Sky calls for access to cable network - Page 2

BenMcr · 19-03-2009, 18:19

What we are talking about here is one private company - Sky - wanting to the government to force another private company - VM - to open their network up because Sky don't want to fork out the money to lay their own cables!

georgepomone · 19-03-2009, 18:21

This sounds OK as long as they pay their share of the cost's that exist. Part of the 6 Billion that the network cost. I see nothing wrong with that. They wouldn't do that.
George.

Turkey Machine · 19-03-2009, 18:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenMcr

What we are talking about here is one private company - Sky - wanting to the government to force another private company - VM - to open their network up because Sky don't want to fork out the money to lay their own cables!

They already do that in the case of ADSL because they use the telephone cables BT put to the home, only recently have they enabled LLU in exchanges so they don't have to use BT's gear.

BenMcr · 19-03-2009, 18:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turkey Machine

They already do that in the case of ADSL because they use the telephone cables BT put to the home, only recently have they enabled LLU in exchanges so they don't have to use BT's gear.

Actually taxpayers paid for the BT network, that was until it was privatised in the 80s

Virgin's network has been completely privately financed from day one

Turkey Machine · 19-03-2009, 18:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Actually taxpayers paid for the BT network, that was until it was privatised/flogged off to taxpayers all over again in the 80s

Yes, but still, it's Sky using somebody elses network. The fact they want to use VM's cable network, and nobody else does, makes me wonder what their actual perogative is!

TheDon · 19-03-2009, 18:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turkey Machine

Yes, but still, it's Sky using somebody elses network. The fact they want to use VM's cable network, and nobody else does, makes me wonder what their actual perogative is!

Actually I bet many ISPs would love to use VM's network, they just know it's not going to happen.

broadbandking · 19-03-2009, 19:08

It could go two ways really if it did open up the companies would have to pay VM making upgrades easier or it could just overload the network to breaking point.

Toto · 19-03-2009, 20:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDon

Actually I bet many ISPs would love to use VM's network, they just know it's not going to happen.

AOL did, they had a wholesale deal with ntl (in days of old), but it never attracted that much business.

**Hugh** · 19-03-2009, 20:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

This is not a bad idea, don't forget, Sky already have Tv channels running on the cable network via VM and other cable companies, so l cannot see any problems, and they could be even better.

Don't forget also, that we already have water, gas, and electricity coming through the same pipes, and we are already changing companies, so why not Sky on the cable network.

??

RealDiamond · 19-03-2009, 21:36

There has never been any CABLE competition were Ive lived normaly the councils Will reject any offer out right as each council has already SOLD of the Rights to lay cable already.
NTL and Telewest Did not install the cable in most areas other Private companies did as they PAYED the councils at the time for the rights to do so.
For example
Cornwall & Devon were sold to Eurobell
Dorset was Cable and Wireless.
Each of these were then sold to ether Telewest or NTL.
Some councils have again agreed to sell some companies the right to supply REAL Fibre To The Home (FTTH) connections as it no longer needs the roads to be dug up. Private Apartment blocks have always had the option to have another ISP when being built but TOWN wide is normaly blocked by councils.
Dundee and Bournemouth (yes notice were I Live) are going Town wide even if it takes 4 years to get it done

.
Then there will be Town wide Cable competition..then in 2016 when BT joins Fibrecity vs Virgin with the User having a real option to switch every 12-18 months...

etccarmageddon · 19-03-2009, 21:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Actually taxpayers paid for the BT network, that was until it was privatised in the 80s

Virgin's network has been completely privately financed from day one

so what you're saying is because BT was previously owned by the tax payer it is a different case? ok the tax payer financed the building up of the BT network but when it was privatised the money paid for the shares returned that finance back to the tax payer - or are you saying the BT share issue was done on the condition that it didn't include the core network? or are you saying the BT share issue didn't fully compensate the tax payer for the value of the network?

BenMcr · 19-03-2009, 22:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

so what you're saying is because BT was previously owned by the tax payer it is a different case?

yes that is exactly right

Quote:

ok the tax payer financed the building up of the BT network but when it was privatised the money paid for the shares returned that finance back to the tax payer

But the network still exceeds that which a private company could or would choose to finance - which is why even now BT is considered to have an unfair advantage, and the whole reason by BT has been forced to open the network up to competition.

All the previous cable companies spent billions of pounds and decades building a network. Yes there may have been a licences from Government but the rest was private cash.

Quote:

- or are you saying the BT share issue was done on the condition that it didn't include the core network? or are you saying the BT share issue didn't fully compensate the tax payer for the value of the network?

It doesn't matter if the taxpayer was full compensated or not or under what conditions the share issue was exercised.

Everywhere Virgin goes, BT goes. Sky can already put itself in any exchange it likes yet it doesn't

News International probably has the money to buy Virgin if it wanted - yet it doesn't

The only reason Sky are trying to do this is to gain access to Virgin's network and customer base on the cheap and without having to do the work

telfordcable · 20-03-2009, 00:07

I hope that Sky can buy out virgin media so Sky will bring more HD channels for all cable customers and scrap the STM on all packages as as "truely unlimited and no fair use policy at all and no traffic management on cable".

I think why not ?? Let sky join the cable too.

TheDon · 20-03-2009, 01:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by telfordcable

I hope that Sky can buy out virgin media so Sky will bring more HD channels for all cable customers and scrap the STM on all packages as as "truely unlimited and no fair use policy at all and no traffic management on cable".

I think why not ?? Let sky join the cable too.

I seriously hope you're joking.

VM may not be perfect, but neither are Sky, and handing Sky a complete monopoly over the pay tv market would be just about the worst thing I could think of.

etccarmageddon · 20-03-2009, 02:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenMcr

It doesn't matter if the taxpayer was full compensated or not or under what conditions the share issue was exercised.

why doesn't it matter? the taxpayer sold BT and got billions of dosh and in exchange gave BT to the stock market. you now think BT is a special case compared to Virgin because Virgin was never publicly owned. there is no logic in your argument unless BT is currently still nationalised in which case your argument would be 100% valid.