Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
I have my doubts.
Sky are throwing a paddy that BT haven't been split up and if they want to supply FTTP they'll have to spend their own money. They wanted Openreach split and someone else to pick up the bills. Hyperoptic are pleased and are getting on with the job as they have since 2012, Sky are whinging to Ofcom and anyone else who will listen as indeed they have for years.
Based on the costs budgeted for their trial in York Sky spend enough on Premier League rights, just the rights, nothing else, to deliver FTTP to every premises in Leeds, the country's 3rd most populous city, every 6 weeks.
Their York trial has cost about as much as they hand the Premier League in 5 days.
PIA has been available since 2013.
https://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/hom...polesharing.do
https://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/hom...IRO17thMay.pdf
16 May 2013 – Issue 2
Sky were late to FTTC as they wanted to sweat the equipment they've placed in BT's exchanges further, they still don't offer 80Mb FTTC online you have to call, they have no FTTP product over Openreach.
They have had ample opportunity to get on with the job of building FTTP if they chose to. Beyond what's increasingly looking like a PR stunt in York they've shown no indication of wanting to. It looks a lot more like they'll do what they have so far both for their satellite TV and their broadband - rent infrastructure from someone else. |
Sky are just doing what they always do. Spending as little as possible on their own infrastructure and bitching like crazy when others refuse to open theirs. Back in the 90s, they could have set up their own cable operator. They waited for others to do so, and went for satellite broadcasting (using, from what I am told, infrastructure provided by others).
Then, when they launched Broadband, they initially (and still do to some extent) used BT's infrastructure. They did buy EasyNet, and spent money expanding that, as well as buying Be, but they sold EasyNet..
While spending relatively little on their own infrastructure (even the £210m Sky spend on EasyNet pales into insignificance compared to the billions of pounds of debt the cable companies built up developing their networks), they complain they should be given access to networks built by others..
The thing is, I'll lay odds that the only reason Sky hasn't locked up access to it's own service is that beyond requiring channels to use a certain kind of encryption, blocking access to that encryption, and blocking access to their EPG, they can't stop the channels approaching SES S.A. (the owner of the Astra satellites used by Sky) and getting access from them.
---------- Post added at 19:37 ---------- Previous post was at 19:29 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
Sky are run on a short-termist basis, even more so than many.
|
That could be their downfall.. After all, a lot of their income comes from the rights they hold to various sporting events (in particular, the Premiere League). All it would need is for someone with larger pockets to offer more than Sky are willing/able to do. Of course, it wouldn't help if someone broke their encryption and ensured that the keys were made widely available..
In their defence, the way they operate, they don't have an awful lot of infrastructure to maintain/support (which I suspect is Virgin's largest cost).