Member Info for Terraplane

Openreach do not provide broadband services, they provide connectivity and maintenance services for broadband service providers on the BT owned network infrastructure. That is what I said and that is a fact. There is no Openreach broadband - not retail or wholesale. Clearly you do not understand how BT or Openreach work, what they do or how they do it.

If - and it's a very, very big if - BT were to sell Openreach and the network infrastructure as a package, Openreach would not be able to sell Openreach services on the network. This is why Openreach became a separate operation to BT in the first place. If Openreach owned the network they would have to create an entity that mirrors the current situation of BT and Openreach. Unless OFCOM agreed to allow the new company to operate in the same way BT used to before Openreach was created.

BT would become a simple provider of broadband, telephony, mobile and whatever other services they could sell. In effect, the value of BT would shrink.

You can make your own judgement as to whether hiving off Openreach is a good plan, or not, for BT and their shareholders. But remember - you, as a shareholder (which I assume you are) already own the network infrastructure and if it is sold you will lose the most valuable part of your BT shareholding. You will, of course, receive some money, or perhaps shares in the new company, in exchange for your share of the network infrastructure. You can decide for yourself what is in your interest if and when any such event comes to pass.

I didn't mention foreign ownership.

Another day, same old rubbish...

Openreach install and maintain infrastructure for BT. Openreach provide connectivity and maintenance for over 600 service providers, both business and residential customers.

What Openreach don't do is provide Openreach broadband or Openreach telephony of any kind.

Openreach do not own a single millimetre of the infrastructure they provide.

If Openreach were floated the network infrastructure would remain with BT group.

Selling Openreach would mean that BT would still operate in the same way but would be able to tender any infrastructure provision and maintenance, meaning Openreach would have to bid for the work.

Those who believe that selling Openreach would result in the BT share price ballooning to £5 or more are deluded.

Perhaps it would be an idea for the multiple personas of candid to actually take some time to learn and understand exactly what BT and Openreach do, and how they do it before spewing more of the endless bile

Here's something for you to think about Candida:

Today the government disposed of the last tranche of Natwest at a cost to the taxpayer in excess of £10 billion.

That's £10 billion which will never be recovered. The original bail-out in 2008 was more than the defence budget but we were told that if RBS (which was the owner of the debt and of Natwest) was allowed to fail, it would have caused the collapse of the entire financial system. Whether or not that was true is a moot point. The deal was done and the taxpayer was relieved of £49 billion (almost £80 billion today) and Fred the Shred was relieved of his knighthood.

Now, 17 years later, the taxpayer has been shafted for £10 billion whilst in 2024 Natwest returned £4 billion to shareholders in dividends and buybacks.

So perhaps, instead of your continual ravings about the so-called greedy BT employees and your dream of a takeover by hostile forces just so you can get your money back (you won't, but that's a different story), you should look at where the real greed is and who the real destroyers of shareholder value are and vent your ruptured spleen in their direction instead, because regardless of whether you own shares in Natwest or not, you certainly own a stake in the lost £10 billion.

So think about that.

The only thing you are revealing is that you know nothing. You are a complete information vacuum with the intellect of a small child.

"until the Mittal/DT/Slim bid comes in between now and September"

So, which one is it going to be, because they can't all bid at the same time. Here's a bit of a clue - none of them.

Explain, if you can, exactly how you think the BT network will be hived off, and to whom.

Give us all the benefit of your expert knowledge in the field of communication networks and how they function.

You have no idea about BT at all. None.

Candid's theme song...

Somebody bought 10 million yesterday and there were several other big buys.

Bear in mind that the market is down overall on increased government borrowing news , which may lead to increased taxes and inflation.

It isn't just about the results.

Do you ever read what you scribble?

You should, it's very good, if satire is what you're aiming at.

On the other hand, if it's intention is to illustrate your business acumen and knowledge of BT, it's probably better that you go for the satire option.

Do you know why it will take several years to close all those telephone exchanges? Ever been inside a telephone exchange?

Do you know why some of those exchange buildings will remain in service?

Do you know how many people it takes to do all the work required to decommission and dismantle a telephone exchange?

Do you know why the BT network cannot be sold off?

Do you know what would happen to BT, and your shares, if it was?

Do you know why Mr Mittal is not going to make a bid for BT?

Do you know anything about anything?

Yet again, here you are, pouring out your tedious bile about the BT workforce ad nauseum, like a demented parrot. You need psychiatric help, or a blanket over your cage to keep you quiet.

The only laughing stock is you.

And all of that drivel confirms exactly what I said.

You know zero about the BT network or how it functions.

Furthermore, you don't come here to discuss anything, you come here to post the same tiresome, infantile, bilious drivel, ad nauseum.

What other companies are doing is not of any consequence to BT. If some altnet wants to install some fibre optics in the hope that people will hook up with them, that's their business. Ultimately all of there altnets connct to the BT network because that's the only way they actually deliver theri services.

Understand now?

Good.

And if you prefer the rantings of a village idiot, please keep applauding the candy man. If you think I'm being rude and arrogant it's because I know what I'm talking about. Do you?

You really don't know anything, do you?

You have no idea what the network is or how it works, do you?

And as for wasteful overbuild, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what you think that is and why.

The rest of your nonsensical scribbling is not worth commenting on.

You're as dim as a TocH lamp my friend.

"It is my understanding..."

And there's the rub, to paraphrase the Bard.

You understand nothing. Nil. Nought. Nada.

Absolute zero.

Don't listen to the voices in your (admitedly tiny) head. Ignore the siren songs emanating from within your fevered cranium. They lie, they decieve, they seek only to see you wreaked upon the rocks of delusion...

Time for school:

Mr Mittal has no authority to appoint anyone in BT, not even the tea lady. He has no authority to decide who does anything in BT, neither has he any authority to dictate strategy. None.

Y'see, it's like this: Mr Mittal is not the shareholder. The shareholding purchased from Patrick Drahi's company Altice is owned by Bharti Enterprises, which in turn is owned by shareholders. Mr Mittal does not own 100% of Bharti Enterprises. Bharti Enterprises is made up of many separate enterprises, including telecoms. Each one of these has a CEO and a BoD. It's complex stuff but it means that Mr Mittal is merely the chairman and has no say in the day-to-day operations of these diverse companies.

Too complex for your limited intellectual powers?

OK, think of it like this: Mr Mittal can't tell BT what to do. He can't appoint anyone to BT and he can't make any decisions about the operation of the company.

Still with me?

Good.

Here's another rub for you - there will be no bid from Mr Mittal.

The BT network will not (cannot) be sold.

In the immortal words of the Bard:

"The undiscover'd country from whose bourn

No traveller returns, puzzles the will

And makes us rather bear those ills we have

Than fly to others that we know not of."

Aye, there's the rub.

Mr Mittal has no say in the operation of BT. He is not a member of the board of directors, nor does he have any say in BT's strategy. His company has invested in BT but most of the shares Bharti took over from Drahi are not equity they are derivative contracts. (look it up yourself).

In short, he doesn't own as much of BT as you think.

The BT workforce is not, and never has been, to blame for the parlous state of the company, regardless of what your single-celled brain believes. You know absolutely zero about BT or the people who work for BT. In fact, you know zero about anything. Your laughable ravings constantly illustrate to all and sundry that you possess the intellect that a slug would be ashamed of. Perhaps that's unkind to slugs.

Let me tell you for the final time that Openreach and the BT network are two completely separate entities. The network - or to put it another way , the national and international connectivity, interconnectivity, processing and distribution hardware and software, in other words the exchange transmission and delivery systems, including both the still functioning legacy systems and the IP based systems - is owned lock stock and smoking barrel (I use that risible phrase you are fond of employing just so that you have something within this note that you might understand) by BT Group, or more accurately, the shareholders. That's us.

Openreach are employed by BT and more than 600 other service providers to connect and maintain services and to provide the ongoing fibre connectivity for the network (that's the bit described in the previous paragraph, remember?). Openreach is owned by BT Group shareholders too. That's us again.

Do you understand? Try to connect the few functioning ganglions (that's the equivalent of the BT network within your withered cranium) for a moment and attempt to process this information.

Got it?

Good.

Now, let's talk about the future (that's the concept of the rest of your life starting now).

Are you sitting comfortably on you commode? Bottom nice and clean? Good.

There will be no bid from Mr Mittal or anybody else.

The BT share price will gradually ease upwards, but not quickly.

It may, or may not, reach the level at which your miserable stake is again worth what you paid for it.

There may be unkown factors that influence the company's financial position one way or the other, but we just can't tell because our collective crystal balls (or shrivelled sultanas in your case) are unreliable. That's one of the problems with buying shares, isn't it?

Tomorrow will arrive and you will still be none the wiser.

That's the future.

Once again...sigh,

Openreach are nothing more than a service company that provides and maintains services on the national network, which is owned - to use your childish words - lock, stock and smoking barrel by BT Group. Openreach own nothing except their staff and equipment, vans etc. Openreach is owned by BT Group as a subsidiary company separate from the rest of BT. Openreach provides and maintains connectivity for all the other service providers - more than 600 ISPs - who use the BT network. That's how they make their money, not by the revenue generated across the network. Openreach do not sell broadband services or any other communications technology. Selling Openreach would not mean the network being sold, so once again you are mistaken. The national network is already integrated -apart from the bits owned by Virgin Media and KCOM.

It is also a matter of fact that BT's financial position is directly attributable to the actions of Peter Bonfield and Iain Vallance who set about a disasterous program of expansion, buying bits and pieces of telecoms companies around the world, none of which made any money. They also instigated the near-fatal Concert Communications venture with MCI. This venture was supposed to give BT access to the US telecoms market but very nearly collapsed the company. After failing to merge with MCI these two idiots tried to get AT&T onboard. Again, costly failure followed. Then there was the ridiculous auction of the mobile networks fiasco. BT paid vastly inflated sums to secure 3G licences, again at the behest of Bonfield and Vallance. All of it cost huge sums that virtually drained BT dry and the company has never recovered from the actions of Bonfield and Vallance. When Bonfield was asked whether he was responsible for the collapse of the BT share price, he simply shrugged his shoulders and said: "that's business".

Since then, BT have had a series of hopeless CEOs and Chairmen, all of whom have just made things worse. Bland sold off the mobile arm, Verwaayen insisted on buying rubbish equipment from China for the 21 CN despite being told it would never work, Iain Livingston decided to take on Sky Sports and spent billions on the useless BT TV which never made a brass razoo before being sold, followed by Gavin "the hairdresser" Patterson - a man singularly bereft of any talent whatsoever apart from selling shampoo - a total and utter fraud. Philip Jansen fared no better and now the fragrant Alison Kirkby is left to try and salvage something from the smoking ruins.

None of BT's problems can be laid at the door of the workforce. None.

So, apart from being a bitter and twisted loss-making share-holder, you are a complete ignoramus. You obviously know less about BT and telecoms than my pot plants.

If you want to grind your ill-fitting dentures about BT every day as you sit on your commode, waiting for the carer to wipe your bottom, try doing some research. All the information is out there, all you have to do is lo

Is there any link between the number of daily posts and the SP?

Quiet days and a rising SP sre to be encouraged and supported by all.

Shhhhh.....

Your view - as in all your previous incarnations on this board - is total rubbish, driven by the fact that your investments are just as crap as your opinions.

Why don't you far cough back to noddy land.

I don't see Advent making a bid in the short term. Could be next year before anything happens.

Your ridiculous post just shows you to be a disgusting russian turd.

Russia invaded a sovereign nation and Russia are responsible for the deaths of countless thousands of innocent Ukraine civilians, military personnel and Russian soldiers, not to mention the destruction of a vast amount of Ukrainian infrastructure, all in the name of one man's dream of taking what he believes is his. Putin is a war criminal and should never be allowed to set foot outside Russia.

Russia is a corrupt, murderous gangster state with a murderous, insane dictator.

Far queue.