Virgin Media refuse to open to competitors.

[NEWLINEtv]

Ironically Virgin Media, which refuses to offer its cable platform out to rival ISPs on a wholesale basis, still hopes to make use of BT's telephone poles in order to extend its own coverage.

[ Source ], so Virgin Media use BT's wholesale service but Virgin Media refuse to allow competition onto it's network, I wonder why the competition commission hasn't stepped in yet?

[Chris]

Because Virgin's cable network was built commercially, entirely with private capital and covers about 50% of the population. BT's network, on the other hand, covers almost 100% of the population, a situation that only exists because for decades it was a State-owned monopoly.

BT has a unique competitive advantage because of its former nationalised status. That is why it is regulated differently.

[Stuart]

Perhaps because BT's network (I am talking about the lines to houses here, not the backhaul) was largely paid for by the public? While the cable network was built by Virgin's predecessors largely, so while Virgin (previously NTL/Telewest) did not directly pay for it (although they bought the debt), I think they should have some say who uses it.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

This is a point however, If VM won't work with BT, then how do we operate our phone lines, surely this has to go through a BT network.

[Hugh]

The calls go from VM Telephone Exchanges to BT Exchanges, then down the local loop.

[greyposter]

Was it 'United Artists' before Telewest ?

[Hugh]

Yes, along with Jones Cable, PacBell, Encom, and lots of others...

[greyposter]

Cabletel also springs to mind

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

This is a point however, If VM won't work with BT, then how do we operate our phone lines, surely this has to go through a BT network.

It's not about VM working with BT or not. The connections that enable VM to route calls to the BT network exist, and it's in VM's interest for them to exist, so they aren't going to go. This doesn't really have anything to do with phone lines.

This is about VM allowing other companies (Sky in particular have expressed an interest in this) to broadcast and offer internet access using VM's cable network, bypassing VM as much as is possible.

[Jayster]

Originally Posted by Stuart

It's not about VM working with BT or not. The connections that enable VM to route calls to the BT network exist, and it's in VM's interest for them to exist, so they aren't going to go. This doesn't really have anything to do with phone lines.

This is about VM allowing other companies (Sky in particular have expressed an interest in this) to broadcast and offer internet access using VM's cable network, bypassing VM as much as is possible.

Surley Virgin would allow them if they got enough money or a good enough deal out of it. My guess is Virgin would be looking alot for the access and imo have to right to.

[Stuart]

I suspect they would. Whether any company is willing to pay that much is another matter though.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Stuart

Perhaps because BT's network (I am talking about the lines to houses here, not the backhaul) was largely paid for by the public? While the cable network was built by Virgin's predecessors largely, so while Virgin (previously NTL/Telewest) did not directly pay for it (although they bought the debt), I think they should have some say who uses it.

Who paid for Sky's platform, which has a requirement to have competitors on its' EPG at a regulated rate, and is forced to wholesale a selection of its' content at regulated rates?

The whole public private thing is zero defence due to Sky's regulation, amongst other things.

Virgin's business model relies on their total vertical integration. Owning the network and all the services going along it. To lose the retail revenue would cause them some issues as their prices are extremely low. To offer a decent wholesale service on their network the wholesale pricing would probably be very close to the retail one. Wholesale partners are unlikely to tolerate networks spending 9 months a year congested.

Virgin are purely protected because they aren't selling that well in their covered areas. If they covered any more of the UK than they do or were selling better in their covered areas they would be subject to closer scrutiny. As it is thanks to Sky and Freeview they don't have 50% of the TV market in their areas and don't have 50% of the telco or broadband market so don't have Significant Market Power in any market.

They kinda owe Sky for that, perversely if the Sky offering were not so strong VM would be in danger of acquiring sufficient TV customers to be considered to have SMP

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Who paid for Sky's platform, which has a requirement to have competitors on its' EPG at a regulated rate, and is forced to wholesale a selection of its' content at regulated rates?

The whole public private thing is zero defence due to Sky's regulation, amongst other things.

We aren't talking about the EPG. It's worth noting that VM do allow other companies on their EPG. Their rates are effectively regulated by the need to compete with Sky.

As for their delivery system, well, anyone who has enough money can set up a ground station, and rent space on one or more of the Astra transponders. Sky cannot prevent that even assuming they wanted to. I suspect that Sky would prevent that if they could.

So, yes, the public/private thing is a defence.

And seeing as the article is actually about requiring VM to open the cable network to other ISPs, has Sky ever been required to open their own lines to other ISPs? Has anyone, apart from BT?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Stuart

We aren't talking about the EPG. It's worth noting that VM do allow other companies on their EPG. Their rates are effectively regulated by the need to compete with Sky.

Indeed but they have the final call over it. Sky have no such luxury and must allow others who pay to use their EPG. I could set up a channel dedicated to discussing my dislike of goat's cheese and Sky would have to carry it on their EPG if I paid the Ofcom mandated fee.

Originally Posted by Stuart

As for their delivery system, well, anyone who has enough money can set up a ground station, and rent space on one or more of the Astra transponders. Sky cannot prevent that even assuming they wanted to. I suspect that Sky would prevent that if they could.

You just kinda killed your own argument there. The point of the regulation is in part due to the barriers of entry. As you have rightly said anyone who has the money could set up a ground station and rent space on Astra. Compare that to the costs of competing with BT or Virgin Media, far higher barrier to entry, far stronger case to regulate access to facilitate competition.

Originally Posted by Stuart

So, yes, the public/private thing is a defence.

Nope - based purely on barriers to entry and ignoring SMP the case to regulate Virgin Media's network is far stronger than that of Sky. Sky's distribution mechanism is rented and anyone could do likewise if they chose with relatively little outlay compared with digging up roads to compete equivalently with Virgin.

Who paid for the network is entirely irrelevant. This isn't my opinion, this is the opinion of the regulator.

Originally Posted by Stuart

And seeing as the article is actually about requiring VM to open the cable network to other ISPs, has Sky ever been required to open their own lines to other ISPs? Has anyone, apart from BT?

Sky don't have any of their own lines?

To answer your question yes, Kingston Communications are adjudged to have Significant Market Power in Hull, therefore are required to open their network to other operators.

The above document has some odd things about it in Virgin's favour though. BT are regulated differently depending on which area of the country we are dealing with and their market share in those areas, the exchange areas being split into Market 1, 2 and 3 with 3 being deregulated and BT allowed to charge different wholesale prices, Virgin Media are for what ever reason regulated based on their share of the market nationwide. It's something that should be addressed regardless of outcome as it is a discrepancy.

You may find this interesting, do especially note page 11.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Who paid for Sky's platform, which has a requirement to have competitors on its' EPG at a regulated rate, and is forced to wholesale a selection of its' content at regulated rates?

It's a bit a thin as a counter argument. Your not talking apples and apples.

Your talking the broadcast arena here, as far as I'm aware BT do not "have" to open up their network for purely Broadcast purposes.

Sky has to wholesale some of its content, namely the football, because it has monopololised it. Same way BT has to open up its Access Network because it has a monopoly on it. Anyway Sky do alright out of that arrangement, remember the spat they had with VM ver Sky 1 etc. Thousands of subcribers failed to flood back to Sky when they took it off VM.

Virgin are purely protected because they aren't selling that well in their covered areas. If they covered any more of the UK than they do or were selling better in their covered areas they would be subject to closer scrutiny. As it is thanks to Sky and Freeview they don't have 50% of the TV market in their areas and don't have 50% of the telco or broadband market so don't have Significant Market Power in any market

That's *******s. Virgin are not protected by anything. The only thing that "protects" Virgin as you put it, is the fact virgin are not a monopoloy and there is healthy competetion in this sector, but that goes the same for everyone (except BT of course). Virgin are not getting special treatment from anyone.

If Virgin was to outbid sky (not going to happen) for all the premier league rights, I can guarantee you that virgin would be constrained by the same rules currently in place for sky.

I don't understand why you think Virgin should thank sky??? It's just about competition that's all, and nothing more, nothing less.

The whole public/ private thing, as you say, isn't the reason - it's just competition.