Openreach ordered to split from BT over competition concerns

Regulator Ofcom demands a "legal separation" of Openreach from BT.

Read the whole story

 

[edzieba]

I think that once this is implemented, there is going to be an unpleasant surprise for Sky et al when the cost of just keeping the existing POTS network alive is separated out, and wholesale pricing increases while service levels remain unchanged.

 

[scoobie]

Yawn from 2001:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1173916.stm

"Without such action Mr Steinberg fears that broadband Britain will only emerge slowly and it could take years before a significant number of Britons are roaring down the information superhighway at high speed."

 

[gbjbaanb]

Incidentally, by "split", they mean "become a wholly-owned subsidiary of BT".

I doubt much will change, but Vodafone, Sky, TalkTalk etc might start to get better access to the line infrastructure.

 

[Cloudgazer]

gbjbaanb[/url]":3bfhxvx2]Incidentally, by "split", they mean "become a wholly-owned subsidiary of BT".

I doubt much will change, but Vodafone, Sky, TalkTalk etc might start to get better access to the line infrastructure.

They have to go through this stage though before they can start recommending the nuclear option of a flotation and a truly independent Openreach.

 

[Lonyo]

Why are BT talking about having to go to Brussels. Assuming they go through various legal channels in the meantime, the best they can do is delay for a couple of years until Brexit...

 

[r3loaded]

Cloudgazer[/url]":2yqab4q8]

gbjbaanb[/url]":2yqab4q8]Incidentally, by "split", they mean "become a wholly-owned subsidiary of BT".

I doubt much will change, but Vodafone, Sky, TalkTalk etc might start to get better access to the line infrastructure.

They have to go through this stage though before they can start recommending the nuclear option of a flotation and a truly independent Openreach.

The real nuclear option is full nationalisation of Openreach. When a national infrastructure company does not have to worry about delivering profits, it can fulfill its objective of delivering fast, reliable infrastructure for ISPs and consumers.

 

[Ushio]

r3loaded[/url]":1e1svrtp]
The real nuclear option is full nationalisation of Openreach. When a national infrastructure company does not have to worry about delivering profits, it can fulfill its objective of delivering fast, reliable infrastructure for ISPs and consumers.

Because we all remember how amazingly reliable and cheap BT was when it was government owned /s (I can not stress how strongly my sarcasm is with my comment).

 

[Ushio]

Cloudgazer[/url]":14m7sous]
They have to go through this stage though before they can start recommending the nuclear option of a flotation and a truly independent Openreach.

After which a private equity firm will snap it up, raise prices and cancel all roll out of new equipment till they make a profit then abandon it as a husk.

 

[DriveBy]

Ushio[/url]":2w8u5w01]

Cloudgazer[/url]":2w8u5w01]
They have to go through this stage though before they can start recommending the nuclear option of a flotation and a truly independent Openreach.

After which a private equity firm will snap it up, raise prices and cancel all roll out of new equipment till they make a profit then abandon it as a husk.

...which is why OpenReach probably should be nationalised, along with the rest of our vital infrastructure.

 

[Voyna i Mor]

Ushio[/url]":1f5lcxxr]

r3loaded[/url]":1f5lcxxr]
The real nuclear option is full nationalisation of Openreach. When a national infrastructure company does not have to worry about delivering profits, it can fulfill its objective of delivering fast, reliable infrastructure for ISPs and consumers.

Because we all remember how amazingly reliable and cheap BT was when it was government owned /s (I can not stress how strongly my sarcasm is with my comment).

We can also remember how much worse it got when it was privatised and decided that it could conduct its business with no constraint whatsoever because of its size. I was one of the first people in the country to get what was then Telewest phone and internet both for home and for business - the salesman remarked that the sales force consisted of ex-BT people who hated the company, and one of them put little telephone stickers on his car every time he took a contract away from BT. Their suppliers hated them, their customers hated them and their own staff hated them.

Nationalised BT was a fat, lazy and overbearing monopoly. Privatised BT was the same but with added Thatcherite sociopathy.

 

[fknuckles]

r3loaded[/url]":24vtcjuj]

Cloudgazer[/url]":24vtcjuj]

gbjbaanb[/url]":24vtcjuj]Incidentally, by "split", they mean "become a wholly-owned subsidiary of BT".

I doubt much will change, but Vodafone, Sky, TalkTalk etc might start to get better access to the line infrastructure.

They have to go through this stage though before they can start recommending the nuclear option of a flotation and a truly independent Openreach.

The real nuclear option is full nationalisation of Openreach. When a national infrastructure company does not have to worry about delivering profits, it can fulfill its objective of delivering fast, reliable infrastructure for ISPs and consumers.

I don't know, looking at the NHS, I can't really say I'm a big fan of Nationalisation. If Nationalisation will make it into anything like NHS, then:

A. You can only use the internet during weekdays.
B. You will need to queue up days in advance to use the internet.
C. Speed improvements are cosmetic and not covered.

/s

 

[Cloudgazer]

Ushio[/url]":vpyjf0gl]

Cloudgazer[/url]":vpyjf0gl]
They have to go through this stage though before they can start recommending the nuclear option of a flotation and a truly independent Openreach.

After which a private equity firm will snap it up, raise prices and cancel all roll out of new equipment till they make a profit then abandon it as a husk.

Only if they're stupid enough to stop regulating it.

 

[gagaga]

Be careful what you wish for - the reason they are recommending this part step is to try and keep BT on the hook for the pension scheme costs.

If they push too far, BT will just bundle up the legacy people and the pension fund with Openreach and cast them adrift. Cue either:

1. the pension fund being bundled into the national pension rescue fund and a lot of people getting tiny payouts
2. starved investment as money is diverted to rescue the pension; or
3. increases in price to pay pensions for the quarter million ex-employees.

BT will then be a pure services company, which is where they are heading anyway.

There's no easy solution to this - what we have now might be the lesser of all the evils.

 

[Nibbling Hell Goat]

fknuckles[/url]":20kycttg]
I don't know, looking at the NHS, I can't really say I'm a big fan of Nationalisation. If Nationalisation will make it into anything like NHS, then...

You're considering the NHS after three decades of pressure from successive free market fundamentalist governments.

 

[BugblatterII]

Ushio[/url]":38dnpn9d]

r3loaded[/url]":38dnpn9d]
The real nuclear option is full nationalisation of Openreach. When a national infrastructure company does not have to worry about delivering profits, it can fulfill its objective of delivering fast, reliable infrastructure for ISPs and consumers.

Because we all remember how amazingly reliable and cheap BT was when it was government owned /s (I can not stress how strongly my sarcasm is with my comment).

A large part of that was the lack of competition though. Increasing the access of competitors to the infrastructure should in theory improve matters.

 

[escape_velocity]

fknuckles[/url]":c56ivex7]

r3loaded[/url]":c56ivex7]

Cloudgazer[/url]":c56ivex7]

gbjbaanb[/url]":c56ivex7]Incidentally, by "split", they mean "become a wholly-owned subsidiary of BT".

I doubt much will change, but Vodafone, Sky, TalkTalk etc might start to get better access to the line infrastructure.

They have to go through this stage though before they can start recommending the nuclear option of a flotation and a truly independent Openreach.

The real nuclear option is full nationalisation of Openreach. When a national infrastructure company does not have to worry about delivering profits, it can fulfill its objective of delivering fast, reliable infrastructure for ISPs and consumers.

I don't know, looking at the NHS, I can't really say I'm a big fan of Nationalisation. If Nationalisation will make it into anything like NHS, then:

A. You can only use the internet during weekdays.
B. You will need to queue up days in advance to use the internet.
C. Speed improvements are cosmetic and not covered.

/s

I would encourage you to look at the ongoing and chronic underfunding of both social care and healthcare in the UK, plus the mutually-exclusive targets that hospitals (and likely GPs too) are expected to meet and exceed, before making such a sweeping generalisation. The number of time-wasters also does not help, i.e. people who persistently do not attend for appointments without having the courtesy to cancel them; there are also people with self-inflicted injuries (drink, drugs, you name it; all of the tax from tobacco/alcohol should be shovelled into prevention, cessation and treatment), people who have suffered due to underfunding in mental health (self harm, etc), the despicable scum who treat hospitals as respite care because they can't be fagged to look after granny this weekend, etc. The NHS actually performs pretty well in terms of cost/outcome. There are inefficiencies, of course: the internal market, preferred suppliers, etc. But let's ignore that and bash perceived inefficiencies based on tabloid headlines from owners with a vested interest, shall we?

I apologise for not being more coherent but it's already been a long week.

 

[fknuckles]

escape_velocity[/url]":3bdutew5]

fknuckles[/url]":3bdutew5]

r3loaded[/url]":3bdutew5]

Cloudgazer[/url]":3bdutew5]

gbjbaanb[/url]":3bdutew5]Incidentally, by "split", they mean "become a wholly-owned subsidiary of BT".

I doubt much will change, but Vodafone, Sky, TalkTalk etc might start to get better access to the line infrastructure.

They have to go through this stage though before they can start recommending the nuclear option of a flotation and a truly independent Openreach.

The real nuclear option is full nationalisation of Openreach. When a national infrastructure company does not have to worry about delivering profits, it can fulfill its objective of delivering fast, reliable infrastructure for ISPs and consumers.

I don't know, looking at the NHS, I can't really say I'm a big fan of Nationalisation. If Nationalisation will make it into anything like NHS, then:

A. You can only use the internet during weekdays.
B. You will need to queue up days in advance to use the internet.
C. Speed improvements are cosmetic and not covered.

/s

I would encourage you to look at the ongoing and chronic underfunding of both social care and healthcare in the UK, plus the mutually-exclusive targets that hospitals (and likely GPs too) are expected to meet and exceed, before making such a sweeping generalisation. The number of time-wasters also does not help, i.e. people who persistently do not attend for appointments without having the courtesy to cancel them; there are also people with self-inflicted injuries (drink, drugs, you name it; all of the tax from tobacco/alcohol should be shovelled into prevention, cessation and treatment), people who have suffered due to underfunding in mental health (self harm, etc), the despicable scum who treat hospitals as respite care because they can't be fagged to look after granny this weekend, etc. The NHS actually performs pretty well in terms of cost/outcome. There are inefficiencies, of course: the internal market, preferred suppliers, etc. But let's ignore that and bash perceived inefficiencies based on tabloid headlines from owners with a vested interest, shall we?

I apologise for not being more coherent but it's already been a long week.

You just gave me a long list of excuses, proving my point.

Don't get me wrong, the NHS is functional and better than what's obtainable in most countries of the world, but it is also an example of how poorly nationalised industries perform, however you choose to justify it's shortcomings.

 

[edzieba]

fknuckles[/url]":2ktcdh8m]

escape_velocity[/url]":2ktcdh8m]

fknuckles[/url]":2ktcdh8m]

r3loaded[/url]":2ktcdh8m]

Cloudgazer[/url]":2ktcdh8m]

gbjbaanb[/url]":2ktcdh8m]Incidentally, by "split", they mean "become a wholly-owned subsidiary of BT".

I doubt much will change, but Vodafone, Sky, TalkTalk etc might start to get better access to the line infrastructure.

They have to go through this stage though before they can start recommending the nuclear option of a flotation and a truly independent Openreach.

The real nuclear option is full nationalisation of Openreach. When a national infrastructure company does not have to worry about delivering profits, it can fulfill its objective of delivering fast, reliable infrastructure for ISPs and consumers.

I don't know, looking at the NHS, I can't really say I'm a big fan of Nationalisation. If Nationalisation will make it into anything like NHS, then:

A. You can only use the internet during weekdays.
B. You will need to queue up days in advance to use the internet.
C. Speed improvements are cosmetic and not covered.

/s

I would encourage you to look at the ongoing and chronic underfunding of both social care and healthcare in the UK, plus the mutually-exclusive targets that hospitals (and likely GPs too) are expected to meet and exceed, before making such a sweeping generalisation. The number of time-wasters also does not help, i.e. people who persistently do not attend for appointments without having the courtesy to cancel them; there are also people with self-inflicted injuries (drink, drugs, you name it; all of the tax from tobacco/alcohol should be shovelled into prevention, cessation and treatment), people who have suffered due to underfunding in mental health (self harm, etc), the despicable scum who treat hospitals as respite care because they can't be fagged to look after granny this weekend, etc. The NHS actually performs pretty well in terms of cost/outcome. There are inefficiencies, of course: the internal market, preferred suppliers, etc. But let's ignore that and bash perceived inefficiencies based on tabloid headlines from owners with a vested interest, shall we?

I apologise for not being more coherent but it's already been a long week.

You just gave me a long list of excuses, proving my point.

Don't get me wrong, the NHS is functional and better than what's obtainable in most countries of the world, but it is also an example of how poorly nationalised industries perform, however you choose to justify it's shortcomings.

The NHS has two major issues:
- Chronic underfunding, for decades.
- Chronic understaffing, on a similar timescale (and with even longer timescales to remedy.
The impact of the first is obvious, and the second means sorely-needed funds are drained into more expensive but less effective temporary/agency staff.

By privatising care, there will be two impacts: effective funding will drop (because even if the current too-low levels are kept, profit now needs to be skimmed off the top), and outsourcing will rise even further.

 

[Cloudgazer]

edzieba[/url]":2ga4wi2c]
The NHS has two major issues:
- Chronic underfunding, for decades.
- Chronic understaffing, on a similar timescale (and with even longer timescales to remedy.
The impact of the first is obvious, and the second means sorely-needed funds are drained into more expensive but less effective temporary/agency staff.

By privatising care, there will be two impacts: effective funding will drop (because even if the current too-low levels are kept, profit now needs to be skimmed off the top), and outsourcing will rise even further.

The problem is that Government is very sensitive to balance sheet issues for purely political reasons. Which leads to situations where large new capital outlays are privately funded at appallingly high cost because the government would rather keep the debt off the national balance sheet.

It wasn't a Tory Government that inflicted the PFI disaster on the NHS, it wasn't even centre-right Tony Blair - it was centre-left Gordon Brown.

In principle, a fully public option should be the best value, but that's only if public attitudes to national debt are utterly changed. In practice, if we have to have private money in the NHS it might be better to have private hospitals - rather than public hospitals, obligated to use private finance for capital projects. They could even be non-profit (yet still private), and avoid the dead hand of government stifling their investments.