3 ms·

Sounds like the kind of bullshit BT and OpenReach pull too. Claim to be two unrelated companies and yet one owns parts of the other and the same boards run both

Sounds like the kind of bullshit BT and OpenReach pull too. Claim to be two unrelated companies and yet one owns parts of the other and the same boards run both - all so they can pass customer problems between the two I definitely.

DanBC 6y ago
They have different boards. https://www.openreach.com/about-us/our-leadership-and-governance/our-board https://www.openreach.com/about-us/our-leadership-and-govern... https://www.bt.com/about/bt/our-company/group-governance/board-of-directors https://www.bt.com/about/bt/our-company/group-governance/boa... Openreach Mike McTighe Chairman Clive Selley CEO Matt Davies Chief Finance Officer Edward Astle Non-executive Board member Liz Benison Non-executive Board member Andrew Barron Non-executive Board member Jon Furmston Secretary to the board Simon Lowth BT Group nominee BT Jan du Plessis Chairman Philip Jansen Chief Executive Simon Lowth Group Chief Financial Officer Adel Al-Saleh Non-independent, non-executive director Sir Ian Cheshire Independent non-executive director Iain Conn Senior independent director and independent non-executive director Isabel Hudson Independent non-executive director Mike Inglis Independent non-executive director Matthew Key Independent non-executive director Allison Kirkby Independent non-executive director Leena Nair Independent non-executive director Sara Weller Independent non-executive director Rachel Canham Company Secretary & General Counsel, Governance
gambiting 6y ago
I'm honestly surprised anyone complains about that split - it was introduced specifically so that BT wouldn't control the entire telecom infrastructure in this country, and OpenReach was formed to provide equal access to all operators - BT being only one of them. This is an extremely good solution to what used to be a massive inequality problem previously. So no, BT and Openreach aren't split for some bullshit reason, they were ordered by the court to split in order to protect consumer rights and increase competition, goals which were overwhelmingly achieved due to that split. And yes, the negative side is that every time something goes wrong, BT really can't fix it any faster, it's all down to OpenReach to maintain the network. But on the other hand, it always goes through OpenReach, whether you are with TalkTalk, BT or Sky, so the entity responsible for maintaing the network isn't the entity selling you broadband for home.
- emdowling 6y ago
  This sounds like a similar situation to Telstra in Australia, which was forced to split into two entities - one a wholesale network provider that was open to all operators, the other a consumer operator that (supposedly) operates under the same rules as everyone else.
- zinok 6y ago
  It would be an extremely good solution if it worked as intended. In fact Openreach were not fully independent from BT for most of their existence, and they operated the network in a way which was extremely favorable to BT for a long time. Thus, the two companies extracted an exorbitant rent for the formerly public goods they controlled. The fact that some of this rent went to inefficiencies of running two separate companies on an illusionary arm's length basis does not really improve matters.

DanBC 6y ago

They have different boards. https://www.openreach.com/about-us/our-leadership-and-governance/our-board https://www.openreach.com/about-us/our-leadership-and-govern... https://www.bt.com/about/bt/our-company/group-governance/board-of-directors https://www.bt.com/about/bt/our-company/group-governance/boa... Openreach Mike McTighe Chairman Clive Selley CEO Matt Davies Chief Finance Officer Edward Astle Non-executive Board member Liz Benison Non-executive Board member Andrew Barron Non-executive Board member Jon Furmston Secretary to the board Simon Lowth BT Group nominee BT Jan du Plessis Chairman Philip Jansen Chief Executive Simon Lowth Group Chief Financial Officer Adel Al-Saleh Non-independent, non-executive director Sir Ian Cheshire Independent non-executive director Iain Conn Senior independent director and independent non-executive director Isabel Hudson Independent non-executive director Mike Inglis Independent non-executive director Matthew Key Independent non-executive director Allison Kirkby Independent non-executive director Leena Nair Independent non-executive director Sara Weller Independent non-executive director Rachel Canham Company Secretary & General Counsel, Governance

gambiting 6y ago

I'm honestly surprised anyone complains about that split - it was introduced specifically so that BT wouldn't control the entire telecom infrastructure in this country, and OpenReach was formed to provide equal access to all operators - BT being only one of them. This is an extremely good solution to what used to be a massive inequality problem previously. So no, BT and Openreach aren't split for some bullshit reason, they were ordered by the court to split in order to protect consumer rights and increase competition, goals which were overwhelmingly achieved due to that split. And yes, the negative side is that every time something goes wrong, BT really can't fix it any faster, it's all down to OpenReach to maintain the network. But on the other hand, it always goes through OpenReach, whether you are with TalkTalk, BT or Sky, so the entity responsible for maintaing the network isn't the entity selling you broadband for home.

emdowling 6y ago
This sounds like a similar situation to Telstra in Australia, which was forced to split into two entities - one a wholesale network provider that was open to all operators, the other a consumer operator that (supposedly) operates under the same rules as everyone else.
zinok 6y ago
It would be an extremely good solution if it worked as intended. In fact Openreach were not fully independent from BT for most of their existence, and they operated the network in a way which was extremely favorable to BT for a long time. Thus, the two companies extracted an exorbitant rent for the formerly public goods they controlled. The fact that some of this rent went to inefficiencies of running two separate companies on an illusionary arm's length basis does not really improve matters.