Where Now For UK Cable?

[James Henry]

Originally Posted by jtwn

In fact, even before channel bonding, I know ntl are using a second downstream in one area that isn't Guildford.

About bloody time to be honest.

It cannot be denied that the gigabits of bandwidth available on coax networks is there, its just not being used, whether that be due to finance, technology, needed technology upgrades or dumbass management. I'm guessing possibly all four with ntl

Yep I never argued that the deep fibre advantage was there, covered it right at the start of the thread in fact, however if it's not taken advantage of before the competition catches up then there are problems.

So far it hasn't really been taken advantage of, which is why cable has always hung in there rather than being ahead of the game so far.

[Toto]

I think the winning network will be the one that offers value for money, not a cheap broadband service.

Customers will look at the overall offering, and decide that paying for a service that has:

1. An excellent up time
2. Regularly consistent speeds
3. A competent and fast customer support system
4. Value added products (i.e Good AV and security services, bandwidth monitoring etc.)

Whether that will be ntl:Telewest is yet to be seen.

[zaax]

At present Taiwan has 2 million subscribers at 50 - 100 bps. the UK....
NTL has lost the plot.

BTW is NTL going HD?

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by jtwn

First of all I don't wish to discredit your knowledge on these things as you obviously know more about some of the more intricate things then I do

Lets look at it like this. DSL has two factors involed in you getting the speed. Line length and contention of pipe from DSLAM to ISP.

Cable has the single factor of contention from customer to CMTS. I would like to think core is a situation that doesn't require as much thought as the access networks, after all 'Plusnet issues' don't appear to be apparent on ntl.

So yes, a telephone loop is not shared like cable and cable does not have the same contention point. However channel bonding can negate the smaller share, even though its a wonder now to those who cannot monitor a uBR of its usage, how a DOCSIS 1.1 64QAM system can hold the the allocate users on a card and still can see 10mbit, so I cannot see why the same cannot be said when the speeds are higher offered on a system which has greater aggregate bandwidth with somewhat the same ratio. Not to mention the evil traffic shaping gear they have too

BT's 21 CN network of bringing fibre closer to the home, well ntl is already there with fibre to the node. So if we are going to compare upgrades, BT are moving fibre up to negate the effects of line length and try and offer better speeds come ADSL2+, VDSL2 or whatever else there is by then, as opposed to ntl who are making use of the existing bandwidth that is already there. In fact, even before channel bonding, I know ntl are using a second downstream in one area that isn't Guildford.

It cannot be denied that the gigabits of bandwidth available on coax networks is there, its just not being used, whether that be due to finance, technology, needed technology upgrades or dumbass management. I'm guessing possibly all four with ntl

right so their is no contention on their peering links?
no contention on the proxy servers? (we have one each wow)
who knows where else their is contention playing a part on ntl's network, stories of overloaded core etc.

NTL have been using bonding in guildford already then? sorry but one area outside of trial doesnt exactly make me jump with joy, if you tell me 50 areas I might be thinking ntl are serious about rolling it out.

[jtwn]

I never said it was only in one area, I know it is being tested in one area. Thats not saying that customers are using it. I don't work for ntl Chrysalis so don't ask me questions I blatantly don't know.

I never referred to possible issues to peering links for any other ISP which isn't ntl did I? I don't know what you are going on about proxy servers for, I type in an address and 98 times out of 100 it will get there.

We are talking about the actual ability to offer speeds over access networks, not whether you can get that actual thoroughput over from New York or somewhere.

[Rillington]

It's an interesrting time for UK cable but it always is isn't it.

To me, the main problem for cable is the TV product which is always way behind Sky. The problem is that people pay more for cable TV but get fewer channels and fewer services and there always seems to be problems (the PRESS RED issue is the latest, last year it was the STB changing at random). Sky has done it very well and gives free add-on insentives to people who take premium channels such as Sky+ and content via broadband. Telewest charges extra for their PVR and I would imagine ntl will too. Therefore, with Sky you would pay £40 per month for the premium channels and the Sky+ but with cable you are paying £60 to £70 for the same because you are also forced to have the telephone line plus you don't get all the interactive stuff which you get with satellite such as Sky News interactive, News 24 interactive, Sky Sports interactive etc and, of course, the broadband Sky Sports stuff is only for satellite customers.

As well as all that, the channel line-up continues to lag way behind Sky. Once again, a number of major channels are now missing - examples include ESPN Classic, Player, TCM2, cartoon Network 2, CITV, True Movies, Sky Three, Travel, Artsworld, Performance, The Chart Show music channels and if you include all the less attractive channels and niche channels for specific groups such as ethnic minorities, the gay channels plus all the radio stations then Sky has more than double the number of channels that cable has, possibly even triple the number, for a lower price per month.

Yes I know people will say that VOD is something Sky cannot do directly but many areas can't get it and it is a chargeable add-on rather than an extra as part of the subscription like Sky's broadband content is.

To me, the problem is that cable is always playing catch-up to Sky and that cable seems to be about 2-3 years behind Sky in terms on TV rather than being innovative and ahead of Sky.

In terms of telephone, again BT offers stuff as part of the line rental which ntl charges for, such as caller display and an itemised telephone bill so if I changed I'd be £2 per month worse off with ntl telephone than I would be with BT and that's before the higher ntl call charges (yes 1p/call isn't a vast amount but it soon adds up) and the fact that ntl is to charge people to call custoemr services, something BT again offers free. I have never had any problems with the reliability of the BT service, never had a bad line and never had a problem making a telephone call. Can;t comment about ntl telephone line but I;'d be amaed if it was as reliable given that when I had a cable telephone service a few years ago I found it almost impossible to make an outgoing call.

As for internet, I would have to change ISPs which I am not going to do but ntl intenret always seems to get it wrong and gets a laod more flack than other ISPs do - examples include the download cap. It is true that cable internet is up there with the other ISPs but they never seem to quite get thigns right. Can't comment on reliability but I'd never have ntl internet.

What happens in the next year or so when the merger with TW is sorted followed by the introduction of the Virgin brand remains to be seen but cable is still the inferior product when compared to its rivals and is seen to be the inferior product by people at large plus the fact you pay mroe and get less with cable than you do with Sky/BT. I guess we'll see what happens in the future but it will take a lot more than the introduction of ther Virgin brand to turn thigns around for cable.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by jtwn

I never said it was only in one area, I know it is being tested in one area. Thats not saying that customers are using it. I don't work for ntl Chrysalis so don't ask me questions I blatantly don't know.

I never referred to possible issues to peering links for any other ISP which isn't ntl did I? I don't know what you are going on about proxy servers for, I type in an address and 98 times out of 100 it will get there.

We are talking about the actual ability to offer speeds over access networks, not whether you can get that actual thoroughput over from New York or somewhere.

If you dont know then why you telling people ntl are doing this and that in the future and they are opening up second downstream channels?

[jtwn]

I'm just going by what I've been told.

[popper]

Originally Posted by James Henry

They need to get the cost reductions going as ntl still aren't a profitable business and they need to get profitable and get investing fairly rapidly.

Of more concern is that some of the things that made Telewest more profitable are being chopped in the name of attracting customers. One particular thing of note being that while Telewest do actually credit check customers and will refuse to install to those who present a risk ntl will quite happily install to anyone regardless. Telewest employees are getting the same targets as ntl ones now, even though they have different criteria. ntl have been known to let people off of arrears on their bills to retain them as customers. Again the figures are everything, apart from the profit column.

i cant speak for other area's but that seems wrong on several points (nothing against you james you understand) in my area, wythenshawe,south manchester (right in the heart of manchester airport), the so called largest 'garden city' in europe has in excess of 34,000+ council houses, probably near the same again in combined private houses/shops/business with currently around 76,000+ people with a potential of 110,000+, virtually every single house has nynex/C&W installed cable running past it with cabs on every other corner, with the main baguley center (is that classed a main hub for NTL operations like the other two mentioned all the time?)a mile away.

its fair to claim wythenshawe as a major potential customer base for NTL,
NTL do perform credit checks on all new customers every time here,and i think thats plain wrong considering your always paying the direct-debit at least 2 or 3 weeks in advance of any due bill and by definition always in credit by default.

the most stupid rules concerning their direct cashflow/income are whats keeping customer No.s far lower than they need be, this rule is the fact that they refuse to take cash payments for the broadband.

dont take my word for it, walk up to any saleman in your local high street/civic center and they will ask if your a customer etc, tell them your interested in broadband and want to pay 'a month upfront in cash' and continue to pay by cash, they will say 'ntl do not allow it in any way' and press you to pay by DD and or CC,tell them you dont have a bank/BS account, but stress the point about you will pay upfront 'two months cash' if thats ok just to get the service you want, again they repeat the same mantra, 'NTL do not allow it in any way'. its the same with several NTL sales people on the phone over several days too, so its not just the wythenshawe civic center staff.

iv also been informed that this only appys to the stand alone modem,
they also said you can infact pay cash as your inital payment for the 3 for 30 package (and even pay by paypoint card NTL will issue you to pay the subsquent bills at any paypoint shop if you want) alas thats not confirmed as fact.

what is fact hower is i (and at least 4 people i know)asked about the 3 for 30 package as well as the stand alone modem and got the exact same 'ntl do not allow it in any way', so eather ntl 'dont', or 'dont but do' take cash payments depending on the truth and who you try and sign you up for an inital package, eather way its wrong they discriminate against cash (or paypoint for that matter) customers.

the simple fact is ntl are loosing 100's perhaps 1000's + of new customers because they do not take cash (coin of the realm) as a valid payment for inital install, you might wonder what the investers and commercial bankers would make of this ntl rule if they know about it,i know i do.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Rillington

Yes I know people will say that VOD is something Sky cannot do directly but many areas can't get it and it is a chargeable add-on rather than an extra as part of the subscription like Sky's broadband content is.

To me, the problem is that cable is always playing catch-up to Sky and that cable seems to be about 2-3 years behind Sky in terms on TV rather than being innovative and ahead of Sky.

Actually, that's not true. Not all content on VOD is charged, and Sky's broadband is only free if you take movies or sports channels.

Sky have several advantages over UK Cable, which allow them to innovate more easily.

1. They have the backing of one of (if not the) largest multimedia corporation on the planet. News Corp.
2. They have less hardware/software to upgrade. Even ignoring the STBs, to launch a new service, Sky may have to upgrade a few uplink sites (if any) and their broadcast facilities. UK Cable may have hundreds of sites to update (all the head ends need upgrading for VOD for example). It's also worth noting that if the service requires extra hardware on the STB (such as a hard drive), the Cable Co's have hundreds of STBs to replace. Sky tend to require that the user buy their own. Admittedly, UK Cable could also require this, and save themselves a whole lot of money, but they don't seem willing.
3. Satellite is (by definition) a relatively cheap way to reach millions of viewers (all you need is some comms hardware and a transponder or two on a satellite). Cable has a few downlink sites, hundreds of head ends, thousands of street cabinets and tens of thousands of miles of cable.
   
   
   

[James Henry]

I see going by your post in http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/...d.php?t=370991 the issues of methods of payment are an emotive one for you.

However ntl do I guess consider the money they save by not processing cash payments as being well worth it for them.

As far as the credit issue goes just repeating what I was told by a Telewest employee, a rather narked one at that mind you.

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Actually, that's not true. Not all content on VOD is charged, and Sky's broadband is only free if you take movies or sports channels.

Sky have several advantages over UK Cable, which allow them to innovate more easily.<snip>

And Cable has one killer advantage that it is sadly failing to exploit - a broadband return path.

Cable interactive services should knock $ky into a cocked hat, but they don't. NTL's interactive shortcomings have been rehearsed on this forum ad infinitum so I will refrain from doing so again, but you know of what I speak ...

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Chris T

And Cable has one killer advantage that it is sadly failing to exploit - a broadband return path.

Cable interactive services should knock $ky into a cocked hat, but they don't. NTL's interactive shortcomings have been rehearsed on this forum ad infinitum so I will refrain from doing so again, but you know of what I speak ...

True, NTL's interactive services do lead an awful lot to be desired. However, I don't think that is *entirely* NTL's fault. I think the broadcasters have a lot to answer for there.

[James Henry]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

True, NTL's interactive services do lead an awful lot to be desired. However, I don't think that is *entirely* NTL's fault. I think the broadcasters have a lot to answer for there.

They're responsible for ntl's awful interactive services, whereas Sky's are far superior?

Actually I would blame bad decisions from ntl over which software, middleware and hardware to use.

Presumably you can explain why Freeview has superior broadcast interactive services to ntl as well?

[Stuart]

All I know is that when I looked (seriously) into developing interactive stuff, Sky wanted a huge amount of money before they would even talk to me, whereas NTL GAVE me all the software needed, and give me access to a special interactive test server (to point the liberate emulator at). They also gave me extensive technical support. All for free.

The liberate middleware is actually far more capable than the current implementations of interactive would suggest, hence my comment about the broadcasters being responsible. However, it does need a fast STB to work at a reasonable speed. Hence my comment about it not being entirely NTL's fault (the implication being that NTL must take some of the blame).

As for freeview, well, when I looked into interactive, that wasn't available.