Sky asks Ofcom to unlock BT cabinets

If no one else has spotted this on The Register...

Sky asks Ofcom to unlock BT cabinets

Complaints about the competitive landscape in Britain's broadband model have led Ofcom to announce a review which may include enforcing unbundled fibre-to-the-cabinet (FTTC) access.

......

Edited by tbailey2 (Wed 10-Jul-13 08:18:20)

Slightly confusing article, as you can put your own DSLAM out in the field and connect to a PCP now (sub loop unbundling).

Or you can rent a port on a BT DSLAM and a virtual circuit on a BT fibre to the exchange where it's handed over to you.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

Slightly confusing article, as you can put your own DSLAM out in the field and connect to a PCP now (sub loop unbundling).

Or you can rent a port on a BT DSLAM and a virtual circuit on a BT fibre to the exchange where it's handed over to you.

I think it comes from here: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultati...

sections 19/20/21.

I do struggle to see what the fuss is about, "reserved fixed bandwidth on Openreach backhaul" for example is precisely what you get with GEA, isn't it ?

You would think Sky would be happy with less to manage rather than wanting more, why take on the cost & complexity of running VDSL ports.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

I do struggle to see what the fuss is about, "reserved fixed bandwidth on Openreach backhaul" for example is precisely what you get with GEA, isn't it ?

You would think Sky would be happy with less to manage rather than wanting more, why take on the cost & complexity of running VDSL ports.

Yah, hence my comment to that article:

http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/188...

About all I can see is an attempt (or threat at) a full on local loop land grab.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

I do struggle to see what the fuss is about, "reserved fixed bandwidth on Openreach backhaul" for example is precisely what you get with GEA, isn't it ?

You would think Sky would be happy with less to manage rather than wanting more, why take on the cost & complexity of running VDSL ports.

Same reasons some providers had for buying Datastream way back when, which is after all what this is.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

About all I can see is an attempt (or threat at) a full on local loop land grab.

I may be being obtuse but how is asking for bitstream access to the Openreach MSAN a local loop land grab when Sky already 'grab' the entire local loop for the customer via MPF LLU?

Murdoch throwing his toys out again.

Why does he not put his own fibre ducts and cabinets in? And then wire or fibre to homes?


Oh, I forgot, that means he would need to spend money rather than ride on the back of someone else's investment.

In reply to a post by MHC:

Murdoch throwing his toys out again.

Why does he not put his own fibre ducts and cabinets in? And then wire or fibre to homes?

Oh, I forgot, that means he would need to spend money rather than ride on the back of someone else's investment.

The same reason that, even with so much ducting and so many poles in place, Openreach didn't deploy full fibre to every home and didn't cover 100% of the population Not an option economically.

It is impossible to replicate BT's local loop without spending tens of billions and taking on a massive, massive loss.. That's why they are regulated. Look at what happened to Virgin and their parent companies when they tried.

I realise Murdoch bashing is easy but the FTTC build is made viable in no small part because most of it is overbuild, not new build.

Datastream was more like GEA is now, surely. BT gave them a handover VP to DSLAM ports managed by BT.

Datastream didn't give any control over the DSLAM line parameters.