BT Open Up Ducting - Look To Use Virgin's

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by *sloman*

I hope VM do do this and all the other providers. My work is still fed by Cable & Wireless (i thought they were merged with NTL back in the day, obviously not) we have 2xGigabit lines and various other fibre VPN to other sites/companies/services etc... so the infrastructure is already there in most cities.

ntl purchased Cable and Wireless Consumer Co, the cable network. C+W's business assets stayed with them.

It's somewhat ironic that C+W are a major supplier of VM's offnet product now

[sollp]

BT just want duct space, at the moment this isn't about opening up the Network for all and sundry.

They realise that the cost to upgrade there network would be massive as alot of the network isn't in ductwork apart from the obvious overhead lines alot of BT cables are just layed into the pavement, there might be ducting to a joint then from that to the customer it's just layed just under the tarmac. So to get all this sorted would cost a fortune hence the move at forcing VM into this. All the,"Open the network" fan boys are straight onto this one when it's not about that.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

BT have, since privatisation, spent tens of billions on broadband networks, core network upgrades, etc and continue to do so while being required to open up these new networks to competitors. By the above argument they should only be required to open up what was there before privatisation. It's not an argument that works and cable has had their own monopoly quite long enough now.

Indeed but that is all cable and equipment upgrades, which although expensive is nothing compared to the construction cost of excavating duct networks. And although much money has been spent on the BT 21cn and alike, the Open Reach side of things is relatively unchanged. The Access Ducts (apart form new build ones of course on new developments) Poles, cabinets, and twisted pairs - in most of the country, are still the ones that were put there pre-privatisation all the time ago.

The whole point of this is to get at access network ducting regardless of what it's meant for sollp. BT have minimal interest in VM's core network ducting.

It's debatable how much life there is left in VM's CATV network. In some areas it's a steaming pile of poop that hasn't been getting upgrades just analogue switch off and already cable operators are looking at migration strategies to FTTP and have for a while.

Opening up VMs access networks would only make sense if there was parity. If VM was to open up their network to BT, BT could pull in FTTH to those premises.

If BT was to offer a similar solution to VM, so that off-net VM could use the BT Access Network to supply FTTH then you could consider it, but you can't because I mention earlier the BT Access Network is, in most of the country, the same as it was in the 60's and 70's and is pants.

The product offered by VM on-net is superior to BT. When VM utilises BTs network off-net it is forced to offer a lesser service.

Therefore, what would be the benefit of VM being forced to open up it's only advantage?

If, as you say, the VM HFC network is on it's arse, that would mean they may need to again invest money on an alternative technology, going forward. Ditching the last leg of Copper and delivering all services through FTTH.

[Ignitionnet]

As noted previously the whole point of BT's statement is that they are allowing access to their ducts.

The costs or otherwise of building BT's network aren't relevant to the discussion. BT's network, ducts, poles and pairs included, was bought and paid for by the private sector. The investment in 21CN and exchange digitalisation was actually more expensive than the entire cost of the company 21CN alone going to some 10 figures.

A figure for full FTTP build assuming a new civils build with the exemption of being able to use BT's ducts which you appear to consider so pants would appear to disagree with your views on this somewhat. That ntl and Telewest massively overpaid for their cable assets when they were greedily eating up the UK cable market doesn't mean that the networks themselves were as expensive to build as their prices may suggest. For the price ntl paid for ex-CWC CoCo for example, 8.2bn which with inflation would be over 9 now, it's believed over half of the population of the UK, more than the total coverage of VM, could have a full FTTP build using only BT ducting as far as existing build goes.



Has a full audit been done of the VM access ducting? Can you say with any confidence what condition it is in compared with the BT ducting? It may be 20 years newer doesn't mean that there's magically more capacity there.

Your argument is certainly one VM may present, it's not one I'd for a moment believe. Ofcom are well aware of the state of the BT ducting Openreach have been doing audits of it for a while in preparation for NGA, are VM aware of which access ducts, not core, access, are near capacity or have other issues that would preclude their use by competitors?

I understood it was also an excuse, and I'll call it that without a trace of hesitation, that VM are using a large proportion of their access network duct space for their own purposes so there wouldn't be much left to sell anyway without extensive work on VM's part.

Can't have it both ways, either it's this immeasurably superior ducting with loads of space compared to BT's network or it's full and wouldn't be economic to sell.

Which is it going to be?

[monkey2468]

Most VM ducts are already rammed.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

As noted previously the whole point of BT's statement is that they are allowing access to their ducts.

Yes, that's very generous of BT. What % of BT Open Reach ducts actually go the home?

As mentioned the vast majority of BTs Access Network is still overhead. Series of poles fed by large count twisted pair copper cables.

The costs or otherwise of building BT's network aren't relevant to the discussion. BT's network, ducts, poles and pairs included, was bought and paid for by the private sector.

Yes, well the company was floated so yes you are correct in a manner of speaking, but the private sector never made the initial investment. The Public made the initial investment and took the resultant hit for any subsequent depreciation. Floating a formally public company on the stock market is not the same as say NTL buying out CWC. It's not an apples v apples comparison.

A figure for full FTTP build assuming a new civils build with the exemption of being able to use BT's ducts which you appear to consider so pants would appear to disagree with your views on this somewhat.

what figure?

That ntl and Telewest massively overpaid for their cable assets when they were greedily eating up the UK cable market doesn't mean that the networks themselves were as expensive to build as their prices may suggest.

NTL/Telewest paid what the market value for how those assets were valued at the time, the telecoms crash and the quick depreciation of new technology makes the deals look unattractive in hindsight, however if they had not been bought by NTL or Telewest they would have been bought by somebody else. The fact that NTL and Telewest survived is proof that the decision to acquire those companies was the right one.

For the price ntl paid for ex-CWC CoCo for example, 8.2bn which with inflation would be over 9 now, it's believed over a third of the population of the UK, more than the total coverage of ntl including CWC CoCo, could have a full FTTP build using only BT ducting as far as existing build goes.

I don't see the point of the comparison. What are you suggesting? that BT should be given £8.2b? that we would have been better off without cable networks and that we should have stuck to one incumbent supplier and instead of all that wasted money it may have found it way to BT to improve their network?

Has a full audit been done of the VM access ducting? Can you say with any confidence what condition it is in compared with the BT ducting? It may be 20 years newer doesn't mean that there's magically more capacity there.

True, but my point is that at least I know that all properties serviced by VM have an access point direct into the U/G access network. BT doesn't

Can't have it both ways, either it's this immeasurably superior ducting with loads of space compared to BT's network or it's full and wouldn't be economic to sell.

Which is it going to be?

Superior ducting, but not always with lots of space, but with an access point to the boundary of all serviced properties, which may be needed for future expansion so uneconmical to sell

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Yes, that's very generous of BT. What % of BT Open Reach ducts actually go the home?

Given you appear very familiar with the BT network given your comment...

As mentioned the vast majority of BTs Access Network is still overhead. Series of poles fed by large count twisted pair copper cables.

You tell me?

Yes, well the company was floated so yes you are correct in a manner of speaking, but the private sector never made the initial investment. The Public made the initial investment and took the resultant hit for any subsequent depreciation. Floating a formally public company on the stock market is not the same as say NTL buying out CWC. It's not an apples v apples comparison.

The private sector took on all liabilities though, of which there were plenty. I am not comparing it to ntl buying out CWC.

what figure?

See the chart. Failing that its' source document.

Noteworthy is that no figures for using VM's duct network, past node level, are offered and the default figures assume no access to it at all.

NTL/Telewest paid what the market value for how those assets were valued at the time, the telecoms crash and the quick depreciation of new technology makes the deals look unattractive in hindsight, however if they had not been bought by NTL or Telewest they would have been bought by somebody else. The fact that NTL and Telewest survived is proof that the decision to acquire those companies was the right one.

On what planet is going through bankruptcy protection and debt for equity swap, almost entirely wiping out previous shareholders in favour of holders of debt accumulated with those purchases any kind of proof that making those acquisitions was the right decision? More a symptom of the mass hysteria at the time.

I don't see the point of the comparison. What are you suggesting? that BT should be given £8.2b? that we would have been better off without cable networks and that we should have stuck to one incumbent supplier and instead of all that wasted money it may have found it way to BT to improve their network?

Nope I'm merely suggesting that ntl grew too large too quickly, Telewest did exactly the same thing, and none of these reflected the actual costs of construction of the networks they purchased.

True, but my point is that at least I know that all properties serviced by VM have an access point direct into the U/G access network. BT doesn't

Yep, and VM's access ducting covers what % of the country? Their core ducting which most wouldn't be that interested in anyway covers what and how much of this coverage is replicated by BT ducting.

Are you really suggesting that VM would have less to gain from access to BT's ducting in areas where they have zero presence than BT would having access to ducting in areas where they already have a presence?

Superior ducting, but not always with lots of space, but with an access point to the boundary of all serviced properties, which may be needed for future expansion so uneconmical to sell

It would strike me as odd calling it 'superior ducting' for third parties to have access to if there's no practical use for this 'superior ducting' to third parties.

[on in an hour!]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

The whole point of this is to get at access network ducting regardless of what it's meant for sollp. BT have minimal interest in VM's core network ducting.

It's debatable how much life there is left in VM's CATV network. In some areas it's a steaming pile of poop that hasn't been getting upgrades just analogue switch off and already cable operators are looking at migration strategies to FTTP and have for a while.

http://www.aurora.com/site/applications.an?li=a-fd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Frequency_over_Glass

FYI,
the analogue switch off/overbuild areas are now the best to work on from a service/network point of view.all the cabinets had a complete audit and all non-servicing drops were pulled out thereby freeing up acres of space,they also installed 2 x toner taps thereby eliminating the need to split single feed taps into multi feed by putting splitters on.

by all accounts these areas will now be monitored and a comparison made between faults raised on customers that related to issues in the cabs before the audits/upgrade and how they perform afterwards.if its obvious that the fault rate has dropped dramatically (because of the extensive audit) then they are looking to roll it out as a norm.

i think the worst performing cabinets (there is extensive data to confirm which these are) will be hit first,then it will be done on an 'as reported' basis,i.e. techs reporting to the team the cabinets on 'their patch' that give them,as individuals,the greatest headaches.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by on in an hour!

FYI,
the analogue switch off/overbuild areas are now the best to work on from a service/network point of view.all the cabinets had a complete audit and all non-servicing drops were pulled out thereby freeing up acres of space,they also installed 2 x toner taps thereby eliminating the need to split single feed taps into multi feed by putting splitters on.

by all accounts these areas will now be monitored and a comparison made between faults raised on customers that related to issues in the cabs before the audits/upgrade and how they perform afterwards.if its obvious that the fault rate has dropped dramatically (because of the extensive audit) then they are looking to roll it out as a norm.

i think the worst performing cabinets (there is extensive data to confirm which these are) will be hit first,then it will be done on an 'as reported' basis,i.e. techs reporting to the team the cabinets on 'their patch' that give them,as individuals,the greatest headaches.

I am aware that there was overbuild in the North East. I'm aware that analogue switch off helps with CPD. It's great that this extra work is happening in overbuilt areas though it should be asked how this helps people on networks that aren't overbuilt and are running on 20 year old actives and pegged at 550/30?

A few of those areas, especially on the ex-Telewest side.

[4motions]

Personally I don't think VM should open what is rightly theirs!

Who cares if BT open their ducting???

I know BT are currently in the process of implementing this new network, which in itself is a joke. They get the power cables and trenches for new cabinets put in but don't have enough cabinets so end up filling in the trench again..... well planned!

End of my road is becoming Cabinet Hell.....currently old BT cabinet, VM Cabinet and now another 2 BT cabinets being stuck in, and I don't exactly live in a built up area.

[Ignitionnet]

If you object so strongly to having the required infrastructure for next generation services present please do complain to your local council to have said cabinets removed. I'm sure the 50% of the UK that doesn't have any of that available will be happy to take it off your hands. As it is my heart bleeds for you having cable and fibre to cabinet available.

A lot of people care if BT open their ducting, it presents opportunities. If you don't care that's your prerogative, those less well served than you who stand to benefit from other operators using the ducting to deploy services most certainly do care.

Out of interest how do you know that they ran out of cabinets? The most cabinets I've seen placed together by the FTTC project is two, which is enough for 576 lines. Trenches are required from these cabinets to the previous BT cabinet.

BT certainly haven't run out of the FTTC cabinets they've thousands of them.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

The private sector took on all liabilities though, of which there were plenty. I am not comparing it to ntl buying out CWC.

But you we're implying that the cost to the private sector of floating BT was comparable to the cost of constructing the UK cable network, which it plainly isn't.

On what planet is going through bankruptcy protection and debt for equity swap, almost entirely wiping out previous shareholders in favour of holders of debt accumulated with those purchases any kind of proof that making those acquisitions was the right decision? More a symptom of the mass hysteria at the time.

The point was, that if it wasn't NTL and Telewest that ultimately emerged, it would have been somebody else. The market drove the aquisition process, it's what the market wanted. The process would have happened regardless. The fact the market (i.e. shareholders) also lost out is a sad fact of business. NTL and Telewest emerged and therefore they were ultimately correct in leading the consolidation.

Yep, and VM's access ducting covers what % of the country? Their core ducting which most wouldn't be that interested in anyway covers what and how much of this coverage is replicated by BT ducting.

Were not talking Core Ducting. We're talking Access Ducting, from the exchange or cab to the actual premises, so let's keep to that shall we.

I don't have the figures, but I think I can say with confidence that over the same footprint, VM will have more access network duct to the premises than BT. Given that VM has access to 50% of the country and given that they are all in major high density populated areas already I don't what a swap agreement has to offer VM.

Are you really suggesting that VM would have less to gain from access to BT's ducting in areas where they have zero presence than BT would having access to ducting in areas where they already have a presence?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Noteworthy is that no figures for using VM's duct network, past node level, are offered and the default figures assume no access to it at all.

Well you'll have to ask the Broadband Strakeholders Group that comissioned the report. This report is based only on BT infrastructure. As they plainly state in the Exec Summary:"In the base case, only existing BT infrastructure is assumed to be available for re-use" So VM was not even in the scope of the report.

VM does get a mention however in a few paragraphs.

It is an interesting report which I beleive backs up my opinion. BT want to offer 100mps to compete with VM. Even BT's latest FTTC roll out will only get them around 40mps.

BT need FTTH in order to get their 100mps and the only way they can do this is to get a cable through a duct to the premises.

As I say, the vast majority of their connections to the customers are aerial copper fed by a pole. Even the report states to provide fibre aerially BT would.

Another approach to cost reduction is to increase the use of aerial fibre where existing ducts are not available. This technique could be used in areas where it is possible to install new telegraph poles – though we believe such opportunities may be limited. A sensitivity where the use of aerial fibre is increased (primarily in rural areas) has been quantified. This sensitivity is detailed in Section 4.2.5, which shows that, if more aerial fibre could be deployed, the costs of deploying FTTH could fall by around GBP5 billion. However, this is not additive with the potential savings from using other duct networks, and may be difficult to achieve due to difficulties in installing new telegraph poles.

Also to further prove the premise.

Access to alternative infrastructure (from Virgin Media and utility networks) has the potential to significantly reduce deployment costs relative to the base case – by up to GBP800 million (16%) for FTTC/VDSL and GBP5.7 billion (23%) for FTTH/GPON under the base case.

In short using VM Access Ducts would reduce BT FTTH rollout by £5.7Billion.

There nothing in the report in regards to what VM would get out of such a reciprocal deal, certainly not as much a BT, because as stated in the paragraph further up it states that to supply FTTH aerially new poles would have to be erected.

Is very evident that the benefits around opening up access network duct is heavilly weighted in BT's favour.














It would strike me as odd calling it 'superior ducting' for third parties to have access to if there's no practical use for this 'superior ducting' to third parties.[/QUOTE]

[Ignitionnet]

Won't do inline quoting.

I draw your attention to your quote about how much money BT save with access to VM's network, it specifically mentions access to utility network ducts, not just Virgin Media ducting. There is nothing indicating that access to VM ducting alone would reduce costs by 5.7bn especially given that serving VM's cabled areas with FTTP would cost 8-10bn without it.

The base case featured BT ducting only however as you have noticed Virgin Media and other utility ducting was discussed later so it'd appear you contradicted yourself.

Your comment re: more ducting in the footprint is accurate, however VM don't have the same footprint as BT, BT cover large swathes of the country that VM didn't consider economical to build in.

Anyway sadly back at work so don't have time to do a full analysis but good discussing the matter with you as always Pierre, thanks.

[4motions]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

If you object so strongly to having the required infrastructure for next generation services present please do complain to your local council to have said cabinets removed. I'm sure the 50% of the UK that doesn't have any of that available will be happy to take it off your hands. As it is my heart bleeds for you having cable and fibre to cabinet available.

A lot of people care if BT open their ducting, it presents opportunities. If you don't care that's your prerogative, those less well served than you who stand to benefit from other operators using the ducting to deploy services most certainly do care.

Out of interest how do you know that they ran out of cabinets? The most cabinets I've seen placed together by the FTTC project is two, which is enough for 576 lines. Trenches are required from these cabinets to the previous BT cabinet.

BT certainly haven't run out of the FTTC cabinets they've thousands of them.

I think you might have taken what I am saying the wrong way. I personally don't know why VM should have to open their ducting just because BT have. The cable network is not for the public/ government to decide. The cable network is VM's plus point against the old BT networks.

I also do not see why the new network for BT is being implemented here:
Its not being funded by the DRD due to this area having a cable infrastructure which more than 70% of people in this area are on. So what possible gain is their for BT to offer their service? Im close to my local exchange (less than a mile) and both DSL and ADSL offer good speeds for customers, once again, what is the new network going to bring to those people around here who simply want to look up youtube or google.

I know for a fact BT ran out of cabinets, a good friend works for my local electric board and he supplies the cabinets, thats why the trenches where dug out, all for a new supply. Then BT had to fill in the holes again because they didnt have enough cabinets.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Pierre

The product offered by VM on-net is superior to BT. When VM utilises BTs network off-net it is forced to offer a lesser service.

Therefore, what would be the benefit of VM being forced to open up it's only advantage?

If, as you say, the VM HFC network is on it's arse, that would mean they may need to again invest money on an alternative technology, going forward. Ditching the last leg of Copper and delivering all services through FTTH.

I agree with most of what you say, but I believe your quote should have said 'The technology offered by VM on-net is superior to BT, and when working correctly has superior performance'

Whilst many customers of both companies would agree that Virgins technology is more advanced than BT, what really matters to the customer is the reliability of the service.

My GF as an example moved from Virgin to BT because the Virgin internet service was so unreliable, despite the problem being at the cabinet (yes I checked myself) all they did was post her a new splitter and some cables. This was followed up by a technician, (loose use of the term) and least said the better.

Hardly the sort of service one would expect.