Ofcom at it again?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8582253.stm

Anyone know what this refers to? I thought Ofcom had already consulted with the LLUOs who'd said they had no interest in using the new fibre at this time. Wasn't that why GEA was being touted as the way to leverage FTTC?

Not read full report yet,

but depends on what fibre you mean. If it means ability to unbundle the fibre to the home then issues may arise due to topology used. The Openreach setup lends itself to bitstream unbundling, but not actual unbundling of physical fibres.

It may be refering to backhaul too, or some combination of these in an attempt to make offering LLU and future services more attractive in Market 1 and 2 areas.

Thirdly there is the issue of sub loop unbundling, which is considered too expensive to do at present (apart from in South Yorkshire).

Ofcom isfollowing its mandate of competition is king, and reducing BT's cut is good, and many will agree with that view.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Ofcom isfollowing its mandate of competition is king, and reducing BT's cut is good, and many will agree with that view.

I don't disagree with it (as a Be customer it'd be hypocritical and rather silly to poo-poo the whole LLU thing ) but really I was just a bit surprised. I thought Ofcom and the LLUOs and BT had already had this discussion.

I'll await your eventual news article - it's bound to be more informative than the BBC anyway

bit more at Samknows

The current GEA offering still involves having a phone line rental / facility, OFCOM's proposal would be for a broadband only option for for example another operator could provide a VoIP phone over FTTC.

At the minute you can't buy df direct from BT, Ofcom's proposal is that they are forced to provide it (within defined economic constraints) this is more for business services and internal network use rather than for deployment to residential users

In reply to a post by yarwell:

The current GEA offering still involves having a phone line rental / facility, OFCOM's proposal would be for a broadband only option for for example another operator could provide a VoIP phone over FTTC.

Ah yes. Interesting.

not sure I saw anything about mandating dark fibre in the consultation - is that what you meant by df ?

yup, df was meant to be an option as part of the PIA product but it seems that they've fallen for the GPON (as opposed to Active Ethernet) argument and won't me mandating that. Time to write a response...

Edited by boggits (Tue 23-Mar-10 14:34:04)

Load of nonsense anyway... On the one hand Ofcom have finally stated "the network that BT inherited as the incumbent operator gives it a significant competitive advantage."

In the next breath they are still going to allow BT to charge basically as they damn well please.

Basically nothing has changed.

On the one hand Ofcom have finally stated

they didn't say that, did they ? The word "inherited" for example is not in the OFCOM WLA document.

The democratically elected Govt of the day sold off something nearly 30 years ago that BT now owns, giving it the same advantage as Virgin Media has with its network.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

On the one hand Ofcom have finally stated

they didn't say that, did they ? The word "inherited" for example is not in the OFCOM WLA document.

The democratically elected Govt of the day sold off something nearly 30 years ago that BT now owns, giving it the same advantage as Virgin Media has with its network.

Unless this site is misquoting ofcom........
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/i/4191.html

my concern is are they going to drag the FTTC retail prices down to the silly level adsl prices are at, if they do that then FTTC will be aweful. The usual 80kbit'ish allocated per end user etc.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

my concern is are they going to drag the FTTC retail prices down to the silly level adsl prices are at, if they do that then FTTC will be aweful. The usual 80kbit'ish allocated per end user etc.

BT networks unable to handle demand...... Surely not

The article does NOT quote Ofcom as using the word inherited, it appears to be a word John has used.

If it was a quote it would follow our usual quote style

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The article does NOT quote Ofcom as using the word inherited, it appears to be a word John has used.

If it was a quote it would follow our usual quote style

The story says.....
"Ofcom estimate that deploying the passive infrastructure based around ducts and poles to deploy next-generation access accounts for around 50-70%, and the network that BT inherited as the incumbent operator gives it a significant competitive advantage."

Have ofcom estimated the 50-70% figure or not?

Have ofcom concluded BT have an competitive advantage or not?

Did BT inherit the network or not?

If the answer is NO to all that, then why does it say that is Ofcom estimation?

Is it OFCOMS ESTIMATION or JOHNS?

The figures will be Ofcom's but the wording used may not be the exact words Ofcom used, I am on a train and do not have the time to chase up with research on Ofcom site.

If you cannot differentiate between quotes (hint we use "" around them, or put them in a quote section) and someone re-wording a release then you must have serious problems with newspapers.

The significant advantage, is a matter for the record e.g. Market 3 definition says this basically

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The figures will be Ofcom's but the wording used may not be the exact words Ofcom used, I am on a train and do not have the time to chase up with research on Ofcom site.

If you cannot differentiate between quotes (hint we use "" around them, or put them in a quote section) and someone re-wording a release then you must have serious problems with newspapers.

The significant advantage, is a matter for the record e.g. Market 3 definition says this basically

When a story states "Ofcom estimate that...." I assume what follows is OFCOMs estimation and not the writers.

If it was the writers estimation writing "I estimate that....." would be the correct thing to state, wouldnt it?

Oh and i dont appreciate the sly newspaper insult. If i had said that to remark to another user you would be all over my case, as you have in the past when i have made sly remarks about a persons intellect. Do try to practice what you preach and as staff set an example.

The article says that ofcom did the estimation. However, it doesn't say that ofcom used the word "inherited" which was your question. So, it isn't a quote. It is a commentary. The wording is the authors but that doesn't change the fact that the estimation is ofcoms.

Edited by ian72 (Thu 25-Mar-10 08:45:28)

In reply to a post by ian72:

The article says that ofcom did the estimation. However, it doesn't say that ofcom used the word "inherited" which was your question. So, it isn't a quote. It is a commentary. The wording is the authors but that doesn't change the fact that the estimation is ofcoms.

That makes no sense at all...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/estimation
judgment or opinion

So is it Ofcoms judgement/opinion and therefore estimation BT "inherited" the network or not?

If its just the authors words, he shouldnt had said its someone elses "estimation"

quote""Ofcom estimate that deploying the passive infrastructure based around ducts and poles to deploy next-generation access accounts for around 50-70%, and the network that BT inherited as the incumbent operator gives it a significant competitive advantage."

It doesnt say "and I estimate" it is written as one continuos judgement/estimate from ofcom.

Is it ofcoms opinion or not?

If its not their opinion they inherited a network and have competitive advantage why did the author say that it is ofcoms opinion?

Maybe i cant read a newspaper properly, or spot "quote" marks...... But i sure as heck know the meaning of words and when another parties opinion is being stated. Its either ofcoms opinion and judgement or it isnt.

Judgement... The forming of an opinion, estimate, notion, or conclusion, as from circumstances presented.

I trust for us to know Ofcoms opinion, estimation, judgement they would have to "SAY" or "WRITE" it, unless both them and the writer of the story are telepathic?

Good try by BT defenders again though "SIGH" (quote me on that LOL)

Edited by deleted (Thu 25-Mar-10 14:22:55)

It is a FACT that BT inherited the network, who says they did not?

If so where did they get it, a pixie at the bottom of the garden? The money shareholders gave in exchange for shares was the government of the times condition in giving BT the network.

This Ofcom feels gives them significant advantages, if Ofcom felt it did not they why bother with the consulation on wholesale access at all.

The consultation is there to assess what other comms providers feel, i.e. is Ofcom barking up the right or wrong tree.

We read this differently:

"Ofcom estimate that deploying the passive infrastructure based around ducts and poles to deploy next-generation access accounts for around 50-70%, and the network that BT inherited as the incumbent operator gives it a significant competitive advantage.

I read that as two separate comments made by the same person. Perhaps it should read:

"Ofcom estimate that deploying the passive infrastructure based around ducts and poles to deploy next-generation access accounts for around 50-70%. The network that BT inherited as the incumbent operator gives it a significant competitive advantage.

However this is very pedantic and not worthy of such a long discussion. Essentially the author is making 2 statements combined by an and. The first is ofcoms estimate and the second is a comment on the network "inherited" by BT. Whilst not 100% clear that is not a difficult interpretation to read into the statement.

English is such a marvelous language (and one that is continuing to develop) that the interpretation is not always clear and 2 people can easily read the same paragraph differently in many circumstances.

And I assume I was not the BT defender you are talking about as I haven't once defended BT in this discussion - merely stated a different way of reading that paragraph to how you have read it.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

It is a FACT that BT inherited the network, who says they did not?

According to you ofcom dont say that....
http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/general/t/3821966-o...

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If so where did they get it, a pixie at the bottom of the garden? The money shareholders gave in exchange for shares was the government of the times condition in giving BT the network.

This Ofcom feels gives them significant advantages, if Ofcom felt it did not they why bother with the consulation on wholesale access at all.

Nonsense that is not what it states, nowhere does it mention share holders or them being the reason for BTs significant advantage.

In reply to a post by ian72:

We read this differently:

"Ofcom estimate that deploying the passive infrastructure based around ducts and poles to deploy next-generation access accounts for around 50-70%, and the network that BT inherited as the incumbent operator gives it a significant competitive advantage.

I read that as two separate comments made by the same person. Perhaps it should read:

"Ofcom estimate that deploying the passive infrastructure based around ducts and poles to deploy next-generation access accounts for around 50-70%. The network that BT inherited as the incumbent operator gives it a significant competitive advantage.

However this is very pedantic and not worthy of such a long discussion. Essentially the author is making 2 statements combined by an and. The first is ofcoms estimate and the second is a comment on the network "inherited" by BT. Whilst not 100% clear that is not a difficult interpretation to read into the statement.

English is such a marvelous language (and one that is continuing to develop) that the interpretation is not always clear and 2 people can easily read the same paragraph differently in many circumstances.

And I assume I was not the BT defender you are talking about as I haven't once defended BT in this discussion - merely stated a different way of reading that paragraph to how you have read it.

Blah blah blah, you read it as you please ill read it with correct English meaning..........

AND......... (used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses) along or together with; as well as; in addition to; besides; also; moreover:

NOT seperate at all.

BT are a monopoly....... Do i need to explain what that is in a legal sense as i have on the news item?

Edited by deleted (Thu 25-Mar-10 17:28:46)

I am saying that they did not use the word INHERITED in the release, which is what you were trying to find if they did.

If BT did not inherit the network, how did they get it?

This is more a of pendantic English semantics debate that one of actual use.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

I am saying that they did not use the word INHERITED in the release, which is what you were trying to find if they did.

I refer you back to http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/general/t/3822695-o... and the meaning of the word estimation. Ofcom either estimates they inherited it or they did not, if they do not then the story should not state it is ofcoms estimation.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If BT did not inherit the network, how did they get it?

Im not the one saying they didnt, you are the person trying to say ofcom never said that.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

This is more a of pendantic English semantics debate that one of actual use.

No it is not, i was told im misquoting ofcoms opinion.

The question is simple is that story Ofcoms estimation of things or is it not?
(again please refer to what estimation means)

Edited by deleted (Thu 25-Mar-10 17:36:22)

You say the story states it was an ofcom estimation that they inherited it

Others say it does not, end of story, i.e. we do not agree.

The 50-70% is an estimation, the inheritance is not an estimate, drop one comma and an AND add a full stop and it reads precisely how you want it to I believe.

I'm walking away now - if you believe John was wrong in the article please do email him with the correct English text.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

You say the story states it was an ofcom estimation that they inherited it

Yes i do.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Others say it does not, end of story, i.e. we do not agree.

Then you are wrong. There is no indication that is the authors estimation, there is only indication it is Ofcoms.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

I'm walking away now - if you believe John was wrong in the article please do email him with the correct English text.

No need to email John i agree entirely with what has been written.... Im simply asking you.

Is part of Ofcoms estimation 'the network that BT inherited as the incumbent operator gives it a significant competitive advantage.' or not?

If it is not why does it state thats Ofcoms Estimation? The story is perfectly accurate, it states that is part of Ofcoms estimation, it doesnt in anyway say its the authors.

Now if as stated 'BT inherited as the incumbent operator' and has 'significant competitive advantage' that is a monopoly.

Or exclusive control of a particular market that is marked by the power to control prices and exclude competition and that esp. is developed willfully rather than as the result of superior products or skill.

Shall we talk about the rights and wrongs of that also?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If BT did not inherit the network, how did they get it?

I believe their shareholders paid for it on time from their hard earned savings.

Of course, the real competitive advantage in my view is those operators that used US Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection to avoid paying for their network.

CB is right - end of thread

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

CB is right - end of thread

{sniffles} You gave up too easily