[BIG MERGE] Ntl/TW merger - what if...?

orangebird · 20-02-2004, 10:22

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/s...152115,00.html

andygrif · 20-02-2004, 10:25

That's what I thought when I heard the TW MD had resigned yesterday - it all points to that direction, and I notice that the new TW MD will be an acting one only.

carthage · 20-02-2004, 10:29

Not heard anything

Pierre · 20-02-2004, 11:10

Let's be clear. ntl and Telewest will merge. "do you hear that? That Mr Anderson is the sound of inevitability"

Mr Huff stands to make a lot of money when they do.

But I do not believe it will be until 2005.

Ntl are now performing well since coming out of Chapter 11 and Telewest needs to be given time to sort itself out from its financial restructure.

They must be sure not to repeat the almighty fcuk up that was the CWC takeover.

This news does not change anything.

Florence · 20-02-2004, 11:14

Yes the CEO has resigned and is carrying on as an advisor until the restructure is finished.

Ramrod · 20-02-2004, 11:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

Let's be clear. ntl and Telewest will merge. "do you hear that? That Mr Anderson is the sound of inevitability".

Hmmm.....in that case, all I need to do now is buy shares in ntl and sit back and wait

here's more...http://business.timesonline.co.uk/ar...007979,00.html

Chrysalis · 20-02-2004, 12:20

this should be illegal in my view

orangebird · 20-02-2004, 12:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

this should be illegal in my view

why?

Chrysalis · 20-02-2004, 14:52

because both companies are guilty of buying franchises and not cabling the areas, they shouldnt be allowed to spend money on a merger when they have contracts to honour.

Pierre · 20-02-2004, 15:01

When they bought the franchises they only had to cable a percentage of each franchise not all of it.

Then a few years ago the government said that they didn't have to cable any more if they didn't want to.

Why should they cable unprofitable small populated areas - which is virtually all that is left now.

When the time is right and they have the capitial I'm sure they will start up a limited build program.

SMHarman · 20-02-2004, 15:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

When they bought the franchises they only had to cable a percentage of each franchise not all of it.

Then a few years ago the government said that they didn't have to cable any more if they didn't want to.

Why should they cable unprofitable small populated areas - which is virtually all that is left now.

When the time is right and they have the capitial I'm sure they will start up a limited build program.

Has it ever been discussed whether NTL could pole share and cable these areas above ground on the BT poles (in a similar way to mast sharing for the mobile networks). That would introduce competition in a cheaper manner.

Pierre · 20-02-2004, 15:08

When I was involved in building cable networks that option was sugested several times as a cost effective solution to installing hard to reach places without having to dig.

Unfortunately although cable companies have licences to dig the roads up, they do not have licences to place cables overhead. In the manner you Suggest.

Some cable companies like ntl, Energis and Surf do have trunk fibre wrapped around the earth wires on the top of the electricity pylons. This was once hailed as a cost effective way of building the network but now 10years on these installations are now fraught with problems in some areas.

SMHarman · 20-02-2004, 15:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

this should be illegal in my view

Why then we would have a national cable provider and a national last mile telco provider. A duopoly, the cable can then be marketed far more coherently than at present.

Post merger effeciencies should exist, in time single billing / distribution etc. Marketing wise I think it will be a great benefit. I'm sure post merger there will be a lot of nationwide advertising for cable. If CR3 and the red button, the normally high quality of NTLs phone lines and the higher and more widely dispersed BB oportunities exist, it could be that cable will finally find its feet in the UK and fight back.

SMHarman · 20-02-2004, 15:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

When I was involved in building cable networks that option was sugested several times as a cost effective solution to installing hard to reach places without having to dig.

Unfortunately although cable companies have licences to dig the roads up, they do not have licences to place cables overhead. In the manner you Suggest.

Some cable companies like ntl, Energis and Surf do have trunk fibre wrapped around the earth wires on the top of the electricity pylons. This was once hailed as a cost effective way of building the network but now 10years on these installations are now fraught with problems in some areas.

I realise its a licence issue, its the same issue that crippled the companies with the infrastructure build cost in the first place.

But if the Govt. can approve all the other changes to the licences granted then pole sharing (or did I read about running cables in sewers) might be a way to get these areas cabled at a price which enabled a positive return on investment.

Pierre · 20-02-2004, 15:20

Quote:

But if the Govt. can approve all the other changes to the licences granted then pole sharing (or did I read about running cables in sewers) might be a way to get these areas cabled at a price which enabled a positive return on investment.

I agree it would be an idea, but wouldn't really work very well for CATV, have you been to the USA and seen the state of their overhead CATV network, amps hanging in the air!

But for telephony and BB via ADSL its OK, but then why go to all the trouble of doing that when you can access ntl telephone/dial up and I think pretty soon, if not already, BB(adsl) over BT lines