Stefan Bernstein explains how the EU/Greenland critical raw materials partnership benefits GreenRoc. Watch the full video here.
I filtered Mandy because the vast majority of his posts were focused on wild theories of BT being taken over, and some sort of fantasy paranoia about this share chat being controlled by the CWU. I used to be in the CWU and left in 2019, when I retired; We didn't have collective bargaining at CWC/Vodafone, but I joined the CWU as an insurance policy in case I ever needed legal representation.
Unlike the Altnets BT isn't a one trick pony, they've merged Global and Enterprise to create BT Business, with EE now the combined Mobile and previous stand alone consumer business. Openreach alone is probably worth more than BT's financial debt and lease liabilities combined, with Lease Liabilities really an operating cost rather than true debt, so the market is clearly undervaluing BT's assets.
"BT and Global, the Media & Entertainment Group, have today announced a 10-year partnership to upgrade the nation’s legacy payphones and roll out more digital hubs for local communities – in a move that will provide better connectivity and hyper-local advertising in more than 200 towns and cities across the UK. Global will also continue to represent BT’s street furniture advertising sales for the next decade."
https://global.com/global-news/bt-and-global-announce-10-year-digital-out-of-home-partnership/
Aus I never suggested I have experience in the subject, nor did I mention anything about blown Fibre. I gave a common sense answer and discussed some details of a conversation I had with a contractor. Obviously if Openreach can't access the property, via existing ducting or overhead, then it'd be a bespoke solution based on a survey and a conversation between the surveyor and the home owner; How much that'd cost, or whether the homeowner would be asked to contribute, is unknown and probably depends on the work required.
"So a fibre connection to my home, I think requires a dig, through my driveway, garden and possibly part of my street."
Many connections will be overhead, or already ducted, so should be easy. I doubt Openreach would excavate someone's driveway unless the customer agreed it was at their own risk. They'd probably try and find a route that doesn't involve excavation in tarmac or concrete, maybe along a sidewall leading to and adjoining the house wall.
I live on a gated development and BT ducts were installed when the houses were built; A contractor for Openreach recently did a survey and I was surprised to learn that the copper cable outside the development isn't ducted, but dug in along a verge; The contractor advised that they're looking at installing more Telegraph poles along the road, outside the development, to supply FTTP. CityFibre have already microtrenched a good portion of the road, with small access boxes outside each property, but they'll have to access the properties by excavating whereas Openreach will likely go overhead from the new poles.
Aus I believe the total figure Patourel's lawyers are chasing is £1.3 Billion; It isn't an insignificant sum, but it wont bankrupt BT if the full award is granted.
A substantial/biggest portion of the full award is relying on the court awarding compensation to split purchase customers up to the trial start date in 2024, which would go against OFCOM's decision to class such customers as well engaged and able to search out competitive deals online.
BT is one of the most regulated companies on the planet, OFCOM limit their wholesale pricing offered to competitors and basically tell BT/Openreach how high to jump; There's a good argument that court's shouldn't be involved in deciding pricing for such a highly regulated entity, in view of the regulatory thumb BT are under. Something else, to suggest that Landlines are a market in their own right is flawed, since other options are available like Mobiles and services from other CP's, who BT have no control over, you could argue that classing Landlines as its own market is opinion and not fact. The reason other CP's followed BT's landline rental increases is because they don't actually want landline customers, and therefore raised prices to discourage that class of customer transferring service to them from BT. If the CAT do award Split Purchase customers compensation, then they've basically overruled OFCOM's classification of that type of customer and decided BT's pricing going forward for that type of service.
I'd be surprised if the CAT include Split Purchase customers for compensation, should BT lose, since they'd be saying they have more expertise than OFCOM in deciding regulatory matters in relation to BT's pricing; So my guess would be around £600 Million maximum, if BT loses.
In my opinion BT should win this case, since they've only been dancing to OFCOM's tune and doing as they're told. If OFCOM hadn't ordered BT to reduce prices then there wouldn't even be a case, since the case against BT is based purely on the fact that BT voluntarily reduced prices on OFCOM's instruction.
"The proceeds are being used to refinance BT's existing EUR500 million hybrid instrument, callable in May 2025. The terms do not materially differ from BT's recent issue of subordinated notes in June 2023. The notes have a non-call provision of 5.25 (NC5.25) years and a par call option during the three months prior to the first reset date (year 5.5) and then on each interest payment date thereafter. The notes are issued under BT's EUR20 billion euro medium-term notes programme."
https://www.fitchratings.com/research/corporate-finance/fitch-rates-bt-group-hybrid-bb-25-03-2024
https://ratings.moodys.com/ratings-news/417522
If Carlsberg did Pet Rocks, they'd probably call it Bitcoin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iu414lPkGY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLRxtXci5mI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1coWaTRv9Ro
Mole LEO's will never be good enough to provide direct, at volume, service to large numbers of mobile users even in semi rural areas; What LEO's would be capable of doing, is providing backhaul services to terrestrial cells serving a larger numbers of customers over a given area. They can put high gain phased array antenna's on LEO's, but they'd have to use most of the gain to serve individual calls and there isn't much they can do to increase the gain on the mobile phone antenna. I can see where LEO's are useful for ships and aircraft where micro cells could talk to the satellite, while providing services to the Crew and traveler's, but again that's more about the LEO's providing backhaul services while terrestrial cells provide the access services.
The more satellites they put into orbit, the greater the probability of the Kessler Syndrome:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP-OwOc1AFQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48szkCZYseM
Remote areas within the African Continent is where LEO service's are a good possible solution, but only if the authorities allow it.
Another possibility is HAP's, which wouldn't need the upfront Transceiver/Dish equipment costs and could easily facilitate services direct to standard 4/5G receiving equipment's and mobiles; The main issue with HAP's is the flying time and maintaining services during rotation and maintenance periods.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62tIofxb6v4
The undercurrent of scepticism portrayed in the article isn't misplaced. I can't comment on the early history of Brainspark and Clear leisure, but I can't see anything wrong with the authors implied scepticism around QBT's ambitions to achieve the seemingly impossible.
You're correct companies pay Corporation Tax on profits before dividends are distributed, so paying a dividend doesn't affect the corporation tax bill. Interest earned as a result of banking the €4 Billion would be recorded as a profit, so taxable, whereas any savings in Dividend payout's due to the buybacks would be realised after Tax. There are other considerations, for example €4 Billion in the bank would reduce the Net Debt figure, and any interest earned deducts from the interest paid on the debt. Buybacks are probably an easier and safer bet, but I have no idea how one vs the other would play out financially, It's swings and roundabouts as far as I can tell. If there are any accountants on here, maybe they could educate us?
This might have some relevance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V90AmXnguw
ASIC
"The Company has started a process to design and build a proprietary ASIC chip for Bitcoin mining."
"Once manufactured, the chips will not be used for industrial Bitcoin mining, instead they will be utilised as an affordable real-world proving ground for QBT’s disruptive Bitcoin mining technology."
The ASIC prototype hasn't yet been manufactured and real world testing wont be possible until it is, and there's no guarantee lab results will be achieved in live mining.
Methods A & B
"The porting of Method A and Method B onto commercial rigs has proven to be very challenging. The R&D team is currently testing different solutions for the final stage in order to deliver a fully reliable product. An exact date for market roll-out cannot be provided at this stage."
"The R&D team is testing different solutions for this final stage in delivering the product, however the exact date of delivery cannot be provided at this stage."
"In addition to the above, the development of Method B, as an extension to CGminer, a standard operating system used by almost all commercial mining rigs"
"The key issues have been addressed and the Company is performing intensive live mining tests 24/7 using ASIC-based Bitcoin mining devices connected to two large mining pools"
I assume QBT are saying they're they're live testing Method B, using their own rigs, as members of a larger mining pool; Again no guarantee's until test results are released.
Jambone the interviews are open to interpretation and therefore irrelevant, the content in PRN/RNS's are what's important.
To understand the content of the RNS/PRN updates, it's probably easier to pull out the key points.
Method C
"Method C in testing environments has favorably demonstrated predictive ability in c. 30% of the cases, if an input to SHA-256 will produce a winning hash, resulting in a potential saving of energy."
"The fundamental feature of Method C is its ability to predict whether an input to SHA-256, the core algorithm for Bitcoin mining, is likely to generate a winning hash, or not."
"The current average predictive performance of Method C in a testing environment is nearly 30% , meaning that SHA-256 will avoid processing an input when the oracle will assess, within the current block, or the adjacent future Bitcoin blockchain blocks, that it is highly unlikely to generate a winning hash, namely almost 30% of the times."
If I'm understanding Method C correctly, QBT are saying that the Method looks at the newly constructed Block, and 30% of the time successfully determines whether or not a winning Hash is possible. Can someone explain to me how that would work in relation to live mining? Where the miners have choices about where to insert Nonce data, and changes in Bitcoin difficulty alters the probability of finding a winning hash.