Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl J
Which sadly is tricky due to BT being forced to unbundle any fibre they lay by both Ofcom and European law at a price decided by the government. BT have been wanting to do it for a while but with the current regulatory environment actively discouraging such investment it's not likely for a while.
What with VM going into chapter 11 and swapping the company in return for the money used to build the networks they need all the help they can get, clearly.
Just something to bear in mind when doing the comparisons between BT and cable. Both had original networks paid for by someone else, one is required to provide service (Universal Service Obligation), required to open that network up to others to provide their own services, and has the prices and conditions of both unbundling and interconnections controlled by government even to the point where the contention ratios that it can run its' DSL products at at an exchange level are controlled. The other one, erm, has no obligations to provide service, no obligation to allow access to its' network, no outside control of its' prices or conditions of provision of service.
Trying to exempt, as was done in http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA6335949.html for the German incumbent telco causes a law suit from Europe.
So really why would a company want to invest billions when they can sit on their ass and milk the status quo for a while knowing that investing those billions will cause them to take a hit on their profits rather than increase them.
BT - the UK telecomms charity. |
Sad to say I dont disagree with you, only recently the chairman of ofcom made a silly statement saying fiber isnt a stable technology and the argument for fiber to the cabinet is weak. Thats about as close as recommending against investment as you can get,
---------- Post added at 03:11 ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar
The Chapter 11 was over four years ago, and was before NTL and Telewest merged, and then the take-over of Virgin Mobile and the re-branding.
That's like blaming BT for any problems O2 have now (even though they are owned by Telefonica) because in 2002 BT owned BT Cellnet. 
btw, I agree with you re BT - I think there is enough competition now (but the Operators wanting LLU probably wouldn't agree). |
Ofcoms game isnt working, its generated some competition in the cities with LLU providers fighting for profiteable exchanges but left everyone else with only BT as a provider and lower level of service which BT is forced to provide due to regulation (higher bw costs etc.) Not everyone in city areas has it good either due to the restrictions on investment many lines are poor quality. One of the worst things that have happened is the BT openreach breaking away from BT, openreach now only get a pittance in revenue per line but are responsible for the local loop which is in desperate need of investment.
To give you idea of result of this regulation.
Ceasing adsl used to be free, now has a fee because LLU providers had a fee meaning everyone has to pay it, if isps dont pass on charge to customers they have to take hit in profit or add to monthly subs.
Harder to resolve faults as customers cant speak to openreach directly.
More red tape in general within BT.
There is a thread on adslguide now where it seems sky could soon be in trouble with trading standards, no idea how much truth is in this but apperently they selling adsl2+ on exchanges knowing that they wont be provisioning it due to lack of dslam ports and then providing adsl1 and telling customers there is no capacity in the exchange.
---------- Post added at 03:12 ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Downloads
Forgive me if my knowledge isn't great, but who is this someone else that paid for the cable network?
|
I remember ntl didnt exist when cable was laid here, cable was laid by various regional networks who I think ntl and telewest brought out. Diamond cable laid it here.