BT OPENREACH SPLIT LOOKING MORE CERTAIN

BT should be forced to sell the country's leading broadband provider because of poor performance, a report backed by 121 cross-party MPs has said.

The report, commissioned by ex-Tory chairman Grant Shapps, said BT's Openreach service had only partially extended superfast broadband despite £1.7bn of government money.

It should be sold off to increase competition, the report added.

Sorry, I couldn't hear what you said, as the Subject deafened me. What was it again please?

As it could be £20B to cover the country what did they expect?

How would it being a seperate company increase competition?

Say Sky and BT are competing for a customer to use them as an ISP

If BT own Openreach then BT don't care who wins as Openreach gets paid either way.

However, if BT don't own Openreach then BT care a great deal more about winning.

Shocking news. How is BT meant to fund those poor hard-up Premier League footballers without their Openreach monopoly raking in the cash?

So BT might become more forceful and dominant at the retail level if they work harder to win customers when the infrastructure is in the hands of a different firm?

Don't forget he only opened the thread, with a shout, to try to draw attention away from this earlier thread today, which is much more interesting apart from his contributions.

There's no point in having the same discussion in two places.

I was just addressing the question of how it would increase competition, not bob2000's nonsense.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

So BT might become more forceful and dominant at the retail level if they work harder to win customers when the infrastructure is in the hands of a different firm?

Yes, perfectly possible. The acquisition of EE was no co-incidence, BT is building its future from a monopoly/retail hybrid, to full retail. They hold the largest broadband provider and now also the largest mobile phone provider too.

In addition they have also made inroads to the television market, and are believed to be developing a rival channel to Sky One in addition to their sporting channels.

Even with the loss of Openreach they will still be very dominant.

What separating OR would surely do is remove virtually all the BT specific regulation that Ofcom applies as it will just be one of three major fixed line operators. One very obvious example is that BTR are always vulnerable to things like the "margin squeeze test" (which is not the same as predatory pricing). It means that BTR's packages are always open to scrutiny and challenge. Having that sort of burden removed could allow them to be much more aggressive.

There are also some other issues. At the moment, BTR alone have to carry the overheads of things like provision of lines on a social tariffs. Also, BTR are required to allow carrier pre-select, a choice of directory enquiry services and all sorts of other constraints not imposed on other fixed line operators. BTR also have to subsidise telephone boxes. I don't see how Ofcom could continue to impose such terms given that BTR would not have anything like the dominant position it had when the regulations were first imposed.

If BTR was able to relaunch with most of the debt (and pension deficit liability) landed on OR then it would give a great deal more commercial freedom with less regulation. I realise it is a lot of "ifs" there, but it would certainly require a huge change to regulation.

There is a further complication of course, and that's the position of BTW. They are not so tightly regulated as OR, but some of their services (backhaul from some exchanges, MSANs at exchanges etc.) are essential wholesale requirements for many smaller ISPs and, at some exchanges, for all ISPs.

A bit of business sense will say that is completely not true.

If they had been separated in the first place, perhaps Openreach would have spent the £1.7b on FTTP rather than BT Sport.

Separated when?

You know the government would not let BT install FTTP until a few years ago.

Calculate how much FTTP £1.7B would provide.

Openreach did not spend money on BT Sport. It's not part of their P&L account. It's just complete nonsense.

The expenditure is by BTR and forms part of that business divisions P&L account. It stands and falls on its own merits. It BTR did not spend that money then it would not have been spent by OR who will only invest where there's a return. Why don't people understand this simple aspect of business. Businesses invest where they will get a return. They will not simply spend money on one area simply because they haven't spent it in another. It still has to get a return.

In which case it would around 2 million premises still being rolled out to, rather than the 3.8 to 4 million that have had VDSL2 made available under BDUK project so far and more to come from the £1.7 billion.

FTTP is the same amount of work and more, the standing of the VDSL2 cab is pretty quick, as anyone who has seen one installed, the slow stuff is ducting and blowing fibre to the 23,000+ cabinets in the BDUK roll-out so far, now imagine having to do that fibre blowing and then extending to 200,000 fibre manifolds and then onto the subsequent 2 million premises and getting the new fibre tubing across roads and drives and gardens.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

FTTP is the same amount of work and more, the standing of the VDSL2 cab is pretty quick, as anyone who has seen one installed, the slow stuff is ducting and blowing fibre to the 23,000+ cabinets in the BDUK roll-out so far, now imagine having to do that fibre blowing and then extending to 200,000 fibre manifolds and then onto the subsequent 2 million premises and getting the new fibre tubing across roads and drives and gardens.

Isn't this simply delaying the inevitable, though? G.FAST, if it happens, will require much of this work to occur anyway - and it adds enormous complexity itself by using expensive equipment to overcome a few additional metres of fibre (which is not necessarily hard to install in all cases). Then you have a pile of already obsolete VDSL kit to deal with.

Meanwhile the places that were given FTTP are ready to go and able to get a better service than G.FAST will ever provide. Maybe put in some XGPON kit to keep up with things.

Edited by deleted (Sat 23-Jan-16 18:22:16)

Don't you think that telco engineers can consider these issues? There's now a lot of experience in installing FTTP and the work involved. They are still exploring g.fast costs at the moment, but that will become clearer over time.

In any event, investors will not put up capital where there is little prospect of a return. Even g.fast (if it proves expensive) will present a difficult business case should rollout costs be high. Just as important is the speed. Investments like this need to start earning revenue as soon as possible, and takeup might be a question. As the evidence seems to be that, given the choice, a very large number of people will go for the cheaper option at the expense of speed then a return could be an issue. After all, a lot of people seem to prefer to stay with exchange-based ADSL over faster FTTC installations to save a few pound a month. How many would be prepared to pay more for FTTP or g.fast to cover the extra costs for the capital expenditure. I suspect that g.fast is being prepared as a response to VM and it will be justified on the basis of retaining OR market share, and not increased revenue. The considerably higher costs of FTTP will be another thing altogether.

In reply to a post by TheEulerID:

Openreach did not spend money on BT Sport. It's not part of their P&L account. It's just complete nonsense.

BT Group PLC is what investors invest in, not the individual groups within it. BT Group aims to maximise revenue over their business as a whole. If this means investing profits from one division into another (e.g. using Openreach profits for sorting rights acquisition) in order to maximise long-term profits across BT Group as a whole they will do so. In fact, they would be failing their investors if they didn't.

Quite, so if a business case can be made to invest in both BT Sport and the network they will do both. That will be true even if they have to borrow money as, if the business case is sound, then finance will be forthcoming. So it's not one vs the other. It's not do we spend this money on BT Sport of do we spend it on the network it's "does that investment give a return and can I convince investors".

As far as shareholders go, if the large institutional ones thought that BT wasn't able to make a good business case, then they'd look to oust the relevant board members. If the company just started spending money just because there was spare cash flow they would soon put pressure on to return it to the shareholders. It doesn't matter if it's for network infrastucture or sports rights.

This is not one or the other, it's do either (or both) make commercial sense. It's not like the decision a householder has to make about spending limited capital on one thing or another. These are investments to give a return, and if a credible case can be made to those who will finance it, it will happen. It's only when investors cease to believe they will get a return that this finance will dry up.

Of course, having a certain amount of free cash flow helps in gaining credibility and not having to over-stretch the balance sheet, but that's a marginal issue. It's the business case that counts, and that is when budgets are set.

nb. there's a physical and resource limit to BT's ability to install NGAs. I'm absolutely sure, that if they could have waved a magic wand such that all the commercial FTTC installation could be done in a few weeks then the money would have been spent in one go, not over several years, as finance would have been forthcoming.

I can tell you from experience at both our locations, 8 out of 10 Openreach engineers are total morons without a clue. They openly tell you they dont care as no one else does and that they don't want to run around for non BT customers. Before anyone disputes that, I have heard that direct from couldn't care less engineers. That is what needs to change, with a change of ownership probably the only thing that will bring that about.

Ten engineer visits to fix a bad joing just outside your door when one competent visit could have sorted the problem, is hardly maximising profits is it.

In reply to a post by TheEulerID:

Quite, so if a business case can be made to invest in both BT Sport and the network they will do both. That will be true even if they have to borrow money as, if the business case is sound, then finance will be forthcoming. So it's not one vs the other. It's not do we spend this money on BT Sport of do we spend it on the network it's "does that investment give a return and can I convince investors".

Point being, the profits made by Openreach are fed back into BT Group who decide where best to invest it. They may or may not go back into Openreach. With an independant Openreach all Openreach profits would be put back into Openreach.

The next question is whether Openreach has made a net benefit over the years from profits from other BT Group divisions because BT Group decided Openreach had the best chance of a return on their investment. BT will say yes, their competitors will say no, and the argument rumbles ever onwards until it is settled with a split.

But there's no doubt that BT Group's recent spending has raised some questions about where BT chooses to invest its profits.

Oliver

From a financial investors point of view, BDUK (and FTTP) are being done as a 'social' case for the benefit of the country and to remove regulatory pressure on BT group. The BDUK case as stated in BTs financial reports had a 15 year payback, ( with the upgraded uptake figures this reduces I believe to around 12). Few investors in the western world would provide the money for those payback timescales especially including electronics that will then be obsolete.

FTTP payback timescales would be many times longer and would have led to a shareholder/bondholder revolt. Not even the Chinese work on paybacks over 25 years, so only if the price increases dramatically reducing the payback will FTTP rollout be on the cards in urban areas for existing premises.

New builds are a different matter IF included in the infrastrucure build as costs decrease dramatically and consumers cannot then choose not to use the fibre ( No Copper).

Some rural areas do cost the same as FTTC where specific conditions apply as they are cheaper to run the fibre but the complexity means that these will be small areas as we are seeing at present due to the huge (Manpower ) resource requirements. These manpower resource will not be present in a split OR either as they will be (are) under pressure to improve the provision and repair times and thus manpower will default to these.

OFCOMs regulated price pressure ( RPI-x) on access products means OR will not have the capital resources to do any more when spilt than today and may have less as the rest of BT will not be contributing to the Capital pot available. ( OR took 58% of BTs Capital expediture in the 1/2 year to Sep 2015 but only 38% of the operatin profit)

Heaven forbid the new super independent local loop operator ever makes a profit and returns some to shareholders before 100% of people have a speed that makes everyone happy.

The argument isn't so much have OR received net inflows of capital from BT group (it won't have - all profitable BT divisions end up paying out money to shareholders in the form of dividends), it's whether OR gains from being part of the BT group in other ways. The three main arguments are

1) there's a certain amount of cost saving as there are shared overheads, common personnel systems, common computing standards improved buying power, better office utilisation etc.

2) BT group as a whole has got better and cheaper access to finance markets and investors than a stand-alone OR as the group (as a whole), partly because OR are effectively constrained on revenue due to the way its regulated. Maybe marginal as OR (as a heavily regulated company) would have a sort of guarantee of income so will attract investors, but probably only for income (that is dividends) due to the limited growth prospects. It would require a major change in regulatory environments to change that.

3) The biggest benefit claimed for OR being a member of the BT group is that it has an "anchor customer" as it is effectively locked into OR infrastructure. BTR is not an LLU operator (it was considered about 15 years ago, but caused a major board bust-up and it's debatable if Ofcom would have allowed it). In any event, BTR have no competing products with GEA/FTTC (unlike the LLU operators) and it was the commitment of BTR that essentially decided the case for FTTC investment. In the early days virtually all the marketing on OR's FTTC was done by BTR (which is why so many people used BT Infinity synonymously with the OR FTTC product). Only some of the smaller ISPs (like Zen) without extensive LLU equipment of their own were as enthusiastic. The LLU operators were much less active, probably because it meant more revenue passed to OR and less to pay off their own investment on exchange equipment. To this day none of the major LLU operators resell GEA/FTTP.

I take all this loose talk of LLU operators investing in an independent OR with a big pinch of salt. Only Vodafone has the financial clout to do a lot of it (TalkTalk are paying dividends out of debt, Sky has more freedom, but large calls on their resources). In any event, if these ISPs did invest in OR they would expect a return, and short of diluting the existing shareholder's returns, that would mean paying OR more for wholesale services. It seems unlikely. What the LLU operators would really like is somebody to put in a fibre network to their major PoPs at MPF-type pricing, which really isn't going to happen unless father Christmas comes along with a huge sack of money.

Really what would be required for a national fibre network is a complete rethink of the regulatory and pricing regime to make fibre investments pay (and allow the withdrawal of copper network over a long transitional period). It's probably not going to happen - VM would love to see wholesale prices on the OR network increase as it would revolutionise their business, and I cannot imagine them standing for the sort of country wide levy system on BB that would be required to cross-subsidise rural fibre roll-out.

So the reality is probably that there will be a fudge and things will gradually improve, there will be trade-offs, deals done.

Personally I would like to see some geographic breakdown of market environments by Ofcom (going beyond their market A/B stuff for exchanges) with less regulation in infrastructure competition areas (ie. where VM operate) and more regulation, a USO and an explicit broadband levy system for cross subsidies. I don't see it happening though.

Similar arguments were used for Railtrack. They said it couldn't be done but it was.

What's to say that BT might consider Openreach a non-differentiating part of their business in the "long term"?

If they keep the infrastructure assets of EE away from any split and target a wireless based product offering, with heavily competitive wholesale terms from the OR split as well as relief from their other financial & regulatory liabilities then I believe they might be on to a winner.

Openreach split from BT mean this is the end of the road for fibre roll on and no g.fast. We are now facing backwards!

Nice one Tory Government for cutting back on future g.fast!

FIrst of all, there is not government position on this. Secondly the recommendation (at least nominally) is down to Ofcom, albeit they will be lobbied of course. Finally, Ed Vaizey (whose ministry this comes under) does not seem too keen on separation. So this is far from a done deal for all the noise Grant Shapps has made.

"8 out of 10 Openreach engineers are total morons without a clue. They openly tell you they dont care as no one else does and that they don't want to run around for non BT customers."

Total rubbish ! We dont care if its BTR , TT ,Sky or whoever as when working on a u/g its just a dumb bit of wire you fault on so why worrie about the SP ? So you have meet 10 engineers ! big deal in over 20 years i have worked with 100 's of them and by far the most are good guys who do a good job. For sure could do better if the stats men would let them. There maywell be problemes in OR but it sure as hell is not with the engineers but elsewere.

In reply to a post by MC31:

There maywell be problemes in OR but it sure as hell is not with the engineers but elsewere.

I agree, Openreach engineers have been friendly and helpful in my experience.

In reply to a post by professor973:

I can tell you from experience at both our locations, 8 out of 10 Openreach engineers are total morons without a clue. They openly tell you they dont care as no one else does and that they don't want to run around for non BT customers. Before anyone disputes that, I have heard that direct from couldn't care less engineers. That is what needs to change, with a change of ownership probably the only thing that will bring that about.

What an absolute load of rubbish! There's no reason an engineer would care more about fixing a BT line than a different CP's line. I don't believe you.

Edit-Isn't it interesting how whenever someone posts something about Openreach favouring BT Retail that Openreach employees leap to its defence and insist that that isn't happening, and indeed can't happen. That says to me that in this regard things are working as they should be.

Edited by deleted (Sun 24-Jan-16 13:08:08)

What dreadful, blatant trolling.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

What dreadful, blatant trolling.

Nothing different there to very, very many of his posts.

I was referring to network engineers. Those that are actually responsible for design, engineering standards, technical planning and the like. That should have been blindingly obvious from the context of what I was writing.

Those you appear to be talking about in rather derogatory terms are really better described as telecommunication technicians. Unfortunately in the UK we have rather muddied the difference between engineering and technical. Both do very valuable work, but in different ways. Germany maintains a rather large distinction from the profession of engineering, and it's rather a shame that we haven't maintained that in the UK. As for OR favouring BT and openly saying so, then I think there would be an enormous amountof evidence if it was more than just the odd person. Not that it was relevant to my point, which was about the planning and engineering of networks.

I would be shocked if TalkTalk and Sky had not done secret shopper exercises to test this, since catching even just one engineer on record stating this would mean (a) probable sacking for engineer and (b) lots of ammunition in the call for a break up

The question is whether online we are seeing the unlucky few who always have things going wrong for them, rather than the silent majority who have no real problems.

Andrew, the split up of Openreach from BT will result no future of FTTC roll out and G.Fast. Not a good news sadly.

There is no need to treat me as stupid as usual. My point, that while OR have incompetent could not care less engineers, nothing will change for the better. is as valiod as yours. All the planning in the world is no good if you have an ignoramous on the ground messing up connections and repairs.

Edited by professor973 (Sun 24-Jan-16 20:08:53)

Post deleted by MrSaffron

In reply to a post by MCM:

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

What dreadful, blatant trolling.

Nothing different there to very, very many of his posts.

And nothing very different to the biased spiteful replies I usually get when this site is faced with truths. My ISP for one will confirm the long stream of totallt incompetent OR visits - NINE in fact before one had enough sense to check joint 4 feet up the last pole. Proir to that there was a long stream of ludacrous diganoses - Just the same 400 miles north on our EE line. Total muppets, with HR symtoms totally over the head of most who just lied that they would check the exchange and line before reporting back, but simply did a runner. OR has no hope unless the engineers on the ground can be bought up to a decent standard.

I AM REPEATING ONLY WHAT I WAG GIVEN FROM AN OR ENGINEERRS MOUTH - But as usual I am insulted and called a liar. What a [censored] hole this site has become.

Then check out the seventh engineer that turned up without a clue of what had gone before. Job state never updated and his words were " I don't give a [censored] because nobody else gives a [censored], BT don't want OR and OR don't want to run around after Talktalk. They don't care about compensation for poor service . They just don't care, so why should we" - Word for word from fed up visiting OR engineer! My view of OR is not helped by the fact that that I have been waiting OVER five months for an earth fault to be fixed outside my premises. It is causing errors, but OR have categorised it as a PAT fault where they can leave me with faults for years if they like.

Edited by professor973 (Sun 24-Jan-16 20:26:20)

Deleted due to the nature of the attack, you are free to disagree with the other persons opinion but without resorting to the sort of insulting language that you did

Professor to be clear OR deals with all communication providers in an equivalent way !!! -- i

howver there is sometimes a challenge about what the service provider actually provides to OR - which means the jobs gets deait with in a different way than if the fatcs had been provided but you are dependant on the information being right right from the service provider

if that is the case around the engineer you need to formally advise openreach of that as that is factually incorrect and highly in appropriate -- always assuming he was an Openreach Engineer and not a sub contracted engineer but your job number will confirm that

If that truly was the attitude expressed of their own free will then should be reported via the ISP and disciplinary action taken.

Swearing in a customers premises is not acceptable for any tradesperson entering someone home.

I totally agree Andrew and thank you for not calling me a troll or liar as I am used to. I was having a moan about this ongoing earth fault. he did agree it should not be classed as a PAT fault, that was how compensation came into the conversation and that OR did not care about having to pay it. He also said, correctly in my view that I should get my ISP to chase this repair with OR, which was a waste of time. Not even had what were at one time regular OR job status updates for about two months now. Last time I mentioned a job status update my mail was ignored, so I have downgraded to the 12Mbps ADSL2+ again which handles errors better than FTTC and may well move.
We have had the same OR engineer problems 400 miles north. In fact, like last night my partner is on the phone at this very minute with no EE broadband. But an ongoing problem there has been BB dropping on incomimg phone calls. As filtered faceplate changed, it suggests a HR fault. The last engineer that visited confirmed a fault and was told our symptoms. He left at 9'00am, stating he would visit the exchange, then work back along the line and report back to us. He did nothing and just ran off. Dslstats running all day proved he never even checked and reset the joints at the cab crossover connection junction, the first place to look for a HR fault. Like EE third world call centres, he seemed to know less than the person he was trying to help.

Edited by professor973 (Sun 24-Jan-16 22:12:22)

Fair enough Andrew,but I will bet you have said nothing to those that called ma a TROLL and a liar as usual.

I am FULLY aware of the rules and what should be. But just look at the number of OR connection cockups to Plusnet. Been the same for years. Hooked me to someone else's line when I joined PN 5 years ago.

Just for yours and others info a PAT fault "should" be line TOK and end user have full contractual service , its not there to dump long / hard jobs.

In reply to a post by MC31:

Just for yours and others info a PAT fault "should" be line TOK and end user have full contractual service , its not there to dump long / hard jobs.

Yes I know, and certainly not one that IS impacting service.

Edited by professor973 (Sun 24-Jan-16 21:51:04)

In reply to a post by professor973:

Then check out the seventh engineer that turned up without a clue

Are you so sure that it is yourself that doesn't have a clue given your apparent never ending problems?

If I did't have a clue, since when is it my job to fix the phone line cleverdick? - As at happens, the control panels I built, programmed, tested and certified were running live 3 phase, so don't think phone circuits would be a problem. Either way, I am sure I have as much hands on experience of wiring as you.

Edited by professor973 (Mon 25-Jan-16 00:56:32)

"Wiring" and trying to get broadband to reliably work over a several mile long twisted pair are two different things.

Sounds like you're not a domestic electrician yourself but you should see the shambles that some electricians make of in-home telecoms wiring.

It is only you saying the line is bad, it could equally well be your equipment since you seem to be always complaining regardless of the location.

In reply to a post by MCM:

It is only you saying the line is bad, it could equally well be your equipment since you seem to be always complaining regardless of the location.

WRONG cleverdick ! I have NO extension wiring. Errors on my line are those claimed by my ISP and result in an interleave depth of 64! Earth fault diagnosed by Openreach engineers equipment - Waiting for pavement dig and walkway chamber for over five months. SO - Why does everything I post in this hell hole get instantly disputed, along with the usual insults I have come to expect here ?

Edited by professor973 (Mon 25-Jan-16 16:20:29)

SO - Why does everything I post in this hell hole get instantly disputed

I suspect because you start most conversations in threads with things like this:

I can tell you from experience at both our locations, 8 out of 10 Openreach engineers are total morons without a clue.

Saying 8 out of 10 of anything are total morons is highly provocative. You have very limited experience of OR engineers to base that on and whilst you may possibly have had some bad engineers your experience is not statistically valid. Perhaps if you toned your attacks down people wouldn't respond in kind?

8 out of 10 is simply the ratio of bad engineers I have seen with my own eyes. It is strange though, that there is another thread on this very site, where OR engineers say exactly the same - Engineers sacked for taking too long to actually fix a fault, along with many of the best leaving of their own accord. This does not even take into account the quality of sub contractors OR are now forced to rely on. But I am quite used to the personal attacks I receive here instead of discussion and don't expect facts and home truths to get in the way of it, so I simply respond as folks deserve.
Feel free to call this guy an idiot!
http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/fibre/t/4460498-re-...

Edited by professor973 (Mon 25-Jan-16 17:06:42)

"Engineers sacked for taking too long to actually fix a fault"

The point being its good engineers who stick with a hard / long job and sort it out and then get disciplined for it ! As a end user is it not better to get a guy who sticks with it rather then a guy who kicks the job into the long grass as soon as its looks to hard / long ? THATS why some jobes go on for ever because as soon as some guys see its not going to be a quick clear they hoof it.

Totally agree. But the eighth engineer on the trot in two weeks for a severe voice line noise fault I had two months back, was the first with the savvy to check a joint 4 feet up last pole. It was a real mess of mastic and tape. He spent the whole afternoon in the pouring rain fixing it - A hero compared to the other 7, but said he would be disciplined over the time taken. That is the reality of OR.

Edited by professor973 (Mon 25-Jan-16 17:21:49)

In reply to a post by professor973:

8 out of 10 is simply the ratio of bad engineers I have seen with my own eyes. It is strange though, that there is another thread on this very site, where OR engineers say exactly the same - Engineers sacked for taking too long to actually fix a fault, along with many of the best leaving of their own accord. This does not even take into account the quality of sub contractors OR are now forced to rely on. But I am quite used to the personal attacks I receive here instead of discussion and don't expect facts and home truths to get in the way of it, so I simply respond as folks deserve.
Feel free to call this guy an idiot!
http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/fibre/t/4460498-re-...

You worded it to say 8 out of 10 OR engineers are useless.

Sub contractors only do installs, and there aren't many sub contractors left. At least not here anyway.

In reply to a post by MC31:

"Engineers sacked for taking too long to actually fix a fault"

The point being its good engineers who stick with a hard / long job and sort it out and then get disciplined for it ! As a end user is it not better to get a guy who sticks with it rather then a guy who kicks the job into the long grass as soon as its looks to hard / long ? THATS why some jobes go on for ever because as soon as some guys see its not going to be a quick clear they hoof it.

You word it like they'd get sacked for taking too long on one job! That's just not the case at all, of course. If they were taking significantly longer on most of their jobs than their colleagues then their performance would be looked at though yes.

Edited by deleted (Mon 25-Jan-16 17:24:38)

The usual nit-picking apart, this site alone shows the poor standard of many. If this site is so top of the pile, they should be pushing for OR to raise their game instead of splitting hairs and oneupmanship!

On forums in general people won't praise good experiences. They'll just get on with their day.

You'll generally only hear about poor experiences on forums.

In reply to a post by Icaras:

On forums in general people won't praise good experiences. They'll just get on with their day.

You'll generally only hear about poor experiences on forums.

Indeed, ive been lucky that the 3 times ive had to have a OR guy/gal out they have been very skilled, the one time i had kelly's out i wont go into.......... but anyone could have a bad day or not have delt with that problem before AND its not just openreach, im in the middle of a complaint with virgin with my mum as they sent a man to fix a damaged cable at her house and he was the most nasty man ive ever met, not to go into meny details he tryied to say that there was no problems at all and we where wasteing his time (showed him the damaged cable) he then tryied to make out it was not in the place on his work order so he couldnt do anything! quick call to virgin by us then from them to him and he went to fix it. mum went to offer him a coffee/tea and overheard him talking on the phone saying he was going miss the party because (and i qoute from what she said) "the [censored] at my last job is makeing me stay" after he left she cryied for an hour.

My personal view is that openreach should be left alone and there is NOTHING stopping anyone else from rolling out FTTP (as some are), the conservertives started this whole mess when under maggy's leadership and now they are makeing a bigger mess under cammy. the faster they are out of power the better BUT unfortionatly there are no good alternatives now that labour is being run by someone who seems to have his head in the sand

In reply to a post by omnius:

... the conservertives started this whole mess when under maggy's leadership and now they are makeing a bigger mess under cammy. the faster they are out of power the better ....

That's rather a sweeping statement isn't it?

Why didn't Labour fix it between 1997 and 2010?

i dont think it is after reading this (old i know but still seems relevent and its been referanced by other people on the bbc debate) .....

http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/how-the-...

as for why labour didnt fix it i wish i knew, i dont understand why labour did most of what they did when they where in power but then i also dont see the point of HS1 and 2.

indeed, yet people will carry on claiming BT props up openreach instead of the other way round.

why are BT fighting so hard to keep openreach.

I believe Openreach is the most profitable part of BT Group. No wonder they want to keep it.

What pays for the Sport?

Simple - it partly comes from the extra subscribers who join for the sport deliberately; especially those joining from VM. And partly from the increase in ARPU that comes from "stickiness" - less churn; less people leaving; more upgrading within the ISP, and more buying extra services. More people who stay because it is the best way to keep the sport.

Finally having a decent broadband speed from fibre, with a stable speed too, all helps reduce that churn. Customer satisfaction. But the same fibre is also the enabler of OTT TV.

It is a symbiosis. BT Retail props up Openreach and Openreach props up BT Retail, all at the same time.

Why do BT want to keep Openreach? Because it lets them make strategic decisions from top to bottom of the supply chain. They aren't dependent on someone else.

BT Retail buys from BT Wholesale surely not from BT Openreach, somebody will set me right if I am wrong

Don't forget what the pubs and clubs pay for BT Sport packages, the 8,000 pubs last January and I presume more now must make some dent in the rights fees and people forget that they are usually paid out over a period rather than all at the time of the announcement.

In reply to a post by godsell4:

BT Retail buys from BT Wholesale surely not from BT Openreach, somebody will set me right if I am wrong

You're right - but to include it makes the English more complicated without adding much to the argument. Anyway, BT have asked permission to merge BTW and Openreach, IIRC.

BTW owns the backhaul from Openreach locations to the core. But I'm not sure who owns the core network. BTW? or TSO?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

the 8,000 pubs last January and I presume more now must make some dent in the rights fees

Good point.

The last investor day reported >25,000 "commercial customers" for BT Sport.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

In reply to a post by godsell4:

BT Retail buys from BT Wholesale surely not from BT Openreach, somebody will set me right if I am wrong

You're right - but to include it makes the English more complicated without adding much to the argument. Anyway, BT have asked permission to merge BTW and Openreach, IIRC.

BTW owns the backhaul from Openreach locations to the core. But I'm not sure who owns the core network. BTW? or TSO?

I also believe the core network, colossus as it's known (or was when I was in that area a few years back) is owned by Wholesale.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

BTW owns the backhaul from Openreach locations to the core. But I'm not sure who owns the core network. BTW? or TSO?

As I understand it the core network is BTW owned, running over Openreach fibre.

Absurd, isn't it?

I saw a suggestion that BTW should be absorbed into Openreach before the split.

Edited by deleted (Wed 27-Jan-16 19:02:52)

Wasn't there one yesterday saying the exact opposite? That OR should be merged into BTW?

Neither is going to happen. However Consumer and BTW need separating more in some way. It's all too cosy, whatever Chinese walls exist due to the Ofcom requirements.

BT have mooted the possibility of BTW being merged with OR with Ofcom. I've no idea what you mean by "too cosy" between BTW and Consumer. That just sounds like groundless speculation without the slightest actual evidence to back up your inference that BT is breaching the undertakings. Perhaps you could supply some.

I am not suggesting they are breaching the undertakings.

I am suggesting the Ofcom requirements are at least as leaky as the corporation tax and income tax laws in this country.

BT Group breaching undertakings would equate to tax evasion, which is illegal. Being too cosy as I put it equates to (aggressive) tax avoidance which is upsetting George Osborne so much.

BT Group have excellent lawyers. If there are ways round any Chinese Walls they will have found and exploited them long ago.

The last line of your reply is the key here.

e.g. Openreach rolled out FTTC when BT retail decided they want it, not any of the other openreach customers.

Now I have always considered it that BTw is a customer of openreach and the isp's using BTw are a customer of BTw. So the only isps dealing direct with openreach would be the LLU isp's such as sky and talktalk.

But then I read on the plusnet forums the staff say they in direct dialog with openreach which would suggest what I just said is wrong.

Openreach is a massive disappointment, despite what BT may claim, their investment in local loop infrastructure is peanuts compared to the revenue it generates and their install/fault service is abysmal.

Those 2 things you claim fund the sports rights no way add up to the billions they have cost.

Edited by Chrysalis (Thu 28-Jan-16 05:24:04)

That's incredibly vague. Just what are the real-world effects of this degree of being too cosy that you allege? Some sort of illustrative examples would be nice. For example, if you were to give an example of how BTW are giving undue emphasis to the development of a product to meet BT Consumer's requirements, bearing in mind than BTW are meant to consider such issues purely on their commercial merits. BT Consumer are, of course, BTW's largest customer so it's hardly surprising that some products are notso widely used by other SPs (particularly products at the top end of the scale).

I'm just confused about what the manifestation of this state of being unduly cosy has been. BT Consumer don't generally buy through OR, they buy packaged products from BTW who, themselves, use OR products. It was a split which was defined at the time of the undertakings to essentially differentiate two layers, one (roughly speaking) being the physical network and the other abstracted added value services to do with voice, broadband, interconnect etc. which are important to non-LLU SPs (and to extend the range of LLU SPs beyond unbundled exchanges). BT appear to want to collapse this into OR (largely as a cost-saving measure to reduce duplication in OR & BTW). This has, apparently, been viewed with suspicion by some major SPs For BTW products there are often alternatives at the wholesale level (e.g. TalkTalk have wholesale products that parallel some of the BTW ones).

So just what remedies are you proposing? In what way would BTW's relationship with BT Consumer change?

Perhaps it should be BT Retail that is split up, since even if Openreach and/or BT Wholesale were to be 100% independent then it is likely that BT Retail would be the biggest customer, and as a 100% independent firm why should the local loop arms not favour their biggest customer.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

The last line of your reply is the key here.

e.g. Openreach rolled out FTTC when BT retail decided they want it, not any of the other openreach customers.

I think you will find that Openreach rolled out FTTC when Ofcom said they could. They applied for permission and Ofcom took several years to agree - if they had done so sooner, we would be that much closer to higher coverage/take-up figures etc.

The fact that they knew that some of their customers including BT retail would sell it was obviously a factor in their business case - as events proved, they couldn't rely on Sky and TalkTalk to do so.

Sorry, I can't help with the detail you require. Any inside information wrt BT Group Board meetings and lower level strategic and tactical policies I may or may not be aware of I obviously could not reveal.

In short - why get so up tight?

It is possible, and in my opinion likely. Apparently in your opinion it is impossible - the whole of BT Group working completely independently with typical B2B major customer-supplier relationships between the multiple companies and divisions, and completely within the spirit of OfCom regulations. All BT companies and divisions trying hard to screw the best possible deal for themselves at the expense of the profitability of all other group companies and divisions, with the CEO and OfCom beaming on happily.

Nothing to argue about. Though if it is all happening your way one has to wonder what Gavin Patterson is paid for doing and why there needs to be a group board/holding company at all.

Oops! That would mean a complete breakup wouldn't cause a problem, anywhere.

[cough]

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I saw a suggestion that BTW should be absorbed into Openreach before the split.

If I remember rightly BT themselves asked Ofcom for permission to do this in 2014 before splitting was on the cards.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

It is possible, and in my opinion likely. Apparently in your opinion it is impossible - the whole of BT Group working completely independently with typical B2B major customer-supplier relationships between the multiple companies and divisions, and completely within the spirit of OfCom regulations. All BT companies and divisions trying hard to screw the best possible deal for themselves at the expense of the profitability of all other group companies and divisions, with the CEO and OfCom beaming on happily.

Isn't this the entire point of the regulations? That BTW do their utmost to 'screw' the best possible deal for themselves and BT Retail the best possible deal from Wholesale?

Sky, TalkTalk and Vodafone couldn't care less about the profitability of one another, why should BT Wholesale care about their profitability?

The hundreds of companies reselling BT Wholesale services couldn't care less about how profitable others are, why should BT Retail.

Your scenario is very much working as intended.

Were they to be preoccupied by the profit margins of other divisions then that'd be a legitimate cause for concern.

Blame Fatcher who blocked what was developed locally here at Martlesham!
http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/how-the-...

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Were they to be preoccupied by the profit margins of other divisions then that'd be a legitimate cause for concern.

Therefore the Group doesn't need to exist at all.

That was in the 80's and obviously with hindsight a poor decision - unless you were a cable company.

I was referring to the mid-2000's when Ofcom sat on Openreach's request to roll out FTTC for several years.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Were they to be preoccupied by the profit margins of other divisions then that'd be a legitimate cause for concern.

Therefore the Group doesn't need to exist at all.

I'll take that as an admission your post did indeed inadvertently make the point against separation and agreed with the point of view you were trying to oppose.

The Group has other reasons for existing beyond that one.

Revenue across the Group helps to pay down the current pension scheme deficit; there are economies of scale from those functions that can be handled by Group without breaking equivalence; the Group can borrow at better rates and more readily than any of the individual divisions alone; there are certain political and national security sensitivities that don't have to be considered under the existing structure.

More importantly, if there is no competition reason to break the group Ofcom have no reason to recommend such an action, so it's entirely down to the owners of the company whether they wish to divest Openreach or any other part of BT Group, and they don't.

It it were all sunshine and roses separating an incumbent telco into its various divisions and in shareholder interests it would've been done across the board.

As it is it was done compulsorily in New Zealand, a country with no infrastructure competition of any kind, and was followed by a flood of public subsidy to build out FTTP and wireless networks.

It was done in the Czech Republic voluntarily, however it was forced by a financial group that acquired 83% of the shares with the likely intention of taking the respective companies private and following that probably borrowing against their assets.

The company was already planning to give itself a loan from O2 Czech Republic, it trashed the share price of the company by forcing the separation and isn't listing shares in the newly created infrastructure entity. Those shares become essentially worthless and with that in mind PPF have offered to buy them.

What they do with that entity from that point on is entirely up to them, though they were going to take a loan from the combined entity previously to obtain some of their acquisition costs back.

The valuation of the remaining publicly listed entity is wildly distorted by its slightly odd behaviour. It seems to be a fan of borrowing to pay dividends and buy back its own shares.

Fancy bits of BT being acquired by hedge funds on the cheap through leveraged buyouts after Ofcom trash their share price with their half-baked attempts to encourage 'competition'?

The third instance of any kind of separation was Japan where the retail and mobile arms of NTT were separated off from the rest. This kinda worked, however needs to be put into the context of the times. FTTP was deployed because there was no other option, and there were plenty of companies wanting to invest in Japan. No such interest in the UK right now.

Edited by deleted (Thu 28-Jan-16 12:43:28)

You seem to be getting into a complete knot with your own argument, and reading something about my opinion into my posts which isn't there.

I illustrated that there has to be a cosy relationship, which you earlier seemed to be denying. You have now listed some of the obvious factors driving the advantages of being a large group. Your previous statement that they all worked fully independently as business units meant that being a group was unnecessary.

The question is simply "How cosy is it?" That's all. It is very hard to imagine that policy decisions for Openreach, BTW, Plusnet et al are taken in isolation at individual company or division level, and that overall decisions are not made at Group level. If the Group wasn't driving the major decisions of the lower levels then the financial advantages vis-�-vis the outside world would not exist.

Management at all levels throughout the group also of course being appointed from above, and very aware of their own career prospects.

Do you seriously imagine that BT Consumer, BTW, OR and even Global investment and pricing structures are taken independently of the wellbeing of every other component of the group? Bearing in mind the discount strategies for major customers are not something magically appearing from above. The discount has to be available to all, but where are the steps and conditions and interrelationships within the structure?

Co-ordinating such strategies across the parts of the group to maximise the group's competitiveness and overall profitability is what it is about. Or is the Group Board and senior executive team comprised of saints with the welfare of the nation and the population at heart?

Their legal remit is to obtain the best ROI for shareholders. Not to make competition by non-group businesses easy. Ofcom supposedly wants competition. BT Group would no doubt prefer not to have that. The idea that they wouldn't within the group structure do everything they could within the Ofcom regulations to minimise the effectiveness of competition is absurd.

The equivalence in terms of formal ordering, problem reporting and day-to-day running compared with those available to other CPs is not the question, but in most of your arguments against other people you assume is the only relevant factor.

Edited by RobertoS (Thu 28-Jan-16 13:15:06)

I'm still at a loss to understand what you are proposing as no degree of functional separation is going to satisfy anybody that there isn't some form of internal activity going on which is unfair to competitors. It strikes me that only structural separation would eliminate those suspicions.

From a shareholder or regulation point of view, mere suspicion is not enough. BT is a PLC owned by its shareholders and, as such, there are certain property rights to be respected, albeit I realise there can be overriding issues of things like competition law or public interest. As such, there does need to be evidence that BT's vertical integration is, on balance, damaging.

Of course the argument has been made that if OR and BTW are functionally separate from Consumer and GS then why not structurally separate? Why have them as one company, what is the added value of doing so and if there is an added value isn't that inherently damaging to competition. If BT consumer doesn't gain from being in the same group then what's the point, and if they are gaining, surely that's proof of economic damage?

There are several responses to that. One is that, from the point of view of a shareholder there is added value over and above what some would characterise as unfair and prejudicial to competitors (which is what you seem to be saying is happening). Those advantages include the obvious, such as cost savings that are achieved be reduction of duplication in such things as personal, legal departments, accountancy, multiple procedures, multiple procurement regimes, office automation, improved buying power, payroll systems, R&D, common IPRs and so on. The industry as a whole, and consumers benefit from this as it has a direct impact on wholesale costs.

Then there is the enormous amount of cost and disruption of structurally splitting the existing company. I can't find a definitive version of what the functional separation cost, but industry commentators seem to be agreed it was very high with very large numbers of systems and interfaces having to be developed with a lot of ongoing costs incurred from this. All, of course, borne by the BT shareholder. If there is to be a structural separation, then most of the systems work will have been done, but there will surely be an immense amount of cost in going through that process. Just untangling debt, historic pension liabilities, legal fees, renegotiating company-wide license and contract agreements and so on. All this cost would surely be landed on the shareholders as I don't see anybody else picking up the bill.

Then there is the issue that BT has historically been a vertically integrated company. It has technical capabilities and resources which include expertise in building and running networks on a very large scale. A BT that was largely stripped of its engineering and R&D resource (as a structural separation would cause) is going to be at a disadvantage in global markets, especially against international competitors who are not in that position as there would be a credibility gap if it was not much more than a buyer of capacity without the network engineering ethos.

In the UK market, it would also suffer against its major LLU rivals as BT consumer would not have its own networks, exchange equipment and the like. It might seek to do so of course (not good news for an already declining BTW), and Ofcom regulation is such that BTW has to price its products using a margin squeeze formula (and a BTW collapsed into OR as you imply is desirable would surely be required to continue that way). If BTW became increasingly unviable due to loss of BT custom, then that would have implications for smaller ISPs. The whole corporate strategy will have been predicated on BT being vertically integrated. Who knows what the implications of such a change would be. It would lead to a huge amount of uncertainty as it would be immensely disruptive, and heaven knows what the shape of the industry would be, although rivals like VM would surely take advantage if there was a hiatus in investment by OR whilst the implications were all sorted out (something which would, of course, impact all the ISPs using OR facilities).

Does Ofcom care about the small providers, when there are perhaps 3 to 4% of the market?

Not got time to read and understand all that at the moment, but I'm not proposing anything. (By the way I didn't realise IgnitionNet had made the post I replied to previously, I thought it was you. But that is largely by-the-by).

It starts with this post.

All I've been doing is answering your utter and complete refusal to accept there is or even could be any closer relationship between the components of BT Group than the formal procedures, and that such a relationship could affect the overall scene regarding competition with other major and minor CPs.

The formal procedures they all supposedly go through are not in question. They are there and no doubt are used.

That a quick phone call here and there between people in different parts and have known each other for years could ever take place is of course totally impossible and never happens. Yeah - right! [hollow laugh]

Icarus

BTBusiness is the most profitable part but OR is not far behind (% Profit against revenue) OR makes more in actual terms because it is bigger.

However OR is spending more Capital than it makes in profit so money is moving from the other divisions to its Capital budget.

Only other spending more capital than profit is GS whose profitability is much lower on a higher revenue.

Half year accounts to Sep 2015.
Revenue Profit % Profit
GS 3102 149 0.048033527
BTB 1530 402 0.262745098
BTC 2201 348 0.15810995
BTW 1050 154 0.146666667
OR 2516 622 0.247217806
10399 1675 0.16107318

You do have to ask that question, as I've no doubt that they listen much more to BT Consumer, VM, Talk, Sky and Vodafone (despite their small fixed BB share) than the small ISPs. I've no doubt that's true of MPs too. What is good for the larger ISPs is often not good for the small ones (which is where BTW is important).

However, whilst small ISPs are not important in sheer market % terms, I think there's a very good case to be made that some perform very valuable niche roles, especially in the business area. Several integrate other aspects of systems and network support into their business services, so they deserve a voice.

Again, whether Ofcom take them as seriously, who knows, but I would have thought that BTW would be wise to cultivate them.

Ignitionnet ( and others)

It was/is very messy due to the way OFCOM 'argeed' the rules in 2005.

All Copper is OR asset
All access fibre is an OR asset.
Fibre from local exchanges to Metro nodes is an OR Asset ( Backhaul products)
Core Fibre is a TSO asset, but runs in the same ducts as fibre from Local exchanges to Metro nodes and can be in the same cables!.

The Electronics carrying services over the fibre from local exchange to metro are TSO. However the backhaul products using the electronics are OR!

The core electronics are TSO as are all the Metro and Core node infrastructures. But BTW, GS, BTB and BTConsumer can all own equipment within a metro or core node to provide their services.

All this leads to the difficulty in spliting OR as who will own the exchange buildings ALL the equipment is in? ( and the duct & cables)

As for the WLR product that OR provide, they only own the Linecard that provides the customer ports all the rest of the equpiment is BTW ( part of the same box!) it hurts your head to sort it out but that is the way OFCOM mandate it. Look at their cost controls for details

yes, when I questioned ofcom about the market failure on line rental, they quoted me that if there is at least 1 provider offering lower prices, no matter how small, then the market is working.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

BTW owns the backhaul from Openreach locations to the core. But I'm not sure who owns the core network. BTW? or TSO?

As I understand it the core network is BTW owned, running over Openreach fibre.

Absurd, isn't it?

Yes that's absolutely spot on. Most of the backhaul fibre (regardless of whether for an LLU provider or not) is Openreach owned.

Am I correct in assuming Sky are the exception with their own backhaul ?

Roberto

whether you choose to accept this there are very strict rules around what can be discussed between whom and by whom and When in the wider BT . and the wider BT into Openreach -- so you infetrence you ring up someone who you used to work with to get an answer because they are your mate is not correct and totally outside the rules / undertakings -- there would be major consequences for anyone doing that

Well it's not as simple as that. They do own their own fibre network, due to acquisitions in the past.

But it doesn't on the whole go all the way into the BT exchanges so they always have to rent some backhaul for the last bit into the exchange. And if you're not in a major city, chances are Sky's own fibre isn't nearby so they will have to rent 100% of it.

Ethernet Backhaul Direct is what they call it. Here's some info

Vodafone possibly have quite a lot, having bought C & W who I believe laid a lot of cabling alongside railway lines.

Enjoy your fantasy . We don't want you lying awake at night worrying about the real world.

I think it is you in fantasy land. Stuff is done with systems that have no button for ringing a mate up.

However it is you that has made the accusation and the hollow laugh. You need to back this up as it is a serious accusation. One that needs evidence taking to the regulator.

You owe it to the entire industry to report your evidence or you need to admit you were making stuff up.

Sky have a network and they will have Points Of Presence like all the altcos.

They will rent circuits off of other providers to get back from many exchanges to their Points of Presence. This may be from Openreach, other providers, or other providers that in turn rent circuits from Openreach.

Who is running backhaul from an exchange is actually easy to work out, you just look at what names are stamped on the manhole covers outside.

Edited by deleted (Fri 29-Jan-16 21:21:39)

How, in this most perfect of all perfect worlds you both seem to inhabit, could an Ofcom wish and a Chinese wall prevent something that has existed since the first day commerce existed, which was a few thousand years BC?

Informal communication exists. It is used. BT itself holds conferences where informal networking thrives. It exists between BT Group employees and the outside world, and there is no way it does not exist within BT Group.

That is my real world, not your fantasy one.

Rather than my giving proof it happens, which could endanger a person's or some persons' employment as was pointed out earlier, I defy you to find any evidence whatsoever that it doesn't. To prove anything can't happen, you need evidence that the prevention systems are foolproof.

Do you know of a single system depending on human interaction that is or has been foolproof, throughout world history? Even before the myriad channels that modern communications have opened up.

No! You don't.

Lots of words and as with other posters not a shred of evidence to either prove or disprove such interaction occurs.

Absolutely . But the other two are adamant that it does not and 100% never could.

The world just isn't like that. Links between fully independent companies aren't. Links between individuals of any interacting group of people aren't. BT Group is, according to them, unique in the whole history of the world.

The probability of that is ...?

Where did I ever say it could never happen? What I said is that there is no evidence of anything actual untowards having happened or any evidence of any damage. Oh, and you said you weren't accusing BT or breaching the undertakings, In fact what you described is exactly that - a breach of undertakings as there are explicit bans on exchange of privileged access to commercial information.

In contrast, you described the relationship as too cosy and something ought to be done about it, with particular reference to BTW and Consumer. Quite why you chose that particular combination, rather than (say) BTW and OR, I've no idea as surely it's subject to the same issues.

In any event, unless there's some remedy you have in mind for this too cosy relationship (and I can't see anything short of full structural separation satisfying that, and even then, some will say historic connections will mean that there will still be a cosy relationship), then I'm at a loss as to what the point is.

All I did was state a problem, not a solution. It is you who got all uptight saying there isn't any such problem, as employees would link almost under threat of death if they did . There is nothing else to discuss, now that you accept the problem is there and will be whatever is or isn't done in terms of restructuring.

Ultimately, if there were a complete split if all companies and divisions, which won't happen, the personal links would decrease over several years to normal inter-personal networking levels between companies that trade with each other. Such links are inevitable, but more so in the BT structure due to its history and inter-functional briefings.

What a fuss you have made over a fact of life .

This is what you wrote

"However Consumer and BTW need separating more in some way. It's all too cosy, whatever Chinese walls exist due to the Ofcom requirements."

An explicit statement that Consumer and BTW need more separation. I still have absolutely no idea what that means in practice as it's difficult to see what further measures might be taken.

In reply to a post by partial:

Who is running backhaul from an exchange is actually easy to work out, you just look at what names are stamped on the manhole covers outside.

Absolutely, that's the best way. You'll find in most areas it's just BT manhole covers outside the exchanges. I've had a walk round outside one of the big exchanges in Liverpool and I saw covers from all sorts. But due to the various buyouts over the years the ones I saw were really just Vodafone, Virgin Media and Sky. Down in London you do see more operators such as Colt with manhole covers right outside the BT exchanges.

Edited by deleted (Sat 30-Jan-16 11:36:56)

Yes, that's what I wrote. The meaning is clear, as is the fact that it says I don't know what measures can be taken. To review, with context that you removed just now:-

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Wasn't there one yesterday saying the exact opposite? That OR should be merged into BTW?

Neither is going to happen. However Consumer and BTW need separating more in some way. It's all too cosy, whatever Chinese walls exist due to the Ofcom requirements.

Your challenge to that:-

In reply to a post by TheEulerID:

BT have mooted the possibility of BTW being merged with OR with Ofcom. I've no idea what you mean by "too cosy" between BTW and Consumer. That just sounds like groundless speculation without the slightest actual evidence to back up your inference that BT is breaching the undertakings. Perhaps you could supply some.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I am not suggesting they are breaching the undertakings.

I am suggesting the Ofcom requirements are at least as leaky as the corporation tax and income tax laws in this country.

BT Group breaching undertakings would equate to tax evasion, which is illegal. Being too cosy as I put it equates to (aggressive) tax avoidance which is upsetting George Osborne so much.

BT Group have excellent lawyers. If there are ways round any Chinese Walls they will have found and exploited them long ago.

The disagreement then descended into farce with this post which copying to here would end up with what is now half the thread being repeated in this post. (Maybe you would like to dispute my accuracy in saying "half"). Plus a couple of other posters joining in. Anyone interested in what followed can follow the rest of the chain. I'd be very surprised if there is anyone who doesn't instead wish you and I would shut up.

You ended up majoring on the "cosy" and informal contacts bit. I've dealt with that. So now you start again on another tack. Answered in the first paragraph of this post.

Enough of replying to your school playground arguing methods. I shall do as I just said, shut up. In the interests of the thread and anyone whose blood pressure is high as a result of your Prove it! Prove it! Prove it! yah-booing.

true but in the sense of control they control it, its not the same as renting bandwidth from a transit provider, they leasing the cable with dedicated bandwidth.

They own the easynet network which was in place when they broght easynet.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

true but in the sense of control they control it, its not the same as renting bandwidth from a transit provider, they leasing the cable with dedicated bandwidth.

They own the easynet network which was in place when they broght easynet.

Indeed, but I find you only actually see a physical Easynet network (ducting, joint boxes etc) in big cities. There's another physical network Sky own, I forget the name of it and to be honest I can't remember if it was part of Easynet or not but it runs alongside canal towpaths. Again, I've actually seen this in Liverpool. They'll use their own physical assets whenever possible, got to be cheaper than renting backhaul from someone else.

In reply to a post by Icaras:

Indeed, but I find you only actually see a physical Easynet network (ducting, joint boxes etc) in big cities. There's another physical network Sky own, I forget the name of it and to be honest I can't remember if it was part of Easynet or not but it runs alongside canal towpaths. Again, I've actually seen this in Liverpool. They'll use their own physical assets whenever possible, got to be cheaper than renting backhaul from someone else.

Ipsaris?

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

true but in the sense of control they control it, its not the same as renting bandwidth from a transit provider, they leasing the cable with dedicated bandwidth.

They own the easynet network which was in place when they broght easynet.

The stuff from the exchanges is almost universally Openreach EBDs. Some regional variations. No dark fibre.

Do the opposite to what the politicians suggest.

Really, Grant Shapps, dear dear me, we are done for!