BT and OpenReach - The Divorce

That £7500 is more than likely a gap-fund figure, no way is that the total cost.

To gap fund I think you need to pay as a single legal entity, which means making a company for this purpose, and then there's VAT to deal with.

Have you looked at http://www.communityfibre.bt.com/ ?
 
Caged said:
That £7500 is more than likely a gap-fund figure, no way is that the total cost.

To gap fund I think you need to pay as a single legal entity, which means making a company for this purpose, and then there's VAT to deal with.

Have you looked at http://www.communityfibre.bt.com/ ?
Click to expand...

Yes, it was as a result of speaking to someone on the community Openreach team who lead me to that figure. Essentially it is just our cabinet that needs upgrading, all the other ones on the area are already done, we've just been overlooked. AFAIK they'd need to run fibre from one of these cabinets to a new cabinet in place of the old one.

And yes, I'll be door knocking soon to see who is interested, unfortunately half of the houses are bungalows with oldies living in them.
 
Last edited:
It's a shame they can't force Virgin and Sky to relinquish their delivery platforms at well, so all satellites and cable network were freely available to other providers based on a fair rate.

Something tell me they'd start crying like babies at the thought. :)

If we want fast BB for everyone the government needs to fund it, and if required tax everyone's connection to pay for it.
 
I'm wary of this move for two reasons:

BT is non-profit, anyway. There is a literal monopoly on the telecommunications infrastructure in this country (just the same as any) so there is no room for competition. It's just not possible. The infrastructure should not be fragmented and/or given to private companies. Just look at the US. I believe this is where it is heading because of point 2.

This was done at the behest of Virgin (Branson) and Sky (Murdoch). The former that has made his millions on projects that syphon government grants and subsidies, and the latter a career and lifelong criminal.
 
Sasahara said:
It's a shame they can't force Virgin and Sky to relinquish their delivery platforms at well, so all satellites and cable network were freely available to other providers based on a fair rate.

Something tell me they'd start crying like babies at the thought. :)
Click to expand...

Sky's network wasn't paid for by the public and then sold off on the cheap to a private enterprise, nor do they have a virtual monopoly on the last mile wiring to everyone's house. Virgin's network is also self funded.

It should also be noted that Branson has very little, if anything to do with Virgin Media. The company is owned by Liberty Global and only pays Branson for licencing of the Virgin name. having said that I think he does have a small holding, but certainly single digit percent.
 
Last edited:
MissChief said:
Sky's network wasn't paid for by the public and then sold off on the cheap to a private enterprise, nor do they have a virtual monopoly on the last mile wiring to everyone's house. Virgin's network is also self funded.

It should also be noted that Branson has very little, if anything to do with Virgin Media. The company is owned by Liberty Global and only pays Branson for licencing of the Virgin name. having said that I think he does have a small holding, but certainly single digit percent.
Click to expand...

But they do have a virtual monopoly on direct broadcast by satellite for the UK.
BT or anyone else can't send up a satellite and compete with sky.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Satellite_Broadcasting

I believe, but can't confirm before most of the cable TV companies merge into Virgin, once an area had one service in it a rival couldn't enter that area in most cases. London begin a rare exception. It may have been down to local planning.

Though due to the cost, once one area was covered there wasn't likely to be enough of a market to support two cable networks in the same area even if it was allowed. So an effective monopoly even if no legal barriers enforced it.

BT's share holders didn't get their network for free, they had to buy the shares from he government, which at the time was largest share issue in the world and that was only just over half the company. The remaining share were sold off later on. So I'm not sure if cheap is correct, I don't have time to workout how much investors would made on the shares if they still have them now.

Large parts of virgins network was given to creditors in shares of the original companies that almost when bust, they could probably be classed as cheap as the BT Shares. :)
 
Dj_Jestar said:
It was very much Branson being vocal about this issue, however.
Click to expand...

He did own some 15% of Virgin Media when it merged, if he still had that when it was taken over he would have got some of Liberty Global stock as payment. So he could still have an interest above just the name licensing.
 
If building an FTTP network was as simple as Sky like to tell the press, then they wouldn't have given up in York.
 
Sasahara said:
But they do have a virtual monopoly on direct broadcast by satellite for the UK.
BT or anyone else can't send up a satellite and compete with sky.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Satellite_Broadcasting

I believe, but can't confirm before most of the cable TV companies merge into Virgin, once an area had one service in it a rival couldn't enter that area in most cases. London begin a rare exception. It may have been down to local planning.

Though due to the cost, once one area was covered there wasn't likely to be enough of a market to support two cable networks in the same area even if it was allowed. So an effective monopoly even if no legal barriers enforced it.

BT's share holders didn't get their network for free, they had to buy the shares from he government, which at the time was largest share issue in the world and that was only just over half the company. The remaining share were sold off later on. So I'm not sure if cheap is correct, I don't have time to workout how much investors would made on the shares if they still have them now.

Large parts of virgins network was given to creditors in shares of the original companies that almost when bust, they could probably be classed as cheap as the BT Shares. :)
Click to expand...

The satellites don't belong to Sky, the airspace is leased from SES? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SES_S.A. Anyone can ask them to provide space if they have it.

The same could be said about Other companies setting up their own national networks and not using Openreach's network. It is, of course, financially suicidal to do so, the same as it would be to setup your own geostationary satellite system. Other TV channels use Sky because there's a massive installed user base already, with Sky having done all the legwork. The same applies to companies setting up their own Fibre network.
 
Sliver said:
That would involve higher taxes in order to fund it. Nobody wants that. What we want is a more competitive market place in order to drive down prices.
Click to expand...

To be fair, BT have already had taxpayer help with network expansion.
 
glen8 said:
20 or 30mb connections in 2016 is a joke
Click to expand...

The UK average is only 28.5mb. IMO It's much more important to be getting the people on 2-3mb onto proper ADSL2+ speeds.

Connection speed has something of diminishing returns, outside of downloading large files there wasn't really a noticeable difference in going from 20mb to 80mb. By comparison the 512kb-2mb-8mb-20mb jumps were very noticeable.
 
BT Didn't expand the network :confused: Openreach did ;) :p

When this comes along and then the whole Brexit shenanigans I'm wondering whats going to happen with things like BDUK/HiE and the government funded rollouts that are ongoing around the county. AFAIK a lot of them were EU requested/funded? Happy to be corrected if this isn't right, just stuff I've kinda half read it's liek 3% of the country that has no plans at all for Firbe isnt it?

"You can't order a fibre service today but typically it'll be available to your premises within the next four months."

It's bloody said that since like March :(
VM is available but I've read so many horror stories of their "soon to be fixed ;)" congestion that I'd not like to risk it.

I'm pretty sure that if Sky or Talktalk or any of the smaller ISP's went to a council and said they would like to install a fiber network in "x" area that they'd be allowed.

So why dont they?

bloodiedathame said:
Yes, it was as a result of speaking to someone on the community Openreach team who lead me to that figure. Essentially it is just our cabinet that needs upgrading, all the other ones on the area are already done, we've just been overlooked. AFAIK they'd need to run fibre from one of these cabinets to a new cabinet in place of the old one.

And yes, I'll be door knocking soon to see who is interested, unfortunately half of the houses are bungalows with oldies living in them.
Click to expand...

Ah sounds good mate, let us know how you get on yeah.
Genuinely interested in how these things actually go, if it gets done soonish or if it's just tacked onto the end of the current list.

EDIT:
XMAS SMILIES!!!!!!
 
~Divine~Wind~ said:
So why dont they?
Click to expand...

It's cheaper to lobby politicians and put open letters into friendly newspapers. Sky and co. want Openreach to build an FTTP network to each house and then sell them access for a regulated price.

Every ISP that moans about this has never managed to make a convincing argument for why they don't offer service over the Openreach FTTP product, despite talking about how only real fibre will satisfy them.
 
Tute said:
To be fair, BT have already had taxpayer help with network expansion.
Click to expand...

More reason not to fund them and encourage a more competitive market place. I benefited from that government funding as I was one of the first in my area to get Infinity 2, 75D 19UP, so I'm not complaining per say however, I do sometimes wince at my monthly bill and think it should be lower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom