Re: Bottom Line...
" simply hacking Openreach away from its parent would probably have a catastrophic effect."
Perhaps for BT. But riddle me this: If Openreach is _so_ expensive and has _so_ many liabilities and is losing _so_ much money, why is BT trying desperately to hang onto it?
The effect of splitting in New Zealand was electrifying. Their version of Openreach went into high gear when the split happened and hasn't slowed down since. Almost all(*) customers are happy at paying 1/2 to 1/3 the rates they were previously forced to.
The incumbent telco isn't looking so rosy though. It advanced the exact same arguments and costs against splitting that BT has been using - including the claim that an independent openreach would have trouble raising financing.
Not long after the split, NZ Openreach (chorus) got lots of financing, whilst the former incumbent had its credit rating slide substantially. It seems that plant in the ground and hundreds of telcos as your customer is a better credit risk than being one of those hundreds of telcos (especially when customers are leaving like a plague of rats deserting a sinking ship. Most people stay with BT because they're the lines company. Once that goes away they're more inclined to move)
(*) The exception to the happy clients list being the former incumbent - which despite the line charge figures being set based on information it passed to the regulator about costs, etc. claimed that the charges were far too high, they couldn't possibly make money and they demanded a special deal.
Everyone laughed at them and the damands weregiven short shrift. That little tantrum demonstrated what everyone else already knew - that the outrageous costs they claimed were involved in running the lineside operation were made up figures to cross-subsidise the other divisions.