Originally Posted by walfordking (Post 34217158)

Who wants a ugly sky dish outside their property? If you're in rented property then you can't have sky dish without the landlords permission first. You can have cable thou.

Originally Posted by CableWhatCable (Post 34217690)

Who do I think will win, It should be Virgin but it wont be. My reasoning for this is easy has anybody seen any new cables being laid? I moved on to a new estate 8 years ago expecting to sign up with cable as I didnt want a dish on the front of the house. Phoned up the cable provider Sorry cable not available in your area, strange I said we have manhole covers with your name on it, yes but we not put any cable in, when will you be running cable? No idea nothing planned. Still no cable even though 100 yards away the houses on the main road have cable.

Originally Posted by Horace (Post 34217751)

Murdoch owns one of the biggest movie studios and TV companies in the US. He's also willing to oudbid anyone for EPL distribution. So, until the U.K. TV audience tires of American fayre I doubt Murdoch or BSKYB are going anywhere.
Eventually satellite will become a misnomer when IPTV becomes a genuine reality. Who wants to pay the massive amounts to a satellite company for limited capacity when you can have virtually unlimited capacity over a network much more economically. Murdoch has seen this and he knows should his empire continue to prosper under his children he had to get into the broadband game now....which is nice.

Originally Posted by pachelbel (Post 34217767)

Last year I read an article by NTL stating they would not lay any new cable due to the cost. Wimax would be the answer to service non cable areas. This week the city pundits are putting forward a tie up with Cable & Wireless to provide Virgin Media services to non cabled areas. I don't think we will have to wait long for the answer.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 34218170)

All this talk of iptv etc. tho you will find sattelite coverage is pretty good, whilst their broadband goes over a copper local loop which is only decent on 25% of phone lines the rest noisy and long. I would say they probably fine using sattelite for tv and the reasoning for entering the broadband market was nothing to do with iptv but rather so they could offer bundles, if the ancient copper local loop ever gets upgraded to fiber then its a different story.

---------- Post added at 11:34 ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 ----------



At some point someone in the uk is going to have to bite their tongue and invest in fiber, wimax isnt an answer copper certianly isnt an answer, they all far less capable then fiber. For whatever reason it may be noone seems willing to go it with fiber in the uk yet its progressing in other developed countries.

Originally Posted by CableWhatCable (Post 34217690)

Who do I think will win, It should be Virgin but it wont be. My reasoning for this is easy has anybody seen any new cables being laid? I moved on to a new estate 8 years ago expecting to sign up with cable as I didnt want a dish on the front of the house. Phoned up the cable provider Sorry cable not available in your area, strange I said we have manhole covers with your name on it, yes but we not put any cable in, when will you be running cable? No idea nothing planned. Still no cable even though 100 yards away the houses on the main road have cable.

Originally Posted by pachelbel (Post 34218208)

Well here's a link that i posted in another thread. What network does C&W have that is being highlighted in the article. Sounds like Virgin Media are going down the route of buying in external network bandwidth rather investing in its own.



http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle1356266.ece

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 34218646)

Bill I take it they not putting equipment in street cabinets so people with crap phone lines are left without hope?

Virgin could have expanded cable to more higher populated areas and especially broadband enable already analogue cable areas and then play on the fact adsl is distance dependant while cable isnt, a big potential there missed I feel.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 34218170)

All this talk of iptv etc. tho you will find sattelite coverage is pretty good, whilst their broadband goes over a copper local loop which is only decent on 25% of phone lines the rest noisy and long. I would say they probably fine using sattelite for tv and the reasoning for entering the broadband market was nothing to do with iptv but rather so they could offer bundles, if the ancient copper local loop ever gets upgraded to fiber then its a different story.

---------- Post added at 11:34 ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 ----------



At some point someone in the uk is going to have to bite their tongue and invest in fiber, wimax isnt an answer copper certianly isnt an answer, they all far less capable then fiber. For whatever reason it may be noone seems willing to go it with fiber in the uk yet its progressing in other developed countries.

Originally Posted by Horace (Post 34218929)

Satellite coverage is excellent and for the time being at least is the best medium for TV broadcast, it is however very expensive with limited capacity, albeit not as limited as cable. As bandwidth increases and cost lower, eventually, and I'm not talking in the next couple of years here, satellite will become uneconomical vs IPTV.

Originally Posted by Toto (Post 34218934)

Why do you believe that cable is more limited than satelite?