I made the move just over a week ago, for similar reasons (no 4G mainly) and haven't looked back.
I'm on the 10 gig SIM Only tariff and I've quickly begun to realise that although I had unlimited data and tethering, I actually used very little of either (I've used just over a gig in just over a week!).
Using 4G (which I get everywhere I go now) has been a real revelation on my iPhone 6, it's like night and day compared to 3G.
I always thought 3's service was good, but after using 4G there's no going back.
Honestly the thing that has really annoyed me is that Three turn on one or two masts and consider a town or city done I love the MBNL network but I get that with EE plus extra Orange rural 2G and 3G masts. I'm likely going to go on the 24 month plan 20GB and pay £300 upfront so my monthly bill is £38.99. Normally I wouldn't do that but EE from what I've seen is going to have the best network for a long time to come regardless if BT buy them or not. 20GB is probably more then I need but likely going have a second line added come April so want the extra leeway for that line hopefully you can add a second line in later on should check that.
I think it's good that BT are buying it as they are actually investing in their network and the future infrastructure of our country, so I believe they will continue to invest in the mobile network.
I think it's good that BT are buying it as they are actually investing in their network and the future infrastructure of our country, so I believe they will continue to invest in the mobile network.
Their "investment" approach seems to be to whine about the cost of rural broadband so that they can get taxpayer money for it, and then they use it to roll out dead-end technology that is working flat out when it is put into service and still doesn't provide universal service (that will need FTTP, where if BT ever decides to do it on anything other than a totally random scale, they'll go back to the taxpayer for more ransom money).
Then, after claiming they're too poor to do rural broadband, find the cash for sports rights and mobile networks.
Their "investment" approach seems to be to whine about the cost of rural broadband so that they can get taxpayer money for it, and then they use it to roll out dead-end technology that is working flat out when it is put into service and still doesn't provide universal service (that will need FTTP, where if BT ever decides to do it on anything other than a totally random scale, they'll go back to the taxpayer for more ransom money).
Then, after claiming they're too poor to do rural broadband, find the cash for sports rights and mobile networks.
Exactly!
BT are all about minimal investment which is still ingrained in O2 even today many years down the line.
If BT do buy EE then they don't have much work to do investment wise as EE have done most of it already. Except to see a slow down in investment if BT do buy them.
Their "investment" approach seems to be to whine about the cost of rural broadband so that they can get taxpayer money for it, and then they use it to roll out dead-end technology that is working flat out when it is put into service and still doesn't provide universal service (that will need FTTP, where if BT ever decides to do it on anything other than a totally random scale, they'll go back to the taxpayer for more ransom money).
Then, after claiming they're too poor to do rural broadband, find the cash for sports rights and mobile networks.
BT and Cable and Wireless both put themselves forward for tender of the contract and then Cable and wireless pulled out leaving only BT to complete the works. So if BT weren't doing it, we'd still be stuck in the stone age.
BT can't be expected to invest in all the infrastructure for the entire country, when other providers will be benefited from using it themselves. All the providers should be putting it in the pot. I know these providers are paying a rent so to speak (not sure of the correct term) to BT, but they are putting nothing in themselves. BT may only be doing fttc but it's better than nothing and gives customers a choice of something other than ADSL.
VM has funded it's own infrastructure at a massive cost to themselves resulting in billions of pounds of debt. VM solely benefits from their closed networks and doesn't open it to anyone (apart from a backhaul deal with Sky)
Before anyone mentions the tax payer funded the original network which was back then owned by the post office, that's neither here nor there. I am talking about fibre access. I have nothing against everyone having access to an ADSL service and phone line.
Imo, they have every right to "whine" about the government funding rural areas for fibre as there's not much financial gain in it for BT otherwise. What company would fund villages and rural housing where little numbers of people live and there's little chance of uptake of the service you've just shelled out a fortune for?
I stand by my original statement. I am sorry this got off topic, I understand this a mobile phone section. just wanted to defend my original point.:)
If BT want to hand the monopoly on the infrastructure, then a condition of that should be that fibre gets rolled out to non-profitable areas and BT should foot the bill. The profitable areas will more than compensate for this.
If BT want to hand the monopoly on the infrastructure, then a condition of that should be that fibre gets rolled out to non-profitable areas and BT should foot the bill. The profitable areas will more than compensate for this.
BT bought the infrastructure from the government. They are already strictly regulated over what they can do with the infrastructure anyway. They should be able to charge for use of their network, but I also agree that they shouldn't be able to abuse their position as network provider which is exactly what is happening.
It was the government that proposed rural areas should be entitled to the use of fibre broadband so the government should fund it as there is little benefit to BT if they were to do it themselves.
I think we need to be thankful that we're not in the same position of a third of United States households are in where they can't choose who their provider is, much like we are with our water services.
Whilst moaning maybe EE can explain why my area has ben left with a 10yr + old 2g site when everywhere else appears 3g? That's not fair. The Government should make them upgrade this before allowing the sale.
Of course BT only invest in commercially viable ideas. They are a business. As pointed out they have to wholesale their own fibre network which is hardly fair really but that's the rules. As for the FTTC its easily future proof for most of the population these days - we aren't going to need much more data than is being demanded now by the average BT fibre customer. Its getting like a car where yes you can have more speed but not much point when you can't use it or makes little difference.
You are also forgetting to mention vectoring which is BTs believed new technology to vastly improve fibre speeds should they be required in the future.
It was privatised, so yes effectively it bought the infrastructure off the government.
British Telecommunications, trading as British Telecom, was formed in 1980, and became independent of the Post Office in 1981. British Telecommunications was privatised in 1984, becoming British Telecommunications plc, with some 50 per cent of its shares sold to investors. The Government sold its remaining stake in further share sales in 1991 and 1993.
BT has a primary listing on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index.
Whilst moaning maybe EE can explain why my area has ben left with a 10yr + old 2g site when everywhere else appears 3g? That's not fair. The Government should make them upgrade this before allowing the sale.
Of course BT only invest in commercially viable ideas. They are a business. As pointed out they have to wholesale their own fibre network which is hardly fair really but that's the rules. As for the FTTC its easily future proof for most of the population these days - we aren't going to need much more data than is being demanded now by the average BT fibre customer. Its getting like a car where yes you can have more speed but not much point when you can't use it or makes little difference.
You are also forgetting to mention vectoring which is BTs believed new technology to vastly improve fibre speeds should they be required in the future.
I completely agree with this. I'm glad to see someone see's it the way I do.
strange that as on O2 was getting around 40Mbps on 4G where as on 3G was getting 0.70Mbps
Yes I see this on Vodafone. My colleague has a personal vodafone contract on an iPhone 5s with 4G, and I have a company vodafone contract on a 5s which doesn't include 4G.
In the same location he can get 30 or higher Mbps on 4G and I can get 0.6 Mbps on 3G, and EE in the same place on 3G can get 6 Mbps, and 75Mbps on 4G.
I always assumed the 4G rollout for O2/vodafone wasn't touching the 3G side, and it was old equipment. If they're using 900Mhz then they have limited slots compared to 2100, and almost certainly a lot of customers trying to use (well Voda have a high percentage of smartphones, O2 don't).
Their "investment" approach seems to be to whine about the cost of rural broadband so that they can get taxpayer money for it, and then they use it to roll out dead-end technology that is working flat out when it is put into service and still doesn't provide universal service (that will need FTTP, where if BT ever decides to do it on anything other than a totally random scale, they'll go back to the taxpayer for more ransom money).
Then, after claiming they're too poor to do rural broadband, find the cash for sports rights and mobile networks.
The only obvious choice for rolling out fibre to rural areas was BT, is any of the other providers won funding it would have been a closed network. By BT winning (rather easily admittedly) the majority of funding, it is used in such a way to rollout technology but also enable open access. BT is the only provider in this country that is legally obliged to enable unhindered access to its corse infrastucture. The other companies like Virgin, KC, Isle of Wight Cable aren't forced to do that (interestingly KC is the only telco that is publicly owned in the UK). Some may not like it, but BT was the only choice which would offer customers and businesses a choice of providers. The Virgin/Fujitsu solution didn't. I firmly believe that any company recieving public funds should be forced to open up their networks to competition at a fair regulated price. That wasn't on offer with the other providers, they wanted exclusivity when BT didn't. You can get Sky/TalkTalk/others using BT's infrastructure, you on't get that with Virgin or the other monopoly providers.
BT and Cable and Wireless both put themselves forward for tender of the contract and then Cable and wireless pulled out leaving only BT to complete the works. So if BT weren't doing it, we'd still be stuck in the stone age.
BT can't be expected to invest in all the infrastructure for the entire country, when other providers will be benefited from using it themselves. All the providers should be putting it in the pot. I know these providers are paying a rent so to speak (not sure of the correct term) to BT, but they are putting nothing in themselves. BT may only be doing fttc but it's better than nothing and gives customers a choice of something other than ADSL.
VM has funded it's own infrastructure at a massive cost to themselves resulting in billions of pounds of debt. VM solely benefits from their closed networks and doesn't open it to anyone (apart from a backhaul deal with Sky)
Before anyone mentions the tax payer funded the original network which was back then owned by the post office, that's neither here nor there. I am talking about fibre access. I have nothing against everyone having access to an ADSL service and phone line.
Imo, they have every right to "whine" about the government funding rural areas for fibre as there's not much financial gain in it for BT otherwise. What company would fund villages and rural housing where little numbers of people live and there's little chance of uptake of the service you've just shelled out a fortune for?
I stand by my original statement. I am sorry this got off topic, I understand this a mobile phone section. just wanted to defend my original point.:)
I think I am on your side of the fence, if people want broadband at "superfast speeds" then they should expect to pay for it. Its a known fact that enabling fibre in rural areas is expensive and loss leading, in some cases a cabinet may only have a street of just 10 homes connected. Yet the cost of running fibre to those is uneconomical, the worst cases will see BT/Government making its money back over 15/20 years. Compare that to more urban centres and its a 10th of that. Broadband is an expensive business, BT as a private business will only upgrade areas that return profits more quickly. It has to justify spending capital on these upgrades to its shareholders. We wouldn't expect Virgin to pick up the tab for enabling fibre country wide so why should we expect the same of BT?
Back on topic.....
Looking at some of articles suggesting the other companies might try to put obstacles in the way of the merger makes me wonder whether that is out of fear/desparation. I think compared to other mergers in recent years, this one will be fairly straight forward as I have alluded to. BT is lucky in some respects to have a firm watchdog who force BT to play fair. You look at other European markets and the incumbents engage in all manners of things to prevent effective competition. Orange (France) and Deutsche Telekon have spent money on adding fibre to their infrastructure, yet they are allowed to keep it closed to other providers. The regulation in this country is so effective it will quickly mitigate any competition concerns. I still think Openreach will get the backhaul thereby leaving BT to take over EE rather quickly.
Sky, Virgin et al are worried about their future business and position in the market. I think the other thing to consider is what effect this will have on Virgin Mobile? Would we end up with a rather bizarre situation where one of the biggest broadband providers and chief competitors to BT being in partnership with them? Does EE even still have shares in the Virgin Mobile operation? I know it must look complicated, however I think the remedies that will be proposed will be fairly simple. The other thing to consider is this decided domestically, I don't think there will be many concerns from the EU since largely doesn't affect anyone outside of British waters. What the big providers are frightened of, is competition. Sky has held the monopoly on PayTV for almost 30 years, Virgin the same on fast broadband. Both look genuinely scared of a BT that will be able to take it to them in all primary sectors. Will be most interesting
BT and Cable and Wireless both put themselves forward for tender of the contract and then Cable and wireless pulled out leaving only BT to complete the works. So if BT weren't doing it, we'd still be stuck in the stone age.
In an ideal world we'd not leave the infrastructure in a company unwilling to invest - which is why Openreach should become state owned, especially now that BT wants to pursue follies in sports and mobile.
BT can't be expected to invest in all the infrastructure for the entire country, when other providers will be benefited from using it themselves.
Openreach is quite profitable - the other providers pay a profitable rate for use of the network. If they were to pay in then they would expect to get some of the ownership - again a reason to take it out of BT's hands
VM has funded it's own infrastructure at a massive cost to themselves resulting in billions of pounds of debt. VM solely benefits from their closed networks and doesn't open it to anyone (apart from a backhaul deal with Sky)
VM hasn't benefited from holding a monopoly in most of the country.
Imo, they have every right to "whine" about the government funding rural areas for fibre as there's not much financial gain in it for BT otherwise. What company would fund villages and rural housing where little numbers of people live and there's little chance of uptake of the service you've just shelled out a fortune for?
If BT is unwilling to invest then it should be stripped of its stewardship and given to someone who will - e.g. the government. It's hard to agree with letting them have their cake and eating it too.
You make it sound as if no one in rural areas would sign up to these things. I wonder why BT clearly disagrees then, given that they've been installing plenty of higher capacity FTTC cabinets around here, anticipating enough demand to need it
I think I am on your side of the fence, if people want broadband at "superfast speeds" then they should expect to pay for it. Its a known fact that enabling fibre in rural areas is expensive and loss leading, in some cases a cabinet may only have a street of just 10 homes connected. Yet the cost of running fibre to those is uneconomical, the worst cases will see BT/Government making its money back over 15/20 years. Compare that to more urban centres and its a 10th of that.
Again, plenty of 288 line cabinets installed in the predominantly rural county I live in. I doubt these cabinets have only 10 lines on them.
I've also noticed BT installing FTTP in some very rural areas where the installation costs are obscene, for some reason they did it though. Like rural farmhouses with no neighbours - their telegraph pole for their exclusive use has the FTTP manifold on it.
Broadband is an expensive business, BT as a private business will only upgrade areas that return profits more quickly. It has to justify spending capital on these upgrades to its shareholders. We wouldn't expect Virgin to pick up the tab for enabling fibre country wide so why should we expect the same of BT?
Broadband is also an essential utility these days, and it's time we had a network that provided it. FTTC is dead-end from day one, and still has the exact same issues as ADSL and isn't futureproof.
BT is expected to invest because they were handed the country's system of ducts, poles, exchanges, and the national network - an advantage no other company has (especially while BT refuses to open its ducts up to anyone else). If it wants to keep the near-monopoly then they should be expected to invest, or if not, get rid of it and let someone else do it
Virgin doesn't have that obligation because that's not how cable franchises were handed out - where they have franchises there's a very high likelihood that they built out a network, one that can already offer better speeds than BT FTTC.
Someone mentioned vectoring - that only counteracts the effects of crosstalk, it doesn't fix line length issues and it won't result in speeds that compete with even Virgin, let alone BT's own FTTP network. And the people who think it is fast, well I wonder what the poor users on the end of a long FTTC line think about their speeds - who might be getting 20Mbps, maybe.
VM hasn't benefited from holding a monopoly in most of the country.
I think there is confusion between VM the cable-tv (coax) part, and VM Business the networks division that competes with BT networks, vodafone/C&W. I know of a few companies that buy 10 or 100megabit lines from VM business, to link buildings together. Then they run their own network over the lines.
There aren't many companies you can go to for that sort of thing, really only the ones I listed above for most of the country. And in many remote places VM or C&W will subcontract to BT to deliver the service and VM or C&W bill you at the cheaper rate.
The only obvious choice for rolling out fibre to rural areas was BT, is any of the other providers won funding it would have been a closed network. By BT winning (rather easily admittedly) the majority of funding, it is used in such a way to rollout technology but also enable open access. BT is the only provider in this country that is legally obliged to enable unhindered access to its corse infrastucture. The other companies like Virgin, KC, Isle of Wight Cable aren't forced to do that (interestingly KC is the only telco that is publicly owned in the UK). Some may not like it, but BT was the only choice which would offer customers and businesses a choice of providers. The Virgin/Fujitsu solution didn't. I firmly believe that any company recieving public funds should be forced to open up their networks to competition at a fair regulated price. That wasn't on offer with the other providers, they wanted exclusivity when BT didn't. You can get Sky/TalkTalk/others using BT's infrastructure, you on't get that with Virgin or the other monopoly providers.
I think I am on your side of the fence, if people want broadband at "superfast speeds" then they should expect to pay for it. Its a known fact that enabling fibre in rural areas is expensive and loss leading, in some cases a cabinet may only have a street of just 10 homes connected. Yet the cost of running fibre to those is uneconomical, the worst cases will see BT/Government making its money back over 15/20 years. Compare that to more urban centres and its a 10th of that. Broadband is an expensive business, BT as a private business will only upgrade areas that return profits more quickly. It has to justify spending capital on these upgrades to its shareholders. We wouldn't expect Virgin to pick up the tab for enabling fibre country wide so why should we expect the same of BT?
Back on topic.....
Looking at some of articles suggesting the other companies might try to put obstacles in the way of the merger makes me wonder whether that is out of fear/desparation. I think compared to other mergers in recent years, this one will be fairly straight forward as I have alluded to. BT is lucky in some respects to have a firm watchdog who force BT to play fair. You look at other European markets and the incumbents engage in all manners of things to prevent effective competition. Orange (France) and Deutsche Telekon have spent money on adding fibre to their infrastructure, yet they are allowed to keep it closed to other providers. The regulation in this country is so effective it will quickly mitigate any competition concerns. I still think Openreach will get the backhaul thereby leaving BT to take over EE rather quickly.
Sky, Virgin et al are worried about their future business and position in the market. I think the other thing to consider is what effect this will have on Virgin Mobile? Would we end up with a rather bizarre situation where one of the biggest broadband providers and chief competitors to BT being in partnership with them? Does EE even still have shares in the Virgin Mobile operation? I know it must look complicated, however I think the remedies that will be proposed will be fairly simple. The other thing to consider is this decided domestically, I don't think there will be many concerns from the EU since largely doesn't affect anyone outside of British waters. What the big providers are frightened of, is competition. Sky has held the monopoly on PayTV for almost 30 years, Virgin the same on fast broadband. Both look genuinely scared of a BT that will be able to take it to them in all primary sectors. Will be most interesting
Excellent points Aye up. We seem to be singing very much from the same Hymn sheet.
I don't understand those who are suggesting or proposing BT should be forced to sell Openreach for this deal to go ahead. I have posted very much the same as you in other threads that Openreach is heavily regulated to prevent BT from abusing it's position in the market. BT are operating within the laws of which are governed so there's no reason to me why they shouldn't be allowed to buy EE. It's not the same situation of a mobile provider buying another and therefore the same issues/ competition concerns should not present themselves.
The point you make about EE and Virgin Mobiles deal is an interesting one and is one I had overlooked. I would think that in the interest of fair competition, if BT were to buy EE then it would have to honour the existing contract for however long the agreement is for, otherwise this would be a concern and rightfully Virgin would have the right to contest this in court. I don't see why BT would have an issue acting as a carrier for Virgin Mobile anyway, it's more income for them.
Virgin Media and Sky are very much scared of this proposition. The monster that is BT is set to become a Behemoth to rival the likes of Vodafone. It will be humongous and will dwarf VM and Sky!
Virgin's old USP is no longer their USP. BT has 2.1 million fibre subscribers now and is growing every quarter whilst Virgin Media is seeing a downward trend. Virgin Media were the only one offering a quad play service and this deal looks to end that USP too.
If I were VM I would be very, very concerned.
BT vision although a pretty weak tv service at the moment is now at 1 million subscribers and is also growing. Youview will continue to get stronger and now CAT has ruled Sky have to offer Sky sports to BT's Youview service will only strengthen their tv position as their platform's offering becomes more attractive. This and the Premier League and Champions League deal is really shaping up to what will look like a really good tv offering.
EE itself is the market leader in 4G, so we will have BT leading the way in super fast speeds at home and on the move. BT is leading innovation in this country and seem unstoppable!
Is it any wonder that VM and Sky are already trying to put a stop to this deal?
In an ideal world we'd not leave the infrastructure in a company unwilling to invest - which is why Openreach should become state owned, especially now that BT wants to pursue follies in sports and mobile.
Openreach are willing to invest, where it's profitable. They're a business and rightfully will supply areas where there is decent demand for it. Openreach had a website where you could register your interest for fibre to ascertain where the demand was/is and then decide whether it was commercially viable to invest in that area.
Remember Openreach and BT retail are two separate companies and operate as such even though they have the same parent because they are regulated and forced to do so. It's like comparing Sky TV with the sun newspaper.
There's no doubt that profits go to the parent group BT PLC and profits are given to shareholders but the companies are self funded but that's how all companies on the stock market operate.
The BT Sport venture was funded through BT retail's own profits. So if they choose to pursue follies in sports and mobile they are free to do so.
Openreach is quite profitable - the other providers pay a profitable rate for use of the network. If they were to pay in then they would expect to get some of the ownership - again a reason to take it out of BT's hands
I don't understand this point at all, sorry. They are paying to use a service and are given the benefits of that service, how does this mean they should be entitled to some of the ownership? I use the swimming baths, it doesn't mean I should be entitled to a part ownership of it?
How would you propose it was broken up,shared and then maintained?
VM hasn't benefited from holding a monopoly in most of the country.
But they have benefited from a closed platform and been able to sell fibre broadband at a premium for years without regulation. VM could service some of its debt by allowing other providers the opportunity to rent their network.
If BT is unwilling to invest then it should be stripped of its stewardship and given to someone who will - e.g. the government. It's hard to agree with letting them have their cake and eating it too.
A government with billions upon billions of debt? How do you suggest the government pays for it when all we keep hearing is how much public services like the NHS are crumbling under financial strain and the government keeps announcing cuts after cuts after cuts?
You make it sound as if no one in rural areas would sign up to these things. I wonder why BT clearly disagrees then, given that they've been installing plenty of higher capacity FTTC cabinets around here, anticipating enough demand to need it
BT is unhappy to pay to install fibre to the majority of rural areas accept a select few and the government has given them grants for rural areas.
See the below quote from Openreach themselves.
We’ve already hit our goal to deliver fibre to two-thirds of UK. But it hasn’t stopped there. Working alongside the UK government, we’re now helping to reach the ‘final third’ – properties in rural areas that are hard-to-reach or not commercially viable with private funding alone.
Openreach are willing to invest, where it's profitable. They're a business and rightfully will supply areas where there is decent demand for it. Openreach had a website where you could register your interest for fibre to ascertain where the demand was/is and then decide whether it was commercially viable to invest in that area.
and until BDUK came along, they were planning to only do a handful of the areas where demand was registered. It took them years to roll out ADSL to all of the country using a similar system.
Remember Openreach and BT retail are two separate companies and operate as such even though they have the same parent because they are regulated and forced to do so. It's like comparing Sky TV with the sun newspaper.
There's no doubt that profits go to the parent group BT PLC and profits are given to shareholders but the companies are self funded but that's how all companies on the stock market operate.
The BT Sport venture was funded through BT retail's own profits. So if they choose to pursue follies in sports and mobile they are free to do so.
BT Retail benefits from not really having to pay the full costs to BT Wholesale and Openreach by virtue of the shared ownership. Money might transfer from one of BT's pockets to another, but it's not a cost in the same way TalkTalk has when they pay OR.
You'd think that if Openreach was such a money pit that BT would be dying to get rid of it, not doing all they can to keep it.
I don't understand this point at all, sorry. They are paying to use a service and are given the benefits of that service, how does this mean they should be entitled to some of the ownership? I use the swimming baths, it doesn't mean I should be entitled to a part ownership of it?
How would you propose it was broken up,shared and then maintained?
You suggested that it's not fair that other companies don't have to invest in rural broadband. I was saying that other companies shouldn't have to invest, unless they somehow get part ownership of what they are paying for. I don't think it's the best approach - I'd like to see a state owned, neutral Openreach supply to anyone, including BT retail
But they have benefited from a closed platform and been able to sell fibre broadband at a premium for years without regulation. VM could service some of its debt by allowing other providers the opportunity to rent their network.
VM's financial worries are their concern, not ours - they don't have a near monopoly and they don't own the former state owned network - that's an issue for their shareholders. The same is not true for BT.
government with billions upon billions of debt? How do you suggest the government pays for it when all we keep hearing is how much public services like the NHS are crumbling under financial strain and the government keeps announcing cuts after cuts after cuts?
On the same basis that investments in high speed rail, roads, and so on are justified. 100% FTTP (or damn close to it) would be highly beneficial - especially under a state owned Openreach
BT is unhappy to pay to install fibre to the majority of rural areas accept a select few and the government has given them grants for rural areas.
And the problem, as I said, is that they're simultaneously crying about the need for rural funding while being able to fund other much more expensive things - and when they do get the money, they selectively roll out the best solution (FTTP) while giving most people the dregs (FTTC)
I think it's good that BT are buying it as they are actually investing in their network and the future infrastructure of our country, so I believe they will continue to invest in the mobile network.
Looking at the latest customer satisfaction levels provided by OFCOM they should be investing more in customer service , they have the lowest satisfaction percentage in landline , broadband and EE ranked worst customer satisfaction in the mobile market.
Looking at the latest customer satisfaction levels provided by OFCOM they should be investing more in customer service , they have the lowest satisfaction percentage in landline , broadband and EE ranked worst customer satisfaction in the mobile market.
A valid point. I know the customer service is bad. It's crazy that you have two companies plus net and BT retail owned by the same parent yet are poles apart when it comes to customer service. It's shocking.
and until BDUK came along, they were planning to only do a handful of the areas where demand was registered. It took them years to roll out ADSL to all of the country using a similar system.
BT Retail benefits from not really having to pay the full costs to BT Wholesale and Openreach by virtue of the shared ownership. Money might transfer from one of BT's pockets to another, but it's not a cost in the same way TalkTalk has when they pay OR.
You'd think that if Openreach was such a money pit that BT would be dying to get rid of it, not doing all they can to keep it.
You suggested that it's not fair that other companies don't have to invest in rural broadband. I was saying that other companies shouldn't have to invest, unless they somehow get part ownership of what they are paying for. I don't think it's the best approach - I'd like to see a state owned, neutral Openreach supply to anyone, including BT retail
VM's financial worries are their concern, not ours - they don't have a near monopoly and they don't own the former state owned network - that's an issue for their shareholders. The same is not true for BT.
On the same basis that investments in high speed rail, roads, and so on are justified. 100% FTTP (or damn close to it) would be highly beneficial - especially under a state owned Openreach
And the problem, as I said, is that they're simultaneously crying about the need for rural funding while being able to fund other much more expensive things - and when they do get the money, they selectively roll out the best solution (FTTP) while giving most people the dregs (FTTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree moox. We see things from completely different perspectives.:)
I don't think their customer service will change until they bring it all back to these shores which I very much doubt will happen. I'm with VM personally and it's not better either. The only time you get good service from these bloody companies is when you ring their cancellation departments.
Excellent points Aye up. We seem to be singing very much from the same Hymn sheet.
I don't understand those who are suggesting or proposing BT should be forced to sell Openreach for this deal to go ahead. I have posted very much the same as you in other threads that Openreach is heavily regulated to prevent BT from abusing it's position in the market. BT are operating within the laws of which are governed so there's no reason to me why they shouldn't be allowed to buy EE. It's not the same situation of a mobile provider buying another and therefore the same issues/ competition concerns should not present themselves.
The point you make about EE and Virgin Mobiles deal is an interesting one and is one I had overlooked. I would think that in the interest of fair competition, if BT were to buy EE then it would have to honour the existing contract for however long the agreement is for, otherwise this would be a concern and rightfully Virgin would have the right to contest this in court. I don't see why BT would have an issue acting as a carrier for Virgin Mobile anyway, it's more income for them.
Virgin Media and Sky are very much scared of this proposition. The monster that is BT is set to become a Behemoth to rival the likes of Vodafone. It will be humongous and will dwarf VM and Sky!
Virgin's old USP is no longer their USP. BT has 2.1 million fibre subscribers now and is growing every quarter whilst Virgin Media is seeing a downward trend. Virgin Media were the only one offering a quad play service and this deal looks to end that USP too.
If I were VM I would be very, very concerned.
BT vision although a pretty weak tv service at the moment is now at 1 million subscribers and is also growing. Youview will continue to get stronger and now CAT has ruled Sky have to offer Sky sports to BT's Youview service will only strengthen their tv position as their platform's offering becomes more attractive. This and the Premier League and Champions League deal is really shaping up to what will look like a really good tv offering.
EE itself is the market leader in 4G, so we will have BT leading the way in super fast speeds at home and on the move. BT is leading innovation in this country and seem unstoppable!
Is it any wonder that VM and Sky are already trying to put a stop to this deal?
I think in the long run this merger will likely benefit Virgin Media, given that they offer BT Sport inclusive in their XL TV Bundle. They already have a partnership going in that sense, so one could reasonably assume it would continue via the MNVO they have. Although BT is a principal competitor to Virgin, they are both business savvy and know where needed partnering offers exceptional benefits. Virgin may try to stall a move, in the end due to their existing committments I think they will back down. Sky will be the problem I think, much like O2 and Three they are becoming know as a single play provider (ignore their fixed line business).
To be fair to BT, Vodafone and Virgin they are the only providers who will realise the benefits in being able to offer quadplay packages. This becomes somewhat of a problem for Sky given it doesn't have a formal partnership in place with any of the networks. At one point it was suggested that Vodafone may attempt to purchase Sky. However, Sky's merger/acquisitions with other Sky label broadcasters has seemingly put that out to pasture. I am informed that Vodafone didn't want to buy a pan European business as it was likely too costly and not within their future plans. That said a Liberty Global tie up seems to counter that? The only thing I worry about BT is whether OFCOM will actually stifle competition, to some extent BT isn't allowed to aggressively pursue discount bundles compared to that of Sky and TalkTalk. Maybe this will change if the merger does get the go ahead, and market forces will be allowed to run.
Comments
Honestly the thing that has really annoyed me is that Three turn on one or two masts and consider a town or city done I love the MBNL network but I get that with EE plus extra Orange rural 2G and 3G masts. I'm likely going to go on the 24 month plan 20GB and pay £300 upfront so my monthly bill is £38.99. Normally I wouldn't do that but EE from what I've seen is going to have the best network for a long time to come regardless if BT buy them or not. 20GB is probably more then I need but likely going have a second line added come April so want the extra leeway for that line hopefully you can add a second line in later on should check that.
Their "investment" approach seems to be to whine about the cost of rural broadband so that they can get taxpayer money for it, and then they use it to roll out dead-end technology that is working flat out when it is put into service and still doesn't provide universal service (that will need FTTP, where if BT ever decides to do it on anything other than a totally random scale, they'll go back to the taxpayer for more ransom money).
Then, after claiming they're too poor to do rural broadband, find the cash for sports rights and mobile networks.
Exactly!
BT are all about minimal investment which is still ingrained in O2 even today many years down the line.
If BT do buy EE then they don't have much work to do investment wise as EE have done most of it already. Except to see a slow down in investment if BT do buy them.
strange that as on O2 was getting around 40Mbps on 4G where as on 3G was getting 0.70Mbps
BT and Cable and Wireless both put themselves forward for tender of the contract and then Cable and wireless pulled out leaving only BT to complete the works. So if BT weren't doing it, we'd still be stuck in the stone age.
BT can't be expected to invest in all the infrastructure for the entire country, when other providers will be benefited from using it themselves. All the providers should be putting it in the pot. I know these providers are paying a rent so to speak (not sure of the correct term) to BT, but they are putting nothing in themselves. BT may only be doing fttc but it's better than nothing and gives customers a choice of something other than ADSL.
VM has funded it's own infrastructure at a massive cost to themselves resulting in billions of pounds of debt. VM solely benefits from their closed networks and doesn't open it to anyone (apart from a backhaul deal with Sky)
Before anyone mentions the tax payer funded the original network which was back then owned by the post office, that's neither here nor there. I am talking about fibre access. I have nothing against everyone having access to an ADSL service and phone line.
Imo, they have every right to "whine" about the government funding rural areas for fibre as there's not much financial gain in it for BT otherwise. What company would fund villages and rural housing where little numbers of people live and there's little chance of uptake of the service you've just shelled out a fortune for?
I stand by my original statement. I am sorry this got off topic, I understand this a mobile phone section. just wanted to defend my original point.:)
BT bought the infrastructure from the government. They are already strictly regulated over what they can do with the infrastructure anyway. They should be able to charge for use of their network, but I also agree that they shouldn't be able to abuse their position as network provider which is exactly what is happening.
It was the government that proposed rural areas should be entitled to the use of fibre broadband so the government should fund it as there is little benefit to BT if they were to do it themselves.
I think we need to be thankful that we're not in the same position of a third of United States households are in where they can't choose who their provider is, much like we are with our water services.
Whilst moaning maybe EE can explain why my area has ben left with a 10yr + old 2g site when everywhere else appears 3g? That's not fair. The Government should make them upgrade this before allowing the sale.
Of course BT only invest in commercially viable ideas. They are a business. As pointed out they have to wholesale their own fibre network which is hardly fair really but that's the rules. As for the FTTC its easily future proof for most of the population these days - we aren't going to need much more data than is being demanded now by the average BT fibre customer. Its getting like a car where yes you can have more speed but not much point when you can't use it or makes little difference.
You are also forgetting to mention vectoring which is BTs believed new technology to vastly improve fibre speeds should they be required in the future.
It was privatised, so yes effectively it bought the infrastructure off the government.
This has really gone off topic now.
I completely agree with this. I'm glad to see someone see's it the way I do.
Yes I see this on Vodafone. My colleague has a personal vodafone contract on an iPhone 5s with 4G, and I have a company vodafone contract on a 5s which doesn't include 4G.
In the same location he can get 30 or higher Mbps on 4G and I can get 0.6 Mbps on 3G, and EE in the same place on 3G can get 6 Mbps, and 75Mbps on 4G.
I always assumed the 4G rollout for O2/vodafone wasn't touching the 3G side, and it was old equipment. If they're using 900Mhz then they have limited slots compared to 2100, and almost certainly a lot of customers trying to use (well Voda have a high percentage of smartphones, O2 don't).
The only obvious choice for rolling out fibre to rural areas was BT, is any of the other providers won funding it would have been a closed network. By BT winning (rather easily admittedly) the majority of funding, it is used in such a way to rollout technology but also enable open access. BT is the only provider in this country that is legally obliged to enable unhindered access to its corse infrastucture. The other companies like Virgin, KC, Isle of Wight Cable aren't forced to do that (interestingly KC is the only telco that is publicly owned in the UK). Some may not like it, but BT was the only choice which would offer customers and businesses a choice of providers. The Virgin/Fujitsu solution didn't. I firmly believe that any company recieving public funds should be forced to open up their networks to competition at a fair regulated price. That wasn't on offer with the other providers, they wanted exclusivity when BT didn't. You can get Sky/TalkTalk/others using BT's infrastructure, you on't get that with Virgin or the other monopoly providers.
I think I am on your side of the fence, if people want broadband at "superfast speeds" then they should expect to pay for it. Its a known fact that enabling fibre in rural areas is expensive and loss leading, in some cases a cabinet may only have a street of just 10 homes connected. Yet the cost of running fibre to those is uneconomical, the worst cases will see BT/Government making its money back over 15/20 years. Compare that to more urban centres and its a 10th of that. Broadband is an expensive business, BT as a private business will only upgrade areas that return profits more quickly. It has to justify spending capital on these upgrades to its shareholders. We wouldn't expect Virgin to pick up the tab for enabling fibre country wide so why should we expect the same of BT?
Back on topic.....
Looking at some of articles suggesting the other companies might try to put obstacles in the way of the merger makes me wonder whether that is out of fear/desparation. I think compared to other mergers in recent years, this one will be fairly straight forward as I have alluded to. BT is lucky in some respects to have a firm watchdog who force BT to play fair. You look at other European markets and the incumbents engage in all manners of things to prevent effective competition. Orange (France) and Deutsche Telekon have spent money on adding fibre to their infrastructure, yet they are allowed to keep it closed to other providers. The regulation in this country is so effective it will quickly mitigate any competition concerns. I still think Openreach will get the backhaul thereby leaving BT to take over EE rather quickly.
Sky, Virgin et al are worried about their future business and position in the market. I think the other thing to consider is what effect this will have on Virgin Mobile? Would we end up with a rather bizarre situation where one of the biggest broadband providers and chief competitors to BT being in partnership with them? Does EE even still have shares in the Virgin Mobile operation? I know it must look complicated, however I think the remedies that will be proposed will be fairly simple. The other thing to consider is this decided domestically, I don't think there will be many concerns from the EU since largely doesn't affect anyone outside of British waters. What the big providers are frightened of, is competition. Sky has held the monopoly on PayTV for almost 30 years, Virgin the same on fast broadband. Both look genuinely scared of a BT that will be able to take it to them in all primary sectors. Will be most interesting
In an ideal world we'd not leave the infrastructure in a company unwilling to invest - which is why Openreach should become state owned, especially now that BT wants to pursue follies in sports and mobile.
Openreach is quite profitable - the other providers pay a profitable rate for use of the network. If they were to pay in then they would expect to get some of the ownership - again a reason to take it out of BT's hands
VM hasn't benefited from holding a monopoly in most of the country.
If BT is unwilling to invest then it should be stripped of its stewardship and given to someone who will - e.g. the government. It's hard to agree with letting them have their cake and eating it too.
You make it sound as if no one in rural areas would sign up to these things. I wonder why BT clearly disagrees then, given that they've been installing plenty of higher capacity FTTC cabinets around here, anticipating enough demand to need it
Again, plenty of 288 line cabinets installed in the predominantly rural county I live in. I doubt these cabinets have only 10 lines on them.
I've also noticed BT installing FTTP in some very rural areas where the installation costs are obscene, for some reason they did it though. Like rural farmhouses with no neighbours - their telegraph pole for their exclusive use has the FTTP manifold on it.
Broadband is also an essential utility these days, and it's time we had a network that provided it. FTTC is dead-end from day one, and still has the exact same issues as ADSL and isn't futureproof.
BT is expected to invest because they were handed the country's system of ducts, poles, exchanges, and the national network - an advantage no other company has (especially while BT refuses to open its ducts up to anyone else). If it wants to keep the near-monopoly then they should be expected to invest, or if not, get rid of it and let someone else do it
Virgin doesn't have that obligation because that's not how cable franchises were handed out - where they have franchises there's a very high likelihood that they built out a network, one that can already offer better speeds than BT FTTC.
Someone mentioned vectoring - that only counteracts the effects of crosstalk, it doesn't fix line length issues and it won't result in speeds that compete with even Virgin, let alone BT's own FTTP network. And the people who think it is fast, well I wonder what the poor users on the end of a long FTTC line think about their speeds - who might be getting 20Mbps, maybe.
I think there is confusion between VM the cable-tv (coax) part, and VM Business the networks division that competes with BT networks, vodafone/C&W. I know of a few companies that buy 10 or 100megabit lines from VM business, to link buildings together. Then they run their own network over the lines.
There aren't many companies you can go to for that sort of thing, really only the ones I listed above for most of the country. And in many remote places VM or C&W will subcontract to BT to deliver the service and VM or C&W bill you at the cheaper rate.
Telco licencees help each other I gather.
Excellent points Aye up. We seem to be singing very much from the same Hymn sheet.
I don't understand those who are suggesting or proposing BT should be forced to sell Openreach for this deal to go ahead. I have posted very much the same as you in other threads that Openreach is heavily regulated to prevent BT from abusing it's position in the market. BT are operating within the laws of which are governed so there's no reason to me why they shouldn't be allowed to buy EE. It's not the same situation of a mobile provider buying another and therefore the same issues/ competition concerns should not present themselves.
The point you make about EE and Virgin Mobiles deal is an interesting one and is one I had overlooked. I would think that in the interest of fair competition, if BT were to buy EE then it would have to honour the existing contract for however long the agreement is for, otherwise this would be a concern and rightfully Virgin would have the right to contest this in court. I don't see why BT would have an issue acting as a carrier for Virgin Mobile anyway, it's more income for them.
Virgin Media and Sky are very much scared of this proposition. The monster that is BT is set to become a Behemoth to rival the likes of Vodafone. It will be humongous and will dwarf VM and Sky!
Virgin's old USP is no longer their USP. BT has 2.1 million fibre subscribers now and is growing every quarter whilst Virgin Media is seeing a downward trend. Virgin Media were the only one offering a quad play service and this deal looks to end that USP too.
If I were VM I would be very, very concerned.
BT vision although a pretty weak tv service at the moment is now at 1 million subscribers and is also growing. Youview will continue to get stronger and now CAT has ruled Sky have to offer Sky sports to BT's Youview service will only strengthen their tv position as their platform's offering becomes more attractive. This and the Premier League and Champions League deal is really shaping up to what will look like a really good tv offering.
EE itself is the market leader in 4G, so we will have BT leading the way in super fast speeds at home and on the move. BT is leading innovation in this country and seem unstoppable!
Is it any wonder that VM and Sky are already trying to put a stop to this deal?
Openreach are willing to invest, where it's profitable. They're a business and rightfully will supply areas where there is decent demand for it. Openreach had a website where you could register your interest for fibre to ascertain where the demand was/is and then decide whether it was commercially viable to invest in that area.
Remember Openreach and BT retail are two separate companies and operate as such even though they have the same parent because they are regulated and forced to do so. It's like comparing Sky TV with the sun newspaper.
There's no doubt that profits go to the parent group BT PLC and profits are given to shareholders but the companies are self funded but that's how all companies on the stock market operate.
The BT Sport venture was funded through BT retail's own profits. So if they choose to pursue follies in sports and mobile they are free to do so.
I don't understand this point at all, sorry. They are paying to use a service and are given the benefits of that service, how does this mean they should be entitled to some of the ownership? I use the swimming baths, it doesn't mean I should be entitled to a part ownership of it?
How would you propose it was broken up,shared and then maintained?
But they have benefited from a closed platform and been able to sell fibre broadband at a premium for years without regulation. VM could service some of its debt by allowing other providers the opportunity to rent their network.
A government with billions upon billions of debt? How do you suggest the government pays for it when all we keep hearing is how much public services like the NHS are crumbling under financial strain and the government keeps announcing cuts after cuts after cuts?
BT is unhappy to pay to install fibre to the majority of rural areas accept a select few and the government has given them grants for rural areas.
See the below quote from Openreach themselves.
http://www.superfast-openreach.co.uk/rural-broadband/
and until BDUK came along, they were planning to only do a handful of the areas where demand was registered. It took them years to roll out ADSL to all of the country using a similar system.
BT Retail benefits from not really having to pay the full costs to BT Wholesale and Openreach by virtue of the shared ownership. Money might transfer from one of BT's pockets to another, but it's not a cost in the same way TalkTalk has when they pay OR.
You'd think that if Openreach was such a money pit that BT would be dying to get rid of it, not doing all they can to keep it.
You suggested that it's not fair that other companies don't have to invest in rural broadband. I was saying that other companies shouldn't have to invest, unless they somehow get part ownership of what they are paying for. I don't think it's the best approach - I'd like to see a state owned, neutral Openreach supply to anyone, including BT retail
VM's financial worries are their concern, not ours - they don't have a near monopoly and they don't own the former state owned network - that's an issue for their shareholders. The same is not true for BT.
On the same basis that investments in high speed rail, roads, and so on are justified. 100% FTTP (or damn close to it) would be highly beneficial - especially under a state owned Openreach
And the problem, as I said, is that they're simultaneously crying about the need for rural funding while being able to fund other much more expensive things - and when they do get the money, they selectively roll out the best solution (FTTP) while giving most people the dregs (FTTC)
A valid point. I know the customer service is bad. It's crazy that you have two companies plus net and BT retail owned by the same parent yet are poles apart when it comes to customer service. It's shocking.
We'll have to agree to disagree moox. We see things from completely different perspectives.:)
I think in the long run this merger will likely benefit Virgin Media, given that they offer BT Sport inclusive in their XL TV Bundle. They already have a partnership going in that sense, so one could reasonably assume it would continue via the MNVO they have. Although BT is a principal competitor to Virgin, they are both business savvy and know where needed partnering offers exceptional benefits. Virgin may try to stall a move, in the end due to their existing committments I think they will back down. Sky will be the problem I think, much like O2 and Three they are becoming know as a single play provider (ignore their fixed line business).
To be fair to BT, Vodafone and Virgin they are the only providers who will realise the benefits in being able to offer quadplay packages. This becomes somewhat of a problem for Sky given it doesn't have a formal partnership in place with any of the networks. At one point it was suggested that Vodafone may attempt to purchase Sky. However, Sky's merger/acquisitions with other Sky label broadcasters has seemingly put that out to pasture. I am informed that Vodafone didn't want to buy a pan European business as it was likely too costly and not within their future plans. That said a Liberty Global tie up seems to counter that? The only thing I worry about BT is whether OFCOM will actually stifle competition, to some extent BT isn't allowed to aggressively pursue discount bundles compared to that of Sky and TalkTalk. Maybe this will change if the merger does get the go ahead, and market forces will be allowed to run.