bmontgom@hvtvm4.vnet.ibm.com (05/24/91)
Hi, Food for thought: British Telecom announced yesterday profits of 95 pounds a second ie annual profits of 3000 billion pounds ... leading to comments from competitors that BT charges too much for use of its local lines. I don't know how this compares to US telecom operators, but I think it could be described as somewhat excessive. Bryan
ashbya@uunet.uu.net> (05/28/91)
In article <telecom11.395.10@eecs.nwu.edu>, bmontgom@hvtvm4.vnet.ibm. com writes: > Food for thought: British Telecom announced yesterday profits of 95 > pounds a second ie annual profits of 3000 billion pounds ... leading > to comments from competitors that BT charges too much for use of its > local lines. I don't know how this compares to US telecom operators, > but I think it could be described as somewhat excessive. A couple of points to mention here ... 1) I somewhat doubt the validity of your figures - especially as I remember not long ago everyone was aghast at BT making one million pounds a day - or one third of one billion pounds. 2) Is that a 'British' billion (1x10E12) or an 'American' billion (1x10E9)?? 3) Describing it as excessive is very subjective - it wouldn't seem so excessive if you were a shareholder, would it?? Adam Ashby ...!uunet!motcid!ashbya +1 708 632 7271
"Guy J. Sherr" <0004322955@mcimail.com> (05/29/91)
Patrick, You may wish to remind some of us that English notation given as a billion is actually a number with 12 zeroes, and not 9. 3000 billion pounds sterling would therefore be 3,000,000,000,000,000 pounds sterling written out, and I believe worth approximately 4.5 quadrillion US dollars (apologies to those following the exchange rate). This number seems to be inaccurate. It is more than 50 years of the United States's GNP.
Martin Baines <martinb@bottomdog.east.sun.com> (05/29/91)
In article <telecom11.406.9@eecs.nwu.edu>, motcid!ashbya@uunet.uu.net (Adam J. Ashby) writes: > In article <telecom11.395.10@eecs.nwu.edu>, bmontgom@hvtvm4.vnet.ibm. > com writes: >> Food for thought: British Telecom announced yesterday profits of 95 >> pounds a second ie annual profits of 3000 billion pounds ... leading >> to comments from competitors that BT charges too much for use of its >> local lines. I don't know how this compares to US telecom operators, >> but I think it could be described as somewhat excessive. > A couple of points to mention here ... > 1) I somewhat doubt the validity of your figures - especially as I > remember not long ago everyone was aghast at BT making one million > pounds a day - or one third of one billion pounds. You may doubt them, but they are true! Mind you (according to BT adverts) they reinvest #88 per minute of that. > 2) Is that a 'British' billion (1x10E12) or an 'American' billion > (1x10E9)?? Unfortunately for the English language, since Nigel Lawson started using the American Billion for reporting the budget in the early '80s the American Billion has taken over here when refering to money. A sad day: what was wrong with the (correct) term milliad? > 3) Describing it as excessive is very subjective - it wouldn't seem so > excessive if you were a shareholder, would it?? As a share holder I quite agree. Unfortuanately there are still some solicalist mined individuals in the UK who believe all profit is evil and privatisation was the work of the devil! Of course these are the same people no doubt who would like to go back to the '70s when the old GPO took 18 months to install my parents phone line *and* succeeded in lossing money on a monopoly service and hence needed tax money (top rate 98% !!!) to make up the difference. "You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment" Martin Baines, Sales Support Manager, Sun Microsystems Ltd, 306 Science Park, Cambridge, CB4 4WG, UK Phone Email UK: 0223 420421 JANET: Martin.Baines@uk.co.sun International: +44 223 420421 Other UK: Martin.Baines@sun.co.uk Internet: Martin.Baines@UK.sun.com
bmontgom@hvtvm4.vnet.ibm.com (05/29/91)
Hello again, Someone is awake and noticed my mistake. I should have said 3000 million, well 3050 million (97/sec) pounds! Approximately 5500 million US Dollars per annum. Incidentally the title had been 'moderated from profits ... to excessive profits -- and I agree! BTW I hadn't realised the difference in 'billion' but million means 1,000,000! Thanks for pointing it out. You learn something every day! As far as it being excessive, isn't that why 'Ma Bell' was split up and de-regulation etc? Currently there is one other choice for non-local (incidentally ALL calls are timed), Mercury, they complain (justifiably?) that BT charge too much for local links. Hopefully with the governments new legislation there will be possibilities for change with British Rail, Water Boards (canals), as LD carriers but all still relying on BT for local links. Perhaps if we get modern technology like cable there will be opurtunities for other 'local' links. I'd be interested to hear any comments from others with experience of BT, et al. For all the moans and groans of the US system, it still seems to be light years ahead of ours, from my limited experience anyway. Does this make matters better (or worse?) Cheers, Bryan M.
Linc Madison <linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu> (06/01/91)
Martin Baines said in 11.409.7 that British Telecom made profits of #95/second or #3000 billion. Much discussion has ensued regarding the fact that the latter figure is more than 50 years U.S. GNP, etc. The answer to the dilemma is rather simple: the two figures do not equate to one another. #95/sec = #3000 MILLION/year = #3 billion/yr = US $5 billion/yr. For comparison, AT&T last year earned about US $2.7 billion. However, in 1981, 1982, and 1983, AT&T earned close to or more than US $7 billion per year. [Source: Value Line Investment Survey] The total profits of the "Baby Bells" for 1990, though, was in excess of US $9 billion. Add another $1.5 billion for GTE, and about a billion for MCI and Sprint combined, and a fraction of a billion for Centel, Cincinnati Bell, etc. So, all in all, US telephone companies reaped profits in the neighborhood of $12 billion for 1990. However, the US is more than 2.4 times the size of Britain, so BT's profits were about double the scale of US telephone companies. That gives you a little bit of a yardstick for comparing "excessive" profits. (BTW, 1990 profits for the Baby Bells ranged from a low of $1.13 billion for Pacific Telesis to a high of $1.695 billion for Bell South. Southern New England Telephone earned about $150 million, and I'm not sure whether or not that is included in NYNEX, but it doesn't materially affect my figures either way.) Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu
andrewf@syacus.acus.oz (06/05/91)
0004322955@mcimail.com (Guy J. Sherr) writes: > You may wish to remind some of us that English notation given as a > billion is actually a number with 12 zeroes, and not 9. 3000 billion > pounds sterling would therefore be 3,000,000,000,000,000 pounds > sterling written out, and I believe worth approximately 4.5 > quadrillion US dollars (apologies to those following the exchange > rate). This number seems to be inaccurate. It is more than 50 years > of the United States's GNP. I suspect the situation regarding millions is the same in the U.K. as it is here. Financial institutions and others reporting financial results usually (incorrectly) use the US convention rather than the English one. I presume this is to make their results sound more impressive. Nevertheless, the original posting poses an interesting question: How can companies that make large profits, be fullfilling their community service obligations, which should include pricing their calls as cheaply as possible. The usual answer is that large profits are needed to finance new equipment. Of course, most residential subscribers don't give a hang about new technology so long as reliability compares favourably with price.