|
👍
Sat 5 Sep 2020, 21:15 (last edited on Sat 5 Sep 2020, 21:30)
Firstly the number of exchanges is entirely irrelevant to the line length on fibre to the cabinet services. What matters is the line length to the cabinet, so that whole bit about rationalising exchanges is irrelevant (it was on ADSL of course). Not that there was a lot of exchange rationalisation in the 1980s. What happened is that the manning levels went way, way down as automated equipment was installed (when BT was created, the cast majority of exchanges were Strowger electro-mechanical exchanges and they were unreliable and very manually intensive - the main investment in electronic exchanges was after privatisation).
Exchanges aren't easy to rationalise as their positions are essentially dictated by where the cables run, and if you want an expensive job, try moving massive multi-pair cables. Yes, a few (mostly back much earlier than the 1980s) were moved or closed down by extending cables from an old exchange position, but that certainly wasn't a big thing in the 1980s. It will be the use of fibre or hybrid services and carrying calls on the back of IP networks which will allow the closure of exchanges, which are expensive to run.
BT Retail and BT Openreach investment are NOT related to one another. BT Retail operates as a separate ISP and, by regulation, any investment it makes has got nothing to do with Openreach. BT Retail investments have to make a return on their own merits as do Openreach investments. The two businesses are managed by their own boards, and the money spent on network infrastructure can only be paid for by wholesale revenues. They cannot be mixed up.
BT Retail are profitable in their own terms, and it's a business decision whether sports rights make money or not. If BT Retail makes money from investing in sports rights and selling them one, then it doesn't take one penny away from Openreach. I see this sort of complete misunderstanding all the time. The profits made by BT Retail are not available to pay for Openreach investment, and Openreach profits are not there to subsidise BT Retail (which would be against regulations).
Here's a report on the profitability of BT Retail sports rights. It did not take a penny from Openreach investment.
https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/bt-1.1bn-profit-sports-rights
Thus fibre to the premise investments have to make money on their own terms, and in the face of strict wholesale price regulation. No other operator has anything remotely like that. That same report also states the hit to Openreach of regulated wholesale price reductions.
Basically, if fibre-to-the-property investments have to pay for themselves on their own terms with their own business case. If it can make a return, then it can raise the money, if not no bank will lend the money (and Openreach are incurring a lot of debt - capital investment on fibre infrastructure is incredibly expensive).
| 