BT Openreach

50Twuncle

Roland_Sausage wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that they can afford it, however it costs a lot of money to implement and of course most of the end users want it as cheap as possible, meaning they would make a loss on it.

And of course since their only obligation is to make a profit for the shareholders they are obviously not going to fund something that is going to cause them a loss.

Anotheruser mentioned the NHS, Councils and railways not being financially viable either. These are all government subsidised too.

I don't understand how the MOD / RAILWAY / COUNCILS / NHS etc are supposed to actually make a "profit" they are a public service so will always be run at a cost to the country ......

Pincher

50Twuncle wrote: »

I don't understand how the MOD / RAILWAY / COUNCILS / NHS etc are supposed to actually make a "profit" they are a public service so will always be run at a cost to the country ......

I believe the solution has already been illustrated fabulously by the movie Robocop. You simply subcontract everything to OCP.


Not from "1984":


If you want a picture of the future, imagine G4S, of the 2012 Olympics security fiasco, evolve into OCP - inexorably as a capitalist certainty.

onomatopoeia99

50Twuncle wrote: »

Re-nationalize all of the vital services (phones, water, gas, electricity, government departments etc) only run them more like private businesses (ie be more aware of profit/loss - bring in bosses from the private side to run them !!!

You realise if they re-nationalise the phones we go back to the good old days of the GPO (anyone remember what that was like?) Also that VM are also "the phones" so they will have to be nationalised. Just because it has Richard Branson's face on it doesn't mean it's not telephony infrastructure. Also, all the LLU connections in DLEs and aggregation points to the likes of Sky, talktalk, Be and others are all "the phones" so that will need to be nationalised too.

Are you sure you want this? Are you sure you want just one player in the domestic telephone market?

If that's not what you are arguing for, please present your model for the split between the public and private sector in telecommunications, because it's really not clear to me.


BT are answerable to far more than their shareholders. They have a raft of obligations placed on them in statute and by OFCOM, way, way beyond what any other telecommunications provider has.

Someone will come along in a minute and suggest I am a BT employee or shareholder, because if you're not against them, you must be employed by them!

50Twuncle

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

You realise if they re-nationalise the phones we go back to the good old days of the GPO (anyone remember what that was like?) Also that VM are also "the phones" so they will have to be nationalised. Just because it has Richard Branson's face on it doesn't mean it's not telephony infrastructure. Also, all the LLU connections in DLEs and aggregation points to the likes of Sky, talktalk, Be and others are all "the phones" so that will need to be nationalised too.

Are you sure you want this? Are you sure you want just one player in the domestic telephone market?

If that's not what you are arguing for, please present your model for the split between the public and private sector in telecommunications, because it's really not clear to me.


BT are answerable to far more than their shareholders. They have a raft of obligations placed on them in statute and by OFCOM, way, way beyond what any other telecommunications provider has.

Someone will come along in a minute and suggest I am a BT employee or shareholder, because if you're not against them, you must be employed by them!

You are a BT Employee or Shareholder
And whilst they may have a raft of obligations placed on them - they constantly fail to meet them - with nothing being done to stop this failure ...
They have become a business which is profit orientated which cannot be right for one of the necessities in life (Electricity, Gas, Phones and Water) - something needs to be done - you have to admit that ?
They need to be answerable to us !!

littleboo

anotheruser wrote: »

The NHS, councils, railways.... all not financially viable but that's not what its about.
BT just don't want to spend money. While I understand they will take a loss, other areas of the business will make a profit, so overall, the company will make a profit.

Too many shareholders these days want profit in EVERY AREA OF THE BUSINESS, when that's not how to make a successful business.

Just because an aeroplane hasn't had ALL seats booked, doesn't mean they cancel the flight (bar a few airlines of course!).

You seem to be suggesting that Openreach should run at a loss, supported by other BT Group businesses. So effectively, the infrastructure used by the likes of Sky, TT etc would be subsidised by BT's business and residential retail customers.

GRM

I'm in a similar boat - our exchange has been fibre enabled but not our cabinet (serves 110 houses) as it was not 'economically viable' to do so. Got in touch with BTO; they have a small team who are able to arrange co-funded upgrades, they will contribute 50% of the capital cost if the residents can raise the other 50%.

In our case that amounted to approximately £35,000. We got very close to raising it through pledges but not quite so we're having to wait for our local authorities BDUK scheme which is scheduled to upgrade our cabinet sometime in mid/late 2015.

More details here on the gap funded option here: https://www.superfast-openreach.co.uk/rural-broadband/Fibre-roll-out.aspx

50Twuncle

I asked my ISP (Talk Talk Business) to enquire of BT Openreach when I would be upgraded and BT refused to discuss the matter with them....
They are extremely annoying and the sooner they get added to WHATDOTHEYKNOW the better.......

LazyTyper

50Twuncle wrote: »

You are a BT Employee or Shareholder
And whilst they may have a raft of obligations placed on them - they constantly fail to meet them - with nothing being done to stop this failure ...

What obligations specifically are BT, or more specifically Openreach, "constantly" failing to meet?

50Twuncle

LazyTyper wrote: »

What obligations specifically are BT, or more specifically Openreach, "constantly" failing to meet?

You only have to Google "BT openreach Fails" to see what I mean - over 38.000 results !!
or "bt openreach complaints" - to get 62,000 results !!

DUTR

50Twuncle wrote: »

You only have to Google "BT openreach Fails" to see what I mean - over 38.000 results !!

Answer post #39 please.