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.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

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.

True but operators chose the backhaul from the ports meaning they could offer high assured rate services.

Wholesale operators already permit a level of access to heir DSLAMs by their customers in some cases, bitstream is nothing super new.

Actually they are talking about improved options for doing that, i.e. their own fibre to the cabinets

If you look at the way TV is moving, Sky will need to start down the path of better connectivity as tv viewing changes from broadcast to on-demand even more.

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.

Ionica failed too with wireless. Saw one of their hexagonal / octagonal aerials last week.

yes I am confused I thought its already open but just not viable enough for the likes of sky to consider using it.

seems ofcom are been pushy now, as they also plan to implement enforced 1 month min term on openreach (I complained about this earlier in year) and enforced lower migration fees to match adsl migration fees.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

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?

They want to install their own cabinet backhaul and possibly have their own line cards. That puts them in the position of being able to off their own FTTPoD.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

They want to install their own cabinet backhaul and possibly have their own line cards. That puts them in the position of being able to off their own FTTPoD.

So you think Sky paying for their own backhaul to a cabinet, potentially renting colocation space in the cabinet for line cards, and either paying to rent fibre from Openreach or installing their own from the cabinet is some kind of grab for the local loop?

Still not getting it. By that metric SLU is the epitomy of a local loop land grab.

Do you not find it more likely that they simply want more control over the products being offered than the current Openreach product set provides?

Bitstream allows Sky and TalkTalk to do something they'll long asked for - supply VoNGA without needing to terminate a copper loop in the exchange. It will allow them to deliver EFM services over FTTC or deliver higher data rate services to customers through pair bonding and being able to deliver high assured data rates.

For me bitstream access to the Openreach kit will encourage Openreach to innovate rather than to simply offer what their biggest customer, BT Wholesale, ask for. That is a perfectly legitimate position for Openreach to take but it's of debatable value to the rest of us.

I honestly don't see the concern and, moreover, even if Sky or A N Other want more access to the local loop, you know, so what? Competition at as many levels as possible is good, surely?

I read it as not wanting their own line card, but being able to rent which ever ports to allow control...i.e. still pay for Openreach hardware but run it all themselves

Sounds like they want their cake and eat it.

I think its good (as it may bypass DLM) but only if it doesnt compromise any future vectoring..

Edited by Chrysalis (Wed 10-Jul-13 18:31:05)

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

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.

as much as i dislike BT, they are the ones that have spent the money on the FTTc network apart from what they have had given them by the taxpayers. so maybe they should get sky and Talk Talk to pay them more if they want that sort of freedom.

sky just want it on the cheap and Talk Talk would do the same thing as well.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

as much as i dislike BT, they are the ones that have spent the money on the FTTc network apart from what they have had given them by the taxpayers. so maybe they should get sky and Talk Talk to pay them more if they want that sort of freedom.

sky just want it on the cheap and Talk Talk would do the same thing as well.

No prices have been decided yet. It hasn't even been decided whether or not this'll happen.

Most of your comments could have been leveled at LLU as well, especially given BT PLC was given nothing by the taxpayer, it was purchased by shareholders.