OFCOM ready to rule?

Originally Posted by zantarous

Seeing as Tuesday has come and gone has anyone heard anything? I know they will not announce till March which seems odd as they have already decided and that they spent years looking to this. Why delay.

Perhaps now that they may have reached a decision and i add the word" MAY HAVE" with rerservations, seeing as this review has been rumbling on since 2007

They may well be working out how to handle any inpending announcement given skys litigeous nature,or they may well be informing any interested parties of any announcement in private to give them time to adjust. other then that who knows.

[Morden]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

Do you often throw the toys just because someone disagrees with you? Probably not wise to visit discussion forums if that is the case to be perfectly honest.

---------- Post added at 22:42 ---------- Previous post was at 22:41 ----------



In infrastructure based markets or markets where a player dominates agreed. The case for VM to be forced to open up its' network is stronger.

Seeing as you dont allow PM's I thought IO would reply about your comments that BT did its investment in its broadband infrastructure whilst a gov owned and therefore was developed with tax payers monney making it different from SKY. (difficult considering that in 1986 that the internet did not really exist and in fact was not invented until Tim Berners Lee developed HTTP in 1990)

In Addition BT did major investment in 2006 Following ref from Wikkipedia. In October 2006 BT confirmed that it would be investing 75% of its total capital spending, put at £10 billion over five years, in its new Internet Protocol (IP) based 21st century network (21CN). Annual savings of £1 billion per annum are expected when the transition to the new network is complete in 2010, with over 50% of its customers transferred by 2008. That month BT took a major step forward when the actual process that will be used to transfer the first customers on to 21CN was successfully tested at Adastral Park in Suffolk.[29]

I just could not be bothered with your line of argument when it was flawed, I just cant stand it it when people bend truths just like corrupt politicians do and dont rely on the factual truths of history.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by Morden

Seeing as you dont allow PM's I thought IO would reply about your comments that BT did its investment in its broadband infrastructure whilst a gov owned and therefore was developed with tax payers monney making it different from SKY. (difficult considering that in 1986 that the internet did not really exist and in fact was not invented until Tim Berners Lee developed HTTP in 1990)

In Addition BT did major investment in 2006 Following ref from Wikkipedia. In October 2006 BT confirmed that it would be investing 75% of its total capital spending, put at £10 billion over five years, in its new Internet Protocol (IP) based 21st century network (21CN). Annual savings of £1 billion per annum are expected when the transition to the new network is complete in 2010, with over 50% of its customers transferred by 2008. That month BT took a major step forward when the actual process that will be used to transfer the first customers on to 21CN was successfully tested at Adastral Park in Suffolk.[29]

I just could not be bothered with your line of argument when it was flawed, I just cant stand it it when people bend truths just like corrupt politicians do and dont rely on the factual truths of history.

The infrastructure that costs money to deploy is not the backhaul, it's not in the exchanges, it's the access network that connects the consumers premises up to these.

So they're spending £10bn on the 21cn upgrades which aren't touching the last mile.

Think about how much that would be if they were doing that, if they were having to lay cable to everyone of the 60m households in their serviceable area?

That is what people are saying, any amount they invest now is dwarfed by the cost of laying the last mile access network, hence why they aren't rolling out ftth across the country.

[r94yan]

R they really gonna rule, how would it be implementated new software update?

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by r94yan

R they really gonna rule, how would it be implementated new software update?

[Dukefever]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I am puzzled too! lol

Duke

[zantarous]

Looks like Sky might get to retail channels on Freeview as compensation for being forced to slash whole sale prices on Sports and Movies:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...m-pay-tv-bskyb

I find this bit fascinating

Consider this simple fact: in 1997, the last year in the UK when all homes were analogue-only, Sky had 3.6 million TV subscribers and cable had 3.5 million; everyone else made do with four or five channels. Today, Sky has 9.2 million UK subscribers, Freeview is in just shy of 10m homes on the main set and cable (now virtually all digital) languishes at 3.7m.

That is a long time for your subscriber base to remain so static.

[zantarous]

And the results are in Sky ordered to cut premium channels cost by 20%, but allowed to launch Picnic as a sweetner http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle7069785.ece

How long before we see a cut in prices?

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by zantarous

And the results are in Sky ordered to cut premium channels cost by 20%, but allowed to launch Picnic as a sweetner http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle7069785.ece

How long before we see a cut in prices?

Not sure about the prices but its about time Ofcom showed its teeth

[Dukefever]

RESULT!!!!!!!

Duke

[zantarous]

Didn't Sky shelve plans for Picnic years ago and have shown no interest since, could this be a sweetener or final insult?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Not sure about the prices but its about time Ofcom showed its teeth

Indeed, I'm looking forward to them doing more of this through a requirement for VM to either wholesale or offer duct access along with BT in the near future

Originally Posted by zantarous

Didn't Sky shelve plans for Picnic years ago and have shown no interest since, could this be a sweetener or final insult?

They shelved it because it became part of Ofcom's market investigation, so there was no chance of them launching it any time soon.

The biggest problem with Picnic IMO was that it was not compatible with Freeview. Not a problem on the face of it, but on the other hand, over time there was a risk of Sky coming to dominate the terrestrial broadcast space with a not-entirely-freeview service, using the fact that Picnic would have been HD-capable as its hook.

[kgollop]

No mention of the HD channels in that report though. Maybe Sky might want to start selling them to VM to make up some of the shortfall in revenue from the price drop?

[HDFootyMan]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Not sure about the prices but its about time Ofcom showed its teeth

Teeth?

What teeth?

Picnic shouldn't be allowed on Freeview.

Besides, there's plenty of time for Sky to appeal about (and delay) the wholesale issue, and Ofcom's powers would be greatly reduced anyway if the Tories win the General Election.

---------- Post added at 11:16 ---------- Previous post was at 11:12 ----------

Originally Posted by zantarous

And the results are in Sky ordered to cut premium channels cost by 20%, but allowed to launch Picnic as a sweetner http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle7069785.ece

How long before we see a cut in prices?

A 20% cut would result in VM paying Sky £10.78 for Sky Sports 1 (excluding VAT).

OFCOM were thinking about a wholesale price of somewhere between £9.41 and £11.24, so £10.78 seems a little high.