Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Neil
Looks like the press have picked up on it now....
More |
Nothing to you Neil purely that article. It's BS imo.
Quote:
|
the former state-owned communications giant.
|
Really? I never knew that.
I see the council and local MP have no trouble about the fact that most likely no-one is actually paying ntl for use of the MATV / communal aerial network
The thing these people often forget is that the councils had dodgy rediffusion type systems which they forced ntl or the then builder to take over in return for building rights. I love the way they refer to them as 'taking over' the council's network. Makes it sound like the council built the network and ntl bought it... ya right
In a lot of cases no-one has been paying the cableco for this nor were records kept of who was connected to what so a lot of people have been connected to the cable taking the basic 5 channels (and munting the network up for the paying subscribers) for quite some time.
The MP / council for Harlow can bite ntl in this case, as keeping the MATV going has cost ntl a lot of money and...
MATV / communal aerial is the source of nearly all the HFC / RF network issues in every area where ntl et al are forced to provide it.
If you question this.. Southampton, MATV, bad network. Bits of London, MATV, bad network. Harlow, MATV, an absolute nightmare and I remember it well from when I worked there. Those are just a few areas.
For those who are actually paying to take digital / broadband services the switching off of the MATV will be a great thing. Their services become more stable and reliable literally at the flick of a switch.
Is it worth mentioning that a lot of the work in London that's been done to bring broadband to the area is nothing more advanced that disconnecting non-paying subscribers who have been using the cable for MATV. Once they are gone and the mess that connecting them all to cabinets is tidied the networks instantly improved even with the dodgy Videotron build.