Are you pushing for VM to be forced to extend their network to your house too?
Who is responsible for upgrading outdated, slow phone lines?
- Thread starter alexjholland
- Start date
Are you pushing for VM to be forced to extend their network to your house too?
So? Why shouldnt VM be forced to if you want BT to be? Surely all that will do is push the BT monopoly
What? Why? The VM network was built with private investors money. The government has no right at all to tell a private company what to do with its infrastructure. Not to mention that would kill any future investment before it is even made. Why would you invest in a company knowing they will be forced to open up what your investment paid for?
BT was forced to open because it was built with government funds.
actually i think youll find gov has every right.
or should we apply the same logic to any other aspect of infrastructure.
electricity supply, water supply, the roads, gas. who ever owns the physical wire, pipe, tarmac should be the only one allowed to use it. you want to change electricity suppler then someone form the new company must come and run a new powerline into your home.
or should we apply the same logic to any other aspect of infrastructure.
electricity supply, water supply, the roads, gas. who ever owns the physical wire, pipe, tarmac should be the only one allowed to use it. you want to change electricity suppler then someone form the new company must come and run a new powerline into your home.
Stop throwing words around such as 'exploit' and 'monopoly'. Nobody is exploiting a monopoly in your situation - your price isn't hiked up due to a lack of competition, you pay the same as everyone else does do your provider, and they pay the same to Openreach.
How can Openreach and Virgin Media both have a monopoly? That doesn't fit with the meaning of the word at all.
Edit: In your example water comes from the regional supplier, you cannot change who you buy water from. In the other two your retail supplier pays transit costs to the companies that own the pipes. You know, exactly how Openreach functions.
You're arguing for a situation where a private company can invest hundreds of millions of pounds on installing infrastructure and then the government can tell them to let everyone use that infrastructure without having to put up the same sort of investment. The only effect that would have is ensure nobody spends any money in the first place, it wouldn't create some sort of broadband paradise.
How can Openreach and Virgin Media both have a monopoly? That doesn't fit with the meaning of the word at all.
Edit: In your example water comes from the regional supplier, you cannot change who you buy water from. In the other two your retail supplier pays transit costs to the companies that own the pipes. You know, exactly how Openreach functions.
You're arguing for a situation where a private company can invest hundreds of millions of pounds on installing infrastructure and then the government can tell them to let everyone use that infrastructure without having to put up the same sort of investment. The only effect that would have is ensure nobody spends any money in the first place, it wouldn't create some sort of broadband paradise.
Last edited:
You should probably read up on how these services work.
What's the end result you're hoping for here? If it's to be connected to FTTC and you don't have access to Virgin Media then pester your local authority for BDUK funding to get your cabinet upgraded. No amount of regulation and forcing infrastructure owners to open their networks up to competition will expand the footprint of that network.
To drag this back on topic, the developer of your site would have had the option to go full-fibre at the time it was constructed:
http://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/hom...loads/galliard_CaseStudy_PHME 69275_3_web.pdf
Hyperoptic would probably have been interested as well, they are actively seeking developers of new apartment complexes.
What probably happened was they ignored the possibility or didn't ask. The development seems pretty big so assuming that you aren't Exchange Only then you will get FTTC eventually once Openreach's systems catch up to realise that the population has gone from zero or a few factories to hundreds of residences.
So the people to blame are the developers.
http://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/hom...loads/galliard_CaseStudy_PHME 69275_3_web.pdf
Hyperoptic would probably have been interested as well, they are actively seeking developers of new apartment complexes.
What probably happened was they ignored the possibility or didn't ask. The development seems pretty big so assuming that you aren't Exchange Only then you will get FTTC eventually once Openreach's systems catch up to realise that the population has gone from zero or a few factories to hundreds of residences.
So the people to blame are the developers.
end result?
its a forum. the end result is have a moan, right the world and move on.
so if you dont think opening networks dont encourage competition then as a i said, why not go back to pre LLU and allow the other utilities to not have to share their infrastructure.
its a forum. the end result is have a moan, right the world and move on.
so if you dont think opening networks dont encourage competition then as a i said, why not go back to pre LLU and allow the other utilities to not have to share their infrastructure.
Opening a network up encourages pricing competition between the suppliers that use that network, because they don't have the capability to do anything else (headline speeds, coverage etc.). It doesn't encourage product development because they all have to work within the constraints of the infrastructure that they are leasing. That comes from people like Virgin Media with their own network and the freedom to do what they want with it.
People's complaints with FTTC / VM isn't that the headline speeds are necessarily low, it's that they can't get coverage (e.g. this thread). Letting Sky serve customers over Virgin Media's network wouldn't change this, all it does it make Virgin Media less likely to invest in their own network because the ROI period gets longer.
So in your example where you have ADSL2+ and nothing else, no amount of regulation will solve that.
People's complaints with FTTC / VM isn't that the headline speeds are necessarily low, it's that they can't get coverage (e.g. this thread). Letting Sky serve customers over Virgin Media's network wouldn't change this, all it does it make Virgin Media less likely to invest in their own network because the ROI period gets longer.
So in your example where you have ADSL2+ and nothing else, no amount of regulation will solve that.
it allows companies that believe that can make money in areas whet BT thinks it cant to push for infrastructure roll out.
i cant fathom why you are arguing in favour of BT continuing to be allowed to keep the last mile of its network closed. who bar BT shareholders gain from that.
i cant fathom why you are arguing in favour of BT continuing to be allowed to keep the last mile of its network closed. who bar BT shareholders gain from that.
It isn't closed, what part of this are you failing to get? Under Ofcom regulation every CP has the same access to the last mile, it's probably the most open last mile in the developed world.
You've failed to explain how making Openreach completely separate to BT would improve anything. It doesn't make build costs cheaper, and it doesn't remove the need for ROI (this is what BDUK funds). All you can do is keep saying "competition!" without linking it back to any actual perceived improvements.
If a company thinks they can make a network work in an area where Openreach don't then they are free to do so - B4RN is doing exactly this, as are numerous wireless providers.
i have. if openreach were seperated from BT retail then BT retail would have no reason not to pressure openreach to increase rollout locations. at present they do not as part of the same group the group receives continued revenue with no investment cost. the infrastructure cost has long been depreciated away so bar line maintenance its all profit.
split them and BT (and all other service providers) doent care if openreach has great margins or not, it will want to offer its services. from its viewpoint faster services are the only way to increase revenue as the line rental cash cow is no longer a factor in its margins. the additional pressure therefore to increase roll out would accelerate things.
split them and BT (and all other service providers) doent care if openreach has great margins or not, it will want to offer its services. from its viewpoint faster services are the only way to increase revenue as the line rental cash cow is no longer a factor in its margins. the additional pressure therefore to increase roll out would accelerate things.
But Openreach will care about margins and won't extend into unprofitable areas. No amount of pressure is going to change that, it's not like BT can go to another carrier. If anything, Openreach losing any BT investment/subsidies will curb extension.