BT to be broken up due to 'monopolising' superfast broadband?

23 May 2012

Bitterwallet - BT - featuredBT could be broken up into two separate companies because they're monopolising the UK's superfast broadband. This is according shadow business minister Chi Onwurah who absolutely no-one has heard of.

"BT must be made to understand that if superfast broadband is a monopoly, they will not be allowed to enjoy it," Onwurah said to the House of Lords. "I think structural separation is something we are going to have to look at," she said. "It's a significant intervention and BT would rightly complain but monopoly provision of superfast broadband just isn't an acceptable option."

Of course, what this means for us plebs is that it'll take even longer for us to get our mucky paws on lovely superfast broadband speeds. God knows what it's going to be like when everyone starts fighting over the bones of 4G.

The squabble has started thanks to the amount of money being spent to improve Britain's broadband network. A total of £980m has been put-aside to upgrade the old copper wires to fibre. £530m will be spent by local councils. However, BT's rivals think that this money will all go to BT. Or, if you prefer, Fujitsu are complaining about this as they're the only other people who are competing for contracts with the 35 councils signed up to the agreement being run by the government's Broadband development UK (BDUK) team.

"The government is doing so much to get competition into the NHS where nobody really wants it, and doing so little to get competition into telecoms where everybody agrees it is the best way," said Onwurah. She said ministers risked "sleepwalking into another monopoly."

Splitting BT up would cost the tax-payer billions of pounds, which is yet another pain in the rear and BT are keen to point out that they're spending £2.5bn of its own money to upgrade connections.

TOPICS:   Technology   Broadband


  • vibeone
    I'm in here posting faster than I was in Mike Hock's mum.
  • vibeone
    PS: I didn't even read the article but it seems very wrong. Much like what I did to Mike Hock's mum last night.
  • Mike H.
    Can someone help, I can't work out what's wrong with this phrase. Cage Rattled
  • Mike H.
    Your cock has a mum?
  • vibeone
    I've certainly been *rattling* your mum's *cage* if you *know* what I *mean*!!!
  • Marky M.
    Chi Onwurah? Made-up name.
  • Hack C.
    Hello and welcome to over a decade ago!
  • Ian L.
    Yo, vibe one, mike hock, peep dis... YO MOMMA! Oh, and yea, dawgs, stop fillin bitterwallet wit yo dumb ass momma dissin cusses, ya borin me now holmes.
  • Christopher R.
    I wonder why all of this money may go to BT hrmm I dunno maybe they are the ones footing the cost and installing the faster broadband in the first place?
  • The B.
    I was under the impression that if the other Telcos wanted to go and install a complete infrastructure then they can, or they can rent the old infrastructure from BT, but any new infrastructure installed by BT since privatisation is surely their own?
  • Harry
    I wonder if they should force VirginMedia too do the same, BT atleast have a line lealing policy, so competitors can rent out their infrastructure that BT spent billions installing...Yet Virgin Media greedily keeps their infrastructure all to themselves...they have a monopoly on the high speed broadband and can charge a premium because of it, I don't see the government caring about what they do. It's typical of the government, first they privatised all public owned businesses and then make it so they can't compete in the market they built by allowing the competition to come in and undercharge them and end up buying them out. Only in Britain where we've taken solid profitable businesses that could have expanded abroad, and the government has put on so much pressure on them, that they end up losing the market share they already had, instead of expanding in other terratories.

What do you think?

Your comment