In reply to a post by sor:

Because BT is unique in that it has the duct and pole network, and (currently) is allowed to ensure that no one other than BT is allowed to put cables in or on them.

I thought BT had been forced to allow other companies to access their ducting.

In reply to a post by MCM:

Although of course BT is able to be very selective about where "commercial" rollout is done as they know sooner or later the rest will get funded.... so...

And your point is? BT is a PRIVATE company answerable to its shareholders and thus expected to make a profit from any capital investment, just like any other company. Now if BT were instead to be a public corporation sucking money from tax payers and the treasury without regard to cost the position might be different and we, as a nation, would no doubt be even deeper in the mire. I for one have no wish at all to see BT returned to public ownership as I have all too vivid memories of the appalling state of British Telecom in the 1970s.

BT is not a monopoly and hasn't been since the mid-80s regardless of what others seem to mistakenly seem to believe so there is nothing stopping others setting up their stall in any part of the UK, instead they have tended to cherry pick and only operate where they feel they can make a profit. Why should BT be any different? It is also my understanding that BDUK money has mainly been used to gap fund upgrades rather than pay the entire cost.

BT is effectively still a monopoly - it owns the core infrastructure - and indeed the only infrastructure in large parts of the country, and the considerable initial costs of such it inherited and indeed still uses - those ducts, the thousands upon thousands of miles of ducting, chambers and the many thousands of miles of cabling that is still in use and in service.

Sure, they've added a load more too of course, but that which they've added would be entirely useless without the rest of the inherited stuff.

They might be a private company but they were created and continue to use the assets, some of which are not physical but intangibles.

They were, years ago.

Other ISP's have chosen not to use them, because rolling out a network isn't cheap.

In reply to a post by MCM:

BT is not a monopoly, anyone or company is free and legally able to set up an alternative. Perhaps some people need revisit and understand the meaning of the word monopoly rather than twist its meaning. A monopoly is where one individual, company or the state has the exclusive right to supply or trade. BT has no such exclusive right.

BT may well be, in some areas, effectively a monopoly due to no other company having the inclination to compete or set up an alternative network but there is nothing legally to prevent others setting up in competition. Now if it were illegal for another company to compete then, yes, BT would be a monopoly however that hasn't been the case since the mid 1980s.

They have Significant Market Power.

They have the advantage of the inheritance of the GPO

They have and continue to benefit from being the default and incumbent.

Please don't try playing word semantics when you know damn well what people mean.

You appear to have great difficulty in accepting and understanding the meaning of the word monopoly. BT is not a legal monopoly. That others have chosen not to challenge BT in some areas of the UK, primarily rural areas, does not make BT a legal monopoly. You are misusing the word monopoly.

BT own their assets, they are not the states and haven't been since BT was privatised when the state sold the company and for which it received payment.

BT own their assets, they are not the states and haven't been since BT was privatised when the state sold the company and for which it received payment.

Indeed, I believe the sale of BT to shareholders made quite a significant sum of money for the UK government. It wasn't given to them but was a sale. People seem to think BT got all this stuff free.

>They have and continue to benefit from being the default and incumbent.

And that is what grinds my gears, people don't want Openreach to be dominant but as soon as poor broadband is mentioned they all run to go ask Openreach for a solution.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

>They have and continue to benefit from being the default and incumbent.

And that is what grinds my gears, people don't want Openreach to be dominant but as soon as poor broadband is mentioned they all run to go ask Openreach for a solution.

Who says that (except for Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin)? The complaints are typically aimed at BT/Openreach because they don't want to do what really needs to be done, and they don't want others to do it and make a success of it, either - such as overbuilding their own FTTP in areas where someone has already built one, or years ago they were rolling out ADSL after someone's built a wireless network due to the lack of interest from BT).

If they said "we're going to do lots of FTTP" I think people would cheer them on. One network and universal service makes sense, and it obviously makes them a lot of money - but that comes with responsibilities that Openreach/BT have tried to shirk

Edited by deleted (Wed 23-Mar-16 09:59:42)

So, if BT have a presence you want others to also be able to be there to compete so they don't have a "monopoly".

But, if someone else builds in an area then you consider it to be "overbuilding" if BT put something in there?

Surely that is contradictory?

Having a completely unregulated provider as the only option (eg such as potentially a wireless provider) means that customer's have no choice but to pay whatever that provider wants them to pay - that may be fine but could result in poor and expensive solutions that are not regulated by anyone.

In reply to a post by ian72:

So, if BT have a presence you want others to also be able to be there to compete so they don't have a "monopoly".

But, if someone else builds in an area then you consider it to be "overbuilding" if BT put something in there?

Surely that is contradictory?

Not at all. I don't think it's proper that BT only plays its best game when others have proven BT wrong, by managing to do what BT claims is unviable, impossible, impractical, etc.

The process is this:

BT ignores area
Someone else steps in to provide what BT won't
BT then decides that the area is viable after all
More recently, they not only come to the area, but they gold plate it by installing a service that would never have been installed had they been the first to deploy (e.g. doing FTTP because someone else has, despite generally using FTTC)

BT then uses its considerable resources and significant market power to quash the "competition".

It's the bit about using FTTP that is most telling - it wouldn't be noteworthy if they'd installed FTTC. They'll spend far more than they have to, while refusing to spend similar cash or offering a similar level of service in places where there isn't already an FTTP competitor. What happened to the "expense" of FTTP as an excuse for not deploying it? Why isn't FTTC good enough? They think it's fine for everyone else. It's the telecom equivalent of the "bus wars" of the 90s


If BT had been deploying FTTP as a rule I wouldn't see a problem with them overbuilding the FTTP networks of others.

In reply to a post by ian72:

Having a completely unregulated provider as the only option (eg such as potentially a wireless provider) means that customer's have no choice but to pay whatever that provider wants them to pay - that may be fine but could result in poor and expensive solutions that are not regulated by anyone.

So not that far off the days of old, where those of us who were stuck on BT Wholesale IPstream were paying considerably higher prices for worse service (2Mbps, then later up to 8Mbps ADSL instead of the 4/8/24 that everyone else offered, and a horrific ordeal getting BT to upgrade capacity when congestion reared its ugly head).

There's still a lot of people stuck on that network as BT hasn't even deployed ADSL2+ at their exchange (meanwhile, at exchanges like mine, they deployed ADSL2+ after doing FTTC/FTTP to almost all of its serving area)

BT can't have it both ways - if they want to be the monopoly (which they do, since they don't want an Openreach separation), they shouldn't get to squander it - only making an effort when someone else tries to, or government forces them to

Edited by deleted (Wed 23-Mar-16 11:00:27)