Bt Share Discussion Threads

[pacemaker1000] 30/3/2017 00:17

Crumbs smurfy, wish I had those bills!
For me, electricity £100, water £85 and oil £120 plus council tax of £200!
£30 for BB is the least of my outgoings by far and the one I don't mind paying the most.

[pacemaker1000] 30/3/2017 00:06

Kazoom...haha, you beat me to the comment on the big four being soooo capable...lol

[diku] 29/3/2017 22:16

monty...insiders bonus cut?...always somebody else fault...



montyhedge
29 Mar '17 - 21:00 - 22778 of 22781 0 0

£530m gone in Italy, £300m compensation to rivals, £42m fine. All this adds up, will effect this years figures or next? That could have gone to help reduce pension deficit.

[kazoom] 29/3/2017 21:40

Nice find on the auditors Mornington, brilliant quote within that :

"Firms outside the "big four" would be regarded as incapable of managing the audit of a company as sizeable as BT, industry sources said."

Whereas the big four have prove to be totally capable - clearly!

I've worked with at least 3 out of the top 4 over time (probably the 4th as well) and frankly I would be sceptical about the judgement of any of them.

[kazoom] 29/3/2017 21:34

Back "in the day" (at least the 80s if not slightly later) - "Line rental" was a relatively modest amount and call charges were very high; especially during "peak" times - those of a certain age will remember the admonishment not to use the home phone before 6pm..

But along came the "indirect" service providers who capitalised on the fact that the actual cost of making a call was quite low - I'm sure some will remember dialling a prefix before dialling the actual number in order to get rock bottom call prices - this really screwed BT over and as a consequence they were allowed to "rebalance" - reducing call charges whilst increasing "line rental" to create a more level competitive playing field.

It's curious therefore that the other utilities have gone the other way and mostly folded their "access costs" into the unit fee. But they do have a different competitive landscape and in fact there is a bit of eco-social engineering here - it's good for the environment to have usage charges relatively high for leccy, gas and water as reduction of usage of all of these is generally a good thing.

The mobile phone model is a similarly interesting comparative - it started off (IIRC) with Handsets being sold at a profit and astronomic call charges. But there was a fairly quick move once competition established to using the high call charges to subsidise the handset costs. This began to crumble when it became clear that the high call charges were not sustainable with indirect competition. So now we have moved to a model where (in the pay monthly market) package fees cover the network provision and the bulk of the handset costs together with the (very low actual) cost of any "in package" calls.

You can dissect any of these pricing models and conclude they are unfair to one type of user or another but really if any model gets too out of kilter, then competition develops to exploit the gap.

The so called line rental rip-off is merely a bizarre description thing. The Line is a basic requirement in order to be able to provide internet (there is a relatively small element of the cost covering the switching equipment that is only required for calls, but this hardly makes a difference). So if those that seem to object so strongly to paying line rental have their way, we'll simply get another rebalancing - Line rental will go vastly down (and only be applied to those that opt to make calls) whereas broadband rental will go up.

The net effect will be next to nothing, but at least for the purists (and I have some sympathy here) the pricing will be more honest. No more "Free broadband" (small print : plus £20 line rental).

The effect on the market will no doubt be "very interesting" - about as interesting as this post frankly.

Move on, there is nothing to see here.

[mornington crescent] 29/3/2017 21:06

BT Group is trying to secure the quick-fire appointment of a new auditor, two months after the emergence of a £530m accounting black hole at its business services division in Italy.

Sky News has learnt that Britain's biggest telecoms and broadband provider is attempting to replace PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) at the earliest possible opportunity - but is being hampered by rules requiring a cooling-off period for any replacement provider of audit services.

Nick Rose, the non-executive director who chairs BT's audit committee, wrote to the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), the accounting watchdog, last week to inform it of the company's plans to accelerate PwC's replacement, sources said on Wednesday.

Mr Rose is understood to have told the regulator that BT had lost confidence in PwC, which has audited the company since it listed on the London Stock Exchange in 1984, and was working to ensure that another firm would be deemed independent as rapidly as possible.

BT and the FRC both declined to comment on the letter.

Strict rules in the accountancy profession mean that auditors must be "cleansed" after undertaking prohibited non-audit services for listed companies for at least a year - a requirement which poses a headache for BT because of its extensive use of all of the "big four" audit forms.

Deloitte, for example, is conducting extensive IT work for BT, which means it will not be eligible to replace PwC, according to City insiders.

That leaves EY and KPMG as potential alternative auditors for the FTSE-100 telecoms group.

Both, however, are also involved in significant amounts of work for BT, some of which they are now being stood down from in order to ensure their independence.

Firms outside the "big four" would be regarded as incapable of managing the audit of a company as sizeable as BT, industry sources said.

Sources pointed out that the FRC had no authority to grant exemptions to the legal requirements relating to audit independence.

In its 2016 annual report, BT said it proposed tendering its audit contract no later than 2019, with the new auditors appointed no later than for its financial year starting in April 2020.

"However, the committee keeps the external audit arrangements under annual review and may elect to accelerate the planned appointment of new auditors if appropriate, for example for service quality or independence reasons," it added.

The move to replace PwC comes at a challenging time for BT, which on Monday was hit by a record fine from the industry regulator, Ofcom, for failing to compensate rival broadband firms sufficiently over delayed installation appointments.

[montyhedge] 29/3/2017 21:00

£530m gone in Italy, £300m compensation to rivals, £42m fine. All this adds up, will effect this years figures or next? That could have gone to help reduce pension deficit.

[smurfy2001] 29/3/2017 20:50

pacemaker1000, £29.99 (£359.88 a year) for fibre 52mb unlimited data one year contract. Price after 12 months is £47.49 per month (£569.88 a year). So after 12 months it's going to be higher than my gas or electric and that gap will widen as we head towards warmer weather.

[smurfy2001] 29/3/2017 20:33

sicker, aren't standing charges built into the monthly anyway? I know in the past you could separate the standing.

[montyhedge] 29/3/2017 20:32

Don't worry, Sharon White is on the case with this line rental rip off.

[pacemaker1000] 29/3/2017 20:16

Smurfy... of course your gas water and electric company are charging you rental for the connection. It's just in a different way. The cost covers the maintenance and upgrade of the transmission medium same as BT have to do.
Not saying which is correct but BT seem to be the ones complained about so maybe they should just give us an all in one bill to encompass the medium it uses to provide you with service.
At thirty quid a month for unlimited BB or fifteen for phone seems a good deal to me. Don't know what you're paying but this would be only 1/10th of my other combined utilities.

[jenny tulwought] 29/3/2017 19:11

smurfy, thank you for writing.


The line rental BT charge, is similar to that charged by other service providers such as Sky & Talk Talk. Some might suggest that this represents a 'cartel' which Ofcom appears unable to legislate against. In the early days of de-regulation, Ofcom refused to allow BT to drop it's prices - because to do so, would have hindered BT's competition in the process of becoming established (ironic eh?).

Much of the money paid by the likes of you and I for line rental, is ploughed straight back into network investment. Not only fibre to cabinets and premises, but also to upgrade the those copper and aluminium lines which, when first laid in the ground or hung from poles, weren't designed for more recent technological advances.

Despite the pension deficit (not the fault of consumers - granted), BT Openreach began investing billions in the fibre network. When the fibre role-out began, the country was in the grip of the 'credit-crunch'. Even then, the likes of Sky and Talk Talk were calling for BT and O/R to be separated.

But back then, some 11 or 12 years ago - and with much of the world in that dire economic climate, if the other SPs had had their way (bringing about the separation of BT from OR), they wouldn't now be in a position to squabble over more favorable access to the fibre back-bone of Britain - since it wouldn't exist (certainly not to the extent many enjoy now).

If you were a business man, surely you would expect a return on your investment - especially if you'd had to take a few risks along the way? BT (Openreach) took financial risks with upfront investment - and without any guarantees of when (or if), that investment would 'pay-off'.

When BT announces its results, profits are quoted in billions - but in terms of percentage, maybe one could do better running a corner shop (sorry if this appears flippant - but the illustration and comparison may be apposite).


I find myself wondering why is it other service providers are able to charge a similar amount to BT?
May be they too, took risks by investing 'up-front'?

[sicker] 29/3/2017 18:55

Do you not have a 'standing charge' smurfy?

[smurfy2001] 29/3/2017 18:10

Jenny, when l pay for my electric or gas i'm not paying for rental of the electric lines or gas pipework. The monthly fee should cover it. It's extortionate that my BT costs are the same as my gas and electric bill!

[maurillac] 29/3/2017 17:35

lol i thought your hat was on 285 !!!!!!!!
changes like the bloody wind ........
m

[montyhedge] 29/3/2017 16:19

Drifting and shares don't drift up, massive stale bull position built up, I see 305 to 310p when they run for the door.

[oakville] 29/3/2017 16:11

Walter Mitty is still alive and kicking !

[toon1966] 29/3/2017 15:17

Naughty Virgin - they've reduced the number of homes it said had been reached by a £3bn network upgrade. Staff had “misrepresented” the completion status of the Project Lightning expansion when it reported fourth-quarter results in February.They claimed that its new network had grown to pass 215,000 homes in the three months to the end of December but has now cut that figure to 86,000. Shocking.

[jenny tulwought] 29/3/2017 14:22

Enjoying some time off today, and have been tuned into the BBC's Parliamentary news channel - particularly the Brexit debate following the conclusion of PMQs.

I think I heard said somewhere, that Germany exports more cars to the UK, than to any other country (not sure whether that was globally, or just within the EU). Either way, it won't be in Germany's interests to stifle the existing trade it currently enjoys with us. Further, I can't see how it is in the interests of any other European nation to stifle existing trade with us. So, how could it be in the interests of the EU, to make Brexit negociations difficult?

Well, and here's the interesting dichotomy, the easier they make it for the UK, the more attractive separation may appear to other EU nations who harbour 'elements' within, to demand their own referenda.

So, will the E/U feel the need to be 'awkward' - in order to deter other nations following our lead? It'll be facinating to watch all this unfold.
(Yeah, I know, I need to get out more...)

:o )

[colonelgrim] 29/3/2017 13:03

That’s strange muters, I’ve just taken a look at your diary for tomorrow, and can confirm you have a hygene course in the morning, and an appraisal update in the afternoon, could that be the reason why your away from your desk tomoz(?), so why would you have us believe you can even afford course fee’s!

Rule number one on these threads…

“DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU HEAR, AND ONLY HALF OF WHAT YOU SEE!”

[montyhedge] 29/3/2017 12:15

Have a good round, I'm playing tomorrow. So no posting you may be pleased to read.

[sicker] 29/3/2017 12:11

Or even monty management. May you have many more wins than loses :-).
p.s. now I' m off to try to play golf.

[colonelgrim] 29/3/2017 12:08

"I give a percentage of winnings to a local charity"!

So thats why you voted ms tolworth's post 'DOWN' re starving rag'ed in Africa was it?

You gotta have a good memory to be a good lair mutley, you clearly fall down on this attribute!

'... give ... winnings to ... charity', oh I did kin chuckle, you'd do better to keep quiet and let us wonder at your stupidity, than to pen here and confirm the fact!

[montyhedge] 29/3/2017 11:57

sicker
Of course you win some, lose some, as long as the end end of the year, you have won more than you have lost. Everyone as loses now and then, even Buffett lost a fortune in Tesco.
Its all to do with money management.

[toon1966] 29/3/2017 11:52

I appreciate trading/share dealing is a form of 'gambling' but using the phrase 'winnings' is surprising for the Number 1 Trader, suspect he/she has picked this up from their love of 'Bingo'. Saying that I'm sure the local charity is delighted with £1.20 pa. Monty - pa stands for per annum.....