improve communications] by providing more information about the availability of fibre broadband and by engaging with our communications provider customers to find ways of allowing their customers to contact Openreach directly.”

It was vetoed by Sky & TT.   They over-ruled what we the customers were asking for.   Thats how OFCOM regulation works.  If Sky & TT etc object then it cant immediately proceed.     Regulation does naff all to help the consumers, its all about what the SPs want.

Also where is the public information on sky putting a blocker on improvements?

We are going round in circles.   wombat has already provided that information in the thread when you asked there.

The info is available on the internet - heres the first article I came across Rivals derail BT's plan to allow customers to contact broadband division Openreach directly
Bear in mind that is written for the Daily Mail.

When you start looking at the broader aspect and when you know that regulation itself causes delays
ie FTTC would have commenced earlier if BT didnt have to seek OFCOM permission first, there are plenty of other examples where it has hindered... then its no wonder that some think OFCOMs other option of de-regulation is actually the better one for the consumer and actually force competition on a more level playing field.
 

[jelv]

I'll repeat: force realistic compensation to be paid automatically to the end user for missed appointments and for appointments that do not result in the intended outcome (e.g. fault fixed).

As soon as the bean counters (and shareholders) realise their bad performance is costing money things will change.

No changes of organisation or ownership is needed which in any case would not be as effective as this simple change.

[Weaver]

@jelv - Jelv, what do we do about all the turkeys, the wally users who report a fault where there is none, or where the problem is outside Openreach's network?

[jelv]

OpenReach reject it back to the ISP - it's up to the ISP how they deal with their end user.

[Chrysalis]

Thanks for the link kitz, that is the first time I have seen it.

It suggests all the GEA providers (not just sky) put a block on it, which I agree is not a good thing.  Of course ofcom been ofcom let it be.

I tell you what I think on how a non split can improve things.

So the two things I think will improve the service to end users.

Either

1 - split openreach off "and" reduce regulation, even if the deregulation comes later.  If the split occurs hold vodafone,sky to their word that they wil invest in FTTP by 2020.
Or
2 - Keep openreach part of BT but remove the resellers from the decision making process, so BT becomes solely responsible for openreach policies, meaning if there is still no openreach interaction with end users we then know thats what BT wants, or if BT truly really do want to add interaction they can then apply it.  At the same time I would deregulate exchanges like newt's where it is clear LLU providers wont unbundle the exchange, and set a time span for adsl obsolescence.  The latter can allow BT to remove E side copper, reducing maintenance costs, fault issues and allow removal of the adsl power cutback on cabinet services.

The worst thing to do is keep openreach part of BT and still allow GEA providers to meddle (a policy which clearly doesnt work in the long term interests).

[gt94sss2]

It suggests all the GEA providers (not just sky) put a block on it, which I agree is not a good thing.  Of course ofcom been ofcom let it be.

Its not just Sky that blocked/objected to Openreach taking a more public facing role - others communication providers did as well - almost certainly TalkTalk and probably Vodafone as well.

It got quite a lot of media coverage at the time (not just in the Daily Mail) - a quick search shows the FT and ISP Review among others.

I think technically its still out for consultation, but if Openreach's customers (who are the ISPs) don't want it - it won't happen [Ofcom would need to approve it]. The big ISPs are more interested in maintaining their "customer/brand relationship" rather than improving their customer experience.

But not all the other providers were against it - you can assume that Plusnet and BT Retail were not among those objecting nor a number of other ISPs

I tell you what I think on how a non split can improve things.

So the two things I think will improve the service to end users.

Either

1 - split openreach off "and" reduce regulation, even if the deregulation comes later.  If the split occurs hold vodafone,sky to their word that they wil invest in FTTP by 2020.

Hold the others to their word how? A lot of their claims are fabrications (can I use the word lies) designed to influence the debate - they have no intention of building FTTP networks. Have you heard much about the UFO trial? Its not even mentioned in Sky's latest report.

Not having any infrastructure competition is not good.

2 - Keep openreach part of BT but remove the resellers from the decision making process, so BT becomes solely responsible for openreach policies, meaning if there is still no openreach interaction with end users we then know thats what BT wants, or if BT truly really do want to add interaction they can then apply it. 

And this won't happen as its effectively the position that existed before Openreach - leading to claims that other ISPs were being treated unfairly and products and services are designed only for BT.

At the same time I would deregulate exchanges like newt's where it is clear LLU providers wont unbundle the exchange, and set a time span for adsl obsolescence.  The latter can allow BT to remove E side copper, reducing maintenance costs, fault issues and allow removal of the adsl power cutback on cabinet services.

The worst thing to do is keep openreach part of BT and still allow GEA providers to meddle (a policy which clearly doesnt work in the long term interests).

We agree on this point

[HPsauce]

Now here's a thought  :
Spin off Openreach to a Quango-style not-for-profit service to all in whatever form of "public" ownership is acceptable to the government of the time. Take all the cable infrastructure from Virgin etc. and make them responsible for all that as well (that will be a fun negotiation!) and open it up to other suppliers.

Then we'll have a more level playing field across the nation. 

Until something "radical" like that is contemplated I see no point in splitting off the current organisation.

[WWWombat]

Now here's a thought  :
Spin off Openreach to a Quango-style not-for-profit service to all in whatever form of "public" ownership is acceptable to the government of the time. Take all the cable infrastructure from Virgin etc. and make them responsible for all that as well (that will be a fun negotiation!) and open it up to other suppliers.

Then we'll have a more level playing field across the nation. 

I've even thought of a name for it ... NBNCo