Quote:
Originally Posted by joglynne
Martyn why will the Builder have to pay for the work to be done when VM presumably foot the cost of the materials, equipment and man power when they cable an area and connect a property to their cable network?
If this is the case then VM must have offered some form of incentive as the builder seems to be in a no win situation of increased costs for very little, if no, added profit.
I could understand them working in tandem, work on large housing developments is often carried out by both joint, and subcontractors, having VM subcontractors on site would just be another area that the Site Manager would feed into his organization plan. No wonder no other builders have wanted to do it in the past if they have to foot the bill whilst the cable company makes a profit with very little outlay.
|
The main contractor ,in this case persimmon homes ,have to pay the cost of everything,the difference in this case is that a partnership has been announced .I would suggest that it is being done that way so persimmon don't have to pay the subcontractor for the service and VM benefit from the increased customer base .This appears to be a growing trend as BT are doing the same in kent and most house builders(nowadays) look at having pre-installed broadband as an important selling point whereas previously it was not concidered as not many people had it and it was unclear how many people would actually use it .
The other thing to remember is that on a new build site it will be unlikely to be VM that actually do the digging and laying of the service it will most likely be the usual service contractor i.e the one that will be digging the trenches and laying the pipe work for the electric,gas,water ect and they will need paying by either persimmon or VM and VM will have no guarentee how many of those houses fitted with cable will actually subscribe,this is why it has not been done before cost to profit was always a bit unclear