Sky calls for access to cable network

[MIL0]

There's some confusion here as to why BT were compelled by Ofcom to open up their networks to competitors.

Ofcom wanted competition in the provision of broadband services. Other networks had built their own network backbones, but BT still had the "last mile" - the bit that connects the backbone to your house. This was a monopoly.

Ofcom gave BT a choice - either "unbundle" the last mile or allow the other networks to use the last mile. BT was unable to unbundle the last mile in the time Ofcom wanted, so BT had to let the other providers use the BT last mile.

This is why Virgin and Sky (and others) can offer broadband and phone services to everyone BT can.

It's been pretty successful - there are lots of companies that offer a range of services and BT has a profitable company (Open Reach) providing the services. Broadly a win, win.

Ofcom are unlikely to compel VM to open their network to Sky because first, VM built their own network of fibre and second, Sky is the dominate player in this market. And third - there's no restriction on where you can put a satellite - everyone could have access to Sky if they wish - VM don't have a monopoly on access to customers.

This is Sky being cheeky and trying to change the agenda and keep pressure up on VM.

You can normally tell how successful a competitor is by how much effort Sky will go to to undermine that competitor. I think the ITV share purchase, the spat about the cost of Sky channels to VM and this sort of thing shows you that Sky believe VM might actually get their act together and offer decent competition to Sky.

I've been a cable customer since NTL laid cable in my road in 1997 and they have never looked stronger in terms of customer offerings. They could do things a bit quicker (took them *ages* for V+ and it's taking them *ages* for more HD channels), but I think they will become a force to be reckoned with in 2 to 3 years time.

And Sky know that!

[Ignitionnet]

Hands up who actually read the article in full, looking at this thread it appears not many.

In particular, Sky said the physical ducts should be opened up to allow other firms to lay fibre while avoiding the massive civil engineering costs of digging new trenches.

Mandating access to ducting is something that both Ofcom and the European telco regulator are strongly considering. This doesn't just apply to BT and other incumbent telcos but to cable companies as well.

It's unlikely that VM will be forced to open their cable network imminently, however the ducting, well, that's a very different thing.

EDIT: Just to clarify, that VM was primarily built using private money and BT's ducting largely public money means precisely nothing for mandatory access to ducting for these purposes.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

It's unlikely that VM will be forced to open their cable network imminently, however the ducting, well, that's a very different thing.
.

As long as VM can charge a premium, I don't see the problem.

Good luck in some areas though, the duct network is stuffed full of cables.

[papa smurf]

perhaps vm should ask for access to sky satellites. as sky are so interested in sharing this would mean vm could start selling dishes and receivers ,every ones a winner

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

perhaps vm should ask for access to sky satellites. as sky are so interested in sharing this would mean vm could start selling dishes and receivers ,every ones a winner

Sky don't own satellites. They lease Transponders (or space on transponders) on the Astra satellites from SES-Astra.

As such, if Virgin wanted to lease space on those satellites, they could.

I am not even sure if Sky own their own satellite base stations. I think they might be owned/operated by other companies (including BT)

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Sky don't own satellites. They lease Transponders (or space on transponders) on the Astra satellites from SES-Astra.

As such, if Virgin wanted to lease space on those satellites, they could.

I am not even sure if Sky own their own satellite base stations. I think they might be owned/operated by other companies (including BT)

i honestly had no idea of that ,that's really interesting

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Sky don't own satellites. They lease Transponders (or space on transponders) on the Astra satellites from SES-Astra.

As such, if Virgin wanted to lease space on those satellites, they could.

I am not even sure if Sky own their own satellite base stations. I think they might be owned/operated by other companies (including BT)

Sky do own part of the uplink infrastructure, which is partly why they have been able to delay the launch of new channels on the Freesat service.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Chris

Sky do own part of the uplink infrastructure, which is partly why they have been able to delay the launch of new channels on the Freesat service.

Fair enough.

[Locky33]

We should be able to get Virgin Media satellite dishes if Virgin has to share its own network. Whats good for one should be good for the other.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Locky33

We should be able to get Virgin Media satellite dishes if Virgin has to share its own network. Whats good for one should be good for the other.

Good to see you read the thread before you posted, especially this page.

---------- Post added at 20:46 ---------- Previous post was at 20:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

As long as VM can charge a premium, I don't see the problem.

Good luck in some areas though, the duct network is stuffed full of cables.

It won't be a premium it'd be a fair price reflecting the cost of the investment and its' expected life.

For sure in some areas the ducts would be full, all part of the fun.

---------- Post added at 20:49 ---------- Previous post was at 20:46 ----------

Originally Posted by Stuart C

I am not even sure if Sky own their own satellite base stations. I think they might be owned/operated by other companies (including BT)

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?source...05686&t=h&z=18

Sky's main uplink station in Chilworth, Hampshire.

[Locky33]

I did read the thread just had an oppinion on this page broadbandings! I dont post often just sit in the background i bored lately.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Locky33

I did read the thread just had an oppinion on this page broadbandings! I dont post often just sit in the background i bored lately.

I refer you to my previous post:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Sky don't own satellites. They lease Transponders (or space on transponders) on the Astra satellites from SES-Astra.

As such, if Virgin wanted to lease space on those satellites, they could.

Put simply, if Virgin wanted to launch their own satellite service, it is unlikely that Sky would be able to stop them. OK, so VM may still have to apply for licences, but they would be able to do it.

Originally Posted by Stuart C

OK, so VM may still have to apply for licences, but they would be able to do it.

AFAIK the only licence they would need would be a licence to broadcast an EPG to the UK, which they would get from OFCOM.

It's all a red herring though. There's no room for another paid-for satellite provider in the UK because Sky has it all sewn up. The only satellite service that might dent Sky is Freesat, which you don't pay for. Virgin is a commercial company that needs to turn a profit, and it wouldn't find one in satellites.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Chris

AFAIK the only licence they would need would be a licence to broadcast an EPG to the UK, which they would get from OFCOM.

It's all a red herring though. There's no room for another paid-for satellite provider in the UK because Sky has it all sewn up. The only satellite service that might dent Sky is Freesat, which you don't pay for. Virgin is a commercial company that needs to turn a profit, and it wouldn't find one in satellites.

I was just making the point that there are no legal or technical barriers to Virgin running their own satellite service.. Doesn't mean it's viable for them to do it.

[Chrysalis]

I can tell you the problem sky have.

Sky want to rollout a proper VOD type service, the sattelite platform is inadequate for this, adsl 'can' be adequate if the line is good enough. The majority of lines are not so rules out a mass rollout over adsl.

Sky have been trialling FTTC believe it or not, but unsurprisingly have not done any kind of rollout.

Renting infrastructure of VM could suit sky but as far as VM are concerned its a 50/50 for them, they will make profits from selling services to sky but at the same time they helping their main competitor.

Now BT are initiating a very slow FTTC rollout starting this year, this rollout will be wholesaled and I believe isps will have 2 options from what I have been told elsewhere.

(a) rent bandwidth directly of BT wholesale in a datastream type variant, so BT would control the connection termination point and after that handover to the isp.
(b) sub loop unbundling so basically the isp have their own equipment in the cabinet, I assume they would then need to either rent fibre of openreach or get their own fibre to the street cabinet (expensive). sub loop unbundling is like what sky do now with LLU but I expect a lot more expensive in terms of deployment costs.

I do actually agree with sky, the problem with broadband in the country at the moment is although at retail we have tons of competion (too much of it), the wholesale level is all monopolised. We have VM who dont wholesale and BT who have no competition in over 50% of their coverage. This is leading to a very slow local loop investment from BT.