General Discussion
  >> General Broadband Chatter


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.


Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | [3] | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | (show all)   Print Thread
Standard User Andrue
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Mon 31-Dec-18 11:08:03
Print Post

Re: Openreach monopoly and length of time to repair services


[re: BranH] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by BranH:
Broadband did not become available until after we'd move to the house. Some people forget that not everybody lives in town or city or moves every few years.
My choice is limited because there is only the monopoly provider and no one else wants to serve the area.
As has already been pointed out you do not appear to understand what the word 'monopoly' means. A monopoly would be when other providers do not exist or are being blocked by some entity. That does not apply here. Other providers can offer you a service if you/they can come to an agreement over costs.

You should be (somewhat) grateful that the ubiquity of openreach means they have large enough economies of scale to offer you a service at all wink

---
Andrue Cope
Brackley, UK

Edited by Andrue (Mon 31-Dec-18 11:11:13)

Standard User zom22
(member) Mon 31-Dec-18 17:28:30
Print Post

Re: Openreach monopoly and length of time to repair services


[re: Andrue] [link to this post]
 
In the UK the competition authorities regard any firm having more than 25% of the market as a monopoly.
That means BT is indeed a monopoly in certain areas.

I disagree with the other posters saying it is not
Others providers are free to come in and provide a service but if their price is £500K+ to do so then the incumbent provider has an effective monopoly.
A monopoly does not have to have some legal restriction against others form operating in the sector to be defined as a Monopoly
After all that exactly why OFCOM set up the market 1,2,3 exchange classification business to encourage LLU operators as they regarded BT as having a monopoly in certain areas.

BT not far off from a "Natural Monopoly" as is the case with the railway tracks. While other are free to build their own parallel running rail tracks we all know that in reality this is a non starter from an economic position.

The classic economic definition of a monopoly is a single seller in the market. It does not require the mere possibility of another entrant into the market to make the situation not a monopoly.
The market is what the market is at the time of consideration and not one which might be possible if you chuck are few million around to make it different.
Standard User MCM
(knowledge is power) Mon 31-Dec-18 17:36:32
Print Post

Re: Openreach monopoly and length of time to repair services


[re: zom22] [link to this post]
 
Others providers are free to come in and provide a service but if their price is £500K+ to do so then the incumbent provider has an effective monopoly.
Rubbish. Other providers ARE free to come in and provide a service and many are doing so. VM, Gigaclear, CityFibre, Hyperoptic to name just four. That providing such a service requires them to expend capital does not mean that Openreach has a monopoly simply because it has already invested capital and others have chosen as yet not to do so in some areas..


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.

Standard User Andrue
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Mon 31-Dec-18 19:51:50
Print Post

Re: Openreach monopoly and length of time to repair services


[re: zom22] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by zom22:
Others providers are free to come in and provide a service but if their price is £500K+ to do so then the incumbent provider has an effective monopoly.
But taking that as an example there are only three possibilities:

£500K+ is more than openreach would charge and is excessive - not openreach's fault.
£500K+ is what openreach also charges and is therefore a reasonable amount - not openreach's fault.
£500K+ is less than what openreach charges so is a good price - not openreach's fault.

The mere fact that competitors are in a position to offer to install the service for £500K+ means that openreach do not have a monopoly. You can't claim a monopoly just because something is expensive.

---
Andrue Cope
Brackley, UK

Edited by Andrue (Mon 31-Dec-18 19:52:55)

Standard User steve195527
(learned) Mon 31-Dec-18 23:15:56
Print Post

Re: Openreach monopoly and length of time to repair services


[re: MCM] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MCM:
Others providers are free to come in and provide a service but if their price is £500K+ to do so then the incumbent provider has an effective monopoly.
Rubbish. Other providers ARE free to come in and provide a service and many are doing so. VM, Gigaclear, CityFibre, Hyperoptic to name just four. That providing such a service requires them to expend capital does not mean that Openreach has a monopoly simply because it has already invested capital and others have chosen as yet not to do so in some areas..

openreaches network was paid for by the govt when it was a state owned(under a different name:-part of the post office I believe form 1880 )before it was sold off,so they haven't invested anywhere near the capital that any company starting from scratch would have to do

http://www.britishtelephones.com/histuk.htm
if this relates to the exchange that is being discussed what BranH wrote:-

"Oh let me look

Virgin - not available
Gigaclear - not available
Hyperoptic - not available
Vodaphone fibre /llu - not available
Fixed wireless - not available
Any other LLU - not available
ADSL2+ - not available
ADSLmax by BT/Openreach available

Looks like a fixed line monopoly to me"

then for that exchange I have yo agree it is a monopoly as no other choice exists

Edited by steve195527 (Mon 31-Dec-18 23:24:12)

Standard User MCM
(knowledge is power) Tue 01-Jan-19 00:30:54
Print Post

Re: Openreach monopoly and length of time to repair services


[re: steve195527] [link to this post]
 
openreaches network was paid for by the govt
For which the government was paid when BT was floated in 1991. I think the capitalisation when floated was around £8 billion which sum HMG would have received - perhaps more as I think BT may have been floated in stages.

That other possible suppliers choose not to invest in a particular location does not mean the incumbent is a monopoly as there is nothing to prevent others from investing in local infrastructure.
Standard User steve195527
(learned) Tue 01-Jan-19 01:38:52
Print Post

Re: Openreach monopoly and length of time to repair services


[re: MCM] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MCM:
openreaches network was paid for by the govt
For which the government was paid when BT was floated in 1991. I think the capitalisation when floated was around £8 billion which sum HMG would have received - perhaps more as I think BT may have been floated in stages.

That other possible suppliers choose not to invest in a particular location does not mean the incumbent is a monopoly as there is nothing to prevent others from investing in local infrastructure.

so the money the govt got didn't come from bt directly but from money got by the selling off a public owned company,bt never had to find the funds to develop the network themselves,it was already there and paid for,why haven't they replaced all of the old(victorian)infrastructure?because it would cost too much and other companies wanting to develop a national network are in the same boat,how long has virgin in it various historic guises been trying?how much of the country is on their network?just because the others are allowed to develop a network doesn't mean in practice bt/openreach doesn't have a monopoly in most of the country,if you think they haven't in reality then you are living in an imaginary uk,I'm talking about real world not dictionary definitions
Would you consider Kingston Communication to hold a monopoly?others are allowed to provide a service around the Hull area but none do?

Edited by steve195527 (Tue 01-Jan-19 01:42:19)

Standard User MCM
(knowledge is power) Tue 01-Jan-19 12:07:11
Print Post

Re: Openreach monopoly and length of time to repair services


[re: steve195527] [link to this post]
 
,bt never had to find the funds to develop the network themselves,it was already there and paid for
BT through its shareholders paid for the network when they bought the company from the Government. Not only that they paid for all of it over a few months rather than 70 or 80 years or whatever when the company was owned by the government.

why haven't they replaced all of the old(victorian)infrastructure?
BT has spent billions since it was floated on updating and expanding its network. If anything it has been hindered here by the government, OFTEL and OFCOM in that for the time being BT is required to maintain its copper network rather than move faster towards a full fibre network. Naturally, given that BT is not a charity but answerable to its shareholders, it invests the bulk of its funds in areas where it has some expectation of seeing a return on its investment.

I would suggest that those who feel that BT has passed them by, be they living in the most rural of areas or in a city centre, look to the like of B4RN, put their hands in their pockets and do something about it for themselves. Incidentally I live south of the river in central London and together with 74 neighbours gap funded the installation of an AIO cabinet at a cost of c£19K. Others both rural and urban have done similarly as are all those paying for an FTTPod connection.
Standard User steve195527
(learned) Tue 01-Jan-19 12:53:43
Print Post

Re: Openreach monopoly and length of time to repair services


[re: MCM] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MCM:
,bt never had to find the funds to develop the network themselves,it was already there and paid for
BT through its shareholders paid for the network when they bought the company from the Government. Not only that they paid for all of it over a few months rather than 70 or 80 years or whatever when the company was owned by the government.

why haven't they replaced all of the old(victorian)infrastructure?
BT has spent billions since it was floated on updating and expanding its network. If anything it has been hindered here by the government, OFTEL and OFCOM in that for the time being BT is required to maintain its copper network rather than move faster towards a full fibre network. Naturally, given that BT is not a charity but answerable to its shareholders, it invests the bulk of its funds in areas where it has some expectation of seeing a return on its investment.

I would suggest that those who feel that BT has passed them by, be they living in the most rural of areas or in a city centre, look to the like of B4RN, put their hands in their pockets and do something about it for themselves. Incidentally I live south of the river in central London and together with 74 neighbours gap funded the installation of an AIO cabinet at a cost of c£19K. Others both rural and urban have done similarly as are all those paying for an FTTPod connection.

so is that what this boils down to?you paid for a service so everybody else who wants a good service should also pay?In a rural setting the installation would probably be far more expensive and have far fewer folk able to share the costs involved and possibly income/disposable income will be lower, Londoners seem to think £2m for a house is ok too,different world
Standard User Andrue
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Tue 01-Jan-19 19:24:19
Print Post

Re: Openreach monopoly and length of time to repair services


[re: steve195527] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by steve195527:
In reply to a post by MCM:
Others providers are free to come in and provide a service but if their price is £500K+ to do so then the incumbent provider has an effective monopoly.
Rubbish. Other providers ARE free to come in and provide a service and many are doing so. VM, Gigaclear, CityFibre, Hyperoptic to name just four. That providing such a service requires them to expend capital does not mean that Openreach has a monopoly simply because it has already invested capital and others have chosen as yet not to do so in some areas..

openreaches network was paid for by the govt when it was a state owned(under a different name:-part of the post office I believe form 1880 )before it was sold off,so they haven't invested anywhere near the capital that any company starting from scratch would have to do
Oh God, not that old load of claptrap yet again. BT bought the network(*) from the government in 1984. That was nearly thirty five years ago. Do you think BT have not invested any money in it since? What about digitisation. ADSL. VDSL, now FTTP. What about the fact they transformed an unreliable and expensive network into one of the best voice networks in the world and (at least from the point of availability and affordability) one of the better data networks?

What about the fact there are now roughly 25% more houses in the UK than there was back in the 1980s? Did the PO pre lay all the infrastructure for that?

You lot really need to stop banging on about ancient history, or at least try and get some accuracy into your whines. I mean, what next - are you going to have a go at William Pitt the Younger for his tax hikes?

(*)Well shareholders did, anyway.

---
Andrue Cope
Brackley, UK

Edited by Andrue (Tue 01-Jan-19 19:26:02)

Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | [3] | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to