[Merged] NTL/TW To Open Networks?

Originally Posted by ianathuth

NTL/Telewest may not be a monopoly but it would be part of a duopoly which could be said by some to be working against the public interest.

Hear, Hear. And sigfnificantly more concise than my posts!

Originally Posted by Gareth

Oh, hang on, I think I misunderstood your post. I thought you were talking about the enticing broadband ads you see at the moment, ie from ADSL providers, but still sticking with cable as the underlying technology. Sorry, my bad.

Gareth, I was talking about the existing ads and despite posts from your good self and others I still don't really understand. To be fair, I am a bit thick. I can see we have two technologies s at work but if AOL can use NTL's network, and Freeserve planned to, presumably this is not insurmountable - and why rival companies want to gain access as reported in that Guardian article.

Yours,

Confused of Bury.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by andyl

Gareth, I was talking about the existing ads and despite posts from your good self and others I still don't really understand. To be fair, I am a bit thick. I can see we have two technologies s at work but if AOL can use NTL's network, and Freeserve planned to, presumably this is not insurmountable - and why rival companies want to gain access as reported in that Guardian article.

Yours,

Confused of Bury.

Basically, the way it works is that the ISP that wants to add users to the NTL network buys bandwidth on that network I suspect it works in a similar way to BT's standard ADSL product. With that, ISPs buy access for so many users. They then add their own costs, plus a profit marging to that cost and re-sell that bandwidth to the user.

AOL has as far as I understand, bought bandwidth on NTL's network. Freeswerve (or wanado as they are now) tried to, but the deal fell through for some reason.

NTL are clearly quite happy for other ISPs to use their bandwidth (as happens with AOL). Maybe most ISPs are happy dealing purely with BT, and moving toward LLU (installing their own equipment in Exchanges). Maybe BT has written something into their contracts with ADSL ISPs that the ISPs will not deal with any other comms company? If that were the case, few ISPs would be large enough to challenge BT.


The truth is that we don't know.

As it happens, I agree with Chris T. BT was a monopoly created with taxpayer's money. Their network was built with our money. I'll admit a lot of the "back end" stuff in the network (exchanges, trunk links etc) has been upgraded with private money, but most of the actual copper wiring into people's homes and business was done with taxpayer's money.

BT are still in a dominant position today. It's right that the government forces them to open their network (as people will tell you, they need to be forced).

NTL & Telewest are different. Yes, they are huge. However, their networks always were and still are privately funded. It should be up to them what they do with them.

[SMHarman]

It's done on the cable networks in the US
http://www.timewarnercable.com/centr...t/default.html
RoadRunner (own brand)
Earthlink and LocalNet

Also to whet your appetites have a look at this section.
http://www.timewarnercable.com/centr...cable/dvr.html

Originally Posted by scastle

NTL & Telewest are different. Yes, they are huge. However, their networks always were and still are privately funded. It should be up to them what they do with them.

I strongly disagree. If the world was left to market forces we'd be up the swannee; that's why Governments need to reign in market 'superpowers' and prevent them abusing their market position. If NTL and Telewest want to merge, opening their combined network to rivals might well be the price they have to, and should, pay. I'm sure Morrisson's would have loved to have kept all (or at least many) of the stores they acquired when they bought Safeway but the Competition Commission decided this would give them too much market power (alebeit in certain towns/regions). The same applies to NTl-Telewest

[etccarmageddon]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

NTL/Telewest may not be a monopoly but it would be part of a duopoly which could be said by some to be working against the public interest.

there will be a monopoly in places where ADSL isnt possible due to the distance from the exchange.

there will also be a monopoly in places where users need higher speeds but their ADSL line will only allow 512. it may be a necessity in the future to have a top speed line in order to enjoy the internet properly - in this case NTL/TW would have a monopoly on the ability to provide this if/where ADSL cant.

I cant see any of this working against the public interest though unless NTL/TW offer better deals to people who are in areas where ADSL can complete and offer crap deals where they know ADSL cant compete.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by andyl

I'm sure Morrisson's would have loved to have kept all (or at least many) of the stores they acquired when they bought Safeway but the Competition Commission decided this would give them too much market power (alebeit in certain towns/regions). The same applies to NTl-Telewest

But NTL or TW already have a monopoly on cable to the home in those towns / regions. The country is not big enough to support two cable operators and as a result there is a massive duplication in cost base, this hinders cable development (less money) and marketing (more difficult to target).

Originally Posted by SMHarman

But NTL or TW already have a monopoly on cable to the home in those towns / regions. The country is not big enough to support two cable operators and as a result there is a massive duplication in cost base, this hinders cable development (less money) and marketing (more difficult to target).

The country may not be big enough to support two or more cable companies who are offering both infrastructure and services but opening up the network to competition can only spur what to my mind has been a fairly complacent company (NTL - can't vouch for TW's track record). NTL would still have a monopoly on infrastructure but access to that infrastructure could be fairly regulated, so NTL secure access revenues, to the benefit of consumers. The fact that NTL (or TW, depending on where you live) has a monopoly already is, for me, a key part of the problem. For example, it is not currently easy to switch service providers without say, reinstalling a BT line. If the NTL network was open to competition, I could switch in a trice which might mean they decide to look after me better, knowing they haven't got the hassle factor as a comfort zone.

[Pierre]

The difference here is, and I apologise if it has already been pointed out. But BT's Network - up until the point of privitisation was paid for by you and me (tax payer). NTL/TW have had to pay for their own network - hence the massive debt. BT were given a monoploy - therefore it is just that they should open up their network. This whole issue, with the merger of NTL and TW will sort itself out with NTL/TW in competition with BT to "sell" their networks to 3rd party carriers. Prices will come down for all.

[Chrysalis]

regardless of how you think ntl is a kind of monopoly, sky/bt isnt an option for some people and that leaves them with exactly ??? 1 choice for phone/tv and 2 for internet (aol/ntl).

[Chris W]

and if cable is not available in an area how many choices does that leave people for receiving sports and movie channels? sky... or.... sky...

oh and please name an area where bt phone lines aren't available because i am sure there aren't many

i am not sure what point you are trying to make with this post.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

regardless of how you think ntl is a kind of monopoly, sky/bt isnt an option for some people and that leaves them with exactly ??? 1 choice for phone/tv and 2 for internet (aol/ntl).

Well, a large chunk of the population have access to Freeview. Also, bear in mind that Sky covers the whole country. The only people who cannot receive it are those with line-of-sight problems. NTL does not cover the whole country, and hasn't cabled large chunks of the areas it does cover.

I believe it is a legal requirement that BT makes a line available to any house that requests it (no matter what problems this will cause).

BT are gradually making ADSL available to most of the country.

Also, if they are willing to pay (through the noise admittedly), most people can get access to Satellite Broadband.

So, most people have access to at least 3 choices in each category (more with all
the ADSL providers).

So, NTL are hardly a monopoly. Not even a Duopoly..

[Chrysalis]

yeah sorry phone and tv I am wrong but if you want broadband and cant have adsl for whatever reason what is your choice of competitors?

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by monkeybreath

and if cable is not available in an area how many choices does that leave people for receiving sports and movie channels? sky... or.... sky...

oh and please name an area where bt phone lines aren't available because i am sure there aren't many

i am not sure what point you are trying to make with this post.

The answer is Hull, the USO is Kingston Comms there.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media_office...ws/nr_20050110

Universal Service regulation ensures that basic fixed line telecoms services are available to all UK consumers at an affordable price.

Under sections 66 and 67 of the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom requires BT and Kingston Communications to provide a range of universal services including:

• Public call boxes;
• Low cost schemes to help those on low incomes;
• Telephone lines capable of delivering dial up internet access;
• Special services for people with disabilities.

Ofcom's consultation seeks views on proposals which are designed to ensure that existing universal services requirements keep pace with developments in technology and with changes to consumers' needs.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

yeah sorry phone and tv I am wrong but if you want broadband and cant have adsl for whatever reason what is your choice of competitors?

At some point in the future OFCOM is likely to make ADSL a USO item, I'm sure dial up internet was not on the original list.

[andrew_wallasey]

I disagree with them being FORCED to open their network to competitors. I mean the cable network was built at a cost which was incured by Nynex, etc etc etc. It was not handed to them on a plate like the BT network was when it was privatised.