"One cannot judge the value of opinion simply by the amount of courage that is required in holding it," wrote George Orwell to Evelyn Waugh

The last few months public promotion of 5G by Ben Wood and his colleagues at CCS Insight have caused me to question my sanity. Have I lost my faculties or has Ben been bought as a "Social Media Influencer" by EE? Today's activity around the launch of 5G by EE has caused me to conclude that he has been bough lock, stock and barrel by BT and he should tag his posts as paid promotion. In Financial Services his approach would be called in for review and it should not be different in the telecoms world.

Clear advantages to #5G if you want to download an album on @Spotify in "very high" quality. Here's a 4G vs 5G comparison on @Qualcomm powered @OnePlus 6T (4G) vs @OnePlus 7 Pro 5G. Hard not to be impressed by the @EE 5G network. #5GEE (test conducted in #Cardiff) pic.twitter.com/iceFy5Zkqm

— Ben Wood (@benwood) May 30, 2019

I've been using the @EE #5G network in London and Cardiff over the last few days with the @OnePlus 7 Pro 5G. When in 5G coverage I'm consistently getting 200Mbps to 400Mbps with the fastest speed peaking at around 700Mbps. #5GEE pic.twitter.com/DXdfgtY3iQ

— Ben Wood (@benwood) May 30, 2019

Wow. #Stormzy live (and live steamed over 5G) on The Thames in the shadow of @TowerBridge for the launch of @EE #5G network in the UK. #5GEE @bt_uk pic.twitter.com/L1vZIIS9nx

— Ben Wood (@benwood) May 29, 2019

Here's @EE's 5G smartphone line-up: @SamsungMobile's #GalaxyS10 5G, @Oppo Reno 5G, @OnePlus 7 Pro 5G and @LG V50 ThinQ 5G with Dual Screen accessory. #5GEE pic.twitter.com/fNRxb5iSxt

— Ben Wood (@benwood) May 26, 2019

I would expect a first year GCSE Economics student to provide better coverage than Ben is currently doing as they would offer some balance and critical thinking about the recently launched 5G handsets and the launch services Mobile Networks are promoting in launching 5G. The issue is that Ben Wood has spent twenty years developing a brand and networking so that at the moment he is frequently quoted in the media. Some of this is that CEO's of Networks and Equipment Manufacturers are not as vocal as they were and so Journalists pressed for time to create a "package" seek out Ben for easy quotes.

EE are first to market with 5G in the UK, but not in Europe, they are less than a week ahead of Vodafone in launching and have chosen a network strategy that will require more base stations but not necessarily more capacity than Vodafone by the year end. The first subscribers for 5G are unlikely to have connected to the network for more than 15% of their usage by the end of the contract in TWO years. The "leadership" that EE claim to have established in the launch of 4G was such that if left it's then Parents seeking an exit from the UK and accepting a financial loss when sold to BT for equity alongside cash. BT was first to market with the launch of 1G, it had a property portfolio that meant that every base station needed up to 2000 could sit on it's estate rather than deal with third party landlords. Yet by 2000 it had been overtaken by Vodafone AND Orange in terms of leadership and had put Cellnet up for sale.

Thus the launch marketing for 5G by EE can be described as "brave" given the overwhelming demographic of BT's customer base and the very early stage we are in for 5G in terms of business case for consumers adopting the new service. For Ben Wood to take the optimistic view that EE are right to dash forward with a strategy he called "build it and they will come" requires a naivety greater than "the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind". 

Why it is wrong to talk about 5G as if it is a race

Looking at a lot of the coverage this year about the Mobile Network Operator's plans to launch 5G services and they are framed a winning the race to 5G, the prizes for those that are first. This is at best simplistic in the extreme; it frames the argument in a metaphor that is simply WRONG.

Is everyone starting in the same place?

Are the covering the same distance? 

Will the encounter the same hurdles?

Are the subject to the same rules and arbitration?

What is the mythical prize that the winner might expect?  

Might the effort to complete the marathon of launching 5G result in the same outcome as the ancient greek who was the first to run the distance, and the victor expires on crossing the finish line?  

Here in Britain EE was seen as the "winner" in the "race" for 4G. It was such a success that three of the four mobile networks were fighting one another to be rescued by BT when it was looking to buy it's way back into the mobile space. The margin of victory was so slim that the General Public were unable to see it. This has to be the definition of a Pyrrhic victory!

The Mobile Network Operators cannot afford to make the mistakes they did with the launch of 3G and 4G over the past 15 years if they are to survive and deliver on the prospects that 5G is supposed to offer. Thus they themselves need to close down the use of the phrase "race to 5G" and reset expectations that this is not just another G rather it is a step change in what is possible and over time data connections will have improved that life will be different in ways that at present cannot be envisaged.      

Don't cry for Charles Dunstone...

Yesterday TalkTalk reported it's results to the City and people were not happy with what they were telling them.

The once wonder of the telecoms industry is turning into his idol Richard Branson, but not in the way he dreamed. It's only a question of time when TalkTalk is no more rather than one of if.

Dunstone has built his fortune on the spin that with him you get the best price be it Mobile phones, fixed line telephony or broadband like some spiv working the crowd in Romford Market. The problem with TalkTalk is that the customers are now not prepared to pay the actual cost of delivering fibre broadband and having seen an exodus of customers because of poor service and hacking it has had to offer contracts at below cost to keep the numbers respectable.  The perfect storm has also seen it now having to fix the holes in its finances with a cash injection almost equal to 12 months income.

Since the days of FreeServe I have said that the issue with UK Broadband investment that needed to be addressed was that the Retail Price never reflected the cost of the service or offered a Return on Investment that justified major spending. The TalkTalk partners in a project to bring superfast fibre to York have got their fingers burned from working with Dunstone to the extent that don't wish to undertake anymore work with him.  Dunstone thinks that because he has a large customer base someone else will provide the money. that might have worked 20 years ago but not today.

As others invest in the building of Superfast Broadband Dunstone will be on the sidelines shouting that its a rigged market and BT has failed to invest in Wholesale services that would allow him to stay in business. TalkTalk's strategy in terms of maintaining it's customer numbers means that he will invest in marketing and promotions at the expense of infrastructure and customer service which means that he will have difficulty in get those customers to pay more. Thus we are looking at decline to the point of bankruptcy nobody will buy them out of the hole they have dug for themselves.

Virgin Media investment plans

Over the weekend Virgin Media revealed it's latest investment plans to The Telegraph. It is seeking to expand it's network asking Liberty Global to increase it's investment to grow the footprint of it's Fibre network a £3bn plan to grow from 50% of households covered to almost 66%.   

Given that interest rates are at all time lows and Virgin have said that the investment has a good return in growing the customers base in areas where they are new entrants rather than established provider why are they not seeking to be aggressive and double the investment? The reports on broadband coverage in Britain say that the costs are not commercial for just the last 10% of households and so the capacity is there to almost double what Virgin already has. 

We could say that Liberty Global is being cautious given the uncertainty around Brexit and its economic impact or as a Global player the upside of investment outside of the UK is greater than inside.  One option would be for Virgin to become more of a player within the Business market which its brand does not speak to other than in the small business sector, some players are realising that BT is providing a very poor quality service.   

Is Virgin gaming the market to such an extent that it knows that investment is infrastructure is like betting on England's football team? It needs to stay in the game and the cost of new customers is lower in areas that it is an entrant to rather than established in that they are likely to buy a bundled service bigger than that established customers.

Ofcom BT proposal is a fudge rather than regulation that UK will need following the EU referendum

Whilst having breakfast today Ofcom published it proposal for BT Openreach following the year long review of how structural separation is servicing the market a decade after it's creation. Ofcom's Chief Executive Sharon White spoke on BBC Radio 4's Today programme to explain what the thinking was on fixing the failed provision of broadband and the fastest way to to turn things around. Her key message was that spinning out Openreach was too complex and would take too long and so forcing BT to create an independent Chair and improved reporting was going to allow changes to take place faster.

BT didn't seem to have any problems splitting Cellnet out and thus should not have issues with Openreach.  The problem this time is the state of the Pension scheme and complex contracts.

After White had left the radio studio her place was taken by BT's CEO and his opposite number at Talk Talk to have their say on the proposal. As could be expected Dido Harding was disappointed that Ofcom did not take a harder line. Gavin Patterson's response could have been a comedy routine at the BT managers away day, his best line was, "BT does not game Ofcom".

Over the past ten years BT has spent £10Bn investing in Broadband Services and in an effort to hold off break up offered to spend £6Bn in the next three years.  Too often consumers and businesses in Britain are complaining that the current infrastructure is woeful and the offer to double spending in the next three years is not going to raise satisfaction.

The 2010 spending review by George Osborne resulted in budgets cuts to Ofcom which means that a review that should have been completed in 12 months will take over two years.  BT and its rivals all have more lawyers and economists than Ofcom and are capable of gaming the regulatory processes.

Some on Twitter seem to think that this is another victory for BT 

yes, it is BT 1: Ofcom 0. Conduct regulation has failed, and this is just more failure. @AnnRobinson8

— John Fingleton (@JohnFingleton1) July 26, 2016

John Singleton is the former head of the OFT and he seems underwhelmed by the proposals.

If we want better infrastructure for broadband then it's best served by Openreach becoming a business in its own right and being able to raise capital on its own behalf rather than competition for budget with other BT subsidiaries and group commitments such as Pensions which at the moment is £12Bn in debt. Theresa May's new Industrial strategy hopefully will see the Government reject the proposal and seek BT's break up.

So just how many Mobile Networks does a country like Britain need?

Today the Competition and Markets Authority published a letter to the European Commissioner calling for the merger of Three and O2 to be blocked to protect the consumer. I had to check that it was not written ten days ago, the current government believes in the Free Market and the market has shown that the UK is not large enough to support five and now four network owners.

If the CMA wanted to protect the consumer then was BT allowed to buy EE and why was it not forced to spin out Openreach?

The role of Ofcom should be to provide assurance that the market for Mobile Infrastructure is not manipulated by the players in the market and that they are fulfilling the terms of licences granted via spectrum sales by Government.  The failure is not that Overseas Investors can no longer justify investment in an extremely competitive market but rather Regulators are under resourced and qualified.  The 2010 spending review by George Osborne and subsequent budgets has seen the money available to manage Ofcom fall and the remit rise this means that a regulator that had been struggling now is not fit for purpose.  Rather than resource the service correctly we have a Government that is taking others to undertake the role for it.

The second generation of mobile expansion saw just four networks build the industry at the fastest pace, with innovative product launches which the CMA now feels is a risk to the consumer! Alongside the network owners we also have a number of MVNOs that offer services to customers at a range of prices.  We might have fewer retail options on the high street with the demise of a number of independent retailers for the time of mass adoption of mobile but we are unlikely too see price rises as a result of Three buying O2.

I hope that the European Regulator has far more economists than the CMA and Ofcom and realises that the UK consumer is not able to fund adequately four mobile network operators.      

What do we do about O2?

Over the last few days the FT has focused on the potential for regulators to stop the disposal of O2 in the UK by Telefonica. They are now saying that the UK must not drop to just three networks but the market requires four.

This is such a simple belief in competition that you have to ask how much time have they invested understanding why two of the four incumbents courted BT when they signalled a wish to return to the mobile sector?  When former state owned players cannot make the numbers work to operate in one of the largest economies in the world then the market has failed!

The current level of competition means that at a consumer level the numbers are marginal.  The Infrastructure requirements to roll out 4G makes the market subprime. Rather than opt out of regulation Ofcom should seek to acknowledge that the solutions required needs them to take decisive action to improve the cost base whilst raising the quality of the networks.

If the Infrastructure can be improved and better wholesale terms can be achieved then at a retail level we might se more competition.  Over the past 15 years we have seen a decline in the number of retailers offering consumers mobiles as Independent players have gone to the wall and Networks have closed a number of there stores.  The exit of Tesco from the MVNO space can be seen as a warning flag that the consumer might have won on price but has lost on quality.

I would allow Three to buy O2 on the basis that Telefonica is current in a debt reduction cycle rather than investment mode, thus all the while it holds the UK asset it under invests meaning that it falls behind it competitors.  Without Three buying O2 the business would face a slow death.  Once we have consolidated the market to three players we require Ofcom to invest in staff with a deep knowledge of Mobile who are prepared to take action before breakfast, before lunch and after dinner to borrow a phrase from Michael Heseltine. At the dawn of Mobile thirty years ago we had a duopoly that was regulated in such a way that consumers had choice and a number of people became MultiMillionaires serving the consumer.

BT has got NO friends!

Over the last few weeks it seems that the current Ofcom review of BT is unlikely to follow the pattern of "business as usual" when it comes to outcomes.  These could mean that the chickens finally come home to roost at BT.

Over the course of a week BBC Radio4 featured the failures of Broadband Britain to live up to promises on the Today programme.  It was not until 4 negative features that BT CEO Gavin Patterson finally agreed to an interview and that was not face to face rather it was prerecorded and broadcast on a Saturday morning.  You have to ask just what the PR team were doing, was it a failure or arrogance?

This weekend Chris Bryant wrote to The Telegraph calling for the break-up of BT because it had failed to provide the Broadband needed of UK PLC despite £1.8bn of grants to do so.  This is a shadow minister prepared to outline Labour Party policy in the middle of a Leadership election!

These events on there own might lead you to think that BT will be alright, it might find itself facing tighter regulation but it's unlikely that a break-up will be forced on it.  However take a look at the fact that industry rivals that are also calling for a split are also donors to the Conservative Party and you might start to thing that BT could be facing years of legal challenges and disruption.  Given that Ian Livingston's time in Government was shorter than a contract for one of BT's services you have to ask what friends they have?

Don't believe the spin BT will not manage EE any better than it's current owner

The Chief Executives if BT and EE have recently been on a charm offensive aimed at getting us to buy into the view that BT buying EE is a good idea for more than the shareholders of Orange and DT.  They have presented interesting scenarios about Network Investments whilst managing to limit details about pricing and product strategy.

Looking from the outside I fear that in becoming a division of BT Retail the mobile tallent will walk away from the business rather than stay and execute on the plans of the Chief Executives.  Nobody is talking about staff retention for EE and if BT fail to do so then they will be serious trouble.  BT's history in managing Mobile assets is not a good one and for the past 15 years they have not had to, which means they have very little understanding of 3 and 4G Networks.  The Civil Service mentality within BT means that very few within EE will feel comfortable but their knowledge is vital is any progress is to be made post acquisition on the development of Radio Access Networks.

The addition of Mobile to the regulatory mix will give Ofcom the chance to balance the advantage that BT has held recently in gaming investigations.  The EE regulatory team will not find the present relationship carried forward and they might find that they are queried more about network coverage and quality. Becoming the largest operator in both Fixed and Mobile Networks means that BT will need to demonstrate that it is meeting access requirements as well as investing in upgrades.  The Consumer may well benefit in the short term from BT taking over EE in that I expect that a significant investment will be made in Subscriber Acquisition budgets in an effort to retain EE customers and switch BT ones to the Network.  Will shareholders be happy with gifts of subsidised smartphones and tablets?  The increased load on BT Wifi hotspots will also be an interesting traffic light on current investment in the BT Broadband network and upgrade cycle.

So BT have finalised a deal for EE

We woke this morning to the news that BT had agreed terms to acquire EE.  I have to say that if feels that I am in some strange fantasy world rather than one that understands the massive risk such a deal is.

Those that make a living as public analysts have all been very quick to jump on the bandwagon that this is wonderful news.  I feel somewhat differently.

If I were a shareholder in Orange I have to ask just how owning shares in BT is going to fund purchases in France aimed at consolidation?  It is also difficult to see how DT can say it got a fair price for finally exiting the UK mobile market (they bought One-2-One for £8.4bn).

But lets look at just what BT have bought and how they are unlikely to be able to execute an strategy that offers a return on the investment.

BT back in the retail game.

Part of the "prize" for BT is the fact that they will take over the stores of EE and thus have a presence on the High Street through which they can upsell other services.  BT used to have retail stores that they closed because they could not make them work.  I do not think that they have significantly changed so that they can offer a presence where you can talk people into Quad play services. If they can sell Quad play then it will be on the basis of discounting rather than quality.  

What can BT do will all the 4G Spectrum?

In the 4G auctions BT purchased spectrum that it was going to used for fixed mobile services and now has spectrum refarmed and purchase by EE.  The regulator will have demands about forfeiture of some of the Spectrum. Whilst divisions other than BT Retail will have requirements for Mobile Spectrum of its own, can these be met by the new holding?

BT's ability to invest in Fibre

If BT can find the money to buy a Mobile asset then why can't it find the money to better roll out Fibre Broadband, is likely to be the simplistic view of politicians.  Thus demand that BT deals speedily in building out Fibre to the 50% of households not covered by Virgin's footprint will increase.  Alongside the calls for faster upgrades to the Fibre estate will be demands that they wholesale access prices fall.

Talent blackhole when it comes to Mobile

BT does not have the Executive experience required to manage a Mobile Operation and the Management at EE is unlikely to want to work for BT.  This means that once the deal closes they will face a mass exit of know how just at a time that they need to up skill. If they wish to stop that then they will be over paying, if they don't then they will discover just how complex managing the build and maintenance of a Mobile Network is.

Everything just got a lot more expensive for BT

Anyone with something to sell to BT has just seen that they are happy to pay top prices.  So in order to close any significant move they will discover that the price has just risen by 15-20%.  If they can spend £12.5bn for EE they must have the money for ...

BT Executives are in my experience very far from reality.  They might feel that they are offering the consumer an enhanced product range that they should be happy to pay for.  The reality is that for the last fifteen years telecommunications has been a commodity that the user demands at an ever decreasing price.  Look at the UK retail space and you see a blood bath, experienced hands like Tesco, M&S and Topshop are hurting an BT thinks that they can be successful. BT adverts for Broadband services may win awards and get people talking but they do not seem to get people signing up for service.  If you pay out £12.5bn how long can you offer BT Sport free of charge to your Consumers? What will the price be and how many will pay it?

Rather than telling the CEO and Chairman that they have struck an excellent deal if I would a significant shareholder I would be selling off my holding as it is unlikely that I will see an increase in dividends from helping Germany and France exit the UK Mobile market.

More thoughts on the BT purchase of EE

Reading today's Telegraph I start to see analysis that BT returning to the Mobile Market might not be a great idea. Whilst this is a start I don't think that it highlights the problems such a deal presents to BT.

The investment that in buying EE BT is making is 3 times that they have made in Superfast Broadband AND Sport.  This is just the table stakes, having joined the Mobile poker table they will have to double down if they are to fulfil the terms of the 4G Spectrum Licience.  This is at a time when the sector is shrinking rather than growing.

The way that EE was formed has seen the culture of the business very much free of Civil Servant style management, something very different to BT.  Thus in buying a Mobile Network will the Executives be brave and allow it to stand alone, would they be allowed to by the Regulators?  If they place the mobile unit as a subsidiary of BT Retail I predict that many of the members of staff that make the business work will exit in frustration if they can be persuaded to join in the first place. Most are likely to seek redundancy before the transaction closes.

In Gavin Patterson BT have a CEO who is all about Marketing with little understanding of Engineering.  This could well be a problem when it comes to developing products that utilise the new Mobile Asset.  At this moment in time BT are building three 4G core networks for use by customers in the UK thanks to the structure placed upon it by Regulation. These networks will be used to deliver different products none of which have a proven demand.  The last time BT owned both fixed and mobile assets it saw potential for converged mobile phones and invested heavily in projects such as the BT Bluephone which were commercial flops. I fear that they did not learn for such follies and will once again squander millions that could be spent upgrading fixed networks or boosting the income of sportsmen and women.  

BT buying a mobile network

Yesterday The Sunday Times ran another story on BT buying a Mobile Network for £10bn.  The story outlined the options faced by the CEO and his team without asking the questions a shareholder might want answered.

If the Mobile sector offers such riches to BT why are the two largest Networks prepared to pull up sticks and exit the market?

How do the Customers of EE or O2 overlap with those of BT and are they likely to remain given a change of ownership?

If BT were to buy either Network what will be the response of OFCOM when it comes to regulation?

After 14 years not managing Mobile Infrastructure Assets does BT have the Management expertise needed to make a return on the Investment given the vast changes over that period?

On the basis of just these questions then the rational response is thanks for the opportunity but I think BT is better served NOT doing the deal. Those likely to benefit from any deal in the short term will be Investment Bankers, Lawyers and Accountants who will be able to charge large fees for the transaction.  In the medium term the beneficiaries are likely to be the rivals of BT.

If the deal were to work for BT it would have to be able to convince the Consumer that buying all your connectivity requirements from a single provider is worth paying a premium for rather than a discount. It would need to hire Executives capable of building and running Mobile Networks and then given them the space and power to do so rather than hamstringing them as a subsidiary of an Operating Unit. Whilst spending vast sums on Marketing and Engineering in the Mobile Business it would need to also do so in the Fixed Business or face Investigation and Sanctions by OFCOM and Politicians.  These challenges are greater than those faced by the Board in the Dot.com era when failure saw the sale of Cellnet.

Will the real BT stand up?

Over the weekend I read three stories about BT which paint a confused view of just what it's future might be. On Saturday the Guardian reported that thanks to BT TV complaints have shoot up. The Yesterday's Sunday Times had two stories in the Business Section about the return of BT Mobile and a feature on NEW CEO Gavin Patterson's £2bn bet on sports TV.

If you read on paper you get the view that BT's retail strategy is in need of a major review. The customers are unhappy with the failings of not just it's TV product but also it's Broadband product. The only provider that gets more complaints for it's Broadband is EE.

Read the Sunday Times and all is good for BT it's about to get back in the Mobile Phone business after leaving in 2001 and BT TV has seen 3M on Virgin and Sky take the service. Then a full page feature on new CEO Gavin Paterson and his £2bn bet on sports TV is a bold gamble that aims to grow the business after a period of cost cutting. He will use a Quad Play offer to drive up incomes having bought some 4G spectrum and struct an MVNO deal with EE.

The problem is that Simon Duke in the Sunday Times does not seem to understand that BT has had MVNO agreements with O2 and Vodafone ever since it sold of it's mobile arm after over paying for 3G spectrum in 2000. He also does not seem to understand that since 2008 BT has failed to invest the money need to provide the long term upgrade in super-fast fibre to the curb rather than cabinet just as it failed to match European spending in ADSL deployment ten years previously.

When you start to understand that last week OFCOM reported that the UK has the lowest consumer prices for Mobile services in Europe you start to ask it's not just Duke that fails to understand the realities of a very competitive telecoms market but BT also.  For too long the Company thinks that one of its prime roles is to defend itself against the regulator rather than invest in it's Network so that it survives long term.  

An act of stupidity by a desperate Prime Minister

I picked up my morning paper and almost tore it in two reading the latest stupid PR stunt from David Cameron. When Ed Miliband made his Conference Speech this September we were told that price controls could not work and were wrong. Yet with his back to the wall Dave has decided that all utility companies need to be told that his government will not accept price rises in the run up to the 2015 election.

This is an act akin to King Canute except the Prime Minister does not understand that he cannot turn back the tide of price increases.

An analysis of the players in the market will show that many are subsidiaries of  overseas businesses rather than British and thus have little loyalty to local politicians. They are in the majority investing in significant infrastructure programs that mean that rather than pay taxes they have losses to cover.

What the Prime Minister should be doing via the offices of the Department of Culture Media and Sport and Ofcom is making sure that telecoms networks are able to deploy high speed broadband to the majority of the population in the majority of places. It is with such a network that the economy will grow and income rise at such a level that people do not feel price rises.

Just who needs Broadband?

The Sunday Times today reports that the Mobile Operators are to be offered the 3G spectrum in perpetuity in exchange for the provision of a universal service which could cost an additional £1-2B to build. In the Observer we are told that BT is looking at a return to mobile becasue of the loss of revenue having spun out Cellnet to help pay off a £30B debt at the time of the 3G auctions.


As someone who was involved in the 3G bids I have to question some of the logic in these reports. On a very simple level if I were the CEO of a Network in the UK the thing I want is planning permission for all the base stations they have planned. The Investment needed for 3G has been slowed because of local resistance to new base stations not cash concerns. In the Local Elections last year the Liberal Democrats had as a manafesto pledge the refusal to allow any new masts to be built. The outcome of this is that Networks need to Appeal Planning Applications to get one built, this is at present taking some 4 years to achieve! For me it means that I have very poor coverage from Orange which will only improve once they get permission to improve coverage not a Governement incentive.


3G spectrum might not be something that has a long time frame in that the current thoughs on 4G is that the old 2G spectrum is refarmed in an effort to improve inbuilding coverage.


Lord Carter (one of Mandleson's Business Ministers) is at present putting the finishing touches to his Digital Britain Report aimed at looking at the needs for UK PLC. It seems that at this moment the Mandleson Machine is stress testing some of the recommendations prior to publication. As well as the 3G "leak" we have the Observer reporting that the central plank of the plan, Fibre to the Home is under threat. BT is looking at the best way to manage its cash knowing that they have a hole in the pension funds and declining incomes thanks to bundles that offer free calls and problems in the Services business.


Whilst I have been looking forward to a better connection than I have at present I am unsure of the benefits of just building FTTH. When you look at the expansion of the M25 you see that the adding of more lanes just means that more are stuck in traffic jams! Thus with a faster internet will we get a better one? The TV content that I want is not yet available on iPlayer and the regulator has said that Picnic or Kangeroo are not fair to sonsumers and so cannot launch. So it best solution for me to wait until the serries finishes and the buy the DVD at HMV if I wish to remain legal or risk viruses and file share. The Government seems to think that because so many are breaking the rules they need to Tax all users of the web. If you get a better connection the incetive will be to break the rules more so who wins?