[Merged] NTL/TW To Open Networks?

[Neil]

Originally Posted by 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.

Do you think that the BT network being opened up was a good thing?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Neil

Do you think that the BT network being opened up was a good thing?

I don't think anyone would dispute that it was. We are saying that BT's network was largely funded by the public, so, should be opened up to competitors. NTL's network was entirely funded privately so they should be allowed to do what they want with it.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Neil

Do you think that the BT network being opened up was a good thing?

Yes, but that is irrelevant.

BT enjoyed making billions throughout the 80's and early 90's on the the back of inheriting a free network and through having no competition whatsoever (except Mercury)

If Ofcom want ntl/ TW to open up their networks then Ofcom can give several billion pounds to each company to wipe out the massive debt they incurred because of building them.

That would be fair.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Yes, but that is irrelevant.

BT enjoyed making billions throughout the 80's and early 90's on the the back of inheriting a free network and through having no competition whatsoever (except Mercury)

If Ofcom want ntl/ TW to open up their networks then Ofcom can give several billion pounds to each company to wipe out the massive debt they incurred because of building them.

That would be fair.

I wouldn't disagree, I just wondered whether the poster felt that consumers benefitted from the opening of the BT network.

[andrew_wallasey]

Of course I feel the consumers benefit from BTs networking being opened and im not saying the consumers would not benefit if the cable network was opened up. The fact is though it is completely unfair to expect cable network to open up.

[etccarmageddon]

should the cable networks be forced by official regulation to offer wholesale products to ISP's similar to BT's IPstream at a regulated wholesale price?

ie. similar to what NTL currently do with AOL but forced by regulation to be available as a wholesale product to ISPs.

[Chrysalis]

Well it could prove more profitable if NTL only handled the wholesale side, no customer support to consumers for a start. Perhaps NTL could charge a sort of signup fee to isp's that would help offset the cost of building the network, but I strongly believe consumer's interests should always come first.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Well it could prove more profitable if NTL only handled the wholesale side, no customer support to consumers for a start. Perhaps NTL could charge a sort of signup fee to isp's that would help offset the cost of building the network, but I strongly believe consumer's interests should always come first.

Hmmmm, so to get this straight ntl are going to provide their network for other ISP's to provide service over. the only flaw to making money this way instead of having their own direct custmers is announcing they are getting rid of network technicians this week instead of customer support people.

Now would not be the right time to sell services to a third party on an already poorly maintained HFC network, and one that can only get worse as they make redundant some of the understaffed people who are supposed to be keeping it in tip top condition!

PS: My sarcasm is directed at ntl management, not you Chrysalis.

[andrew_wallasey]

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

should the cable networks be forced by official regulation to offer wholesale products to ISP's similar to BT's IPstream at a regulated wholesale price?

ie. similar to what NTL currently do with AOL but forced by regulation to be available as a wholesale product to ISPs.

IMO simple answer no.
____________

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Well it could prove more profitable if NTL only handled the wholesale side, no customer support to consumers for a start. Perhaps NTL could charge a sort of signup fee to isp's that would help offset the cost of building the network, but I strongly believe consumer's interests should always come first.

I too thick the consumer's interests are important but you have to look at it from ntls point of view.

[SLM]

If ntl/tw are made to share there network that they have paid for it will be like you staying in 1 hotel and paying a cheaper 1 the money eg

staying in the hilton and paying travel lodge.

If you all know what I mean.

Its all crazzzzzzzzzzzzzzy

Originally Posted by andrew_wallasey

Of course I feel the consumers benefit from BTs networking being opened and im not saying the consumers would not benefit if the cable network was opened up. The fact is though it is completely unfair to expect cable network to open up.

Not if ownership creates an overly dominant position which acts against consumer interest. This is why industries are regulated, although not terribly effectively in some cases. If they're not then those with the deepest pockets, not necessarily the greatest products, service or marketing nous, will almost inevitably succeed.

NTL can choose not to merge with Telewest and not open up its network, or it can merge with Telewest, enjoy the benefits that brings but may need then, if reports are to be believed, be made to concede access to other providers (for which they will make charge) as a condition of the deal. Their choice.