In reply to a post by Fastman3:

this is from an Openreach press release which was clearlty stated

it would not have come from BT as it nothing to do with BT

Really? What about the parent group press release then.

https://newsroom.bt.com/bt-to-increase-and-accelerat...

I wonder who appoints the "wholly-owned, independent" Openreach. Where its financing is, and profits or losses go.

Rather "Alice in Wonderland" corporate speak. Or in short, gobbledegook.

In reply to a post by pluralist:

Where its financing is, and profits or losses go.

As per Ofcom, until the pension funding question can be solved (which is one for Government) any new money into OR will come from Group, and any profits made from OR will go into Group.

If there is any evidence that this is giving BT Retail or any other division preference over other CPs, then Ofcom will want to know, as the directors have given legal assurances.

Of course it could all be red tape and lies

Exactly. It was a rhetorical question/wondering .

"Wholly-owned, independent" is both oxymoronic and actually moronic 😂. As you basically point out.

I tend to follow at least the Group annual Report and Accounts, being a BT pensioner.

In reply to a post by pluralist:

Exactly. It was a rhetorical question/wondering . "Wholly-owned, independent" is both oxymoronic and actually moronic 😂. As you basically point out.

The point (in the ofcom link) is that the Openreach board can choose to do WHATEVER it wants, without having to defer to the other divisions management. The Group only has the ability to appoint the openreach CEO.

I tend to follow at least the Group annual Report and Accounts, being a BT pensioner

Of course the assumption is that the value of "BT Group Plc" is wholly in the wires in the ground that Openreach now own. So if you take that asset away, by law, then compensation of all share holders would cost too much. Compared to that the pension issues are smaller.

In any other industry there would have been a forced separation through the competition commission and associated legislation. This hasn't happened because in 1984 the government made a big error and donated the copper network to the Plc, instead of keeping it as a national asset.

If this structural separation had not happened, the likes of Sky, Vodafone, Kcom and others would have kept BT Plc, and the Government in the courts for years.

It is not ideal, but what else would you suggest, given the constraints?

Edited by jchamier (Sun 30-May-21 12:10:47)

In reply to a post by pluralist:

I wonder who appoints the "wholly-owned, independent" Openreach. Where its financing is, and profits or losses go.

Rather "Alice in Wonderland" corporate speak. Or in short, gobbledegook.

My takeaway from the BT press release wasn’t their marketing description of Openreach. Rather it was this statement:

“BT believes it could deliver further shareholder value by funding the additional 5m premises through a joint venture with external parties and will explore joint venture structures over the first half of the current financial year.”

I think that’s an interesting thing to put in a press release. Almost a quasi sort of “seeking expressions of interest”.

Oops, I see I accidentally missed out some important underlined words from my post. "who appoints the chairman/CEO of Openreach".

For example years ago now, but a while after BT bought Plusnet, I checked some corporate facts and found the "wholly-owned independent" Plusnet CEO remained on BT payroll, and PN reimbursed his salary. Not quite as independent as claimed then! ROFL. I did post about it in the PN forum at the time, as they were my ISP.

Re the part you now highlight, yes. I read that when you posted the link but the full significance didn't sink in . It opens a number of options.

One possibly being substantial funding aid for some of the smaller AltNets in return for being able to use their network rather than have to build out to the same area. Whether that would be for just direct BT end user consumer and business supply, or BT Wholesale and its CP customers, or Openreach in general, is another question.

Most likely the first of those, otherwise the small provider would be wiped out. Effectively bought out.

Numerous non-landline options are of course possible, perhaps via agreements by EE and providers like Starlink.

We all make mistakes...

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

My takeaway from the BT press release wasn’t their marketing description of Openreach. Rather it was this statement:

“BT believes it could deliver further shareholder value by funding the additional 5m premises through a joint venture with external parties and will explore joint venture structures over the first half of the current financial year.”

I think that’s an interesting thing to put in a press release. Almost a quasi sort of “seeking expressions of interest”.

When I read your post I thought of this

Yes Voda wanted a slice of the fixed line fibre action, I expect getting beaten to the punch by Telefonica on the Virgin deal was a bitter pill to swallow. Where do they go to now? Is the City Fibre deal really working out well / all they expected. Maybe not!?

Interesting times. Looks to me like BT are seeing to de-risk in the coming light of further FTTP industry consolidation. Which could be sooner rather than later…