What a complete disaster for the British consumer once again. So much for freedom of choice in the market. Six months ago I managed to get away from BT's expensive call packages and charges. I have been with EE on a SIM only contract for about 9 months and it serves all my telephone calls and texting needs admirably.
Now I'm going full circle and comes next year when the deal is completed I will be back with BT and I have absolutely no doubt in my mind it will end up costing me a fortune in 'new deals' etc.
How will it necessarily reduce choice? Unlike the 3/O2 plan, it isn't decreasing competition as BT were never really a serious mobile operator after selling O2, it's just a change of ownership
BT may decide to run EE on a rather hands off basis, similar to how Plusnet is fully owned by BT but still competes pretty well with BT's own ISP.
Comparing it to fixed line charges is not necessarily accurate, that's an area where BT have a lot more control. BT-EE still has to compete with Vodafone, 3, O2 (for now)
How will it necessarily reduce choice? Unlike the 3/O2 plan, it isn't decreasing competition as BT were never really a serious mobile operator after selling O2, it's just a change of ownership
It's not just about mobile though. Quad play itself is a market. EE had just started in TV and so was looking to become a player. We know BT were to be a player via an MVNO. So previously we would have had BT and EE competing separately and now we won't. Surely you see that as a reduction in choice?
Plus with BT having an existing mobile business to look after all their priorities change. They will no longer want to shake up the market and see existing mobile margins eroded so you can bet the quad play deals won't be anything like as exciting as they would have been.
It's not just about mobile though. Quad play itself is a market. EE had just started in TV and so was looking to become a player. We know BT were to be a player via an MVNO. So previously we would have had BT and EE competing separately and now we won't. Surely you see that as a reduction in choice?
And we have other providers stepping in to become an MVNO for their own offerings. So BT and EE becomes BT and Sky - which I'd say is even better, given that Sky is already a significant ISP/TV provider with unique selling points (sports, HD, 4K), BT is a huge ISP/telco with a reasonable IPTV setup and EE is a middling ISP with a tiny TV operation.
Plus with BT having an existing mobile business to look after all their priorities change. They will no longer want to shake up the market and see existing mobile margins eroded so you can bet the quad play deals won't be anything like as exciting as they would have been.
I couldn't give two hoots about triple play this and quad play that - I'd rather go with the providers of each service that best fit my needs/price.
The main thing that would worry me about the deal is how it will affect their investment in fixed line - e.g. are they going to start using 4G as a crap and cheap fix for "superfast broadband" in areas that they had previously planned to deploy FTTC/FTTP in.
And we have other providers stepping in to become an MVNO for their own offerings. So BT and EE becomes BT and Sky - which I'd say is even better,
No, BT + EE + Sky becomes BT + Sky i.e. still a reduction in the number of players. All of the other current/potential players were still going ahead because of BT's original MVNO plans. It's simple arithmetic really however many you have, you now have at least one less. And really that is all I was trying to say it is a reduction in quad play choice. Your points about not you personally not caring about quad play doesn't really change simple arithmetic does it? Regulators have to consider other people too.
However, rivals TalkTalk and Vodafone have already said BT is grabbing too much of the market and have called for regulators to force BT to spin off its Openreach fixed line division, which enables other telecoms companies to access its network.
Vodafone chief executive Vittorio Colao said: "Ideally, a structural separation of Openreach would be optimal."
Looks like im not the only one thinking Openreach should be sold off.
BT says that within four years, the deal will be saving it £360m a year in terms of operating costs and capital investment.
It added that by combining the two businesses, it should be able to generate an extra £1.6bn a year in sales.
Any ideas how BT intends to stop investment (like they always do). Slower roll out of 4G?
Not sure in terms of investment but would assume operating costs is down to having there own Fibre network for the masts like Vodafone have.
EE's main rollout of 4G will be pretty much done by the time BT takes over anyway so doubt it will be slower 4G rollout at all. At the stage BT takes over it will be at infill stages mainly and most of that is done in cities anyway so can't see why BT would pull investment in that.
No, BT + EE + Sky becomes BT + Sky i.e. still a reduction in the number of players. All of the other current/potential players were still going ahead because of BT's original MVNO plans. It's simple arithmetic really however many you have, you now have at least one less.
You're making the large assumption that EE's TV thing would actually grow into something big.
Sky, BT, Virgin already have dominance in more than one area (broadband/phone/TV). EE is a large mobile operator with a weak broadband offering (which is more or less provided by BT anyway) and whose TV platform is basically Freeview with some added extras. Not much of a "triple play" there.
I think it would be fair to say that the loss of EE's TV platform is a non-issue.
And really that is all I was trying to say it is a reduction in quad play choice. Your points about not you personally not caring about quad play doesn't really change simple arithmetic does it? Regulators have to consider other people too.
There is far more to competition than simply "quad play", and that many people don't want to put all of their eggs in one basket. Broadband/phone is a natural synergy, at least while BT continues to insist on an active phone line for broadband, the rest are not.
Not sure in terms of investment but would assume operating costs is down to having there own Fibre network for the masts like Vodafone have.
EE's main rollout of 4G will be pretty much done by the time BT takes over anyway so doubt it will be slower 4G rollout at all. At the stage BT takes over it will be at infill stages mainly and most of that is done in cities anyway so can't see why BT would pull investment in that.
So if BT decide to use their own Fibre Network can anyone see a conflict of interest? Hence why many want to see Openreach sold off. I think EE may use Virgin in some areas? What will this mean for MBNL? BT may wish to withdraw from the partnership as they hate helping competitors. This may save Capital Expenditure.
So if BT decide to use their own Fibre Network can anyone see a conflict of interest? Hence why many want to see Openreach sold off. I think EE may use Virgin in some areas? What will this mean for MBNL? BT may wish to withdraw from the partnership as they hate helping competitors. This may save Capital Expenditure.
Err no because BT wholesale will be rolled into open reach so anyone can continue to use them for backhaul. MBNL uses Virgin on a majority of it's masts it only uses BT in more rural areas I believe Lucan would be best answer that one. MBNL will be kept I imagine I believe that will be one of the requirements to approving this deal.
There is far more to competition than simply "quad play", and that many people don't want to put all of their eggs in one basket. Broadband/phone is a natural synergy, at least while BT continues to insist on an active phone line for broadband, the rest are not.
I agree that quad play isn't a big deal. It looks like I'm going have my phone and broadband with BT and Mobile as I'm switching to EE in a couple of weeks [Because they the best network at moment not because BT are buying]. But I'm certainly not switching from Sky for my TV as Sky offers a far better package than BT in that area. But I could just as easily switch my Phone and broadband from BT to Virgin, Talk talk etc if a good deal comes up I wouldn't completely tie myself to one network.
So if BT decide to use their own Fibre Network can anyone see a conflict of interest? Hence why many want to see Openreach sold off. I think EE may use Virgin in some areas? What will this mean for MBNL? BT may wish to withdraw from the partnership as they hate helping competitors. This may save Capital Expenditure.
It'd be debatable if Vodafone could work that angle into opposing the BT deal, since they're basically number 2 as far as owning a nationwide fibre network goes.
I'd support splitting off Openreach simply because it would mean that BT couldn't do as the US operators have done, which is to put all the money into cellular at the expense of a stagnating, dying fixed line network (except in the few areas where Verizon has done FTTH and where AT&T has done FTTN/FTTH). BT's network looks positively 21st century compared to what many parts of the US have to deal with (hence the near-monopolies enjoyed by cable companies)
BT have already said Wholesale will be moved into Openreach so we know that's happening anyway. I can't see Openreach being spun off, BT don't want that and there's no indication Ofcom do either.
True, plus Vodafone have now withdrawn their campaign to have Openreach spun off too and they were by far the biggest voice shouting for it to be broken up. I'm sure BT will welcome this news.
True, plus Vodafone have now withdrawn their campaign to have Openreach spun off too and they were by far the biggest voice shouting for it to be broken up. I'm sure BT will welcome this news.
Withdrawn, or have just shut up until the inevitable competition inquiries start up?
I'm not into all the technicalities of this, but I've got Orange for mobile, broadband and home phone. I was originally with BT for home phone.
My current mobile contract expired some time ago. do I now wait to see what BT are doing before changing anything?
Everyone is saying that a deal might take a year to go through, and even then it might take time for BT to find their bearings before making any real changes.
Your home phone/broadband is more likely to change than anything on the mobile side, as those are things BT themselves do a lot better. I believe EE's phone/broadband is just rebadged BT broadband anyway. You'd probably get shifted onto BT proper, with EE's pricing and discounts until any contract you have expires
You're making the large assumption that EE's TV thing would actually grow into something big.
Sky, BT, Virgin already have dominance in more than one area (broadband/phone/TV). EE is a large mobile operator with a weak broadband offering (which is more or less provided by BT anyway) and whose TV platform is basically Freeview with some added extras. Not much of a "triple play" there.
I think it would be fair to say that the loss of EE's TV platform is a non-issue.
There is far more to competition than simply "quad play", and that many people don't want to put all of their eggs in one basket. Broadband/phone is a natural synergy, at least while BT continues to insist on an active phone line for broadband, the rest are not.
Moox, this is silly. You make good arguments in isolation which I wouldn't necessarily disagree with. But as I said, the only thing I was disputing was that there is NO reduction in choice.
I'm making no assumptions about how big or small EE TV is. Every quad play player is small at the moment even Virgin as there isn't much true quad play in the market (Virgin is more cross selling rather than pure quad play).
But if we forget about quad play you can easily think of other areas. Say I just want a landline and broadband. Currently I have a choice (amongst others) of buying it from BT or EE. Are you saying that if EE disappears that's not a reduction in choice because I could have bought it off Sky!
What about business mobile in which BT have a reasonable share because they do well selling it alongside fixed? A BT business mobile customer could of course move to EE and vice versa. If BT and EE combine do you see that as a reduction of choice or are you arguing there is no reduction in choice because they could always have gone to Vodafone?
So there is a reduction in choice in a number of areas if you think about it.
The takeover shouldn't effect the rollout of 4G, EE plan to have 98% 4G coverage by the end of 2015, the money for this has already been invested so that won't change.
BT currently provide a lot of operational support to the EE network, that'll all move 'in-house' so that should account for a good chunk of the proposed cost savings.
Who will be footing the bill for BT's takeover of EE? Of course the BT Customers. Wholesale Linerental prices have gone almost under £7 but how much do we the Customers have to pay for it? £17 a month! More than double of what BT Wholesale's it for.
Expect ANOTHER price in April/May from BT for this takeover.
Who will be footing the bill for BT's takeover of EE? Of course the BT Customers. Wholesale Linerental prices have gone almost under £7 but how much do we the Customers have to pay for it? £17 a month! More than double of what BT Wholesale's it for.
Expect ANOTHER price in April/May from BT for this takeover.
To what? Total pointless reply if you understood monopoly that BT runs. BT sets the Wholesale price to every other provider. When BT puts its prices up then everyone follows, never has the prices gone down for the consumers - even when the Wholesale price goes down.
Who will be footing the bill for BT's takeover of EE? Of course the BT Customers. Wholesale Linerental prices have gone almost under £7 but how much do we the Customers have to pay for it? £17 a month! More than double of what BT Wholesale's it for.
Expect ANOTHER price in April/May from BT for this takeover.
That's called inflation mate. BT is obviously the most expensive, but not by some massive margin. VM, SKY etc, all charge ridiculous prices for their landlines.
Comments
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2393211/rip-orange-and-t-mobile
How will it necessarily reduce choice? Unlike the 3/O2 plan, it isn't decreasing competition as BT were never really a serious mobile operator after selling O2, it's just a change of ownership
BT may decide to run EE on a rather hands off basis, similar to how Plusnet is fully owned by BT but still competes pretty well with BT's own ISP.
Comparing it to fixed line charges is not necessarily accurate, that's an area where BT have a lot more control. BT-EE still has to compete with Vodafone, 3, O2 (for now)
It's not just about mobile though. Quad play itself is a market. EE had just started in TV and so was looking to become a player. We know BT were to be a player via an MVNO. So previously we would have had BT and EE competing separately and now we won't. Surely you see that as a reduction in choice?
Plus with BT having an existing mobile business to look after all their priorities change. They will no longer want to shake up the market and see existing mobile margins eroded so you can bet the quad play deals won't be anything like as exciting as they would have been.
And we have other providers stepping in to become an MVNO for their own offerings. So BT and EE becomes BT and Sky - which I'd say is even better, given that Sky is already a significant ISP/TV provider with unique selling points (sports, HD, 4K), BT is a huge ISP/telco with a reasonable IPTV setup and EE is a middling ISP with a tiny TV operation.
I couldn't give two hoots about triple play this and quad play that - I'd rather go with the providers of each service that best fit my needs/price.
The main thing that would worry me about the deal is how it will affect their investment in fixed line - e.g. are they going to start using 4G as a crap and cheap fix for "superfast broadband" in areas that they had previously planned to deploy FTTC/FTTP in.
Looks like im not the only one thinking Openreach should be sold off.
Any ideas how BT intends to stop investment (like they always do). Slower roll out of 4G?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31144009
EE's main rollout of 4G will be pretty much done by the time BT takes over anyway so doubt it will be slower 4G rollout at all. At the stage BT takes over it will be at infill stages mainly and most of that is done in cities anyway so can't see why BT would pull investment in that.
You're making the large assumption that EE's TV thing would actually grow into something big.
Sky, BT, Virgin already have dominance in more than one area (broadband/phone/TV). EE is a large mobile operator with a weak broadband offering (which is more or less provided by BT anyway) and whose TV platform is basically Freeview with some added extras. Not much of a "triple play" there.
I think it would be fair to say that the loss of EE's TV platform is a non-issue.
There is far more to competition than simply "quad play", and that many people don't want to put all of their eggs in one basket. Broadband/phone is a natural synergy, at least while BT continues to insist on an active phone line for broadband, the rest are not.
So if BT decide to use their own Fibre Network can anyone see a conflict of interest? Hence why many want to see Openreach sold off. I think EE may use Virgin in some areas? What will this mean for MBNL? BT may wish to withdraw from the partnership as they hate helping competitors. This may save Capital Expenditure.
Err no because BT wholesale will be rolled into open reach so anyone can continue to use them for backhaul. MBNL uses Virgin on a majority of it's masts it only uses BT in more rural areas I believe Lucan would be best answer that one. MBNL will be kept I imagine I believe that will be one of the requirements to approving this deal.
I agree that quad play isn't a big deal. It looks like I'm going have my phone and broadband with BT and Mobile as I'm switching to EE in a couple of weeks [Because they the best network at moment not because BT are buying]. But I'm certainly not switching from Sky for my TV as Sky offers a far better package than BT in that area. But I could just as easily switch my Phone and broadband from BT to Virgin, Talk talk etc if a good deal comes up I wouldn't completely tie myself to one network.
The £360m is all explained for you here on slide 20
http://www.btplc.com/Sharesandperformance/Presentations/downloads/EEAnnouncementPresentationFINAL.pdf
Since it's mostly complimentary (fixed +mobile rather than mobile + mobile like O3) the majority of it is opex rather than capex.
It'd be debatable if Vodafone could work that angle into opposing the BT deal, since they're basically number 2 as far as owning a nationwide fibre network goes.
I'd support splitting off Openreach simply because it would mean that BT couldn't do as the US operators have done, which is to put all the money into cellular at the expense of a stagnating, dying fixed line network (except in the few areas where Verizon has done FTTH and where AT&T has done FTTN/FTTH). BT's network looks positively 21st century compared to what many parts of the US have to deal with (hence the near-monopolies enjoyed by cable companies)
True, plus Vodafone have now withdrawn their campaign to have Openreach spun off too and they were by far the biggest voice shouting for it to be broken up. I'm sure BT will welcome this news.
Withdrawn, or have just shut up until the inevitable competition inquiries start up?
Weren't Sky going to have their say too?
I'm going to take the article on face value as I read it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/telecoms/11390965/Vodafone-ends-campaign-to-break-up-BT.html
Thanks
So they will save approx. £80 Million from Network cut backs.
Duplication of Network Operations.
External Spend by Insourcing Network Elements.
Platforms and Process by Simplifying Network Estate.
Still sounds like some hefty cut backs
My current mobile contract expired some time ago. do I now wait to see what BT are doing before changing anything?
Everyone is saying that a deal might take a year to go through, and even then it might take time for BT to find their bearings before making any real changes.
Your home phone/broadband is more likely to change than anything on the mobile side, as those are things BT themselves do a lot better. I believe EE's phone/broadband is just rebadged BT broadband anyway. You'd probably get shifted onto BT proper, with EE's pricing and discounts until any contract you have expires
Moox, this is silly. You make good arguments in isolation which I wouldn't necessarily disagree with. But as I said, the only thing I was disputing was that there is NO reduction in choice.
I'm making no assumptions about how big or small EE TV is. Every quad play player is small at the moment even Virgin as there isn't much true quad play in the market (Virgin is more cross selling rather than pure quad play).
But if we forget about quad play you can easily think of other areas. Say I just want a landline and broadband. Currently I have a choice (amongst others) of buying it from BT or EE. Are you saying that if EE disappears that's not a reduction in choice because I could have bought it off Sky!
What about business mobile in which BT have a reasonable share because they do well selling it alongside fixed? A BT business mobile customer could of course move to EE and vice versa. If BT and EE combine do you see that as a reduction of choice or are you arguing there is no reduction in choice because they could always have gone to Vodafone?
So there is a reduction in choice in a number of areas if you think about it.
BT currently provide a lot of operational support to the EE network, that'll all move 'in-house' so that should account for a good chunk of the proposed cost savings.
Expect ANOTHER price in April/May from BT for this takeover.
Switch away from BT (Retail / Consumer) then!
To what? Total pointless reply if you understood monopoly that BT runs. BT sets the Wholesale price to every other provider. When BT puts its prices up then everyone follows, never has the prices gone down for the consumers - even when the Wholesale price goes down.
That's called inflation mate. BT is obviously the most expensive, but not by some massive margin. VM, SKY etc, all charge ridiculous prices for their landlines.