Member Info for Aus3009

There are always lots of ways to interpret the same data which is why should never just dismiss it.

For me the significant part of you analysis jumps out to me & does support this analysts conclusions. As for valuation that is always subjective, it’s always the direction which is the principle point.

If as you say openreach losses have been negatively impacted by talk talk losses, then that might suggest

Talk talk customers are choosing alternative networks & for what ever reason BT retail is unable to compete for business.

More worrying it suggests for what ever reason wholesale services via. Other service providers were unable to provide an offering these consumers would be drawn too

This would be compounded by your other analysis which suggests large areas of fibre would not have alternative networks as a choice ?

So there is something wrong here. Either openreach has not picked up lines where they don’t have completion ?

Or there is competition in some of these areas and we are underestimating it

Or openreach have picked these lines up either retail or wholesale where there is no competition and their other losses not related to talk talk are much worse.

I don’t know if this chap is right or wrong, but further analysis suggests he has a point, it’s the scale which is open to interpretation

Blimey fleecy, I actually think you’re right.

I also think that about eventual BT share price, but I disagree with the the unquestioning repeated total certainty about the journey the company will follow.

I would say every bubble bursts

I would also say reality will slow down AI rollout, budgets and other business necessities will make rollout take bit longer than AI visionaries think / predict IMO

Reduction in risk with this news looks like catalyst to stop the decline in SP maybe even adding value.

That’s good news for BT. If that had proceeded would have damaged BT and given BT wholesale customers leverage to reduce costs.

Everyone can argue about the level of risk to BT, but if this has continued it would t have brought any good news

The only reason this has been shelved is because of Telefonica’s wider dept problem (who saw that coming?)

My guess is the Liberty Media side of this arrangement isn’t going to be happy with their partner, can expect further fallout IMO

So this now only leaves VM with the option to drive altnet consolidation, very difficult with a partner who doesn’t look like they will be contributing?

Can we expect to see VM up for sale soon? Could we finally see Comcast buying ?

Interesting times

New price increases seem a bit too transparent

As reported

“ BT is poised to alter its strategy regarding mid-contract price increases, with new customers set to encounter an annual rise of £4. From today, July 31, 2025, any fresh registrations for broadband deals from BT, EE or Plusnet will experience a £4 increase on March 31, 2026, followed by another £4 surge on March 31, 2027.”

I guess this is result of Ofcom interference. I really don’t know what the problem was describing increases as RPI plus x%?

This will make some customers squirm, with a couple of services taken as bundle that works out to be well a fair chunk of money.

Snooze - you already know you’re not right about anything.

Lots of us would like to see things done differently in all kinds of ways.

Luckily for now most of us are not prepared to jump on a Russian propaganda bandwagon to do it. Otherwise that would make us all traitors.

Promoting immigration above all else only empowers our enemies only, no good will come from hate filled streets and division based on a fake reality, designed to only do this & no intention of solving the problem.

This argument can’t be won with the truth or facts, so most of the things you’re angry about are made up, or the worst abuses are sold to you like it’s the norm.

Snooze - wrong again. I am a conservative voter, until the Conservative Party stopped being conservatives

Nice to see you sneering at “elites” & “establishments” just like Russian propagandists have been for a century. Western minds didn’t’ sneer at these things until Russian influence poisoned stupid people to turn against their own culture.

Sneering at “globalists “ is a favourite Russian think too.

Foreign nationals are not the same as illegal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants can be removed, it’s not their fault governments have slowed this down with cost cutting & because last few years, we had a government who chose to weaponise immigration rather than solve it. Solving it not being in their interest.

Legal immigration or satisfied asylum claims are something entirely different. These would be the only immigrants who are entitled to the costs you describe.

If it’s about money & not racism, we already know these people provide a net benefit to our economy so you should be cheering them on. If this was about money.

Everything else you describe ie processing illegals is a government failure alone.

Hey lil Rod. Are you quoting something one of these school children has previously posted?

Jezzzz. I should have realised if someone is so thick they need help finding a link, there’s probably not much hope for them.

Clued - why don’t you ask Fleccy and his pals who they use for their telecoms needs

Usually they are all boasting about the benefits of using other service providers

I’m a share holder who uses BT for everything (except tv)

Oh good grief.

Where to start?

Fleccy - that’s rich coming from you.

I don’t think my neighbours or those people in London choosing starlink are stupid.

I think they should feel free to choose & spend their money as they see fit.

Fleccy - I wouldn’t dream of trying to tell my neighbours or the high demand in London which provider & why they should choose.

It’s very weird you think you do.

@ Fleccy -

What part of my opinion

“finally. I’ve said from the start that alternative networks (altnets) like starlink (which for purposes of openreach, is an alternative network). Don’t need to replace openreach, they only need to disrupt it enough”

Says that starlink on its own is a threat to Openreach?

I’m talking about the collective. Alternative network options people have are, combined enough to disrupt BT’s business, starlink being one of them.

& my cut and paste post below shows demand is high for starlink. It’s all well and good you thinking people would be mad to choose it, but some people just like new stuff.

As you can see, demand in London, where there is FTTP is pretty high.

In my street alone. 4 neighbours have it, initially because we don’t have fibre, but now we have, they’ve kept starlink.

Your absolute certainty in this is a little ridiculous if honest. You might control how your little fan club in here thinks, but I really doubt your influence doesn’t reach very much further.

@snooze

Urrrrrrk - wrong again, look how popular it is in london

Starlink has stopped taking new orders in many parts of London and the surrounding South East England due to high demand, with the majority of London now marked as "SOLD OUT", according to a Facebook group. This means that while there are likely many Starlink users in London, new customers are currently unable to sign up and are placed on a waiting list.

Starlink will need to add some capacity

Snoopz. - you’re the kind of poster who would find himself drowning & argue how deep the water is. A fool looking to chase anyone down on this board.

What on earth are you talking about mobile phones for?

Did you notice this video is three years old. Long time in this industry

& finally. I’ve said from the start that alternative networks (altnets) like starlink (which for purposes of openreach, is an alternative network). Don’t need to replace openreach, they only need to disrupt it enough.

You are like an annoying fly at a BBQ Frantically buzzing round this board mis quoting and misunderstanding pretty much everything written, looking for an opportunity to flex your inferiority complex.

I need to look up what dunning Kruger becomes when it’s out of control.

Seriously I’m starting to pity you.

@waccy

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qs2QcycggWU

Lil Rod you can read the arrogance leaching out of this board, these posters are a disgrace.

Obvious point to make again is alternative networks like starlink don’t need to replace openreach they only need to disrupt it

The other obvious point here is there are two sides to this

One is starlink investing literally billions of dollars in a product fleecy and teraplank don’t think is any good…. Ummm billions of dollars, best engineers in the world versus two knowitalls on this board?

Apparently the point of low orbit satellites is is reduces all the problems Fleccy identifies and because it’s so close to the earth it has a smaller foot print so one satellite isn’t trying to serve thousands of terminals. It’s one of the reasons satellites are linked by lasers so they can access bandwidth from adjacent satellites which do have bandwidth available.

Obviously I know nothing, but I’m pretty sure I’m going to listen to starlink and space x engineers on this one

Hi critical - you are very right.

The idea posters on here. Know better than the engineers inside starlink is laughable.

You would have thought, this principle might help them soften their certainty a bit.

However, in terms of completion & risk to our investment, none of these alternative networks need to replace openreach, they just need to eat away at, one connection at a time.

The risk isn’t as they say it, to supersede or replace openreach, it is to undermine it & BT’s business model, as a disrupter.

You wouldn’t think that was too difficult to understand would you?

I keep an eye on this principle, which is why I’m alarmed by over 800,000 losses last year.

Has anyone worked out yet whether this is 800,000 less connections even after additions, or whether that’s 800,000 have left not including additions? I wish this was clearer.