Member Info for Aus3009

Hey stgam02, I was careful to say Access network, the links from the FTTC to the home. Of course the 4 & 5G nodes / masts radio paths will need fibre to access their IMS platforms / backbone, but if BT supply those it will be a kind of wholesale arrangement, BT and other operators earn small amounts of money carrying data like this & it will get much worse when other operators bid to carry this traffic, I used to work In the voice equivalent & all those companies cut their own throats cost cutting. There’s no money in it, not when compared to what consumers will pay for the actual service. This goes back to discussions with lil Rod about my views on network is king. Happy to be proved wrong but my analysis of the brave new world seems to Undermine this view. For example a consumer just needs a network, could be from any number of suppliers, bt, virgin, EE, Vodafone, town Wi-fi like Swindon etc etc etc. Customer pays the provider of the network which is good, but this will become competitive. Companies like Netflix, google.... pay networks small amounts for data paths between data centres but run thousands / millions of customers across each one, generating massive amounts of cash. Network companies have to cover the increased demand, earning less per customer but needing to spend £billions to upgrade to meet demand. Meanwhile Netflix, amazon etc just keep on earning. BT needs to be in that “keep on earning” area of business too, which is why I like their tv option. In my opinion supplying wet string between 2 points is expensive, getting more competitive and generates less cash than the services running over those links. Just my opinion, happy to be proved wrong & this doesn’t mean to say that Ithink BT shouldn’t leverage their network advantage, I just think they shouldn’t rely on it any more.

Smasher of course you are right about the need for a good return on investment. I’m not sure this is why BT are not laying fibre though. I think BT are not keen on a massive rollout because over the coming years fixed fibre access networks might become less important. To me it looks like writing is on the wall, especially with home broadband supplied by existing fixed & 4. (5)G complementing it. As for corruption claims it means nothing until you compare it with other countries. Most countries laughed at the headlines of our MP’s expenses, to me the ridiculous coverage and the fact they were caught kind of demonstrates how little corruption we have. Same is true for the banks. In both cases our lack of systemic corruption allowed these things to be found and then punished. I would defy anyone to prove the UK is drowning in corruption. Other than of course the stupidity of some of our press who are rapidly becoming a laughing stock internationally, but even that is about misrepresenting the truth rather than out and out corruption. I really think some of you guys need to get a hold of yourselves on some of these issues. It’s just not true.

Hey zib, no of course Ofcom have not committed to a guarantee. That will be the job of the BT board to get ofcom to sign up to a10 - 20 year deal. This might explain the current dance around other fibre providers and lack of action.

Faults read the post I said ultra fast B.B. and the Ofcom site is clear, they are not regulating wholesale prices for it ie fibre

Stgam02 - I’m no fan of OFCOM especially the way Sharon operates. But there is no point getting angry and forming an opinion on alternative facts and fake news. This is lifted from OFCOM site “Our decision not to regulate the prices of Openreach’s fastest wholesale superfast broadband products, including its new full-fibre services, supports the incentives for operators to build full-fibre networks [3].”. This clearly says ( as reported in the press) that OFOM are not regulating BT wholesale prices for ultra fast B.B. this is to both encourage BT and other operators to lay fibre. At the same time they are squeezing non fibre wholesale prices. From a regulator / government obsessed with fibre rollout these seem sensible policies. The question is should Ofcom and government be obsessed ?

Surely selling off masts just purchased with EE doesn’t make sense does it?

Faultsman, when you ask a question like that I wonder whether you know what corruption means? Are you trapped in a post Brexit world where you get over excited and unduly influenced by these words. Bit like “unelected judges” used to rabble rouse. It’s pretty stupid isn’t it?. I would stick to my comment that we suffer from very low levels of corruption in this country. Let’s not waste everyone’s time and turn this board into a Brexit wet dream. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t make it corrupt. Incompetent yes

Stgam02 - we were talking about price and being able to make enough money to make it commercially viable. OFCOM are not regulating the price of ultra fast B.B. as for corruption I’ve already said on previous posts what I think about that. In short corruption is a really big accusation to make, we suffer very little corruption in this country and it’s now an over used term in an attempt to convince stupid people there’s a case.

Sharon will respond with the facts. OFCOM don’t regulate ultra fast B.B. so your argument and point is rested in inaccuracies

Very good. Just shows how overblown all this criticism is

Not smart cabinets, just terminate the fibre or Broadband voice service to an IMS. That will close the legacy switches

C3PO - I did say BT inherited its network, ie didn’t need to wait or pay for 30 years whilst digging. Yes investors bought bt but you can see why it needed regulating for competition early days. I still not sure share sale covered such expenses / cost

Avrohom, again I surprisingly find myself agreeing with lil Rod. I really think you are being over dramatic. I think Gav didn’t handle OFCOM or the loss of public sector contracts too well. This and the Italian fraud quite rightly special spooked the market and what we see now is an unhealthy mix of this and short term opportunistic trading. The things Rod cites should be positives, modernising BT again is probably the right thing to do. I think the public sector contracts that caused the profit earning are still working their way through the reporting system. When these finally flush through I can see a change. This leave pension. I don’t think BT will pay this down, I think this will only change when calculations change and when bonds etc improve in which case a very large chunk can disappear over night. Biggest mobile operator, largest fixed line, supplier to all industries.... profit increasing, technological changes, reduction in operating costs. Competition & demand I’m sure will continue to hit revenue but as a famous man once said. “ Revenue is vanity, Profit is necessity & Cash is reality “. I still say BT is still dominant & still best placed.

POEU, I’ll agree with inept and incompetent, but I’m not going to get into overblown “Brexit like” stupidity where over stating a case impresses a target audience. Corruption is not an accusation that should be levelled lightly and in reality in this country we are very lucky with the low level of corruption that is accepted. As for the other companies of course they pay to use BT’s network & of course they are trying to get as much as they can on terms most favourable to them as is BT and any other company. SKY & Virgin & others have paid for their networks so unlike BT who inherited theirs from public money, they avoid so much regulation. What we might be witnessing is BT finally trying to break these chains, which I for one would support now other networks have grown. Despite all the nonsense on here BT is still very much in control and the battle is whether they end up with more or less. I’ve also questioned the investment case for a full national FTTP rollout. In which case BT will eventually be proved right or wrong. Either way I think their current position is very clear & that is they don’t think it’s necessary or economic long term unless something in their thinking changes.

Hey stgam02, you may well have a point about the regulator & of course BT should not invest unless commercially viable. Far as I know OFCOM are not imposing price controls on ultra fast Broadband. The other question is despite all the whoha and band waggon jumping, it might not be necessary to upgrade access networks to fibre nationally. Bearing in mind all the other legs are already fibre. I think there have been enough clues within this industry to cast doubt over a multi billion £ investment i this part of the network when a) do consumers actually need faster B.B. access then the already fast speeds of around 50meg? Despite what the daily mail tells them & will they pay for it? b) in some areas do stop gap measures like G.fast help c) will existing fixed line B.B. in conjunction with 4G further reduce the need for fibre to the house? d) will in 5 - 10 years will 5G supersede FTTP therefore undermining a knee jerk FTTP investment. I’m really not sure some of these questions have a full answer but are key to the business we are invested in. My gut feel is at least a couple of those answers would stop me rolling out FTTP nationally.

This is all very melodramatic don’t you think? BT still has largest market share in both mobile and fixed consumer / business areas. It has the only viable national network organisation capable of upgrading speeds. Makes £2bln in profit and £7bln gross. The only likely buyer, is DT.

There’s some nonsense being said on this board right now.......

He’s been investing for 25 years & posting on this board since JC was a boy ...... unmmm, with 291 posts of which half must have been posted in the last couple of days. Who are these people?

Okay now everything is out in the open, it looks like 202 - 204 is the SP. obviously to soon to say for sure, but that’s my gut feel & who is to say any different ?

Like sky+ only different.