VM, BT and KCom write to Ofcom over broadband regulation

[1andrew1]

The three networks have argued that opening up their networks to rivals will increase costs, hinder investment and reduce quality.
Hinder investment - new regulations could reduce the return on existing investments and therefore deter future investments.
Reduce quality - multiple operators tampering with equipment will increase faults.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d03235aa-d...#axzz3VntuBCj0

You have to pay to read the article

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mr Banana

You have to pay to read the article

Yes. My summary is pretty much what the article says, it's more a news flash than in-depth analysis, the interesting point being the collaboration between VM and BT on this point of mutual interest.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Yes. My summary is pretty much what the article says, it's more a news flash than in-depth analysis, the interesting point being the collaboration between VM and BT on this point of mutual interest.

It would have been helpful if you had tried to find another link to the info that doesn't require a sign up.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

It would have been helpful if you had tried to find another link to the info that doesn't require a sign up.

Why are you assuming that I didn't try to find another link? I did. The info is an FT news flash and I've summarised it on your website and doubtless other organisations will do the same in due course. There's not much apart from what I posted at the moment.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The three networks have argued that opening up their networks to rivals will increase costs, hinder investment and reduce quality.
Hinder investment - new regulations could reduce the return on existing investments and therefore deter future investments.
Reduce quality - multiple operators tampering with equipment will increase faults.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d03235aa-d...#axzz3VntuBCj0

Some of the arguments for opening the network can be found here and here

[Kushan]

So what does everyone here think? Good idea or bad idea?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Some of the arguments for opening the network can be found here and here

Neither of those refer to the actual issue in the article, dark fibre access, they refer to a full structural separation of Openreach from the rest of the group?

---------- Post added at 09:59 ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 ----------

Originally Posted by Kushan

So what does everyone here think? Good idea or bad idea?

I am very much not in favour of TalkTalk and Sky receiving any kind of access to dark fibre unless it's done very carefully.

They have been awful for the broadband market from my point of view, treating broadband as a freebie or as a retention tool and driving down quality in the case of TalkTalk while feeding the idea that good broadband should cost nothing by subsidising it senseless out of the TV business in the case of Sky.

They are also both slowing the replacement of BT's ageing copper network by clinging on for all they are worth to their own LLU infrastructure. They are far more addicted to copper than BT are, their entire business models depend on it.

Regarding the point made in the post above yours I am entirely in favour of separation of BT however not in the manner that TalkTalk and Sky want, in the hope they'll get at BT's infrastructure on the cheap. I would like to see BT granted the merger of their Wholesale and Openreach operations, as they requested, and for their acquisition of EE to complete unimpeded, however at the cost to them of separating off the rest.

Hence the 'BT Group', currently Global Services, Consumer, Business, Wholesale and Openreach, ends up being split into the merged Wholesale/Openreach entity, with Consumer, Business, Global Services and Mobile/EE entirely separate.

An extra sweetener to come in the form that if BT want to retire copper they may do so. LLU operators will be provided a 'virtual' unbundled solution and can take traffic from BT at the exchange, various national 'metro' handover points, or pay for a full Wholesale solution much as they do now with the current LLU, WBC, and WBMC products.

Sky and TalkTalk would of course jump up and down at this as their ADSL equipment becomes obsolete but times are changing.

[Kushan]

I think I'm largely in agreement with you, Igni. My only point of view that differs is on a lot of BT's network that was subsidised with taxpayer money, however OFCOM already regulates a lot of this so I'm not sure more needs to be opened.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I am very much not in favour of TalkTalk and Sky receiving any kind of access to dark fibre unless it's done very carefully.

They have been awful for the broadband market from my point of view, treating broadband as a freebie or as a retention tool and driving down quality in the case of TalkTalk while feeding the idea that good broadband should cost nothing by subsidising it senseless out of the TV business in the case of Sky.

They are also both slowing the replacement of BT's ageing copper network by clinging on for all they are worth to their own LLU infrastructure. They are far more addicted to copper than BT are, their entire business models depend on it.

Agreed. The trouble is that both of them have modelled their business on buying the bare minimum of infrastructure. Sky have repeatedly moaned they don't have access to Virgin's cable network, but VM (and the cable cos before it) have spent billions building that network, why *should* they open it up? If Murdoch wanted Sky to have access to Cable TV enough he has the resources to enable Sky to build their own network. They didn't. They spent some money on Satellite facilities, then rented space on a satellite. While Sky will have spent a lot of money on their infrastructure, I'll lay odds it's nowhere near what even Virgin Media have spent, not including what NTL, Telewest and the other cable companies spent.


Do I agree that the existing broadband companies should be required to open their networks even more. No. I don't. It will drive prices down, which is good in the short term for the consumer. It is not, however, good for the ISPs and therefore not good for the consumer in the long term as the ISPs will be forced to cut back investment on infrastructure. Something that while it won't affect headline speeds (because these are a selling point) will affect both reliability and contention on the networks, neither of which are selling points, so while the ISPs have to upgrade their networks to cope with new speeds, there will be nothing stopping them bunging as many customers on the network as possible.

---------- Post added at 12:22 ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 ----------

Originally Posted by Kushan

I think I'm largely in agreement with you, Igni. My only point of view that differs is on a lot of BT's network that was subsidised with taxpayer money, however OFCOM already regulates a lot of this so I'm not sure more needs to be opened.

I'm in two minds about that. I know that BT have replaced a lot of the network since privatisation, but how much does the central infrastructure cost compared to the sheer number of phone lines that were installed before privatisation? Bear in mind that there are millions of them, and in most cases, I suspect the line from the exchange to the premises has not been replaced since privatisation.

[muppetman11]

How many FTTC customers choose BT over all the rest of the ISP's ?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

How many FTTC customers choose BT over all the rest of the ISP's ?

The last figures I saw put BT Group's market share at more than 2/3rds of the FTTC customer base.

This is, to be fair, in no small part due to the lackadaisical efforts of TalkTalk and Sky, both of whom were until very recently far more concerned with milking the copper to the exchange than trying to sell FTTC.

[muppetman11]

As of Feb 2015

BT had over 7.5 million broadband customers with over 2.7 million taking Fibre

The other big ISP's on the Openreach Network , Sky , Talk Talk and EE have over 10 million subscribers yet only around a million take fibre despite all of them actively advertising promotions through their websites , TV and mailings.

Any idea why that is ?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

As of Feb 2015

BT had over 7.5 million broadband customers with over 2.7 million taking Fibre

The other big ISP's on the Openreach Network , Sky , Talk Talk and EE have over 10 million subscribers yet only around a million take fibre despite all of them actively advertising promotions through their websites , TV and mailings.

Any idea why that is ?

Sky and TalkTalk have only relatively recently begun pushing the FTTC solutions, preferring to relentlessly milk copper all the way to the exchange to make the most of the equipment they have in BT exchanges.

They can't deliver FTTC for free alongside a phone/TV package and they've managed to condition their customers into thinking that 'broadband' should be either free or cost next to nothing.

BT pushed FTTC hard early on and gained nearly all the sign ups, and their brand Plusnet are essentially delivering FTTC without the added cost of BT Sport so are the 'budget' BT brand.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Sky and TalkTalk have only relatively recently begun pushing the FTTC solutions, preferring to relentlessly milk copper all the way to the exchange to make the most of the equipment they have in BT exchanges.

They can't deliver FTTC for free alongside a phone/TV package and they've managed to condition their customers into thinking that 'broadband' should be either free or cost next to nothing.

BT pushed FTTC hard early on and gained nearly all the sign ups, and their brand Plusnet are essentially delivering FTTC without the added cost of BT Sport so are the 'budget' BT brand.

Hardly Sky Fibre has been advertised on TV , Online and mailings for ages now , its also been discounted for 6 months and at one point 12 months.

Do they make more money from customers on their LLU connections ?