Fixed-Line Telecommunications Cost Optimisation · Data Sheet
Fixed-Line Financial Results
Gross modelled opportunity, authorised implementation actions and evidence of realised outcomes, held strictly apart.
Result classification
What is claimed at each level
Scroll table sideways →
| Outcome type | Publication position |
|---|---|
| Achieved / realised | Not claimed. The retained evidence contains signed cancellation documentation but not complete provider confirmation and post-change billing for every action. |
| Authorised / actioned | A signed cancellation schedule and provider cancellation form evidence that a defined group of service records was formally put forward for cancellation. |
| Identified / modelled | The final source summary records a gross annual opportunity equal to 55.8% of its stated baseline. |
| Rate-alignment opportunity | A detailed call-cost model indicates approximately 30% reduction in usage charges on the analysed usage-bearing estate, after normalising call-category pricing. |
| Targeted control improvement | A single service register, usage-led cancellation control, overlap testing and post-change bill verification — necessary to make the estate auditable and sustainable. |
Gross opportunity
Three levers against the stated baseline
Scroll table sideways →
| Lever | Share | Evidence position |
|---|---|---|
| Dormant / no-use cancellation | 31.3% | Recurring charges on services with no operational usage; signed cancellation schedule supports action. |
| Overlapping service removal | 14.3% | A second communications arrangement already existed. Gross modelled, and overlaps other categories at service-ID level. |
| Call-rate alignment | 10.1% | Usage repriced by category at aligned effective rates. Modelled, not provider-confirmed. |
| Gross total | 55.8% | The source workbook headline. Not to be read as the sum of mutually exclusive realised savings without final reconciliation. |
Why the headline is gross
Five reasons the pack gives against its own figure
- One service record appears in both the no-use cancellation population and the usage-bearing overlap analysis, so the categories are not fully mutually exclusive.
- Services selected for overlapping-service cancellation also contribute to the call-rate alignment model — and a service that is cancelled cannot simultaneously deliver an ongoing tariff saving.
- Different workbook generations use different averaging and annualisation bases for usage, which changes the precise usage-cost result between versions.
- A later worksheet labelled as a short-period saving calculates a spend proxy from recurring and average usage values, rather than a clean before-and-after delta.
- Some derivative spreadsheet totals contain broken formula references. The public result anchors to the final source summary and to line-level controls instead.
Model logic
How each element is calculated
Scroll table sideways →
| Element | Control logic |
|---|---|
| Annual recurring cost | Monthly recurring charge × 12, applied only where the service remains chargeable. |
| Normalised usage | Observed usage converted to a per-line average, so services with different numbers of valid billing observations compare on a consistent basis. |
| Call-rate alignment | For each category: minutes × aligned effective rate, aggregated to a revised usage position. |
| Cancellation saving | Recurring cost plus any usage cost that disappears when the service is fully removed. No rate saving should remain attached to a cancelled service. |
| Realised saving | Validated only after provider completion, final or credit billing where relevant, and comparison of post-change invoices to the controlled baseline. |
To convert modelled into realised
Six pieces of evidence still required
- Provider cancellation confirmation for every service ID in scope.
- Final invoices, credits or cancellation charges where applicable.
- Post-change invoices demonstrating that removed recurring charges no longer appear.
- Provider confirmation of any new or aligned call tariffs, and the effective billing treatment.
- A service-ID reconciliation preventing the same line appearing in more than one saving lever.
- A final before-and-after bridge reconciling baseline cost, removed services, repriced usage and residual spend.
Publication conclusion
The engagement demonstrates a strong fixed-line optimisation method and a material gross opportunity.
The defensible public position is therefore: identified, modelled and partly actioned — with full realisation subject to final service-ID and billing evidence.