Sky calls for access to cable network

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

why doesn't it matter? the taxpayer sold BT and got billions of dosh and in exchange gave BT to the stock market. you now think BT is a special case compared to Virgin because it was never publicly owned. bull**** logic just to justify your conclusion.

No I'm saying BT is a special case because of the network it has - that reaches to every house in the UK.

That is why it got opened up to others - not because other companies couldn't be bothered to spend the cash on their own network but because no private network will ever reach as far as one built by the state

---------- Post added at 01:36 ---------- Previous post was at 01:32 ----------

And again I point out that because Sky can access every BT exchange means they can go everywhere Virgin can get to

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the areas where Sky have put their LLU equipment is also where Virgin cable operates

[ShadowTD]

Haven't Sky called for this to happen before?

It's pure posturing on their part. It would be amusing for VM to actually call their bluff and say 'go on then'. Sky know *nothing* about the cable infrastructure and the fractured nature of UK cable would probably make them run away and hide.

Cable in the UK is saddled with billions in debt because they built a second network. This was a bold move the likes of which are normally not made in this country, usually because the almighty dollar outweighs potential benefits to people. No cash from the public purse was used so VM have every right to tell Sky to go and jump.

If they even officially respond.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

why doesn't it matter? the taxpayer sold BT and got billions of dosh and in exchange gave BT to the stock market. you now think BT is a special case compared to Virgin because Virgin was never publicly owned. there is no logic in your argument unless BT is currently still nationalised in which case your argument would be 100% valid.

Of course BT was a special case.

Yes BT was privatised, but it was privatised as a monopoloy, with only Mercury as any kind of competition.

Therefore, to de-monopolise (if that is indeed a word) BT had to open up its access network. BT even formed a separate company to manage this, Open Reach.

Now there are lots of telcos/ISPs that have they're own backhaul networks but need to utilise the BT access network to reach the subscribers and therefore give the subscriber the choice.

VM has built a good percentage of it's own Access Network and therefore doesn't need to use BTs in those areas, but does use BT in where it doesn't have its own network.

If VM opens up its network (which it wont) it should be their own choice not OFCOMS directive.

Now other network providors such as Fibrecity are on the scene providing fibre access networks for hire.

Sky are just doing what Sky do, trying to undermine their competition

[LondonRoad]

I think there's a business opportunity for VM to reach a greater section of the population. For every kilometre of cable infrastructure that $ky lay in an uncabled area (that VM also get access to) they get access to a kilometere of VM's structure. Seems fair but I suspect not part of Sky's intentions.

[telfordcable]

If sky want to have virgin cable - they will get it anyway !

If virgin take sky to court, and it will be sky to win head down easy !

Take them to court for what?

[LondonRoad]

Originally Posted by telfordcable

If sky want to have virgin cable - they will get it anyway !

If virgin take sky to court, and it will be sky to win head down easy !

VM seem to be doing OK against Sky on the legal front

[Jon T]

Originally Posted by telfordcable

If virgin take sky to court, and it will be sky to win head down easy !

Er, take to court? On what grounds.

I think the monopolies and mergers commission would have something to say about Sky buying Virgin.

It would also be very bad for competition whether Sky had access to the cable network or if they owned it.

Absolutely. Sky has been told to sell its stake in ITV (and, when it gives up moaning and trying to appeal, will have to do so at a massive financial loss seeing as their shares have nosedived since they bought them), and Sky had to come crawling back to Virgin with a new deal over the Sky Basics.

---------- Post added at 12:36 ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 ----------

Originally Posted by Jon T

Er, take to court? On what grounds.

I think the monopolies and mergers commission would have something to say about Sky buying Virgin.

It would also be very bad for competition whether Sky had access to the cable network or if they owned it.

Indeed. If Sky aren't allowed to hold 17% of ITV on competition grounds, they'll never be allowed to buy Virgin Media.

[BarFly]

As has been previously mentioned, VM in previous form have opened up their network & it was still open during the first few months of being branded VM, AOL provided cable broadband, via an AOL branded ambit 200.

AOL billed customers, provided 1st line support, VM\NTL provided 2nd Line support & engineer's if needed, as long as the fault was not the modem, if it was, AOL were to send the modem out by post to the customer.

At its close there were very few customers left with AOL taking their cable service, & the speeds that AOL where offering had not increased at the same pace as NTL\VM upgrades.

There is a big possibility this could happen again, 3rd party ISP using the cable service, but it will be very closely tied to the current VM structure etc, as this could a nice cash cow for VM when times are hard & they need an injection of cash.

It could happen again, but the AOL deal was a purely commercial arrangement between them and NTL. What Sky is calling for here is a change in the law that would force Virgin Media to become an open-access carrier of services provided by third parties, similar to BT.

NTL apparently made a pile of cash out of the AOL deal by asking a very high price for access to its network. They probably also managed to reach a good number of customers who weren't turned on by the NTL brand but were prepared to get their cable broadband from AOL.

Whatever the case, NTL did this because NTL decided to, on the basis that it would be good for NTL.

[m419]

Forget it,it will not happen in the UK, Virgin Media do not cover 90% of the UK, there are still 2 other cable franchises both independently owned and not all of the Virgin Media network is in use,some of it like on the Clippers Quay estate in the London Docklands has been ceased and NTL replaced it with a Communal Aerial system. Meanwhile the redundant grey/green junction boxes in the street remain and are disused and are falling into a bad state of disrepair.

Furthermore, it would be like forcing Marks and Spencers to sell Morrisons own brand products, Virgin Media is a privately owned business and it should be entitled to sell and offer what it likes as well as have the decision to say who can use there network and who cant.

However, on the other hand, I think Virgin Media and other cable companies should be forced to make cable TV services available to every property in the areas it operates in whether its Analogue or Digital. Because Freeview digital/Analogue reception is not 100% perfect and because not everyone can get satellite and because not all landlords allow aerials and dishes, Cable TV should be accessible upon request in the areas where Cable TV exists. At the moment there is this fiasco of 1 side of the street being able to get Cable whilst the other side and the street round the corner can't get it or the network has been deactivated.

Furthermore, BT should be stopped at restricting the development of Virgin Media's network in the Westminster and Milton Keynes areas as its the customer and local residents and businesses which are suffering. BT is leasing its cables,street cabinets and maintainance to Virgin Media in those areas for a very large sum, however BT is not prepared to foot the bill for upgrading the network to enable Digital TV or Broadband. NTL began offering broadband to 2 thirds of Westminster over the Cable network.

As BT has to follow universal service terms, the same rules should apply for its C.A.T.V network, it currently upgrades its network for ADSL access for others to use,so why not its Cable network?

Virgin Media may also want to consider taking on the Aberdeen Cable Network infrastructure, there is a problem with Digital Freeview in that area and Broadband internet is terrible. Atlantic Telecom,the previous owners of the Cable network and Wirefree Radio communications in that area, sold its UK operations to Carphone warehouse group(Opal Telecom) in 2001 and the Cable network was abandoned, the cable network in Aberdeen offered Analogue Cable TV,it had no telephone network. Much of it is still intact and it was estimated back in 1999 by Atlantic Telecom,that it would cost around £60 to £70 Million to upgrade to offer Digital TV and High Speed Cable Broadband. It is estimated that it will cost £50 Million per to expand Virgin Media's Cable Network to 100,000 new properties, so it would make sense to use the existing ducts and lease the current BT ducts similar to how Atlantic did.

[comex]

Virgin Media is the mother of all broadband for sure

[Womble]

Although I think its all hot air from Murdoch, it does raise an interesting point. If BT had to open up their network because it was built with public money, then why not Virgin Media?
Go back to the beginning and you'll find plenty of public money pumped in to NYNEX, United Artists, Bell Cable Media etc etc

Just a thought!!

Originally Posted by telfordcable

If sky want to have virgin cable - they will get it anyway !

If virgin take sky to court, and it will be sky to win head down easy !

If anyone seriously thinks the regulators however weak they are (very) will allow sky to take over virgin medias network.

Then i would suggest those people also believe in the tooth fairey.

Its just not going to happen the largest competitor to sky (as regards the tv,bb) being taken over by sky get real please.

---------- Post added at 08:45 ---------- Previous post was at 08:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Womble

Although I think its all hot air from Murdoch, it does raise an interesting point. If BT had to open up their network because it was built with public money, then why not Virgin Media?
Go back to the beginning and you'll find plenty of public money pumped in to NYNEX, United Artists, Bell Cable Media etc etc

Just a thought!!

The only problem i can see with your point being, if public money did get invested originally, and i am not sure it did,as the cable laying in our area seemed to be financed from money abroad.

But even if public money were used, do virgin media not have to pay it back which is a very large part of the reason they are in so much debt? No money has been given freely out of the public purse for the network it all has to be paid back. So as such, unlike bt which was nationalised for many years before privatisation,public money has not as such been used for cables infrastructure.