TalkTalk and Sky are talking of 10 million FTTP network of their own in the next few years, though city based largely

On the BT raising prices, with LLU that was exactly what happened and for those where LLU has not arrived it is increasingly unpopular

In reply to a post by MrBukey:

In reply to a post by ian72:

For a public company the problem normally is down to financing.

Private companies have no real incentive to try to compete against a public company as the public company can be bailed out by the tax payer.

In reply to a post by arobertson545:

The issue we have now is because of BDUK's failures, there is no way to create competition.

Even as a separate private company, Openreach still wouldn't have any competition.

I agree with the points above, this is why I think Openreach should be a separate private company, with a levy or tax on every line/service they provide.

This should then be offered up as grants to everyone except Openreach on condition that it is used to finance infrastructure directly in competition with Openreach.

That new infrastructure should then have a levy or tax on it that can be offered up as grants - to any company including Openreach - for building infrastructure in poorly connected areas (e.g. rural).

In this way Openreach's directors would be responsible for only Openreach and it succeeding (rather than what is best for a wider BT Group), and investment could be generated for competition and competing infrastructure - which then could make a return to generate investment for areas deemed less/not commercially viable....

I have a feeling that the EU may not like the idea of what is essentially a taxpayers subsidy not open to all, including Openreach, who may wish to get their hands on it.

In reply to a post by MrBukey:

This should then be offered up as grants to everyone except Openreach on condition that it is used to finance infrastructure directly in competition with Openreach.

That's never going to happen, that would be seen as anticompetitive (even though it isn't).

I just cannot understand how out of 650 MPs, not one has said that we should have FTTP.

In fact, why wasn't one of the conditions of BDUK FTTP? Why does OR get to do it via an alternate technology?

Edited by deleted (Wed 22-Jul-15 11:37:42)

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

TalkTalk and Sky are talking of 10 million FTTP network of their own in the next few years, though city based largely

And will most of the properties already have FTTC and Virgin available? It may increase competition but probably not footprint.

In reply to a post by MrBukey:

When it comes to private ownership, I don't understand how a for profit company, existing to return money to shareholders, many of them run to squeeze blood out of employees, penny pinch at extreme measures and pay rock-bottom wages (all leading to low staff morale) can be more profitable than a properly-run public owned organisation that exists to plough profits back into the service....

Just think. If that were applied to supermarkets, how much cheaper and known price food would be. Easier and quicker to buy from as well, as no need to go to three or four of them to get the cheapest baked beans from one and the cheapest tomato soup from another.

Plus better pay for the staff, and better conditions for them.

Lots of land released for brownfield house-building as well.

Edited by RobertoS (Wed 22-Jul-15 13:23:38)

In reply to a post by arobertson545:

In reply to a post by MrBukey:

This should then be offered up as grants to everyone except Openreach on condition that it is used to finance infrastructure directly in competition with Openreach.

That's never going to happen, that would be seen as anticompetitive (even though it isn't).

In reply to a post by systemx:

I have a feeling that the EU may not like the idea of what is essentially a taxpayers subsidy not open to all, including Openreach, who may wish to get their hands on it.

The idea can be tweaked to make it fairer to the market, and not to specifically apply to Openreach... How about making it so that a levy is charged on all broadband and phone lines/services - and the revenue generated is used for grants for areas:

Where either:

- There is only one incumbent infrastructure, and that incumbent can't apply for the grant. Once there's a choice of a minimum of two providers everywhere this could be increased to be a minimum of two infrastructures instead of one. Ultimately ending up with a minimum of three competitive infrastructures in any single location.

or areas that are:

- Identified as a poorly connected area and anyone can apply. This would allow for the term poorly connected to be redefined as the bottom bar is raised.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Just think. If that were applied to supermarkets, how much cheaper and known price food would be. Easier and quicker to buy from as well, as no need to go to three or four of them to get the cheapest baked beans from one and the cheapest tomato soup from another.

Great idea ... force Sainbury's to stock the value ranges from Tesco, Waitrose and Asda - each in a dedicated aisle!

And then make them open up a branch in every remote village.

Edited by MHC (Wed 22-Jul-15 14:49:04)

My expectation is yes probably a major overlap

History repeats

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4205-phoneline-ta...

and got thrown out in the closing days of the last Labour Government

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

History repeats

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4205-phoneline-ta...

and got thrown out in the closing days of the last Labour Government

Interesting! I'd happily pay 50p a month on my bill.

Heck I'd be happy if it was applied to my phone and broadband connections separately. With both my VM and Zen services that'd be £2 a month for me - I'd be happy if it meant that broadband infrastructure improved for poorly connected areas and increased competition in better connected areas....