I have an issue with that in that BT tend to not invest well , and my issue is that it keeps BT holding onto openreach, why not the same idea but swapped round? Why the urge to keep BT in control of openreach?

Your idea still has the downsides of a split been mentioned in this thread.

In reply to a post by JohnR:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

2 - Keep openreach as part of BT

So the simple answer is..

BT is openreach and they are no longer allowed to supply internet access to the public.
So to put it simply they have to sell off the BT internet side.
BT/Openreach can still supply basic phone service to public, but nothing more.

This would be far, the cheapest and easiest option.

I think this is exactly what will happen in 10 years time when they're sick of all of this. It'll be the reverse of what the press are reporting now in some ways.

Openreach, TSO and BT Wholesale stay together under the current stock market listing. BT Consumer, EE, Plusnet and BT Global Services would be spun off under a different listing.

And you think that taking Openreach out of BT's hands will see a increase in funding.

TBH. Any infrastructure such as this should not be in any private hands. They need to be brought back into the public domain.

Any change in this structure is going to take years and cost a lot of money. Better spent on getting the infrastructure where it should be.

There is no easy way to do what Ofcom want. And they have always had a downer on BT (only company that ever had limits on their pricing set by Ofcom)

All I can see coming out of this is a lot of wasted money and Joe Public getting shafted again, just so a Quango can pretend it has some real power.

I see a recurring theme on this.

Supporters of BT love to give reasons as to why it should not be split.

But they give no specific reasons as to why BT should keep control of openreach.

It is sort of like the last election where the victors won by telling people why to not vote for the opposition instead of why to vote for themselves, a fear propoganda machine.

As I said before you cannot see past the short term, yes it will cost money in the "short term" but so what.

You mentioned infrastructure, but the plan is to do a cheap g.fast cabinet based rollout, no vectoring for commercial vdsl and no mass FTTP rollout project announced. What is this infrastructure you speak off?

Aside from the lack of vectoring it took them 4 years to enable g.inp on hauwei (sky have had g.inp on adsl for 10 years), and there is still no g.inp on ECI. What is going on at that company?

Edited by Chrysalis (Mon 05-Dec-16 14:54:08)

I am neither a supporter of BT or any other company in this case.

The reason not to split is it's a waste of money that can be better spent in whatever infrastructure upgrade they feel will give the best bang for buck.
Of course as a public traded co, this will also include making sure that shareholders get a good divvy

So in this split. Just who is going to own OpenReach and how are they to be funded?

I've given reasons, I think an independent Openreach would have less money available to it. Projects to increase speed would suffer.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

You mentioned infrastructure, but the plan is to do a cheap g.fast cabinet based rollout, no vectoring for commercial vdsl and no mass FTTP rollout project announced. What is this infrastructure you speak off?

No mass FTTP rollout? I guess you missed that BT will deploy superfast speeds to 12 million premises by 2020 and 2 million of those will be native FTTP.

When combined with VM's deployment (and others), the vast majority of the UK will have access to superfast speeds in the next few years.

It's amazing the number of people criticising G.fast before it's even been deployed. From a business viewpoint, what % of FTTC customers do you think would actually upgrade and pay the additional premium for superfast speeds now? I would be shocked if it's higher than 10%.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Aside from the lack of vectoring it took them 4 years to enable g.inp on hauwei (sky have had g.inp on adsl for 10 years), and there is still no g.inp on ECI. What is going on at that company?

G.INP has only been rolled out for VDSL2 in the last couple of years. Nothing to do with BT/Openreach, this is worldwide as it's developed by the hardware manufacturers.

Of course it's to do with Openreach. G.INP isn't forced on anyone. Openreach have decided to use it.

Openreach can not implement something that their hardware providers have not developed and made available.

The G.998.4 standard was only approved back in 2010 and it began to appear on VDSL from 2014. The implementation took longer due to the fact there needed to be software changes at the line card and end user level.

With vectoring, I assume that the benefits of g.fast have outweighed the cost/benefits of implementing network wide vectoring.

Yes I understand all that but that's not how your original post reads at all. I understand what you mean now though.

Edited by deleted (Tue 06-Dec-16 11:59:27)