[Merged] NTL/TW To Open Networks?

Interesting article in The Guardian today (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/s...387377,00.html) suggests a merged NTL/Telewest may be forced to open up its cable networks to rival companies wishing to offer broadband etc. I quote: "Rivals of NTL and Telewest are pushing for conditions to be attached to any merger of the two businesses that would force the cable companies to open their network to other telecoms operators.

With both companies having completed their financial restructurings, investment bankers expect them to merge this year. While refusing to comment directly on the possibility of creating a single British cable television operator, executives from both companies are mindful of the potential benefits of a deal.

There is a growing desire among telecoms companies for NTL and Telewest, whose fibre-optic cables reach more than 13 million UK homes, to open up their networks so other companies can provide services such as broadband internet access"

This would be a welcome move methinks!

Andy

I thought the NTL network was already used by AOL?

[Graham F]

it is

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

I thought the NTL network was already used by AOL?

NTL has come to an arrangement with AOL that allows AOL to re-brand and re-sell some NTL bandwidth for broadband internet. What is being discussed here is the possibility of fully opening the cable network to third parties in the way that BT's network is, so you can take services from a different phone company, for example.

Personally I see no reason why NTL should do this. BT is sitting on a natonwide network that was formerly State owned (i.e., built with our taxes), so it's too damn right they should not be able to abuse the monopoly position we gave them by denying us access to other services via that network. NTL and Telewest networks, on the other hand, are the product of private investment and those who put up the money for it should be allowed to reap the benefits of their investment (assuming their shares are still worth anything, thanks to that rather ill-advised bout of rapid expansion both cablecos went on in the late 90s).

I would have liked to have had a choice of provider down my NTL phone line, of course, but I fully accept the reasons why that would not be fair!

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

I thought the NTL network was already used by AOL?

true. the very next paragraph of that Guardian story reads: "AOL, the internet service provider (ISP), has a deal with both companies to use their lines for narrowband internet access but so far has only managed to secure a deal for broadband access with NTL. In contrast, there are several hundred ISPs using BT's lines, which reach all the country's 25 million households, to provide broadband access."

What excites me about this as an NTL customer is that wider access to the NTL/Telewest networks should see the disappearance of that annoying "BT Line Required" every time I read an enticing looking broadband ad. Making switching provider easier anbd increasing competition might also help drive up service standards so, for example, a reliable email service is regarded as a central feature not a fringe benefit of a broadband package.

Originally Posted by Chris T

Personally I see no reason why NTL should do this. BT is sitting on a natonwide network that was formerly State owned (i.e., built with our taxes), so it's too damn right they should not be able to abuse the monopoly position we gave them by denying us access to other services via that network. NTL and Telewest networks, on the other hand, are the product of private investment and those who put up the money for it should be allowed to reap the benefits of their investment (assuming their shares are still worth anything, thanks to that rather ill-advised bout of rapid expansion both cablecos went on in the late 90s).

I would have liked to have had a choice of provider down my NTL phone line, of course, but I fully accept the reasons why that would not be fair!

Chris, with respect I disagree. The origins of a monopoly are largely an irrelevance and many would argue that taxpayers were shortchanged by the BT privatisation anyway. If a hugely dominant player is allowed to emerge and operate untethered, customers, who ultimately pay those shareholder dividends, will suffer. By giving access to the network - for which a merged NTL/Telewest would no doubt reap access fees - there will be greater choice and the possibility of both better value and service. That may include, for example, the dropping of the requirement to take an NTL phone line as part of the package!

Andy

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by andyl

What excites me about this as an NTL customer is that wider access to the NTL/Telewest networks should see the disappearance of that annoying "BT Line Required" every time I read an enticing looking broadband ad. Making switching provider easier anbd increasing competition might also help drive up service standards so, for example, a reliable email service is regarded as a central feature not a fringe benefit of a broadband package.

But you still wouldn't be able to get ADSL if you were not going to use a BT line. ADSL is dependent upon having POTS (plain old telephone service) not cable.

Originally Posted by Gareth

But you still wouldn't be able to get ADSL if you were not going to use a BT line. ADSL is dependent upon having POTS (plain old telephone service) not cable.

Gareth, sorry I don't really understand. Would I want/need ADSL if I can get broadband cable through a choicxe of providers using the NTL/Telewest or are you saying that even if NTL/Telewest opened up its networks, Wanadoo, BlueYonder, BoltBlue etc couldn't offer broadband services to me through it?

Originally Posted by andyl

Chris, with respect I disagree. The origins of a monopoly are largely an irrelevance and many would argue that taxpayers were shortchanged by the BT privatisation anyway. If a hugely dominant player is allowed to emerge and operate untethered, customers, who ultimately pay those shareholder dividends, will suffer. By giving access to the network - for which a merged NTL/Telewest would no doubt reap access fees - there will be greater choice and the possibility of both better value and service. That may include, for example, the dropping of the requirement to take an NTL phone line as part of the package!

Andy

I don't think the origins of BT's position are in any way irrelevant. I completely agree that taxpayers were shortchanged by the privatisation (which is why Brown tried to claw some of it back shortly after Labour won power in 1997 - remember the one-off 'Windfall Tax' on privatised utilities?), but this only serves to illustrate my point. Taxpayers were shortchanged, because it was taxpayers that built the BT network. Now BT owns the network that we built, it is fair and equitable that we should force BT, by means of statute and regulation, to give us some say over how we use the network - namely by allowing us to use a BT line to access third party telephone and data services.

NTL, on the other hand, is a completely different proposition. For a start it is not a monopoly, and can never be. It may become the only cable TV company, but it is not a monopoly TV provider as it already plays second fiddle to Sky and will face increasing competition from Freeview/Top-Up TV. It may be the second-biggest fixed-line telephone network in the country, but it plays second fiddle to BT there, and let's not forget the small but growing number of people who have no fixed line at all. They therefore also face competition from the mobile companies.

Yes, customers suffer when a hugely dominant player develops, but NTL does not fit this description and it never will. If you don't like their TV service, get Sky. If you don't like their telephone service, get a BT line (whose rental is a mere £1 a month more expensive) and then take your pick of service providers. Or ditch fixed-line altogether and use a mobile. Your customer choice is in no way compromised by the perfectly fair and reasonable desire of a private company to protect its investment and earn a return on it.

[poolking]

Originally Posted by andyl

Chris, with respect I disagree. The origins of a monopoly are largely an irrelevance and many would argue that taxpayers were shortchanged by the BT privatisation anyway. If a hugely dominant player is allowed to emerge and operate untethered, customers, who ultimately pay those shareholder dividends, will suffer. By giving access to the network - for which a merged NTL/Telewest would no doubt reap access fees - there will be greater choice and the possibility of both better value and service. That may include, for example, the dropping of the requirement to take an NTL phone line as part of the package!

Andy

At the moment I don't think NTL's network could take anymore third party vendors on their network, get the network in order for NTL direct customers first then open it up.

[rdhw]

Originally Posted by andyl

Would I want/need ADSL if I can get broadband cable through a choice of providers using the NTL/Telewest or are you saying that even if NTL/Telewest opened up its networks, Wanadoo, BlueYonder, BoltBlue etc couldn't offer broadband services to me through it?

You referred earlier to the restriction "BT line required". ADSL providers make this restriction because they need a copper-only-all-the-way-to-the-exchange telephone line on which to piggy-back the ADSL broadband. NTL telephone lines do not have copper all the way to the exchange: they are multiplexed onto fibre in a street cabinet, so NTL telephone lines cannot support ADSL broadband. So an ADSL broadband ISP cannot provide service over NTL telephone lines even if the NTL telephone network was opened up to competition. Alternate cable broadband suppliers might be interested in using NTL's cable-broadband infrastructure to deliver services, rather like AOL does now, but I doubt that you will see many of the present ADSL specialist ISPs wanting to do that. So you are likely to see the stipulation "BT line required" for some time to come.

[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.

Originally Posted by Chris T

I don't think the origins of BT's position are in any way irrelevant. I completely agree that taxpayers were shortchanged by the privatisation (which is why Brown tried to claw some of it back shortly after Labour won power in 1997 - remember the one-off 'Windfall Tax' on privatised utilities?), but this only serves to illustrate my point. Taxpayers were shortchanged, because it was taxpayers that built the BT network. Now BT owns the network that we built, it is fair and equitable that we should force BT, by means of statute and regulation, to give us some say over how we use the network - namely by allowing us to use a BT line to access third party telephone and data services.

NTL, on the other hand, is a completely different proposition. For a start it is not a monopoly, and can never be. It may become the only cable TV company, but it is not a monopoly TV provider as it already plays second fiddle to Sky and will face increasing competition from Freeview/Top-Up TV. It may be the second-biggest fixed-line telephone network in the country, but it plays second fiddle to BT there, and let's not forget the small but growing number of people who have no fixed line at all. They therefore also face competition from the mobile companies.

Yes, customers suffer when a hugely dominant player develops, but NTL does not fit this description and it never will. If you don't like their TV service, get Sky. If you don't like their telephone service, get a BT line (whose rental is a mere £1 a month more expensive) and then take your pick of service providers. Or ditch fixed-line altogether and use a mobile. Your customer choice is in no way compromised by the perfectly fair and reasonable desire of a private company to protect its investment and earn a return on it.

Chris, I see your logic but without doubt a merged NTL/Telewest will be a major market force that could operate to the detriment of competition. It is only right that it be tightly regulated and that smaller players are allowed access, for a fee, to encourage competition. Tesco has achieved its dominant market position through investment, but many would argue that this is now to the detriment of the market. They're now expanding into the convenience sector and driving other businesses out (with dubious business tactics which their clout - turnover equivalent to the world's 74th largest economy - enables) and staff and suppliers are among those now suffering, with customers actually facing less choice as they progress. That is the danger that poor regulation (the Govt bottled out of proper intervention) of any business, regardless of origin, presents.

And customer choice is restricted if rival broadband operators can only provide services via the BT network, not least because this encourages bundling of services. If I wasn't bundled with NTL I would have ditched them a while ago because untangling the bundle is a hassle. They know this, that's why they do it.

Incidentally Freeserve (as was) was supposed to have agreed an access agreement with NTL in 2002 - anyone any idea what happened there? And if they have an agreement with AOL and had planned to with Freeserve, presumably this idea doesn't frighten them too much anyway (the potential stumbling block no doubt being the level of access fees).

[ian@huth]

There are two ways that an ISP can supply ADSL, either using a BT wholesale service or by Local Loop Unbundling. On cable it is rather different I would presume as the technologies are so different and the only method for other ISPs to use NTL cable is the same way that AOL do it.

However, would it be possible for other ISPs to use LLU at nodal cabinet sites on cable using their own fibre to connect to their own infrastructure? Could this method enable other ISPs to supply VDSL using the NTL last mile twisted copper pair?

[ian@huth]

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.