Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Neil
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gareth
ntl own their network and can do with it as they see fit.'
|
Not much else to say really. 
[Edit]-There is always an alternative in Sky/BT.  |
Admittedly they own their network, but does that make it right to enforce an unfair charge on customers who want to use that network? I would argue that just because it's their own network, that doesn't put them outside the jurisdiction of the Office of Fair Trading, and that NTL are currently applying anti-competitive trade principles.
ian@huth, you made some good points. I think you're right that if they levied the installation charge they would lose a lot of customers to Sky's free installation package. So the mandatory phone line rental is really a cover-up to hide the installation fee that NTL don't charge - is that what you're saying? Any thoughts on how Sky can afford to offer free installation yet NTL can't? Surely getting satellites up into space is just as costly as digging up a few roads to put some cables underground?
altis, that's an interesting perspective that I hadn't considered. I hadn't thought of the content & distribution sides of Sky before. I'm afraid I don't know enough about Sky's position to comment on whether such legislation is gonna happen (not that I know much about NTL either, but it's not stopping me from getting on my soapbox
).
So, am I wrong in thinking that NTL are wrong - is it really Sky who are to blame?