[Merged] Ntl move into LLU unbundling

[MovedGoalPosts]

Originally Posted by Escapee

Strange as it may sound, I wouldn't be suprised to see ntl splitting up the company and selling off their networks. The company would then concentrate on being an ISP and content provider.

When you consider that they are not spending diddly squat on maintaining the HFC network it doesn't sound so bizare.

Do they have their head in the sand, or have they got a joker up their sleeve!

I would have thought there is a good argument for that. Our old friend erolz (not seen him around for a long while) always maintained that companies would be best by having one dealing with the infrastructure, the others dealing with the provision of the services. Thus as the service suppliers wanted more, the network providers might actually get their finger out, incase others muscled in, and vice versa. Trying to do both makes you a "jack of all trades but master of none".

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Ignition

BT only have 1300 exchanges :o blimey they've DSL enabled up nearly 3000 of them, where did they steal the others from?!?!

I'm not sure if there is a mix up with exchanges with copper and ones that contain system X switches.

The BT infrastructure is not one that I know very well, but it's entirely different to ntl's. BT have a large number of system X switch sites compared to ntl, they usually have more than one in larger towns, where ntl build larger ones to service several towns.

The Sole ntl switch in Cardiff used to serve Cardiff, Newport, Barry, Penarth, Treforest etc. I understand BT had at least 2 sites in Cardiff alone. Thats why BT's system is inherently more reliable, if they get one switch go down it affects a miuch smaller area. ntl lost some big business customers in the past because they suffered switch congestion due to the way the network was built. They lost millions in potential revenue, and hundreds of thousands in compensation when big customers like Admiral insurance went elsewhere because Cardiff switch fell over a few times within a few months.
The ntl system was built to a price and not with reliability in mind, they did learn from many of these mistakes and implemented upgrades to put it right. Unfortunately a bad reputation gets around, and I believe thats one of the main reasons why ntl business has not been performing very well.

[Graham F]

Originally Posted by MovedGoalPosts

The Register yesterday had an interesting story about BT networks and Local Loop Unbundling. NTL are apparently to abandon further investment in cable

The article includes:


Ok many would argue that cable investment hasn't been that strong for a long while, but this article, nodoubt founded on some truth, says a lot for the future of cable networks, which in my view should have been able to wipe the floor with the combined offerings of BT and Sky.

it doesn't say that they are

abandoning investment in cable

what it says is that it will not cable anything that is not cabled at the moment and will try and supply ppl that are off net through BT exchanges, this was discussed the other day as well

[Pierre]

It will continue to deliver television services, high speed internet and telephony to the homes passed by its digital cable systems, but it will not build out any more infrastructure using that technology. The company says that it is too expensive.

Well it's not exactly a secret is it. ntl's main main build program essentially stopped in 2000.

ntl will expand where it is economically viable to do so. Usually now only for very large business customers.

Most of ntls build over the last four years has been for Orange, H3G, BT.

They have a large enough footprint with what they have, and that will be increased when they merge with Telewest in 2005/2006.

Therefore if they are not physicallt constructing the only way to expand their network and customer base is through BTs local loop which is what they are doing.

They are however spending a lot of money in London and Dublin upgrading the network there.

As Mark pointed out, this is a duplicate thread - the previous discussion isn't that old, I'll be merging as soon as I lay my hands on it.

EDIT Done! Talk on ...

[BBKing]

having one dealing with the infrastructure, the others dealing with the provision of the services.

Got lost in the merging of threads. Anyway, much as I like erolz, that was the model adopted by Railtrack and the train operating companies, and how wonderfully successful it was. We also had it for a couple of years after the CWC/ntl merger where C&W still provided some connectivity, and it was a pain in the butt dealing with them.

As Pierre says, ntl are investing a fair bit of wedge in the famous London rubbish cable, so it's not totally true to say they've given up on cable. There's also a lot of money going into capacity on cable systems and new hardware, so it's simplistic to say they've given up. It's probably fair to say that you won't see much digging up of streets to put new cable down, that's prohibitively expensive these days.

[MovedGoalPosts]

Originally Posted by Chris T

As Mark pointed out, this is a duplicate thread - the previous discussion isn't that old, I'll be merging as soon as I lay my hands on it.

EDIT Done! Talk on ...

er sorry, didn't see that thread

Back on topic; Would this suggest that ntl would try to offer TV over the ADSL network, similar to Homechoice?

The other issue is that cable cos were awarded franchises by government to provide cable networks as alternatives to BT. That seems to have gone out the window. Should the government be waving a big stick to get the country cabled?

[Graham F]

Originally Posted by Chris T

As Mark pointed out, this is a duplicate thread - the previous discussion isn't that old, I'll be merging as soon as I lay my hands on it.

EDIT Done! Talk on ...

it was me that pointed it out and i ain't mark

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Got lost in the merging of threads. Anyway, much as I like erolz, that was the model adopted by Railtrack and the train operating companies, and how wonderfully successful it was. We also had it for a couple of years after the CWC/ntl merger where C&W still provided some connectivity, and it was a pain in the butt dealing with them.

As Pierre says, ntl are investing a fair bit of wedge in the famous London rubbish cable, so it's not totally true to say they've given up on cable. There's also a lot of money going into capacity on cable systems and new hardware, so it's simplistic to say they've given up. It's probably fair to say that you won't see much digging up of streets to put new cable down, that's prohibitively expensive these days.

Not only was there the problems you saw BBKing, but ntl used to have a fair amount of business customers off-net. It used to be a nightmare for the business telco boys when a customer who was about 3 hours drive away in north wales had problems with service. I remember on one occassion the fault was easily traced to a BT network fault, but without the ntl boys attending BT would not roll on the fault until an ntl engineer had physically visited the site to confirm the ntl supplied equipment was not at fault.
I guess that will be a more widespread problem as companies use oneanothers networks, someone is always looking to pass the buck, you know what it's like between departments never mind different companies.

That sort of thing I believe happened with the universities and local Authorities that ntl serviced off-net in wales, its not a problem now they have lost all those contracts though!

[BBKing]

At a risk of getting into politics, the idea of having people sharing infrastructure governed by contracts sounds very good from the point of view of lawyers and accountants but is a pain in the butt from the point of view of engineers. Speaking as an engineer, that is. However, since we* are run by lawyers and accountants that is what we get, and a damned bad job they're making of it to.

Back on topic now.

*we as in the UK, not we as in ntl

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by BBKing

At a risk of getting into politics, the idea of having people sharing infrastructure governed by contracts sounds very good from the point of view of lawyers and accountants but is a pain in the butt from the point of view of engineers. Speaking as an engineer, that is. However, since we* are run by lawyers and accountants that is what we get, and a damned bad job they're making of it to.

Back on topic now.

*we as in the UK, not we as in ntl

I could only see it working if all the networks were owned by one company, who had a fixed price for all the operators/providers. unfortunately I guess it would never work and would probably end up as a similar situation we have with the railways.

No matter what company was in charge of the networks, they would keep investment to a bare minimum. I think this LLU sounds like a good idea to the people controlling the purse strings, but as you say in practice no matter what company its going to be a nightmare to engineer and provide a reliable service to the customer that is within your control.

I think LLU will keep prices competitive, but will cost off-net users in terms of reliability and downtime in the real world when there are faults. With everyone trying to cut costs to the bone, it will be a matter of passing the buck between companies instead of internal departments. it will be more difficult to bang some heads together when the disagreements are between two different companies.

[BBKing]

LLU of course is effectively a way of reducing the amount of network-to-service-provider interaction by bringing the service provider as close to the customer as the other end of a twisted pair. So from that point of view it's actually quite good from my 'don't mess the engineers around' philosophy of corporate governance.

[Chrysalis]

I know off topic but is this decision going to affect analogue areas wanting a digital upgrade?

[MovedGoalPosts]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I know off topic but is this decision going to affect analogue areas wanting a digital upgrade?

Hmm, if your not in an area where something is already underway, then if you interpret the ntl statements literally, then yes, there could well be no upgrade.

Based on the last few posts between BBKing and Escapee, one does wonder whether, like most quango policies, this LLU unbundling thing has truly been thought through.

[Chrysalis]

well if it is true then when analogue gets turned of eventually I guess ntl will stop providing tv in my area.