Quote:
Originally Posted by etccarmageddon
so what you're saying is because BT was previously owned by the tax payer it is a different case?
|
yes that is exactly right
Quote:
|
ok the tax payer financed the building up of the BT network but when it was privatised the money paid for the shares returned that finance back to the tax payer
|
But the network still exceeds that which a private company could or would choose to finance - which is why even now BT is considered to have an unfair advantage, and the whole reason by BT has been forced to open the network up to competition.
All the previous cable companies spent billions of pounds and decades building a network. Yes there may have been a licences from Government but the rest was private cash.
Quote:
|
- or are you saying the BT share issue was done on the condition that it didn't include the core network? or are you saying the BT share issue didn't fully compensate the tax payer for the value of the network?
|
It doesn't matter if the taxpayer was full compensated or not or under what conditions the share issue was exercised.
Everywhere Virgin goes, BT goes. Sky can already put itself in any exchange it likes yet it doesn't
News International probably has the money to buy Virgin if it wanted - yet it doesn't
The only reason Sky are trying to do this is to gain access to Virgin's network and customer base on the cheap and without having to do the work