In reply to a post by RobertoS:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Probably, but as they occupy less space in each building, the leaseholder may look to not renew leases to find a better return

Which brings us right back to the irreversible but lunatic decision taken many years ago by BT.

I thought I read somewhere that, eventually, BT Group plc purchased the company that owned all the buildings that the Group businesses occupied.

Does that ring any bells?

Maybe a rump holding was sold to a single company, but the sales and leasebacks my wife was making were individual transactions with whoever wanted to play.

To sell the lot to a single company would have been almost impossible. BT was at peak one of, if not the one, biggest property owner in the country. (Not land, IIRC that was the MoD, and not by total retail value - hasn't that been the Duke of Westminster for decades?)

As for buying them back, with property and land values having risen dramatically that sounds even less likely. We come back to MrSaffron's original post re the leaseholder perhaps wanting a big rent increase. I am sure we did see an actual case not long ago where a small exchange was closed for just this reason. The commercial value of the land was huge and the leaseholder wanted to realise that value.

Edited by RobertoS (Sun 21-May-17 09:49:29)

That would be Chelsea where all cabinets now offer VDSL2 and no EO exists anymore.

I think they brought the facilities management back in house

In reply to a post by witchunt:

I think it pre dated Ben. Peter bonfire?

Under Peter Bonfield BT posted the biggest financial loss in British corporate history (up to that time) but he still walked away with £13M .Selling off all but 2 BT buildings was Bens way to clear the debt , at the time all the money BT made was not even paying off the interest .

Thanks .

I thought that there was an European Directive requiring electrical/electronic equipment not to cause interference and similarly not to be affected by any interference that may be picked up? Or words to that effect. CE marking requirement perhaps?

Amazed!

Indeed.

DSL MSANS and DSLAM's do not cause electrical interference from their power supplies


It's the very nature of the technologies used and the frequencies utilised that makes them for the moment, not compatible.

So what about two customers on the same cabinet and same cable back to the exchange, where one is on ADSL and the other on VDSL? (And I guess, their variants)

Seems strange.

Cheers!

It's the same reason why ADSL can't be provided from the cabinets. Would solve a lot of speed issues for customers.

Don't you think that would have already been done if it were possible?

There are filters in the cabinet that prevent any cross frequencies. This is one reason why the LR-VDSL technology is undergoing much testing and discussion, as it requires ADSL to not be present on any line from the cabinet.

If you think it so easy, I'm sure Openreach would be delighted to offer you a job.

Edited by deleted (Sun 21-May-17 21:25:32)