Most want a Rolls -Royce Phantom for Nissan Micra money and no why will that happed whatever happeds with OR / BT Group.

....Yep, and all that topped off with impractical fiscal penalties based on unsupportable service guarantees.

you cab is not Viable- the gap would be significantly less now -- which you have been advised --

Who do think should pay for you to be able to have a faster broadband connection given that the cost of providing such is commercially unviable?
a) You and your neighbours?
b) The state?
c) BT Openreach
d) AN Other?
If your answer is b, c or d why do you consider others should pay for a service from which you will benefit? Does this extend to other items and services that you would like to have available but do not at present? Should everything be free and if so who should pay?

In reply to a post by kebabselector:

For those of us without Fibre BT/Openreach have done a poor job - maybe the future Openreach will be better.

Ah - the Brexit/Trump gambit: We don't know what we're voting for, but we don't like what we're voting against.

What I say next isn't going to be very palatable:

Those people living in places where comms is not viable (or not very viable) will always be at this end of the financial spectrum. It will always be hard to justify rolling out a service, at least until society as a whole feels sorry for them.

There is little that can happen to make these places more viable, unless they hand over more money. They will always be last to be dealt with ... and will always be handled when costs have finally diminished to a palatable state. And, of course, this will also always be in parallel with the rollout of higher-specification stuff back in the profitable areas.

This is a financial fact of life. It is true for Openreach. It is true for VM. It will be true for Ofcom's desired "third way" company.

It was true for the GPO too. In the 1930's, line rental would be a set amount for distances of 1.5 miles. Then add that amount on again for each extra half mile. The cost was extortionate: you needed party lines of 4+ to make it reasonable. And, even so, it still wasn't profitable for the GPO.

So what is it about splitting Openreach that changes this state of affairs? Just when BT had finally reached the point of self-funding the USO work?

I just don't see any circumstances where Openreach see it as worthwhile to continue paying that attention to borderline places. No-one will know the outcome of a split - so the cost of borrowing will go up for a few years. All those questionable, borderline-viable places fall out again.

This will be a young organisation. It might have had to justify budget-keeping inside BT, but that isn't the same as keeping sales and marketing going as a standalone organisation that has never had to sell a thing in its life. It will be seen as risky, with questionable decision-making.

If Openreach is going to be more palatable to the money markets than BT currently is, it is going to need to demonstrate that it is a competently-led, trustable organisation. That trust takes time to build ... and what will Openreach be doing to build that trust? By concentrating on profitable areas first - where there is room for mistakes to be made.

IMO, a split pretty much ensures that those being left out will have the attention they were about to get (and certainly deserve) taken away. For a long time.

Rather like the Brexit vote: the country has turned into a riskier proposition for years to come.

In reply to a post by kebabselector:

Couldn't be any worse speed wise.

One plausible worse-case outcome: You see no change for 10 years, while all those profitable places get 4x - 8x speed improvements.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

This will be a young organisation. It might have had to justify budget-keeping inside BT, but that isn't the same as keeping sales and marketing going as a standalone organisation that has never had to sell a thing in its life. It will be seen as risky, with questionable decision-making.

I'll just add an observation on this front:

Openreach has already demonstrated this exact problem. On their initial creation, they changed the systems to offer equivalence to CPs but forgot the end-user's experience. They took engineers away to be "profitable" enough.

Now they've realised they need to do things differently, but it will have taken 10+ years to ultimately settle down into a reasonable pattern.

Expect some of this to happen again. And expect trust levels to be questionable for that long.

Well said Wombat, completely agree.

Again, wholeheartedly agree.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

Ah - the Brexit/Trump gambit: We don't know what we're voting for, but we don't like what we're voting against.

What I say next isn't going to be very palatable:

Those people living in places where comms is not viable (or not very viable) will always be at this end of the financial spectrum. It will always be hard to justify rolling out a service, at least until society as a whole feels sorry for them.

I live in urban Birmingham, you know that second city. Openreach decided because we are on a smaller cabinet they didn't upgrade us. Every double cab in the area is upgraded, not the small ones. I find it hard to accept that areas in large cities in the UK are being classed as not viable.

I'm not asking for cheaper (i'm a Zen user so not exactly known for being cheap) - in fact I hope it will be clearer to the public what you are actually paying for. Sadly Ofcom are now allowing ISPs to hide the true costs by bundling it all together.

There is almost certainly some reason why the cab does not have a good return on investment. Could be the costs of getting power to it or maybe there isn't an easy place to put the cab (remember don't know the place so am just postulating possibilities). It may be that there are a number of collapsed ducts stopping them bringing in the backhaul.

It may even have been an adverse effect of the vouchers scheme that I believe was available in Birmingham.

All issues add up to increased costs and those costs may not be recoverable in a sensible period.