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!