[gambiting]

I'm honestly surprised anyone complains about that split - it was introduced specifically so that BT wouldn't control the entire telecom infrastructure in this country, and OpenReach was formed to provide equal access to all operators - BT being only one of them. This is an extremely good solution to what used to be a massive inequality problem previously. So no, BT and Openreach aren't split for some bullshit reason, they were ordered by the court to split in order to protect consumer rights and increase competition, goals which were overwhelmingly achieved due to that split.

And yes, the negative side is that every time something goes wrong, BT really can't fix it any faster, it's all down to OpenReach to maintain the network. But on the other hand, it always goes through OpenReach, whether you are with TalkTalk, BT or Sky, so the entity responsible for maintaing the network isn't the entity selling you broadband for home.

[zinok]

It would be an extremely good solution if it worked as intended. In fact Openreach were not fully independent from BT for most of their existence, and they operated the network in a way which was extremely favorable to BT for a long time.

Thus, the two companies extracted an exorbitant rent for the formerly public goods they controlled. The fact that some of this rent went to inefficiencies of running two separate companies on an illusionary arm's length basis does not really improve matters.

[emdowling]

This sounds like a similar situation to Telstra in Australia, which was forced to split into two entities - one a wholesale network provider that was open to all operators, the other a consumer operator that (supposedly) operates under the same rules as everyone else.