£10 Billion Takeover of ntl:Telewest?

[paul11974]

rubbish NTL / TELEWEST / VIRGIN would not have spent all that time and money joining forces to sell up again. ntl is now in a strong position with the launch of 4play coming soon

[Shaun]

Ha Ha,

Paul, you do make me laugh!

[paul11974]

Originally Posted by Shaun

Ha Ha,

Paul, you do make me laugh!

[King Of Fools]

Originally Posted by Neptune

....or "they" could use the electricity pylons to string up fibre cable all over the country to create a national network. Or even use the power lines themselves, if the technology has been refined. Then use the telegraph poles to string up the cable for the local networks, thus preventing digging up roads and the expense that entails. Assuming both the electricity companies and BT cooperate or forced to cooperate by the regulators.

Energis have already used electricity transmission towers to create a UK wide fibre network and resell the bandwidth to companies like NTL for national calls.

There are not many places I know of that have telegraph poles so there would be very little point in putting fibre on these. Anyway the cost of the fibre is small compared to the cost of the street cabinets that convert from fibre to wire for the last few metres to the house.

It would be far cheaper to use LLU on present BT lines to reach a lot more people.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by James Henry

Think I heard from someone that ntl:Telewest now follow the ntl methods of change controls and operations, with the result that it now takes over 4 times as long for the same things to get done as they did with Telewest's systems

Incorrect, Telewests Change control procedures were the ones that were over the top, and also badly managed.

Yes, ntl's procedures are stringent, for major changes. Or would you prefer them to be done haphazardly and impact customers.

Minor changes can be implemented very swiftly, a matter of days.

Originally Posted by Neptune

....or "they" could use the electricity pylons to string up fibre cable all over the country to create a national network. Or even use the power lines themselves, if the technology has been refined. Then use the telegraph poles to string up the cable for the local networks, thus preventing digging up roads and the expense that entails. Assuming both the electricity companies and BT cooperate or forced to cooperate by the regulators

Originally Posted by King of Fools

Energis have already used electricity transmission towers to create a UK wide fibre network and resell the bandwidth to companies like NTL for national calls.

There are not many places I know of that have telegraph poles so there would be very little point in putting fibre on these. Anyway the cost of the fibre is small compared to the cost of the street cabinets that convert from fibre to wire for the last few metres to the house.

It would be far cheaper to use LLU on present BT lines to reach a lot more people.

Not just Energis (actually C&W now) but a whole host of companies already use pylons. Surf Telecom in the South West, SSE telecom and yes even NTL have fibre on pylons.

It is a cheap way of installing a Network but it is an operational nightmare to maintain.

[James Henry]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Incorrect, Telewests Change control procedures were the ones that were over the top, and also badly managed.

Yes, ntl's procedures are stringent, for major changes. Or would you prefer them to be done haphazardly and impact customers.

Minor changes can be implemented very swiftly, a matter of days.

Really? What's your source for this?

Telewest's procedures were as described far more automated, much less convoluted and more efficient than the nightmare that was ntl's. People actually quit over ntl's mismanagement of network changes when they were forced to apply them to the Telewest networks.

Don't even get me started on the ntl operational model compared to the Telewest one either.

I remember ntl's change processes as I had the pleasure of dealing with them from time to time.

Your definition of major changes is probably somewhat different from mine as well. To fart in a hubsite on the former CWC network required permission from the DTV change board.

So do you deny that despite Telewest's over the top change control procedures changes identified and required for both networks as part of upgrades, same number of changes on both, were forecast to take 6 weeks on the Telewest network, following Telewest change control, and 6 months on ntl's following their process?

I think you're completely wrong frankly, stop sucking in what ntl's empire defending sycophants tell you about how much better ntl's system is than Telewest's.

Which network ran dual DOCSIS since middle of last year, 16QAM since early last year, and finished the 256QAM upgrades which ntl are currently patting themselves on the back and procrastinating over because of what the text books say last year?

One company's change control dealt in reality, the other is a load of people sitting behind desks who probably have no idea what most of the stuff going infront of them actually means.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by James Henry

Really? What's your source for this? Mine is the guy who was in charge of Telewest's procedures, which were as described far more automated, much less convoluted and more efficient than the nightmare that was ntl's.

I remember ntl's as I had the pleasure of dealing with them from time to time.

Your definition of major changes is probably somewhat different from mine as well. To fart in a hubsite on the former CWC network required permission from the DTV change board.

I do believe Pierre works in ntl networks somewhere... quite a good source I'd say

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by James Henry

Really? What's your source for this?

OB as enlightened as ever, points out I reside in ntl:Networks, I don't want to divulge too much as I value my anonimity. I have worked in ntl for 11 years and I am FULLY conversant with all procedures, in particular the planned works/change process.

Telewest's procedures were as described far more automated, much less convoluted and more efficient than the nightmare that was ntl's.

NTLs change process is fully automated and uses the a remedy system.

NTL actually undertake 5 times as many changes on the network to TW. TW bureaucracy actually meant that even small changes that have no customer impact had to be signed off by higher management. All changes went to a Change review board, and for outages of nodes out of hours, letter drops went out to customer - over the top.

People actually quit over ntl's mismanagement of network changes when they were forced to apply them to the Telewest networks.

Did they really!!!??? I never heard of this, and if they did more fool them.

Don't even get me started on the ntl operational model compared to the Telewest one either.

Start all you want, ntl's operational model is quite simple.

I remember ntl's change processes as I had the pleasure of dealing with them from time to time.

I have the pleasure of dealing with them everyday

Your definition of major changes is probably somewhat different from mine as well. To fart in a hubsite on the former CWC network required permission from the DTV change board.

A major change to me would be a Loss of Redundancy or service of the Core Network for 8 hours affecting all Core Traffic including DTV, Broadnet, Metnet and dark fibre customers.

Not changing over some poxy card in a hub site.

So do you deny that despite Telewest's over the top change control procedures changes identified and required for both networks as part of upgrades, same number of changes on both, were forecast to take 6 weeks on the Telewest network, following Telewest change control, and 6 months on ntl's following their process?

I certainly do. A poxy upgrade of card or similar I could get submitted, approved and executed within two weeks.

I can take down a whole span of the Core Network inside of a month.

I think you're completely wrong frankly,

I think, sorry I know, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

stop sucking in what ntl's empire defending sycophants tell you about how much better ntl's system is than Telewest's.

I don't need to, I know first hand.

Which network ran dual DOCSIS since middle of last year, 16QAM since early last year, and finished the 256QAM upgrades which ntl are currently patting themselves on the back and procrastinating over because of what the text books say last year?

One company's change control dealt in reality, the other is a load of people sitting behind desks who probably have no idea what most of the stuff going infront of them actually means.

It's evident to me that you are/were living in your little DTV silo, blinkered from the rest of networks with absolutely no idea how networks operates on wider scale.

You need to get out more.

[James Henry]

I worked in operations, not in the field.

Why do I get the feeling that you are one of said people involved in the change control.

If it has actually been finally tidied up to the point where it doesn't take weeks to get anything done, all I can say is 'hooray!'.

So all of that withstanding where is the dual DOCSIS, 16QAM, why 256QAM only a work in progress now and taking an age to implement as theorists have to sign off on work regardless of the opinions of those working operationally on it?

Actually thinking about core more, have you managed to get MPLS working properly yet or are you still using static label switched paths?

Originally Posted by James Henry

Actually thinking about core more, have you managed to get MPLS working properly yet or are you still using static label switched paths?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by James Henry

I worked in operations, not in the field.

Why do I get the feeling that you are one of said people involved in the change control.

Nope.

If it has actually been finally tidied up to the point where it doesn't take weeks to get anything done, all I can say is 'hooray!'.

So all of that withstanding where is the dual DOCSIS, 16QAM, why 256QAM only a work in progress now and taking an age to implement as theorists have to sign off on work regardless of the opinions of those working operationally on it?

Not involved with it, so don't know.

Actually thinking about core more, have you managed to get MPLS working properly yet or are you still using static label switched paths?

MPLS afaik is fine thankyou and is just one of many services utilising the Core

[James Henry]

Originally Posted by Pierre

MPLS afaik is fine thankyou and is just one of many services utilising the Core

I wouldn't describe going through the same router twice due to static policied routing on a supposedly dynamic network as being 'fine'.

2 nth-bb-b-so-110-0.inet.ntl.com (62.253.184.1) 3.858 ms 3.583 ms 3.388 ms
MPLS Label=148928 CoS=1 TTL=1 S=1
3 lee-bb-a-so-600-0.inet.ntl.com (62.253.185.102) 6.570 ms 6.351 ms 8.082 ms
4 nth-bb-b-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com (62.253.185.101) 6.360 ms 6.868 ms 6.642 ms
5 nth-bb-a-so-400-0.inet.ntl.com (213.105.172.193) 6.386 ms 17.348 ms 6.429 ms
6 bir-bb-b-so-200-0.inet.ntl.com (62.253.185.106) 8.319 ms 8.351 ms 8.108 ms

If we change from tracing a uBR's loopback to tracing a gige on said uBR the traffic takes the more logical path, as I presume intended by the IGP being used:

2 nth-bb-b-so-110-0.inet.ntl.com (62.253.184.1) 3.228 ms 3.464 ms 3.102 ms
3 nth-bb-a-so-400-0.inet.ntl.com (213.105.172.193) 3.039 ms 3.462 ms 2.957 ms
4 bir-bb-b-so-200-0.inet.ntl.com (62.253.185.106) 5.157 ms 25.675 ms 24.655 ms
5 brhm-t2core-b-pos31.inet.ntl.com (62.253.185.150) 6.552 ms 5.904 ms 6.855 ms
6 brhm-t2cam1-b-ge-wan33.inet.ntl.com (195.182.176.74) 5.011 ms 5.063 ms 4.841 ms

I tend towards calling that broken unless there's a reason for shoving the traffic from customers in Warwick through Leeds (via Northampton twice).

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by James Henry

<SNIP & YAWN>

JH, why do you have to turn every thread into a techy notebook that 90% of the readers don't understand?? This thread is about ntl:Telewest being bought. Not a contest to prove yourself and how clever you are. Give over.

[Pierre]

I'll have to take your word for it, as again this area is not my area of expertise it's just technobabble to me.

But to play devils advocate, how do you know what the "logical" path is?

Did you design it?
Do you know what the exact current conditions on the network are that may be forcing a particular flow of traffic?

[James Henry]

I know enough Pierre to know that that route doesn't make sense. Going to the same router twice is totally illogical, the trip to Leeds just to come back to Northampton is wasted bandwidth.

Unfortunately as my knowledge of these things is based around technical stuff I have to put points across in that manner and I apologise if I excluded anyone.

OB - Congrats on your marriage, sorry I didn't bite