"Openreach is not a communications provider."
OFCOM have now confirmed (as if there was any doubt)...
"BT plc (of which Openreach is currently a division, and of which Openreach Limited will become a subsidiary when it is incorporated) is a communications provider subject to various regulatory obligations set by Ofcom."
Oh well, not surprising I suppose. Thanks to OFCOM for confirming.
Someone at Openreach is currently shaking violently awaiting the first email from you...ReplyDelete
No, no-one at Openreach is shaking violently. They don't care either way. Each individual still gets his or her salary so nothing else matters in his/her eyes.
I eagerly await the followup post to this.ReplyDelete
Absolutely. They are a rubbish organisation. I hope to get a reply from A&A tomorrow as Openreach disconnected my line and failed to reconnect it when installing a line for a neighbour. Or that is precisely what it looks like. I caught them at it thanks to A&As brilliant texting system,Delete
We will do all we can, obviously.Delete
I think the confusion here is being caused by the way OR refer to their own customers as communications providers (so AAISP and BT Consumer would be viewed as CPs to them for example) - not sure what language they would use to describe themselves!ReplyDelete
"Highly competent" perhaps?ReplyDelete
Ofcom's statement is incorrect anyway. "BT plc" doesn't exist.ReplyDelete
Openreach is a division of British Telecommunications plc.
British Telecommunications plc is a subsidiary of BT Group plc.
Openreach Limited will also be a subsidiary of BT Group plc.
Sort of, abbrebriating British Telecom to BT is hardly that unclear, but you are technically correct on that. Openreach Ltd does exist though.Delete
I passed an Openreach van on the M42 near Birmingham Airport on Friday. All mention of BT is now missing from the stickers and branding. Passed another on the M25 near Heathrow this afternoon. Same again.ReplyDelete
Photo of the vans here:Delete
Yep, that's the branding I saw. Is this a further attempt to claim "nothing to do with BT mate - just look at me van. No sign of the name BT, is there guv?"Delete
Is that what's called 'plausible deniability' ?Delete