Re: BT out of the picture for fast broadband?

Dave Devnull wrote:
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 09:27:36 +0100, The Natural Philosopher waxed with
flowery words of wisdom:

Dave Devnull wrote:
On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 12:42:17 +0100, MB waxed with flowery words of
wisdom:

The message <K3anm.44174$RV1.43846@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> from "Ato_Zee"
<ato_zee@xxxxxxxxxxx> contains these words:

BT aren't interested in doing anything that hits their bottom line
and upsets their shareholders, that is anything that costs them
money.
Unlike the cable companies? None of them have a single piece of cable
to residential subscribers within a hundred miles of here so why only
criticise BT?
Because the network was originally built from tax payers money and then
raped by the private sector, but noted. The cable companies are also
***.
Hardly raped.
BT is virtually insolvent, and they don't pay bankers wages.
They seriously *overpay* their staff. Many of which spend their days doing little more than 'looking busy'.
Share price was as high as 15 quid IIRC its about £2 now.
Indeed, from valuable resource to worthless - hence RAPED by the private sector. In public ownership = had value, in private ownershipt != has value

well if value consists in taking a guaranteed wedge of taxpayers money to run a lazy monopoly, I guess so.

BT costs you a LOT less than it did I can assure you.


Pension commitments are crippling them.
Were they not one of the FIRST companies to seriously reduce the plans offered? Some 10 year plus ago? I suspect many BT pensioners will live long and expensive lives, having not done a decent days work in their lives.


Because they HAD to.

You seem to be one of those peole brougfht up under a labour government who think they have a natural right to be provided with free everything, no matter how ridiculous.

It costs a lot of time and effort to generate content, and to deliver it to your door.

Someone has to pay. Whether you pay in taxes, or in a monthly account, makes little odds.
.

Loading