VM required to share infrastructure as of 2016

[Ignitionnet]

Reading this from the EC, summarised nicely here, VM or more accurately UPC Broadband throughout the EU, will be required to open up their duct infrastructure to competitors in a similar manner to the requirement placed on BT to offer access to theirs.

Network operators will have the obligation to meet all reasonable requests for access to their infrastructure as provided for in the directive. Possible grounds for refusal include technical unsuitability, safety, public health or network security.

Operators will also be able to request information on network routes, uses, etc, along with being able to negotiate to perform civils simultaneously with the telecomms company whose infrastructure they want to use to save costs, so if VM or BT are doing some duct renewal another operator can take the opportunity to deploy some kit into those ducts too.

Network operators will have the right to negotiate agreements on the coordination of civil works with telecoms operators for the purpose of broadband deployment.

If no agreement on such civil work coordination is reached within one month, any party can refer the issue to the competent national dispute settlement body.

Not great for VM at first glance but it offers them opportunities as well as costs.

How can that be applied. The BT network was built using our money and VMs was built by private investment. Pretty sure this will never happen.

[BenMcr]

I know in the past VM have struggled to install cable to properties themselves due the housing density going up since the ducts were put in, so I can't see how this would work for the most part if potentially everyone is allowed to pile in - even if VM have to consider the request, a lot of it would be refused.

Plus what happens if you want to move from a provider that has used VM's ducts to install their cabling to Virgin Media? Would VM be able to use the same cable or would they have to remove it all and start again? Seems like a logistical nightmare

[Pierre]

I doubt very much this would happen. VM can refuse access for several of the reasons given on that statement.

Also co- ordination of civils works is nothing new, but very rarely undertaken because companies a very rarely ready to lay infrastructure in the same place at the same time.

File under, all been proposed before, tried before, failed before.

[Kushan]

Are there even many areas where this would benefit BT? I can't imagine many other providers wanting to take up this offer, it's majority Openreach anyway, isn't it? And don't they already cover most areas Virgin are in?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Top banana

How can that be applied. The BT network was built using our money and VMs was built by private investment. Pretty sure this will never happen.

It can be applied very easily. VM are simply told to open up their network.

---------- Post added at 10:50 ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 ----------

Originally Posted by BenMcr

I know in the past VM have struggled to install cable to properties themselves due the housing density going up since the ducts were put in, so I can't see how this would work for the most part if potentially everyone is allowed to pile in - even if VM have to consider the request, a lot of it would be refused.

Plus what happens if you want to move from a provider that has used VM's ducts to install their cabling to Virgin Media? Would VM be able to use the same cable or would they have to remove it all and start again? Seems like a logistical nightmare

Operators wouldn't use VM's ducts to deliver HFC cable, they'd use them for fibre to the premises. The actual drop cable wouldn't be the same I imagine.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Operators wouldn't use VM's ducts to deliver HFC cable, they'd use them for fibre to the premises. The actual drop cable wouldn't be the same I imagine.

I understand that - which was the question. What would happen to whatever anyone else has installed if you wanted to swap from them to Virgin Media, or indeed vice versa if there is already VM cable to a property.

Would another provider be allowed to remove the VM cable if it interfered with getting their connection to the property?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I doubt very much this would happen. VM can refuse access for several of the reasons given on that statement.

Also co- ordination of civils works is nothing new, but very rarely undertaken because companies a very rarely ready to lay infrastructure in the same place at the same time.

File under, all been proposed before, tried before, failed before.

Show me where VM have been obligated to offer passive access to their duct infrastructure before, please? This has only been applied to Openreach in the UK?

I would imagine that if VM start extracting the urine and making excuses to avoid giving others access to their network there would be remedies available. It is taken as read that VM have full ducts like everyone else so will have quite legitimate reasons for refusing access to some of their plant.

This is compulsory co-ordination of civils works. It happens elsewhere, it's been happening in Sweden for a while. Would make sense that when VM or Openreach can't say 'no' things change. Especially given that they would be obliged to have details of their passive infrastructure available. If a duct collapses and needs replacing the altnet will know about it and when the duct is replaced VM can be required to allow altnets access to deploy.

---------- Post added at 10:54 ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 ----------

Originally Posted by BenMcr

I understand that - which was the question. What would happen to whatever anyone else has installed if you wanted to swap from them to Virgin Media, or indeed vice versa if there is already VM cable to a property.

Would another provider be allowed to remove the VM cable if it interfered with getting their connection to the property?

No, the altnet aren't going to use the VM drop anyway. They'd have a fibre going down the duct in the pavement and build their own drops from there.

The operator's fibre would be in a subduct / microduct inside VM's duct so zero interference.

---------- Post added at 11:43 ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 ----------

Originally Posted by Kushan

Are there even many areas where this would benefit BT? I can't imagine many other providers wanting to take up this offer, it's majority Openreach anyway, isn't it? And don't they already cover most areas Virgin are in?

Someone like CityFibre would be potentially interested. They are building fibre rings in some cities and PIA allows them to build out from these rings to reach homes more cheaply.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

It can be applied very easily. VM are simply told to open up their network.

---------- Post added at 10:50 ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 ----------



Operators wouldn't use VM's ducts to deliver HFC cable, they'd use them for fibre to the premises. The actual drop cable wouldn't be the same I imagine.

Garbage, they cannot be told to do anything, it is their network that they paid for. It's basically like you building your own house and then being told to house people. Vms lawyers will have a field dayi

Do VM require a licence to provide telecoms/tv/Internet in the UK?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Show me where VM have been obligated to offer passive access to their duct infrastructure before, please? This has only been applied to Openreach in the UK?

that statement was in regards to coordination of civils works. This is aready in place in the UK and has been since the introduction of the New Roads and Street Works Act, and further with The Traffic Management Act.

I would imagine that if VM start extracting the urine and making excuses to avoid giving others access to their network there would be remedies available. It is taken as read that VM have full ducts like everyone else so will have quite legitimate reasons for refusing access to some of their plant.

yes, and network security etc,etc

[quote]If a duct collapses and needs replacing the altnet will know about it and when the duct is replaced VM can be required to allow altnets access to deploy.[quote] deploy what? A few metres of useless duct, not connected to anything

The operator's fibre would be in a subduct / microduct inside VM's duct so zero interference.

risk to VMs cables when installing sub-duct?????

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Top banana

Garbage, they cannot be told to do anything, it is their network that they paid for. It's basically like you building your own house and then being told to house people. Vms lawyers will have a field dayi

VM can be told exactly what to do as far as opening up their network assets passively go and there is precisely nothing they can do about it if they want to continue business in the UK.

---------- Post added at 14:35 ---------- Previous post was at 14:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

<Snip>

If LGI would rather spend money on lawyers arguing with the government / EC on this matter that's entirely their prerogative. Given it applies Europe-wide I fully imagine they will.

If they lose I would also imagine their UK subsidiary will comply with it as every other subsidiary in Europe will.

[Kushan]

Public/private investment aside, I'm guessing VM are screwed because they don't own the roads and pavements their ducting is actually installed in?

I would also imagine that if a 3rd party were to damage any VM equipment while installing their own, they'd be liable for the costs.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Bogof

Do VM require a licence to provide telecoms/tv/Internet in the UK?

Yes.

Licences 3/1513/1/178 and 3/1315/1/123 are the fixed line public telecomms operator licences.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

If LGI would rather spend money on lawyers arguing with the government / EC on this matter that's entirely their prerogative. Given it applies Europe-wide I fully imagine they will.

If they lose I would also imagine their UK subsidiary will comply with it as every other subsidiary in Europe will.

That's not a response to anything I posted ???

---------- Post added at 15:36 ---------- Previous post was at 15:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Yes.

Licences 3/1513/1/178 and 3/1315/1/123 are the fixed line public telecomms operator licences.

Yes, also known has having Code powers