'Doomsday' plan to renationalise BT

Cleaver

amcluesent wrote: »

The real reason to nationalise BT is simple - tax and censorship.

Clown is under orders from Barroso to get control of the internet, which they both hate for the freedom of speech it allows. They've tried the paedophile and terrorist bogey-man spin, but people still want to keep the web open.

As BT is the biggest ISP, it'll be easy for the Government to introduce a universal 'web account' so you need to input your ID Card details each time you use the web. Taxation based on time on-line and collation of all content, linked back to your fingerprints encoded on the ID card!

Before anyone says this is a paranoia, check out how the government has twisted arms in the police etc. to ensure that the Phorm profiling and content inspection system could be installed and used (secretly) by BT. Just testing...

If you've done nothing wrong etc. etc.

I love this kind of wacky stuff.

I've heard that they will nationalise BT, take over the internet, nationalise all optitians and they only way you'll be able to boot up your PC is with an eyeball reader that will be integrated in to every PC, which will be a law introduced in 2013.

You heard it here first.

sons_2

Cleaver wrote: »

I love this kind of wacky stuff.

I've heard that they will nationalise BT, take over the internet, nationalise all optitians and they only way you'll be able to boot up your PC is with an eyeball reader that will be integrated in to every PC, which will be a law introduced in 2013.

You heard it here first.

:rotfl:
Thanks, that made me laugh.

Lotus-eater

bubblesmoney wrote: »

there must be some sort of trouble with BTs finances because someone i know was working for BT through another software company. even though the project was ongoing the outside contractor had to pull the plug on the project and relocate their employees out of BT projects because apparently BT hadnt cleared their payments and were overdue and hence the IT company decided to pull the plug on the contract midway through. it was a IT support project. so things might be bad with BTs finances if they arent paying companies they contract out work to. the person i know subsequently relocated abroad even though they were offered to relocate in the uk down south from northern ireland for another unrelated project which was still ongoing. but the said person didint want to keep moving around if that project was subsequently terminated as well. so they opted to go abroad for other projects of the IT company instead of working on any BT contract and have their personal plans repeatedly disrupted.

BT are always very late payers. Nothing new there, they are one of the big campanies that squeeze small ones.

I don't see how they could nationalise BT now, its too complicated. Never say never though.

StevieJ

Just to add to the 70's atmosphere, I hear that there is a queue of bodies waiting to be processed at the local Crem :eek:
Before you start kicking Brown, this is a Tory council and it is caused by the refusal to pay overtime (or so I am told)

chucky

Cleaver wrote: »

The poster just above me beat me to it, but this article isn't about plans to renationalise anything. It's about the government taking steps to risk assess a large company going under in light of recent events and coming up with business continuity and disaster recovery plans. Which sounds very sensible to me.

I guess the headline 'Government creates sensible business continuity plan' doesn't really attract the reader as much.

but the doom mongers wouldn't be happy with your headline :T

BT is too complex and has a much more widespread market than it was when Government owned for it to be nationalised.

Lotus-eater

chucky wrote: »

BT is too complex and has a much more widespread market than it was when Government owned for it to be nationalised.

I suspect if it was to happen, they would nationalise only the part that owns the infrastructure, taking any debt with it.
That would leave the other areas to compete with the private sector, which means they would be halved in size within a year (IMHO)

Old_Slaphead

StevieJ wrote: »

Just to add to the 70's atmosphere, I hear that there is a queue of bodies waiting to be processed at the local Crem :eek:
Before you start kicking Brown, this is a Tory council and it is caused by the refusal to pay overtime (or so I am told)

Presumably that's because a greater number of people are committing suicide because of this government' s policies

StevieJ

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Presumably that's because a greater number of people are committing suicide because of this government' s policies

More likely that they have heard that the Tories have shortened in price at Ladbrokes for the next election :eek:

Fire_Fox

BT still effectively have a monopoly on certain areas of the telecoms market. To be able to take advantage of the cheap prices for landline calls and broadband offered by some competitors one needs an active BT line in place. In rented properties it is common practise to have the line cancelled at the end of a tenancy, meaning the next person has to pay a substantial charge plus agree to an 18 month contract with BT. As a result it's substantially cheaper to have a basic mobile phone contract with mobile internet access - I pay less than £30 for both and it doesn't matter if I relocate.

sympatex

As yet mobile broadband largely isn't comparable to fixed line so that's not really a good example.
I'm undecided about BT's future there's nothing wrong with any of the divisions except they are massively bloated! That will change overtime, it takes along time to work out the unionised bits from the past.