Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35823167)

He did.

I referred to Sky's lobbying to try and get more control over Openreach's network quite specifically. They pay for access, and constantly try and get more control and access for less money through lobbying and repetitive, rather dull, PR campaigns to try and paint BT as evil because they won't give them everything they want.



That they also complain about BT's dominance of FTTC when a big reason for it is that neither they or TalkTalk entered the market until quite late on after BT had built up a customer base as they were trying to protect their own pretty minimal investments in copper adds to the comedy.

The irony of Sky complaining about someone else's control over a market is delightful.

Originally Posted by tweedle (Post 35823174)

Are we ignoring how much public finance (tax payers) money was and is used to build the open reach/bt network? You're trying to paint a very scewed view of things aren't you.

Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35823187)

And are we ignoring how much BT have spent since it was privatised.

Quote - BT has spent £55 billion on infrastructure and paid £40 billion in taxes since privatisation.

Originally Posted by tweedle (Post 35823174)

Are we ignoring how much public finance (tax payers) money was and is used to build the open reach/bt network? You're trying to paint a very scewed view of things aren't you.

Originally Posted by tweedle (Post 35823193)

Which is a fraction of what it would cost to create BT's network. Not forgetting the amount it has received in grants.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35823199)

Do you mean the bits that were purchased by the private sector through purchase of BT shares, or the bits that were gap funded?

We, although I prefer to be referred to in the singular, aren't ignoring it. If you'd read my blog you may note I quote a figure for the amount Openreach have received as part of the BDUK scheme. About £700 million so far. The total is going to be less than £1.7 billion when all is said and done. That was the maximum and funds are being handed back due to take-up.

You may want to look into what gap funding is. As take up is exceeding predictions it's shrinking the gap between BT's normal commercial case and the intervention areas, hence smaller gaps to be filled with state funding between commercial and intervention areas and BT handing some of the subsidy back. £129 million so far.

---------- Post added at 00:05 ---------- Previous post was at 00:03 ----------



BT PLC or, more accurately, their owners, didn't receive the network for free. The government sold the shares, they didn't give them away.

It's certainly not a fraction of what it'd cost to create BT's network.

That VM can build to 4 million premises, 15% of the UK, for £3 billion should give you an idea of how ridiculous the suggestion that £55 billion is a fraction of what would be needed for universal FTTP, or at least coverage matching the current copper network's conditions, in the UK is.

The Analysys Mason paper is if anything quite out of date given modern construction techniques. Those interested could probably pass 80% of the UK's premises for less than £8 billion, from scratch, now.

Excuse my bringing facts and properly researched analysis into the discussion.

Originally Posted by tweedle (Post 35823223)

Virginmedia didn't build any networks, TELEWEST and NTL did (an some other cable co's)NTL then bought out TELEWEST and rebranded as VM. They also spent over £6billion between them building it, far over budget due to poor contractors and bad planning.


An I feel sorry for you if you genuinely believe £8billion would create the current BT/OR network from scratch.

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 35823225)

Not quite accurate - on paper Telewst acquired NTL to avoid problems with the BBC Worldwide joint venture UKTV.

If I could be bothered to research (an interesting pastime you should try sometime) I'd probably also find neither NTL or TW built much of the network themselves - rather they bought up smaller franchise's and consolidated.

Cheers

Grim

Originally Posted by tweedle (Post 35823223)

Virginmedia didn't build any networks, TELEWEST and NTL did (an some other cable co's)NTL then bought out TELEWEST and rebranded as VM. They also spent over £6billion between them building it, far over budget due to poor contractors and bad planning.


An I feel sorry for you if you genuinely believe £8billion would create the current BT/OR network from scratch.

Originally Posted by tweedle (Post 35823223)

Virginmedia didn't build any networks, TELEWEST and NTL did (an some other cable co's)NTL then bought out TELEWEST and rebranded as VM. They also spent over £6billion between them building it, far over budget due to poor contractors and bad planning.

Originally Posted by tweedle (Post 35823227)

TELEWEST built a lot of its network.

Originally Posted by tweedle (Post 35823223)

Virginmedia didn't build any networks, TELEWEST and NTL did (an some other cable co's)NTL then bought out TELEWEST and rebranded as VM. They also spent over £6billion between them building it, far over budget due to poor contractors and bad planning.


An I feel sorry for you if you genuinely believe £8billion would create the current BT/OR network from scratch.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35823235)

I feel sorry for your comprehension abilities. I didn't say you could recreate the network for £8 billion, i said you could pass a percentage of the UK for £8 billion.

The 80% was a typo, though. Hit 8 instead of 5 on the number pad.

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35823236)

I don't think it's fair to call into question someone's reading comprehension, when immediately after you admit that you made a massive typo? 80% of coverage would actually put that on par with BT's network today (I think they're a little higher than that, but it's a good ballpark), meaning his statement is actually correct, even if his overall sentiment is misplaced.

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 35823233)

Well that is factually incorrect. VM have started to expand the network, so yes VM have built a cable network.

It was also Telewest that bought NTL and before it became VM it was known as NTL:Teleweest for a while.

While NTL did build they did also buy a LOT of smaller cable companies over the years.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35823243)

I can speak with authority on the history of the company.

Nodal build for all companies that eventually became Virgin Media stopped pretty much by 2000/2001. Of course there were bits and pieces here and there but, the main build stopped when the Dot Com bubble popped.

It had actually started to slow down prior to that. The original cables companies had saddled themselves with lots of debt building the networks, they weren't making much money, and therefore they were easily bought on the cheap. However, you also bought the debt they came with which is why NTL and Telewest got into trouble and both went into Ch.11.

Telewest might have undertaken some build under the Telewest name but that would only have been the old Cable North West franchises which they acquired in 1995. Telewest as they were premerger with NTL didn't come into being until around 2000/2001 after they acquired General Cable and Eurobell just before the Poop hit the fan.

It wasn't a take over by either company, that's maybe how it looked on paper but it was a merger, as the major shareholder in both companies was the same guy William Huff.


anyway that's it for the history.

Originally Posted by tweedle (Post 35823282)

TELEWEST Built networks in the West Midlands in the late 80's early 90's. Don't you remember all those ford fiestas with "CABLE IS COMING" written down the side appearing and the ****s driving them knocking the doors at T-time annoying the household? Blue yonder and all that jazz. Ohh I remember my brothers first day working for them. Back when they had the waterfront in Dudley , I believe that's been gone a while.

An if you knew if you were on Langley or Bromley you were a nerd.