"profits plunged 19%"
Well, if you pay over the odds for football TV rights you're going to have a bad time financially aren't you.
BT is to axe 4,000 jobs at worldwide, with profits plunging 19 per cent to £2.4bn during a "challenging" 2016/17 financial year for the former state monopoly. The roles will mainly cover managerial and back office areas, with the company expecting to shave off £300m over two years. This comes a day after industry sources were …
There's no business case as you've shareholders to keep content.
You think that BT are assuming that they'd be footing the full bill? I suspect they're working on the assumption that the partial subsidies for broadband that government and some local authorities have been drip feeding them for years will continue.
After years of putting up with BT's obscene prices (currently £53-ish per month), for practically no service (I'm one of those unspeakable peasants who has the audacity to not live in the middle of a concrete jungle), I finally switched to another Internet-plus-phone provider, which will give me essentially the same service I had at BT for one third of the price, and that's not even an introductory price that magically goes up after a year, it's forever (barring inflation).
The phone call to BT's retention department ought to be a highly amusing experience. Even the best new customer deal I've seen is still ten quid per month more expensive, and I'm not a new customer. In fact just their "line rental" bullshit alone costs more than the entire package with my new provider.
>>I finally switched to another Internet-plus-phone provider<<
Which vendor did you choose ?
After 50+ years with BT I'm in the process of either changing BT Voice & Infinity 2 Plans or leaving them entirely.
Last quarter's Voice bill was £180 for a few UK phone calls & line rental.
Landline is required for Infinity 2 which is running at £155/Qtr.
Somewhat excessive. Thieves & robbers !
Origin Broadband (I have no affiliation with them).
Actually I would happily have paid A&A more for a better service than I currently pay BT, but sadly they don't serve my area. So this wasn't just about saving money, it was the principle of being ripped off by a multi-billion pound corporation, providing a token service to rural customers for exorbitant prices.
If I'm only deemed worthy of 1990s internet speeds, I don't see why I should pay more than 1990s prices. Simple.
Every single time BTGS gets a new chief, they create an illusion of having something useful to offer by re-structuring and re-aligning. Other than demoralise and disrupt, there's little track record of these every serving any useful purpose. And before that can bed in, it'll happen all over again.
Just maybe, just maybe, this time around they'll finally realise you don't run a lean and effective enterprise by mailing around Excel and Word templates to different fragmented departments to get anything done. Then the requester has to do all the chasing and often you can only deliver for the customer by escalating every fulfilment activity.
They've already had numerous cost transformation programmes. Each time trimming a function within a certain LOB to hit a target, yet never ever considering the productivity loss and difficulties that leaves for every other LOB. I doubt there is much left to trim, and what there is left will hurt the customer directly or indirectly. Saying cuts will come from "back office and management" sounds PR friendly but bear in mind many productive workers (senior techies and PM's) are management grade.
Anonymous because yes, I've worked for these bumbling idiots.
BT sub-outsource a lot of their work to people that really have no idea of the context of their work and therefore produce rubbish.
Most of the back office work in BT is to create the illusion of activity by billing then sub-billing and reallocating costs around - cant see that working as a place to save. It will more than likely increase the number of unpaid invoices due to challenge/inaccuracy.
IMHO they need to look at the way they do business and do a more useful job for their customers rather than being a billing machine that takes customer delivery to a very distant back seat...
and yes, stop asking me if I want to spend a monthly fee to see TV I can already watch for free...and no I am not interested in sport.
For the fibre roll out, what we need is a state body with a mandidate to roll this out with universial coverage. They could charge other firms for using the infrastructure they provide. Begin in the big cities and radiate out from there as the fees provide the money for the next wave of investment. As for its name, something to reflect the national and telecoms roll. UK Telecom?
For the fibre roll out, what we need is a state body with a mandidate to roll this out with universial coverage.
Before you get too excited, ask someone who remembers what things were like when telecoms were last in the safe hands of a state monopoly, the GPO. The 1970s: party lines, six months wait for a phone line, and a choice of two handsets (admittedly, with limited colour options). Greedy corporations aren't the only ones who'll spend as little as they possible can on infrastructure.
Loss due to corruption in an Italian company.
Who would have guessed it?
I'm not a high flying CEO (automatically disqualified due to traits unwanted in CEO such as having morals, paying my fair share of tax, fond of the idea that you shoudl provide a good service to customers etc.)
But I'm fully aware of the concept of due diligence. With that amount of cash inviolved a few people at a reasonably high level were either complicit or stunningly incompetent.
I'm really finding it difficult to have sympathy with a company whose profits have "plunged" to "only" £2.5bn and especially having trouble why some of that £2.4bn can't be used to maintain the staffing levels through the hard times and back into the good times, ie not losing the skills base you'll need next year.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022