Member Info for fleccy

"any view BT is heading for years of strong profit growth (once the pension deficit recovery payments and major CAPEX programme complete) is likely to be misplaced."

Fat even if BT had to cough up the whole £1.3 Billion, it'd hurt in the short term but long term it would just be a blip. The FTTP and 5G rollouts are pulling around £5 Billion in capex out of the business per year, any payout due to this class action will be meaningless over time as the capex bill reduces. If BT do lose, it'll probably open the floodgates for the lawyers to go after every other business in the UK, the Lawyers will get richer while everyone else gets poorer.

Aus, I don't like Labour since Brown sabotaged Defined Benefit pensions, the Tories have been worse than useless and weak as dishwater and I just don't like the the woke Lib Dem policies. Since I don't like the rest I'll vote for the best lol.

The lawyers are after £1.3 Billion, so that's nearly 2 years worth of dividend payouts. The logical side of my brain say's that BT should easily win this, but I think they'll lose, not because they've done anything wrong but because the system is geared against them. It appears a company can't raise prices because their customers are so disengaged they can't be bothered to look around for better deals, when there are many alternatives to choose from. As far as Telecoms are concerned, I think the regulators and would agree that BT has loads of competition in the form of mobile and other CP's, no doubt the judges will disagree. The same thing's happening with Lloyds over Motor Finance, people sign on the dotted line and are apparently happy with the car financing, and then the regulators and courts decide to jump in and operate a cashback scheme; All that will happen is the feckless will be refused credit going forward and everyone else will have to pay more.

No wonder the FTSE is uninvestable, between the Government, courts and regulators, UK companies are having their profits syphoned away to inject capital into the economy, via the backdoor. After Gordon Brown I said I'd never vote Labour again, the Conservatives can join them on that list. At the next election I'm either voting reform or not at all.

I was wondering why someone would want to Split-Purchase Voice and Broadband service separately, and the only thing I could think of is that many of them are Virgin Media standalone Broadband users.

" Since September 2016, Virgin Media’s line rental price has been the most expensive in the market at £19.00 per month, although this is only one penny more expensive than BT"

What I suspect is that many of the split purchase customers are well engaged and chose to take fast Broadband from Virgin Media as a standalone and keep their voice only service with BT, VM may even have increased their phone rental charge because they wanted to attract only standalone Broadband customers. If I'm right, Split Purchase customers using VM for broadband have chosen that in preference to a bundled service over Openreach and are probably the most engaged group.

"Split purchase customers and refunds for overpayments

Stakeholder comments

3.18 CCP-ACOD believed that split purchase customers, not just voice-only customers, should

also be protected by BT’s voluntary commitments. It also suggested strengthening the

commitments so that consumers who overpay could be guaranteed a refund of any

overpayment.

Our response

3.19 As noted in our December 2020 consultation and 2017 review, split purchasers are

typically younger and more technologically literate than voice-only customers, and, by

definition, have internet access which allows them to access alternative offers more easily.

Unlike voice-only customers, split purchasers have a wider range of choices available to

them, such as dual play bundles.22 We also note that our new rules on end-of-contract

notifications (introduced in February 2020) will mean that customers will be advised

through those notifications that they may be able to save money by bundling their

services.23 We therefore remain of the view that it is appropriate to exclude split purchase

customers from the scope of the commitments.

3.20 On CCP’s question of refunds, these commitments are forward-looking and designed to

protect voice-only customers over the duration of the next five years."

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/216569/statement-protecting-voice-only-landline-customers.pdf

"In Q1 2017 the total number of voice only lines were 1.5 million. (Approx 1 million on BT) see Fig 1.5 in the linked document."

Should read Fig 1.4, not 1.5

More reading in relation to this:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/107321/standalone-landline-evidence.pdf

"Customers who purchase SFV services can be divided into two distinct customer groups:

• Voice-only customers: these customers purchase an SFV service but do not take fixed

broadband from any supplier; and

• Split-purchase customers; these customers purchase an SFV service and a standalone

fixed broadband service, i.e. they purchase these services separately and therefore do

not derive any benefit from purchasing these services in tandem.

1.8 Split-purchase customers can be further divided into two sub-groups:

• Split-supply customers: these customers purchase an SFV service and a standalone

fixed broadband service from two separate suppliers; and

• Split-service customers: these customers purchase an SFV service and a standalone

fixed broadband service from the same supplier; i.e. they do not bundle these services"

"In Q1 2017 the total number of voice only lines were 1.5 million." (Approx 1 million on BT) see Fig 1.5 in the linked document.

"However, the number of customers who purchase a standalone fixed broadband service also includes customers on the Virgin Media network (who do not need to pay a line rental to receive a standalone fixed broadband service). Virgin Media advised that at the time of asking [] of their customers purchased standalone broadband. We estimate that this means that [] Virgin Media customers purchase a standalone fixed broadband service, and have no SFV service from any provider as at Q1 2017 given our estimate that [] BT SFV customers are Virgin Media standalone broadband customers."

I think there's a lot to unravel here, but as I said in a previous post I don't understand where these figures of over £1 Billion compensation come from. If BT lose I would think the majority of the claimants will be in the Standalone Fixed Voice category, and anyone who has taken broadband out with Virgin Media should also be categorised as SFV and only covered between 2015 and 2018, since BT would have no idea these people were getting broadband from VM. I think there are a lot of things to unwind in this case, but I can't see this costing BT anywhere near £1 Billion if they lose the case.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a82a4eaed915d74e6236e6f/ofcom-review-of-the-market-for-standalone-landline-services.pdf

"You are excluded if you are a:

- BT customer who took a landline service aimed at business users;

- BT Basic or BT Home Phone Saver customer;

- individual living in the Hull area as this area is supplied by KCOM Group Ltd and not BT;

- individual who did not purchase any landline services from BT before 8 December 2023.

In addition, if you purchased landline services from BT after 1 October 2015 but stopped

doing so before 8 December 2023, any purchases of landline services from BT that you

resume making after 8 December 2023 are not included within this"

More information relating to the claim:

https://www.callclaim.co.uk/media/cd3phtat/2023-12-13-revised-opt-out-notice-with-links.pdf

"Landline-Only:

Any time between Oct 2015 - Apr 2018 (Oct 2015 – today for certain business customers)

Unbundled:

Any time between Oct 2015 – today (save that individuals who did not purchase any landline services from BT before 8 December 2023 are not included in the claim. Further, for individuals who purchased landline services from BT after 1 October 2015 but stopped doing so before 8 December 2023, any further purchases of landline services made in the period after 8 December 2023 are not included in the collective claim)."

If I'm understanding it correctly:

Granny and other residential users who purchased a landline, but didn't want or need broadband might have a claim between Oct 2015 - Apr 2018, but certain business customers may have a claim up to Dec 2023. BT Basic or BT Home Phone Saver customers are excluded by the look of it.

The slightly confusing bit is the Unbundled section covering potential claims between 2015 to 2023, but I can't imagine there'd be many of those. I suppose it's possible that a small business might have had more lines, but you'd expect that would be on a different type of business contract with relevant discounted pricing; A business with 5 lines on the same number are going to on a different type of contract than landline only customers. My wife used to work in an Opticians and the Broadband was bundled with the landline, so that wont be covered in this claim and I suspect most other small businesses would also bundle broadband with the landline. I would think the unbundled landlines would be few and far between, but I'm only guessing. I don't understand where these figures stating over £1 Billion come from.

Class action starts tomorrow.

"BT class action case to test new ground in English courts

The first trial in the English courts stemming from a wave of class action antitrust lawsuits starts on Monday, as telecoms operator BT faces a £1.3bn claim"

https://www.ft.com/content/05625f30-667a-4c02-aa4d-6e2646720164

I can't read the FT article as it's behind a paywall, but £1.3 Billion is twice the initial aggregate estimate in the summary at the start of the case:

"Aggregate damages have been given a preliminary estimate of £589 million (on the basis of 8% simple interest, comprised of £238 million for BT Voice Only Customers and £351 million for BT Split Purchase Customers"

https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/cat/files/2021-01/1381_Patourel_summary_260121.pdf

Can someone who subscribes to the FT clear this anomaly up?

I've voted conservative many times over the years, but I'm not happy with the performance of the FTSE or the exodus of investment from the UK; They appear to be incapable of achieving anything they say they'll do, and the Truss fiasco makes me think the market punished the Conservatives in order to force through a change, aimed at bringing in their own man. Even though I don't necessarily agree with the Truss strategy, to encourage growth, the actual cost of the tax cuts weren't particularly large in the scheme of things, but the reaction felt like the market sending a message and telling the politicians we're in control. It's clear the Government no longer controls this country, the market behemoths do. I think a good cartoon, representing UK politicians, would have them all wearing g imp masks, ball gags and bondage briefs, with city executives walking them around while pulling the chain connected to their g imp collars.

Hexam I think you're agreeing with what I've been saying for over a year now, or maybe longer. The reason the vested interests push the narrative of limited supply, and an ever increasing Bitcoin price on the back of it, is because it's the only way the BTC mining Proof of Work economic model works; As the reward diminishes with each halving, the only way the miners can profit is if difficulty drops, or the Bitcoin price increase dramatically. The only miners left standing, if the Bitcoin price doesn't increase substantially post halving's, will be the one's who're off-grid; I'm talking about the ones who have their own hydroelectric generation, or maybe using flared gas that'd otherwise be burned/vented, or some other method of self generation. I'm of the view that Bitcoin is a waste of energy whatever source is used to mine it and other useful uses could be found for these off-grid generators. If the Bitcoin price stays low, post the next halving, many of the big On-Grid miners may simply shut up shop with a flood of cheap Asic's hitting the market, with the Off-grid miners possibly taking up the load with a much lower Bitcoin difficulty. All anyone can do is guess what might happen in the event of the big miners becoming insolvent and shutting down, since the Bitcoin price is driven purely by sentiment it could be the final knock to the BTC confidence.

The Plan Is To Privatise EVERYTHING.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jxL9Cktsao

Probably explains a lot of the issues with this country and why the political elite bow down to these behemoths.

IP my understanding is if you earned say £50,0000 up to "March", and then received your redundancy payout of say £50,000 in March, £30,000 of your redundancy payout is tax free as long as it isn't part of your earnings, like notice period, holiday pay, etc. The extra £20,000 redundancy payout will be added to your income for the year, so you'll be taxed as if you earned £70,000 for the tax year in this example. I'm not a tax expert so I'll happily be corrected if I'm wrong.

I can't find any news pumping the price to 4%, even volumes aren't that high.

I disagree, it's great for topping up.

I must admit I used Drawdown and cashed in my Lifesight DC pension over two unequal payments. I was made redundant 18 months before my 60th Birthday, but the value of my DC pension had dipped around the time of my redundancy. It wasn't really feasible to go into drawdown immediately, due to my redundancy payout plus earnings in that tax year anyway. The pension valuation was still down after the following April, so I decided to hold a bit longer. The DC valuation increased dramatically in the same tax year as I was due to draw my DB pensions, but my DB pensions started late in the tax year so I decided to go for drawdown over two payments, with the majority taken in that first year to get maximum tax benefit from the tax allowances, 25% plus what was left of my income tax allowance. I was overtaxed for both Drawdown payments, but received rebates in the following tax years.

I have no idea what Drawdown Options Standard life offer, but there are several variables that might affect your decision when the time comes.

Joe what will you do when you retire, cash in your DC pension or take the annuity/income?

"2) Publish the predicted Nonce ranges"

Bob, on your second point, I suspect the calculated Nonce range would be massive and too great to publish. QBT would probably have to number crunch the winning hash/Nonce once known and then determine if it's accommodated within their associated calculated range, then they'd have to calculate how much faster the network could have found a winning hash using their calculated range over the current network brute force processing time. The higher the difficulty the less chance of finding a winning hash, so the miners have to be creative where they insert bits to find a hash equal to, or lower than, the target. If QBT have succeeded in achieving their 2.6 times probability improvement, at current difficulty, then they've probably done well.

So how was the £18,000 tax free pension payment distributed, did all go into the DB scheme, or was it split, or did it all go into the Standard Life DC scheme?