[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

The private sector took on all liabilities though, of which there were plenty. I am not comparing it to ntl buying out CWC.

But you we're implying that the cost to the private sector of floating BT was comparable to the cost of constructing the UK cable network, which it plainly isn't.

On what planet is going through bankruptcy protection and debt for equity swap, almost entirely wiping out previous shareholders in favour of holders of debt accumulated with those purchases any kind of proof that making those acquisitions was the right decision? More a symptom of the mass hysteria at the time.

The point was, that if it wasn't NTL and Telewest that ultimately emerged, it would have been somebody else. The market drove the aquisition process, it's what the market wanted. The process would have happened regardless. The fact the market (i.e. shareholders) also lost out is a sad fact of business. NTL and Telewest emerged and therefore they were ultimately correct in leading the consolidation.

Yep, and VM's access ducting covers what % of the country? Their core ducting which most wouldn't be that interested in anyway covers what and how much of this coverage is replicated by BT ducting.

Were not talking Core Ducting. We're talking Access Ducting, from the exchange or cab to the actual premises, so let's keep to that shall we.

I don't have the figures, but I think I can say with confidence that over the same footprint, VM will have more access network duct to the premises than BT. Given that VM has access to 50% of the country and given that they are all in major high density populated areas already I don't what a swap agreement has to offer VM.

Are you really suggesting that VM would have less to gain from access to BT's ducting in areas where they have zero presence than BT would having access to ducting in areas where they already have a presence?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Noteworthy is that no figures for using VM's duct network, past node level, are offered and the default figures assume no access to it at all.

Well you'll have to ask the Broadband Strakeholders Group that comissioned the report. This report is based only on BT infrastructure. As they plainly state in the Exec Summary:"In the base case, only existing BT infrastructure is assumed to be available for re-use" So VM was not even in the scope of the report.

VM does get a mention however in a few paragraphs.

It is an interesting report which I beleive backs up my opinion. BT want to offer 100mps to compete with VM. Even BT's latest FTTC roll out will only get them around 40mps.

BT need FTTH in order to get their 100mps and the only way they can do this is to get a cable through a duct to the premises.

As I say, the vast majority of their connections to the customers are aerial copper fed by a pole. Even the report states to provide fibre aerially BT would.

Another approach to cost reduction is to increase the use of aerial fibre where existing ducts are not available. This technique could be used in areas where it is possible to install new telegraph poles – though we believe such opportunities may be limited. A sensitivity where the use of aerial fibre is increased (primarily in rural areas) has been quantified. This sensitivity is detailed in Section 4.2.5, which shows that, if more aerial fibre could be deployed, the costs of deploying FTTH could fall by around GBP5 billion. However, this is not additive with the potential savings from using other duct networks, and may be difficult to achieve due to difficulties in installing new telegraph poles.

Also to further prove the premise.

Access to alternative infrastructure (from Virgin Media and utility networks) has the potential to significantly reduce deployment costs relative to the base case – by up to GBP800 million (16%) for FTTC/VDSL and GBP5.7 billion (23%) for FTTH/GPON under the base case.

In short using VM Access Ducts would reduce BT FTTH rollout by £5.7Billion.

There nothing in the report in regards to what VM would get out of such a reciprocal deal, certainly not as much a BT, because as stated in the paragraph further up it states that to supply FTTH aerially new poles would have to be erected.

Is very evident that the benefits around opening up access network duct is heavilly weighted in BT's favour.














It would strike me as odd calling it 'superior ducting' for third parties to have access to if there's no practical use for this 'superior ducting' to third parties.[/QUOTE]