Re: Annoyed... The rather pathetic progress continues...
So why is it that now, in 2017 I/we are still moaning about this?
Because Government, Telco's, Offcom, Openreach dropped the ball and have been fumbling around ever since - each one passing the buck.
BT and OR didn't drop the ball. BT has, and always will be, on the side of what it thinks will make it the most profit - that's what businesses do. If you have a knowledge of telecoms history, it's easy to see a long line of decisions clearly made so as to protect their profits. For example :
When ISDN came along, in other countries (notably Germany) they supported some interesting and useful features - result was wide adoption of ISDN-2 even for home use. In the UK ? BT priced it artificially high, and restricted features - with want can only be interpreted as a means of preventing people dropping their expensive (=profitable) leased lines and replacing them with cheaper ISDN-2 setups.
Even now, we see BT controlling what OpenReach do in terms of what's best for BT - not what's best for OR or the country. To that end, the recently enforced separation between BT and OR doesn't (IMO) go far enough.
Maybe this whole mess needs to be Nationalised?
Good god, no. I can only assume you are relatively young - everything is relative. Those of us of a certain age remember what nationalised phones and railways (to pick just 2) were like. People complain about the state of our communications and transport now, but really, it's positive nirvana compared to a few decades ago.
When my parents moved back when I was still young, we couldn't have our "own" phone line. Apart from a "you get it when we can be arsed" approach to installation times, there wasn't enough copper into the village, so instead of actually pulling some more cable, they forced new users onto party lines. Yup, your phone line was shared with a neighbour ! I suspect few people younger than perhaps about 30-40 will have ever come across one of those.
And as for the railways, the BR of old would make Southern look like a slick operation !
It's nothing to do with it being sold off later, it's to do with the fact that government just can't do "services". If it's in public ownership, then every career politician wants to make a name for themselves for fiddling with it, and as with the Post Office, the treasury will see it as a money box to be raided as ofetn and as heavily as they can get away with. In part, that's what was wrong with the old Post Office when it ran the telephones - the government took all it's money and so it never had the cash to do things properly.
At least in private ownership, the business can go to the money markets to raise cash for investments. If the investment looks sound, then the money will be there. And where there's deemed to be a "public good" case for subsidy, then that can make money available as well - that's what happened with FTTC, even though BT did obviously game the system in it's favour.