[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Big-Ted

What we really need is for Sky to be broken up into content and provision with content having to treat all customers equally on price and access.

BT should have the same with infrastructure and provision seperate with all having access to BT network for the same price.

You could then have an argument for VM being the same, until that then opening up VM to others will put them at a disadvantage especially to Sky who have no infrastructure of their own beyond LLU that anyone else could access.

While it's fine for VM to remain vertically integrated and take advantage of Sky's content and BT's network to reach outside their passed areas. How very fair.

Originally Posted by Big-Ted

Simple answer is BT network was built with tax payers money and so why shouldn't we have access.

I see no disagreement here.

Originally Posted by Big-Ted

As to Ebbsfleet etc they signed the deal, if they didn't like it they didn't have to.

They had no choice in the matter due to regulation.

Originally Posted by Big-Ted

And what is pro consumer allowing Sky to get access to VM network and selling BB at a loss like they do now on BT network leaving VM customers with a poorer service due to contention issues.

The more I read this the less it makes sense. So Sky making consumers pay less for broadband is anti-consumer?

Sky's broadband network doesn't affect other consumers using BT capacity nor should it affect those of VM customers. Why would Sky choosing to take a loss on wholesale access to cable cause VM issues so long as VM price the wholesale package appropriately?

Why would passive infrastructure access cause VM customers issues?

We're into one rule for one, another rule for others territory there. By that token it's anti-consumer that BT Wholesale should have to sell to anyone apart from BT Retail as other ISPs are consuming bandwidth and reducing the amount available for BT Retail which is of course a ridiculous argument.

Originally Posted by Big-Ted

If others want a fiber network like VM then do what they did and BT are doing, build your own.

If Virgin Media want access to the content Sky have they can do what Sky did, buy their own.

Barriers to obtaining that content are far lower than those of building a rival cable infrastructure to Virgin Media yet you seem to think it's absolutely appropriate that Sky are forced to sell their content at a regulated price and that indeed they should be separated to ensure equivalence of access to this content due to Sky's financial resources.

If we are playing the game of barriers to entry they are far higher for cable than for Sky's content deals, that's a total non-starter.

Originally Posted by Big-Ted

Lastly if public mone is used then access should be granted to the network. Or do you want to pay for something you can't use, I don't.....

I pay for many things I can't use though that's not really the issue here, no-one said that BT should keep their legacy network to themselves, it is however a perfectly valid question why BT should have to open up services that are not taxpayer funded and why Sky should have to resell at regulated rates despite not receiving any money from the taxpayer while VM get to keep their network at passive and active level to themselves.

If we are opening up their rivals' networks at active and passive level and regulating wholesale content prices it seems to me that all the regulation is favouring one party which isn't the point, it's supposed to be favouring us as consumers.