Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
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 |
A couple of problems with your argument.
Firstly Sky with movies and sport are a monopoly and without intervention from Ofcom etc there would be no compitition from anyone else. They have to do certain things like have open epg etc as part of getting a licence to transmit signals.
As to BT and VM etc, BT's network was almost completely paid for by us, the taxpayers prior to privitisation, thats why LLU went through and wholesale available for others to supply ADSL etc.
BT's new network is under the same rules as for the rest of its network so should be open for others to get wholesale. Plus they are getting / applying for grants etc to help rollout like the millions they are getting to sort out Cornwall and Wales.
As to VM, the network was paid for by private companies and is their property. Or d you think I should be able to park my car on the drive of any private house or that I could just go to any business and be able to demand access to their equipement just because I want to.
Tell you what, give us your address so we can come round any time we like and use your stuff and I will accept that you believe in universal access.
---------- Post added at 11:22 ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ooogemaflop
god and here was me thinking we live in a capitalistic society. Sky only make so much cuz people are prepared to pay for it. The consumer has a right to vote with its feet and if enough did they Sky would have to change or go out of business
All these independant bodies and enquires only end up costing us anyway
|
But no point in doing so unless you live in a VM area or if BT Vision good enougth for you.
