Originally Posted by
Neo380
That’s another brilliant spin, but entirely wrong; 90% of the project in question didn’t need to be done and NATS was advised accordingly, but it went ahead anyway because of one employee’s KIP and bonus.
Four suppliers with a quarter of the market each is a technical monopoly (iaw the CMA, but not on NATS 100% scale, so they’re unlikely to point it out for fear of allegations of hypocrisy). But it doesn’t matter if several of them say the price tag’s £XXm (that’s easy to set up offline), the correct question is what’s the better way of architecting the solution - but as you say, the sector will refuse to have that conversation for fear of having to do something they haven’t done numerous times already.
I was talking in general terms. You may have personal knowledge of a particular project, I can probably throw in a few myself. Maybe you can apply that to the entire capital investment plan but I'm not so sure.
You are correct that the regulatory regime encourages spending but at some point you need to deliver and start depreciating that cost and if your investment doesn't deliver the benefit promised there will be a storm at the next licence renewal. Potentially you could end up with a big revenue outgoing that isn't funded by the revenue stream.
ATM System supply may be a near monopoly but it's one that has arisen from withdrawal from the market rather than dominant companies buying up competitors so it's hard to see how the CMA or anybody else can act to stop it. NATS at least had a choice because its previous supplier isn't in the market, if you are already bought into a family, think Apple vs Android (NATS was on Blackberry), there is less of a free choice.
I think I have agreed with your last point, we probably only disagree on the practicality of changing that.