25 posts • joined Wednesday 30th July 2008 14:19 GMT
Could have sworn that the shareholders paid best part of £25B back in the 80s for BT... hardly call that a gift!
Given BT's current market cap is £20B and allowing for inflation, seems that UK gov got a good deal...
But local loop unbundling is down to the alternative supplier investing and putting their equipment in the exchange and compete. BT has no influence there at all... they have to let alt suppliers into exchanges.
The absence of real competition is down to alternative suppliers not investing in a competing infrastructure like Virgin Media. Only thing is VM is happy at the size it is because they don't have to wholesale.
Re: Virgin Media doesn't have boxes everywhere, why does BT need them?
Telephony service is USO, not BB. The telephony service they provide is perfectly good...
Of course BT could FTTP everywhere and that way it would only take ~20-25 years for roll-out to take place on the scale that people would like... instead of giving people 2/3rds an improved (not ideal, but better) in a 5 year period.
So based on the premises provided of China not recognising Taiwan as a self-determining sovereign nation which can't be invaded. The Falkland islands which Argentina has never recognised as being self-determining and under the sovereignty of the UK, can simply "not-invaded" by some relocating troops from the Argentine Mainland?
You need a sky package
Sky is only offering FTTC to people who have or take one of their Sky TV packages (£25 at least)... So £25 + £20 + £12.50 line rental = £57.50 where are your savings?
With HDD prices as they are contractors are going to be tempted.
NHS need to realise that they need to get the basics right like verification and onsite destruction.
Some contractors offer this, they have HDD shredders on lorries. They come in with the lorry your IT guys bring the HDD and tip them in a hopper. They can verify that the HDD were destroyed.
It costs a bit more, but it's peace of mind.
The problem may be that Comet was charging above cost for the discs.
If the discs provided were at cost then there would likely be no issue.
However, by making a profit on the discs they would be in breach of any license agreement they had with MS.
What caps and fups?
There hasn't been any for ages on unlimited products... they've gone for traffic management instead.
Still another 3 million homes worth of exchanges that need to be announced.
Remember, it took NTL and Telewest 15 years, £15billion and bankruptcy to get to 50% of the population that VM now serve.
It's not like ADSL where the engineers go to the exchange and perform an upgrade.
It's go to random place on map, place cabinet.
Contractors come in supply power.
Engineers back to connect everything up.
Then repeat at another random place on map.
It's an indication of this society that they don't understand the logistics required for this infrastructure build, and have this "I expect and want it now attitude".
True Brian, there is USO for telephony and the same for other utilities... in which case costs above £3.5k in the install falls to the customer to pay. Hence, the shocks some people have when they buy a house in the middle of no where with no phone and find it'll cost £18k to run 5 miles of copper.
There is no USO for broadband... how would that be implemented? Solely with BT or for all ISPs? Do you subsidise BT completely for this or force them into a loss situation? What about other companies with nationwide ducting and networks (C&W, VM and Fujitsu), do you leave them out or include them in this plan of yours?
PIA is not a regular lease... it is access to infrastructure. It is currently fit for function, i.e. BT telephony. Geo and VM are complaining about ancillary charges. e.g. when there is a blocked duct, BT want to charge for the work needed to clear it and things liek new boxes,etc.... BT don't need to clear it for their telephone system to work, they will clear it if and when they pass their own fibre through and bear the cost. But why should BT bear the cost for another company's network roll-out? This is the kind of thing VM and Geo don't want to pay for. VM has even quoted what they would like to see charged... which is less than what VM charges contractors when they accidentally damage VMs network...
Don't imagine that the telecoms are altruistic, they put their own spin on all of their annoucements and tailor the PIA requirements to fulfil their own goals, which is to improve their own margins!
Business is inherently risky, if you want to make money safely put it in a bank account...
Geo do not want to take part because it's too risky, fine but don't blame BDUK and BT and OFCOM.
The rules have been out for a long time and were quite clear, leased lines are not part of the deal because BT does not have SMP. There is loads of competition for leased lines, looks more like trying to get a cheap way into a competitive market, without taking on the debt that everyone else has to. Taking on debt for infrastructure is part and parcel of the business, good revenue streams allow you to take the rough with the smooth and survive in the business. If your revenue stream is not large enough for the game, you cannot play in that market segment (simple economics).
PIA is not supposed to be cheap, it's an alternative to creating your own network. This allows you spread your costs. If PIA is unjustly expensive, then surely building your own network is cheaper...
Theresa, don't complain about BT if BE or any other ISP is not LLU'ing your exchange, it means that it's not economical to do so... otherwise those ISPs would have done so already! And BT has nothing to do with those economics!
Not surprising with OFCOMs dithering...
Whilst the rest of Europe allowed the rest of their incumbent telecoms companies to begin domestic fibre, OFCOM dithered until 2009 until allowing BT to begin domestic fibre roll-out.
VM burdened by debt has limited capacity to increase it's footprint.
And smaller ISPs don't have the capital for larger roll-outs necessary.
So, the blame is clear OFCOM and UKgov dithering...
I don't think politicians are in any position to criticise any organisation about planning abilities and timelines...
Gifts what gifts
Investors paid almost £20B for the network, which just happened to have this company called BT attached. And that's 80s/90s money so a hell of a lot of money... internet and broadband hadn't been invented yet, so wasn't part of the equation or kitted for.
And the only fibre monopoly was the one that VM had, up until OFCOM allowed BT to enter the domestic fibre market only a few years ago. So if VM has 50% of the country passed (more than BT), how can there possibly be a monopoly situation...
has a contracted store security guard been the person to ask about permission of this nature... the store manager giving you permission would give you an alibi as they are an officer of Apple corp.
And the bit about photograph permission is very different, to the images collected surreptitiously later on...
Might it be pertinent to know where these qualifications came from, an accredited University or a non-accredited organisation of some description... that would put to rest the real issue of qualification. I'd be happy to recognise them as scientists if they have PhDs from a real university...
"It's about time BT stopped looking at it's profits and invested in this countries quite frankly shocking infrastructure."
Err... how to make a company bankrupt... don't think about returns on your investments! Especially when the figures are in the billions...
Isn't it the job of the government to look after the country's infrastructure? And hasn't OFCOM made sure that BT cannot invest (up till now) and make a return on their fibre infrastructure investments?
If you want a decent infrastructure at cost, then the government has stump up the money. Otherwise it's market forces that do so, unless of course a regulator sticks their nose in and makes it impractical/unprofitable to do so. And anyone who mentions Virgin Media... they run a monopoly, no one has access to their network and every connection to their network makes maximal profits for them (not so for BT). Market forces work well in France cheap fibre for all, although for any given district there is only one supplier (mini-monopolies).
Not surprising that this country is in this situation it is in financially if people think in this kind of way...
Who exactly is going to complain?
The "trivial" modification to a production line that was designed to return a profit after so many hundreds of thousand units had been made and sold...
The minor issue of negotiating with suppliers for additional materials...
The minor issue of testing the modification to destruction via alpha, then beta before releasing into the public...
Then having to produce the hundreds of thousands of units again to recoup your investment and begin to make a profit...
I don't think you realise how pissed off the accessory guys are, it might drive some under as they won't be able to refinance...