Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chris T
I don't think the origins of BT's position are in any way irrelevant. I completely agree that taxpayers were shortchanged by the privatisation (which is why Brown tried to claw some of it back shortly after Labour won power in 1997 - remember the one-off 'Windfall Tax' on privatised utilities?), but this only serves to illustrate my point. Taxpayers were shortchanged, because it was taxpayers that built the BT network. Now BT owns the network that we built, it is fair and equitable that we should force BT, by means of statute and regulation, to give us some say over how we use the network - namely by allowing us to use a BT line to access third party telephone and data services.
NTL, on the other hand, is a completely different proposition. For a start it is not a monopoly, and can never be. It may become the only cable TV company, but it is not a monopoly TV provider as it already plays second fiddle to Sky and will face increasing competition from Freeview/Top-Up TV. It may be the second-biggest fixed-line telephone network in the country, but it plays second fiddle to BT there, and let's not forget the small but growing number of people who have no fixed line at all. They therefore also face competition from the mobile companies.
Yes, customers suffer when a hugely dominant player develops, but NTL does not fit this description and it never will. If you don't like their TV service, get Sky. If you don't like their telephone service, get a BT line (whose rental is a mere £1 a month more expensive) and then take your pick of service providers. Or ditch fixed-line altogether and use a mobile. Your customer choice is in no way compromised by the perfectly fair and reasonable desire of a private company to protect its investment and earn a return on it.
|
Chris, I see your logic but without doubt a merged NTL/Telewest will be a major market force that could operate to the detriment of competition. It is only right that it be tightly regulated and that smaller players are allowed access, for a fee, to encourage competition. Tesco has achieved its dominant market position through investment, but many would argue that this is now to the detriment of the market. They're now expanding into the convenience sector and driving other businesses out (with dubious business tactics which their clout - turnover equivalent to the world's 74th largest economy - enables) and staff and suppliers are among those now suffering, with customers actually facing less choice as they progress. That is the danger that poor regulation (the Govt bottled out of proper intervention) of any business, regardless of origin, presents.
And customer choice is restricted if rival broadband operators can only provide services via the BT network, not least because this encourages bundling of services. If I wasn't bundled with NTL I would have ditched them a while ago because untangling the bundle is a hassle. They know this, that's why they do it.
Incidentally Freeserve (as was) was supposed to have agreed an access agreement with NTL in 2002 - anyone any idea what happened there? And if they have an agreement with AOL and had planned to with Freeserve, presumably this idea doesn't frighten them too much anyway (the potential stumbling block no doubt being the level of access fees).