Member Info for Aus3009

Lil rod, I don’t want you to get into trouble with the vice squad. Go buy yourself a vpn account. Log into Netflix or your bank. Go look at registered devices & then wonder how they recognise your device & list every other device you use. Then wonder how they know all this, when you’ve never told them......? (Other posts explain how)

Healy I don’t think people breaking the law & stealing content is a reason to plan a business model.

Illegal content can be closed down & people do get prosecuted for it (I had a job doing that). & as I’ve already said & don’t take this the wrong way, but a vpn does not protect your privacy between both ends, only in-between. Your computers unique identification can we requested & then used to track you down from other sites.... I bet your online banking recognised your device long before you add account details, as would Netflix & anyone else, they will even cross reference the I’d & tell you the make and model of the device !!

Sure lil Rod, there could be fewer. That is another outcome. That’s certainly not the current direction of travel.

Essentially I’ve just described what has been happening in the U.K. telecoms market. My point is what’s happening to BT’s income? According to your idea of “network is king” BT should be seeing income growing.....

Would be a good thing

Pete, I think you are missing the point. BT has 1000 customers, all paying retail prices for services. Say £50-70 per month

Along comes another option, for which BT only gets wholesale pricing for, whether this is another bb provider or even worse a wholesale fibre to a mobile mast, BT’s income is dramatically reduced.

Fleccy is saying local loop unbundling etc happened & “BT’s still here” the answer is yes, but BT is diminished as a consequence, it’s a fraction of what it should be if local loop unbundling & wholesale line rental never happened.

I’m not saying any of this will remove Bt from the market, I’m saying these this diminish BT further. BT sport was an option to help fill this gap.

Satellite BB, 5G, other fibre providers, mobile operators able to offer reliable home bb options all takeaway retail income, which “network is king” wholesale doesn’t replace. I suspect the “network is king” train of thought will become much more competitive over next 10 years. Vodafone replaced BT fibre backhaul where they could, O2 will do the same & this March won’t slow down. So I would like to see BT find other income streams.

Another reason BT might be doing this could be down to viewer numbers. UEFA were very unhappy about the number BT sport we’re getting. A deal like this could help resolve these issues, which would be quite good.

A 5G service serving lots of customers, which may or may not be using BT fibre will only be paying wholesale rental to the fibre owner

Every home using that 5G service (if it’s not EE) will take a retail customer away & the wholesale rental of fibre will. Not replace that income. As I said smaller and smaller margins. Also in some cases, 5G will be the backhaul.

A network is important lil Rod. 5 - 10 % of people I work with use a 4G device for their home broadband, they can already choose several providers. Any fixed line provider other than Bt will end up paying BT a pittance wholesale cost. I can see the business of networks becoming smaller and smaller margins over next 10 to 30 years.

Trouble is BT are in the retail business to, they need a reason for people to want what they are selling. There will be less & less money in wholesale services in the future. Think if carrier & international carrier services in the 90’s. Became so coat throat margins were worthless. The money won’t be in the network, it will be in the services you are offering IMO.

I think this is a shame, BT sport productions should be making things for other businesses!!!

Personally I don’t like this news. Firstly I think it highlights lack of ambition, second it’s admitting (again) BT can’t make a success of a business they have invested £billions in. Could work out if Amazon or Apple buy in & maybe increase the value of BTs holding? Maybe ?

Credit where credit is due for the £1.60 prediction

Well done. (I doubted it )

Slightly different, wasn’t there a company called energis. Was that power lines or tracks or something like that?

There’s really no point listening to someone who doesn’t know the difference between “there” & “their”. Never mind being trolled by one of them.

Hi Nige, I didn’t know they planned to reduce debt with their Vodafone money. That would go against my ideas that John Malone seems to like debt.

Fleccy you might be right they will borrow, but that figure I think is also over 5 to 10 years investment, which problem is no more than they spend today.

As I said a’la Tesla & others debt doesn’t seem to be a problem to these guys.

It’s only an opinion, but I think COMCAST will be the eventual controlling party. Seems like the best match to me, but then again I would have bet big Virgin and Vodafone would combine.

I am pretty sure £300mln is not representative of the money sloshing around inside that organisation.

That looks like £18bln dept to me. Either way agreed it’s a lot of dept, but after watching John Malone for many years, he seems to be able to operate and thrive with high levels of debt. Let’s not forget Liberty may still have part of the European operating sale in their back pocket, that I think was more than £16bln

Not sure where you get £28bln in debt, articles I’ve read say O2 comes debt free & Virgin has 11bkn dept post merger.

Anyway, somehow for reasons I don’t fully understand John malone seems to like debt, he has a history of working round that.

& I said if Virgin continue their network extensions, they lay their own cables, which may or may not include openreach ducts or poles. They have only done this once for a village somewhere. I’m sure they will pick and choose depending which option is best. So no, not they won’t necessarily be using openreach infrastructure.

& now you go all silly again. Virgin doesn’t try and compete with BT in all areas of business & revenue still wouldn’t be a fair measure of competition. Primarily a home bb & tv company. Still expanding , revenue growing (a problem BT has). Whilst BT shrinks by revenue, its competitors grow. They don’t need to become bigger, they just need to take enough revenue to hurt BT. Virgin I think have over 5 million bb customers (roughly), whilst BT all told I think is 7 million?

Sky, Vodafone and every other user of openreach networks are not an advantage to BT, each of those also takes revenue away from BT consumer, when compared to them being actual BT retail customers.

I’d call that pretty stiff competition in the. Home bb market where they compete. Sky and the others take a sizeable chunk away from BT too on the home front.

O2 are now the biggest mobile operator in U.K. SKY and Vodafone probably need to decide where they are going over next 10 to 15 years. If in 10 years time FTTP is what people want BT should have reach and scale. But only if Virgin don’t continue with their rollout they don’t need to care about unprofitable, rural areas.

Wow, so now accepting the current reality your arguments start having some merit.

Competing technologies, competing services different but trying to deliver super fast bb speeds to a market which whether you or me like it is measured but customers and sold by providers on its capabilities & on that point BT are behind.

BTW the power in cabinets / distribution points is also bogus, unless BT have invented telepathic. Monitoring & control.... all these things I guess will need power. Therefore power will be needed.

SDH is bogus & the idea customers have to supply power to convert Virgin fibre to coax to drive their Set top boxes is also silly when the same box is converting fibre to WiFi

Different technologies, different methods both fighting to deliver higher speeds to to homes & business via a standard bb connection. It’s either a race to get there or it’s a waste of investment.

If BT delivers full fibre late 2020’s I wonder whether there will be enough demand to pay for it, given other options, which by early 2030’s will be very well established

& I’m not interested in stock answers about cost savings, because they mean nothing if BT is no longer supplying what customers want or they will be but it won’t be across the £12bln they have just finished deploying.

That’s not true is it, not really, that’s why areas of the country fund their own networks. The actual answer is Virgin can deliver that BB service to nearly 17m homes / premises for a reasonable BB price, rather than fantasy figures you use to defend a biased POV

BT in theory can offer in theory speeds like this but don’t, not as a reasonable bb package.

I’ve already said speeds people don’t need but that doesn’t stop the market trend

I find it laughable you argue all day long that BT out ranks Virgin purely based on foot print therefore availability

Yet when faced with a comparison where Virgin can offer amazing speeds to 17m homes, where BT can only deliver to 4 million homes (still not these speeds) your bias just makes a mockery

Yawn. It feels ridiculous this needs to be addressed

Obviously new networks will not deploy SDH...... it’s pretty much discontinued

Biggest user of SDH in legacy networks? BT? Not that it matters a jot. Bit scary the biased nature on here would lead to a technology conclusion which isn’t an option

It’s best not to listen to this kind of nonsense analysis

As I said home many homes can BT deliver BB speeds no one needs, when compared to its competition ? &. Does that mean BT on this occasion is playing catch-up?