to be honest i have come to the same concluesion but for different reasons :p I can not see how AOL are even going to turnover that in four years they will need to get around 750,000 ppl on the service to breakeven. and ppl wonder why AOL are losing money :rolleyes:

To be fair here escapee are you trying to tell me that AOL have just taken ntl word on this and a massive company like them don't have the sense to use a calculater :eek:

:drunk: must drink more am starting to agree with escapee!! :p :D ;)

grum1978 saidPerhaps there is a big hidden agenda behind all of this;)

Any agreeing on my part is due to the large amounts still in my system from last night/this morning.:D

One of the guys redundant from ntl who left yesterday was having a good drink and send off with collegues when we bumped into them:cool: I think he looked allmost relieved;)

what AOL timewarner take over of ntl :eek:

i think thats how rumours start :shrug:

An average 80,000 users paying £25/ month gives £2 miilion per month. Over 48 months that makes £96 miilion turnover. Definitely scope for both AOL and ntl to make money (and BT to loose ...)

grum1978 saidThe thought never entered my head :rolleyes:

damn calculator :drunk:

knew it seemed to many :spin:

OK have people thought this through.....

NTL allow AOL to use its network to acces AOL's BB services.

But HOW MUCH of NTLs network can AOL use?

They may only be allowed to connect to the local part (the HFC) bit by using their own UBRs. (effectively the same as the ruling about unbundling the BT local loop!)

If that is the case, AOL have (very effectively) got around the very bottleneck that meant the introduction of the cap.

Remember in the Goodland interview with angryntl, BG stated that it was the UBRs that were oversubscribed, and that the rest of the network could easily cope.

So AOL install their own UBRs, and the result is no overcapacity for AOL users (and perhaps a moneyspinner in that a certain amount of UBR capacity is sold back to NTL to allow them to attract new subscribers)

mmm saidI think that number is quite a high target to achieve, when you sconsider they will have to be in an area capable of getting ntl service, not allready an ntl broadband customer, not allready happy with their ADSL, and possibly not p***ed of with either AOL or ntl through past experience.

What do other peopel think about figures meeting these conditions, and how many potential customers are out there willing to pay for this service, I would of thought the biggest percentage would allready be ntl customers if they wanted this service.

cjmillsnun saidWould it be cost effective for AOL to install their own ubr's with a target 80000 users across x amount of ntl hubsite/ubr locations?

They must surely be going to use ntl's existing ubr's and us/ds allocations.

BT is tightly regulated as a former monopoly supplier and so has more service obligations on it than any other telco, including an obligation to provide phone service to anyone who wants one, obligation to allow competitors to run across its networks, etc.

you can't base return on investment on turnover - grum may have been nearer the truth imo.

£80 odd Million (allegedly) over 4 years means you must expect £20 million profit a year to break even.

If you have to install hardware to get it to work without impact on the existing "network" it becomes even more bizarre from a short term economic perspective? (ubr allegedly = £30,000 ?)

Could we be seeing a long term plan to use the good bits of the cable network in a beneficial way? (apart from AOL's browser, of course - imo:))

Or, more cynical, an attempt by ntl for some investment and "hang the consequences"?

Or, a "rumoured" takeover?


:shrug:

the problem i have seen with AOL's software is that it seems to takeover everything internet orientated.... my future-tobe father in law uses AOL and curses about it all the time, the only reason he wont leave this is because of his e-mail address of 4 years :( Sux really doesnt it?

of course you all seem to basing your figures on the fact that ntl dont get any monthly money form this aswell, which they will. I home this is very succesful as ntl and aol will make good money.
I belive aol will make more from the ntl deal than they will from the bt one for sure :)

handyman saidI have no exoperience in marketing and it allways appears to be a bit his and miss, I guess they just play the odds with these sort of ventures. I am tending to lean a bit the other way and think that AOL having lots of existing dial up customers, has a potential to reach every single one of them via BT ADSL.

Yes I know not all areas have ADSL, but BT has network in all areas (except Hull) and there was this talk about it being efficient to upgrade exchanges with a small amount of customers.

I can see customers who hate AOL software saying "No Thanks"
via BT or ntl network.

and customers hating ntl saying "No Thanks" to AOL as long as the customer is aware it's received via ntl's network.

From the days of small CATV systems we knew in South Wales that people in the valley would be prepared to pay for service, whilst systems in the Large towns/cities closed down through poor customer density. ntl aquired some small CATV systems although outdated that had very impressive density figures compared to ntl's new HFC networks.

The amazing thing is ntl have not hardly ventured into these areas, I'm no marketing person but it would of been the place to start from day one as most of the older hands said.

My point is that BT cover these areas and ntl don't, there are lots of potential customers in non ntl areas for AOL to either pick up new customers or convert there dial-up ones to ADSL.

My view is any operator who had started a decent Wireless operation in these sort of areas would be on to a winner.:)