Re: VM required to share infrastructure as of 2016
 

Actually there are licences with and without code powers - those two include code powers though there are plenty of licenced operators that don't have code powers.

What you posted wasn't worth replying to for the most part. I'm sure LGI will come up with plenty of reasons why they shouldn't allow access to their ducts and time and judges / regulators will tell whether these arguments hold water. The comment about duct repairs was an example.

---------- Post added at 16:09 ---------- Previous post was at 16:08 ----------

In other news I would hope those who aren't LGI employees / shareholders see the benefits in this. If it goes well it will mean better services whether people are LGI customers or not as they'll start to see increased competition; this is something BT aren't going to provide at the tech level, and will force LGI to raise their game accordingly.

Re: VM required to share infrastructure as of 2016
 

Who can tell them? As Ben said the ducts are full anyway so there is no capacity?

Vms response last time this was suggested, can't see their stance changing anytime soon.

“£13 billion of private investment was spent creating this unique fibre optic cable network which passes half the UK,” Virgin Media added. “We’re getting on extending our reach, adding thousands of homes every month as well as exploring genuinely game-changing alternatives for remote rural areas such as Fujitsu’s proposal to create a new network for up to five million digitally disenfranchised homes, to ensure households right across the country can benefit from better internet access.”

Re: VM required to share infrastructure as of 2016
 

Not all the ducting is full though there will obviously be sections that are especially in the access layer close to homes.

This isn't a suggestion, it's a directive that member states are required to implement into law by 2016. If LGI don't agree with it their option is legal action.

I'm unsure why you seem to struggle to grasp the concept that VM can be compelled to open up their passive infrastructure, or why you are so strongly against the idea given that it has the potential to be good for LGI customers and non-customers.

Could you please elaborate on why you think VM can't be forced to open up their network, or why BT PLC, a private company, can be compelled to?

The exact same thing that requires BT to operate as they do, the law, is what will compel VM to operate in this manner. VM and every other business operate according to rules and regulations; these rules and regulations will, barring a change of direction, require them to allow access to their network plans and passive infrastructure no later than 2016.

That's how it is regardless of whether the network was paid for through private sector investment or human sacrifice.

Re: VM required to share infrastructure as of 2016
 

The BT network was paid for by the tax payers and handed to BT as part of its privatisation, ie they never paid a penny for it. The predecessor s to VM shelled out 13 billion pounds of their own money to build their Network. That the difference as I see it. Seems a tad unfair and can't see it happening unless there is some sort of payback to VM

Re: VM required to share infrastructure as of 2016
 

I have to say that my understanding is similar to this sentiment.

In return for being 'given' a network, built with public money, BT, a private company, had some obligation to share their network with other private companies. I don't know whether this obligation has since finished.

Likewise, it seems unfair that Virgin Media would be expected to share their network, built with their own money. That would be like me being told I had to rent out my spare room in my wholly-owned and paid-for house.

Re: VM required to share infrastructure as of 2016
 

The BT network was paid for by the taxpayer and purchased from the taxpayer when BT was privatised. The shares in the company were purchased from the government, not handed out for free.

You may consider it a difference, the law doesn't. Due to BT being considered to have significant market power and a former state monopoly it is regulated and inherited a universal service obligation. These and the other conditions of BT's regulation are in a series of laws. It was a concern for ntl when considering ways to expand the network that if they grew too large they may be considered to have SMP and find themselves regulated in the same way.

You may consider it unfair and not see it happening but barring legal changes it can and will happen. VM will of course be paid for access to their infrastructure, it won't be free.

EDIT: Curious though - why do you care about fairness as far as your cable supplier go? If as a result of these changes investment is driven which delivers better services to everyone will you be complaining about how unfair it is on LGI that they had to open up their infrastructure while contemplating whether to take a 1Gb down and up FTTP service or VM's new 1.5Gb down, 250Mb up DOCSIS 3.1 service?

I get investors and staff feeling hard done by but normal customers? Really?

Re: VM required to share infrastructure as of 2016
 

I am an investor, hence my interest

Re: VM required to share infrastructure as of 2016
 

That makes more sense.

It may or may not affect the value of your investment. Time and how the markets react will tell. The medium-term, if Sky/TalkTalk/CityFibre's plans come to fruition, would've been CapEx heavy anyway.

Re: VM required to share infrastructure as of 2016
 

From 2011 when BT where last trying to get into virgins pipes

http://www.choose.net/media/guide/ne...ct-battle.html

If this helps me get superfast broad band instead of lame ass Sky/BT copper broadband then bring it on .We are in the ludicrous situation with Virgin cable 500yrds away but they are not interested in extending their network and BT have no plans to give us fibre so if another provider wants to build their own customer base and network but doesn't have the finance to dig up roads and lay miles of pipes then they should be able to use existing ones.

On a side note have we actually stumbled across a good thing from the EU

Re: VM required to share infrastructure as of 2016
 

We were chatting about this in the office today and the consensus was good idea, but will never happen. Its been talked about before and it failed before.

Re: VM required to share infrastructure as of 2016
 

The ductwork is full to bursting as it is in most residential areas. It could possibly work in the ducting used for the fibre trunks/core routes in big city's were digging more ductwork is no longer possible due to congestion in the pavements.

Re: VM required to share infrastructure as of 2016
 

Which bit, the bit that states that co-ordination of Street works ( civils) has been in operation in the UK for 23 years.

Which means the bit about other operators jumping in and laying ducts adj other operators infrastructure when they are installing and/or repairing their network has been available in all that time but never taken advantage of.

The fact that Europe have taken it up in this directive, means nothing. If it was going to happen it would of already in the last 23 years, but it hasn't.


Also, just out of interest, has BT actually opened up it's "duct" infrastructure? Yes, it has opened up it's access network a la Openreach.

But I am not aware of any operators freely installing their own cables into the BT Access Network or using the BT poles to install their own infrastructure????

Re: VM required to share infrastructure as of 2016
 

If this was to happen then Virgin would be able to get there hands on the BDUK money . As this is why they can not go for it as they don't allow there network to be opened up for others at certain levels . It would give BT something to think about as they are the only ones getting the money

Re: VM required to share infrastructure as of 2016
 

Given VM were planning to use it in a trial I'm surprised.

Barring a successful legal challenge it's going to be law by 2016. Whether anyone chooses to use it or not is their prerogative.

---------- Post added at 22:37 ---------- Previous post was at 22:35 ----------

They would've had to bid for the BDUK money to receive it. It's a real shame they didn't.

EDIT: If people who seem in denial over this read the PDF it's not some random whim that the UK can choose to ignore and the UK had the option but didn't oppose it.

I rather regret posting this thread now. I perhaps naively thought people would say 'Oh cool that's not a bad idea' for the most part, with the obvious doubts.

Re: VM required to share infrastructure as of 2016
 

Planning. VM plan to do lots of things that don't materialise. We also planned to use SSE electricity infrastructure but that didn't take off either.

I rephrase what I meant, I know BT were compelled to open up their duct and pole infrastructure but has anyone actually taken them up on it? I don't know of any.

I see you avoid, for the second time, my point about co- ordination of street works.

I have no just read all 40 odd pages of the directive, and it is about as woolly as one of Russ's neighbours.

2016 will come and go, nothing will happen. Many of the clauses in the directive are already in place and are common practice in the UK. Some are used some are not.

This is no way near as game changing as you initially made out.

---------- Post added at 22:51 ---------- Previous post was at 22:45 ----------

The co- ordination of street works, which is what I referring to in that sentence, is already law in the UK, it has been for 23 years, but it is not used, as co-ordinating utilities to lay their infrastructure together, is like trying herd cats or knit fog.

This directive will not magically change that

You were certainly naive, not about the people on here, but about your expectations about this directive.