We read this differently:

"Ofcom estimate that deploying the passive infrastructure based around ducts and poles to deploy next-generation access accounts for around 50-70%, and the network that BT inherited as the incumbent operator gives it a significant competitive advantage.

I read that as two separate comments made by the same person. Perhaps it should read:

"Ofcom estimate that deploying the passive infrastructure based around ducts and poles to deploy next-generation access accounts for around 50-70%. The network that BT inherited as the incumbent operator gives it a significant competitive advantage.

However this is very pedantic and not worthy of such a long discussion. Essentially the author is making 2 statements combined by an and. The first is ofcoms estimate and the second is a comment on the network "inherited" by BT. Whilst not 100% clear that is not a difficult interpretation to read into the statement.

English is such a marvelous language (and one that is continuing to develop) that the interpretation is not always clear and 2 people can easily read the same paragraph differently in many circumstances.

And I assume I was not the BT defender you are talking about as I haven't once defended BT in this discussion - merely stated a different way of reading that paragraph to how you have read it.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

It is a FACT that BT inherited the network, who says they did not?

According to you ofcom dont say that....
http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/general/t/3821966-o...

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If so where did they get it, a pixie at the bottom of the garden? The money shareholders gave in exchange for shares was the government of the times condition in giving BT the network.

This Ofcom feels gives them significant advantages, if Ofcom felt it did not they why bother with the consulation on wholesale access at all.

Nonsense that is not what it states, nowhere does it mention share holders or them being the reason for BTs significant advantage.

In reply to a post by ian72:

We read this differently:

"Ofcom estimate that deploying the passive infrastructure based around ducts and poles to deploy next-generation access accounts for around 50-70%, and the network that BT inherited as the incumbent operator gives it a significant competitive advantage.

I read that as two separate comments made by the same person. Perhaps it should read:

"Ofcom estimate that deploying the passive infrastructure based around ducts and poles to deploy next-generation access accounts for around 50-70%. The network that BT inherited as the incumbent operator gives it a significant competitive advantage.

However this is very pedantic and not worthy of such a long discussion. Essentially the author is making 2 statements combined by an and. The first is ofcoms estimate and the second is a comment on the network "inherited" by BT. Whilst not 100% clear that is not a difficult interpretation to read into the statement.

English is such a marvelous language (and one that is continuing to develop) that the interpretation is not always clear and 2 people can easily read the same paragraph differently in many circumstances.

And I assume I was not the BT defender you are talking about as I haven't once defended BT in this discussion - merely stated a different way of reading that paragraph to how you have read it.

Blah blah blah, you read it as you please ill read it with correct English meaning..........

AND......... (used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses) along or together with; as well as; in addition to; besides; also; moreover:

NOT seperate at all.

BT are a monopoly....... Do i need to explain what that is in a legal sense as i have on the news item?

Edited by deleted (Thu 25-Mar-10 17:28:46)

I am saying that they did not use the word INHERITED in the release, which is what you were trying to find if they did.

If BT did not inherit the network, how did they get it?

This is more a of pendantic English semantics debate that one of actual use.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

I am saying that they did not use the word INHERITED in the release, which is what you were trying to find if they did.

I refer you back to http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/general/t/3822695-o... and the meaning of the word estimation. Ofcom either estimates they inherited it or they did not, if they do not then the story should not state it is ofcoms estimation.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If BT did not inherit the network, how did they get it?

Im not the one saying they didnt, you are the person trying to say ofcom never said that.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

This is more a of pendantic English semantics debate that one of actual use.

No it is not, i was told im misquoting ofcoms opinion.

The question is simple is that story Ofcoms estimation of things or is it not?
(again please refer to what estimation means)

Edited by deleted (Thu 25-Mar-10 17:36:22)

You say the story states it was an ofcom estimation that they inherited it

Others say it does not, end of story, i.e. we do not agree.

The 50-70% is an estimation, the inheritance is not an estimate, drop one comma and an AND add a full stop and it reads precisely how you want it to I believe.

I'm walking away now - if you believe John was wrong in the article please do email him with the correct English text.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

You say the story states it was an ofcom estimation that they inherited it

Yes i do.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Others say it does not, end of story, i.e. we do not agree.

Then you are wrong. There is no indication that is the authors estimation, there is only indication it is Ofcoms.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

I'm walking away now - if you believe John was wrong in the article please do email him with the correct English text.

No need to email John i agree entirely with what has been written.... Im simply asking you.

Is part of Ofcoms estimation 'the network that BT inherited as the incumbent operator gives it a significant competitive advantage.' or not?

If it is not why does it state thats Ofcoms Estimation? The story is perfectly accurate, it states that is part of Ofcoms estimation, it doesnt in anyway say its the authors.

Now if as stated 'BT inherited as the incumbent operator' and has 'significant competitive advantage' that is a monopoly.

Or exclusive control of a particular market that is marked by the power to control prices and exclude competition and that esp. is developed willfully rather than as the result of superior products or skill.

Shall we talk about the rights and wrongs of that also?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If BT did not inherit the network, how did they get it?

I believe their shareholders paid for it on time from their hard earned savings.

Of course, the real competitive advantage in my view is those operators that used US Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection to avoid paying for their network.

CB is right - end of thread

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

CB is right - end of thread

{sniffles} You gave up too easily