Read more.Quote:
Openreach, the network division of BT, is to become more independent.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Openreach, the network division of BT, is to become more independent.
Still not enough, they need broken up. Also the national networks from Virgin and other providers should also be removed from their control.
Combine them into one new agency and make it into a independent governed unit that is controlled nationally on the basis of universal access that companies buy access from and then set the new agency to laying flipping fibre to every part of the UK already!!!
They would not be for profit as all charges would be ring fenced to them to apply to upgrading the network. Seriously annoys me already that we leave a large part of our GDP to a set of private organisations to mess around with.
We wouldn't do this to the roads network that also generates a large amount of our GDP, so why allow it to happen to our digital roads network?
Poorly written - Mark Had a few too many ?
A total breakup would mean BT would no longer be subsiding Openreach (as is the case at the moment). Some other source of funding for Openreach would need to be located, or Openreach would either drop further in quality of service, or have to put up wholesale prices for everybody just to maintain current service levels.
The chance of Openreach transitioning from a private company successfully to a public entity is pretty much zero under the current government (who are hell-bent on doing the exact opposite even in the face of evidence to the contrary, like the East Coast Main Line operation by DOR).
Just thinking about that one still winds me up.Quote:
Originally Posted by edzieba
But isn't the point that if they were separate, all telcos would then pay for access which is what BT is doing now by subsidising? And surely if Openreach were separated from BT then line rental, such as it is, would go to the split off entity and not BT (barring the usual markup) since BT would not own the infrastructure? Isn't that essentially the subsidy you're talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by edzieba
And lets not forget the billions in public subsidy Openreach has had and yet wholly failed to deliver value for (and which it has lied about - the figures they claim for the cost of installing fibre to a cabinet is something like four times the actual figure).
BT gets paid for services provided by BT (internet, TV, etc) while the line rental already goes to Openreach. BT gets a discounted rate from Openreach (welcome to the bizarre world of internal IT costing) but money for infrastructure still flows from BT to Openreach. If Openreach were separated, BT's per-user payments would be larger, but that infrastructure flow would cease. That's fine for operational costs, but not so much for expansion and replacement which is what is sorely needed.
Just buy it all back and return to a state-own infrastructure please!
Enjoy your £50 a month broadband too?Quote:
Originally Posted by shaithis
;)
Hopefully, internet infrastructure will indeed end up being state owned and not for profit. Imagine the improvements that could be made.
Perhaps though there is a notion that internet access will be 'fast enough' within a decade or two (for a good while). Still, it's too important to leave out of the state's hands. We should get a petition organised :)
Openreach also need to replace the last of their el cheapo aluminium cables (fine for voice, crap for data) and refit copper. I could then revert my current FTH ~12Mbps with good old ADSL2 whilst saving cash, or get ~28Mbps by staying with fibre.
There's only ~500 metres of alu in my connection, but there are also scores, likely 100+, of other premises here also forced to use it.
Simply having FTH 'available' doesn't mean the speeds will be fibre speeds.
FTTP - For all houses, its going to be costly but jesus it would give so much future proofing considering we are still trying to tap the max that fibre can transmit. Also I would be happy to pay a bit more for my broadband for a proper infrastructure, time we did away with the poor showing that comes from the likes or talktalk. Just about everyone I know that used them regretted it very very fast.
lol im on 3.2 MBits with BT its disgusting in 2016
Anyone that thinks the state will do a better job than the shockingly bad one BT/Openreach are doing needs their head examining. Who likes paying for for the same or a worse service?
This is just fashionable thinking because of the grass is greener effect ;)
Bt already act like a state Monopoly.
I still don't buy this argument. It seems Open reach gets enough cash as it is (albeit they spend it badly), so whether or not it is split, the income from line rental, services and public subsidy is enough for both bt and openreach. It would mean that the proportions paid to each part need to change. BT can't magic cash out of nowhere so either it comes from income or its borrowed. That doesn't change even if they split.Quote:
Originally Posted by edzieba
Mind you, it's all academic as they aren't bring split (for now). Let's just hope Ofcom really have the teeth to make Openreach do their damn job properly. And anyone harkening for state control is a bit mad. Sure, sometimes it works like the East Coast railway, but I'm old enough to remember BT employees bring hired with no work to do sitting in vans in lay-bys doing did all because no one really knew how many staff they had or how much work there was and no one cared because it was public sector. It didn't end well. The UK had the opportunity to pioneer fibre in the 80s when BT was state owned but typical state owned organ that it was, it had zero foresight and it was deemed pointless.