BT pull out of Phorm

[Ian Batten]

>
> "[Our decision has] nothing to do with cost or privacy, it's about  
> resources
> and priority," he added.

I've been thinking about this.  It's a very interesting phrase, and  
you have to wonder why he said it.

Suppose BT's problem had been privacy.  Phorm could have countered  
that there was uncertainty today, but that as a regulatory framework  
was fleshed out the privacy issues would be if not solved at least  
made containable.  And Phorm could also have pointed out, accurately,  
that even if there are privacy issues in the EU, they would not  
necessarily obtain in the US or the Far East, which tend to have less  
rigourous data protection regimes and different cultural expectations  
(or something).

Suppose BT's problem had been cost.  Phorm could counter it by saying  
that in a network the size of BT's, it would require X zillion pounds  
of investment to secure a 20% return, and even though the return was  
attractive in the current climate BT simply could not raise sufficient  
capital.

But if it's not cost, and it's not privacy, the obvious interpretation  
is that BT didn't think they could make money out of it.  BT looked at  
the cost of deployment and was happy with that, and looked at the  
legal/regulatory framework and (taking the statement at face value)  
was happy with that too.  But it still didn't go ahead.   If it's not  
cost and it's not privacy, why would another operator come to a  
different conclusion about the potential return?