Quote:
Originally Posted by Rattus
Why should cable have to open up it's network? They built it paid for by themselves. It's theirs end of story.
|
Same reason Sky are obliged to resell the content they purchase. Who paid for it is nothing to do with it. If we went down that route BT would have every right to refuse to resell any infrastructure built since privatisation and Sky would have no obligation to offer EPG space. As it is BT are obliged to resell their new NGA portfolio and even greenfield areas, built exclusively with private funds, carry the exact same obligations on open access as brownfield areas built pre-privatisation.
It doesn't work that way, who built / pays for the stuff isn't the issue, but it's the usual argument given when people all too keen for BT to open up their network and Sky to open up their content and delivery platform are confronted with the prospect of Virgin Media being forced to actually give some regulatory concessions instead of just lobbying for them on others.
Fairness goes both ways, Virgin have been beneficiaries of regulation for quite long enough.
As a last example Virgin have over 50% penetration in their passed areas, however because they only cover about 50% of the country they are judged not to have significant market power in the areas they pass. Rather than taking their coverage within their own areas their coverage is taken a as percentage of the entire country. That's how tenuous the arguments are to try and keep VM free of regulation, makes no sense as all. Kingston Communications cover 100% of Hull and 0% of anywhere else and have SMP in Hull, VM should by any sensible definition be adjudged to have SMP in their own areas however the definition is applied differently depending on the operator in contravention of the rules as they stand.
EDIT: Here you go -
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35129429-post14.html