Print

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

[niemand]

I'd say something has changed. The report puts in black and white, with numbers, the assertion that BT are shortchanging investment in the network in favour of higher risk investments. People have long argued that BT Group are using Openreach to subsidise the Retail operation, specifically BT Sport, and this report makes that same accusation.

If true this is not acceptable and needs resolving by any means necessary, up to and including the nuclear option.

[WWWombat]

My neutral point of view

Is an interesting way of describing your own personal opinion. Compared to

Wombat you are coming across as biased

Because I have a different opinion to you?

I, of course, can say the same: My opinion is neutral, and you come across as biased.

Who is right in deciding what is neutral? Who is right in deciding what is biased?

and there is sound arguments that suggest what's happening now isnt acceptable to different sets of people,

Remember the article I pointed at. The one that has to be unbiased about Openreach because it didn't mention it at all?

The whole point about the article was a psychological explanation why people believe themselves to be "unbiased", and why people remain in the same entrenched position no matter what "sound arguments" are presented, no matter how much explanation there is about what is and isn't acceptable.

The article highlights why bias sticks. Why bias remains entrenched. Why people can't see that they are biased. How people rationalise their own entrenchment. And it also highlights why the PR tactics of the likes of Sky and TalkTalk help keep that bias and entrenchment in place.

I made no point about what bias and entrenchment exists - merely that it *does* exist, and offered something about why it does exist, how it gets stoked up, and why it is likely to stay forever.

The fact that, by presenting this, I am accused of bias tells its own story.

he's simply giving his point of view ...... his opinion. This debate has been flogged to death a few times before, nothing's changed just more hot air.

Ironically, the one thing I haven't given in this thread is my opinion about Openreach.

I am trying to give an opinion about why the debate keeps getting flogged to death, why there is more hot air, and why it is destined to continue forever.

[WWWombat]

I'd say something has changed. The report puts in black and white, with numbers,

I agree that it has changed things, but I'm not sure what ... and that is a key reason why I haven't actually expressed my opinion yet.

What I am currently most concerned about is a matter of process - which may turn out to be trivial, and may not. I wonder why a committee of MPs goes about a whole process of gathering evidence in public, where questions and answers are visible, and can be both supported and challenged in public. Where the attitude of questioner and answerer can be assessed. Yet their eventual written report depends on an internal report privately commissioned - where neither the authors are subject to the same assessment, nor their opinions.

How black and white is their assessment? How challenged has it been? How "biased" was the author and the challenger?

Added: I followed a lot of the public sessions, and read a lot of the written input, so got a feel about how much credence to place on each person and on each piece of evidence. When the committee reaches its conclusions, I find they've suddenly got some extra input, and important stuff at that, and I'm now being asked to take it "on faith". It doesn't work like that with me: it feels like the committee didn't like the direction they were heading, and needed to invent something extra to feed their own "motivated reasoning". It doesn't feel open, and instead feel perverted.

And, even if the assessment is both "black and white" and true, is it the cause of the problem, or is it a reaction? As the latest BBC article puts it: does it really show a regulation problem.

Going back to the Trump/Clinton bias-entrenchment article ... I try to not fall foul of this phenomena, though I recognise it is hard. Am I asking sound questions about the report in order to prepare myself to change my mind? Or am I asking slightly biased questions about the report in order to stay entrenched? It feels like something of a knife-edge to walk: being truly unbiased is a hell of a trick.

[niemand]

The numbers on risk and investment thresholds seem black and white. BT are, obviously, more than welcome to provide evidence that Ofcom's assessment of cost of capital to each unit is incorrect.

[Chrysalis]

Ok wombat I accept your opinion, your basis of it I find confusing but it is an opinion you have the right to as I do mine which is fair enough, sorry if I said otherwise.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a investment target, this seems to be the most friendly way forward for all parties involved.

[forceware]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/23/ofcoms-sharon-white-lays-out-openreach-reforms/

[WWWombat]

Hmmm.

“MPs seem to enjoy kicking BT and are fairly ignorant of the realities,” said telecoms analyst Matthew Howett of Ovum. “It’s unfortunate BT have to invest so much time in laying rest to myths and false accusations.”

[WWWombat]

Aside the flippant quick-answer, it'll be interesting to see where these behind-the-scenes negotiations have gone. Tuesday will be interesting.

[Dray]

BT (BT.L) is willing to give more autonomy to its Openreach network division, creating an independent board with a greater say over investment, its chairman said on Monday ahead of a decision on whether it should be broken up.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-btgroup-openreach-idUKKCN1050IE

[Chrysalis]

Hmmm.

as said above

BT are, obviously, more than welcome to provide evidence that Ofcom's assessment of cost of capital to each unit is incorrect

BT are free to correct the figures that are claimed to be myths.

But anyway, ofcom have confirmed no split, so what we all waiting for now is to see what they have actually decided to do, will a separate board be enough?  Maybe yes if that board has the power to prevent money been moved to other part's of BT group.

[kitz]

I'm not in a position to enter into long debates. I've been there in the past and accused of being biased for saying nothing much more than a split off of Openreach would be time consuming and costly and the funds could be better spent elsewhere rather than lining the pockets of accountants and lawyers.

For a looooong time Ive also said that if there would be any splitting off to do would it not be better to split off retail rather than Openreach.   

Much of the complexity of splitting off Openreach stems from its ties with BTwholesale and reliance on other depts in specific R&D.  Advances for xDSL/Broadband relies heavily on R&D and although I dont know figures, I should imagine most of BT's R&D revolves around technologies employed by Openreach.  What would happen after a split regarding R&D?   Would BT continue to research technologies for what will be a separate company.. and if so would it be more money wasted that has to go through the books if Openreach has to pay for R&D.   Much of the difficulties quoted for the split involve integration between Openreach and BTw and no one seems to have much idea of who owns what when it comes to certain aspects.

One thing that Ive never seen suggested elsewhere is would not splitting off BT retail be the far more sensible option.  That would put  a stop to the BT Sport argument.   Would it not be simpler to have a wholesale and retail option that are entirely seperate, rather than fracture the national infrastructure.   

Thoughts?

[Chrysalis]

What you suggesting is probably not much simpler.

BT group is more or less something like this?

BT global
BT openreach
BT wholesale
BT retail
and now BT mobile (does this fall under one of the above groups?)

I expect the merits of BT conducting r&d is more than just for the benefit of the community, since a lot of what they research they never roll out its possible they get paid for what they do by other institutes or others even pay them to carry out that research, with BT been a private company they will only be doing that r&d if its profitable.  If BT felt they had no business case to carry out r&d after such a split, then I would assume openreach can consume the r&d department and carry on its work.

However what I am interested in kitz, is what do you think of the idea of providing investment targets for openreach?  I think the main issue here is the amount they investing in openreach is underwhelming which ofcom simply dont seem to get.

[NEXUS2345]

BT Mobile falls under retail and EE is now part of BT Group, classed as its own section. Essentially, split of BT Global, BT Retail, and EE, and you are left with wholesale and infrastructure. I agree this would be better, as it ensures that the overall investment in infrastructure could be maintained by raising wholesale prices slightly.

[Dray]

But anyway, ofcom have confirmed no split,

I think BT are concerned that that may no longer be true, given they are making last minute offers.

[WWWombat]

@kitz, @chrys

What role does TSO play in any "split" thinking?

BT say this:

Technology, Service & Operations is our internal service unit. It is responsible for delivering and operating our networks, platforms and IT systems.

They seem responsible for at least some aspects of the core, as well as R&D.

It does make me wonder whether TSO is really running the whole network - core, switching, transmission, voice exchanges etc. And that both BTW and BT Retail (in both residential and business guises) are the sales & marketing front-ends.

If that's the case, then splitting either would be tricky.

On the other hand, weren't BT contemplating a merge of Openreach and BTW?