Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[broadstairs]

In many ways splitting off the retail arm does indeed make sense. Lets face it the status quo is not really fit for the 21st century and by splitting off retail as you say would probably make things easier in many ways. This would remove the potential conflict of interest which rightly or wrongly is perceived by many because in many other industries Chinese Walls are just too porous.

Stuart

[niemand]

I don't understand how you think that "Sky want to pay the bare minimum for a product that allows them to continue to rinse consumers for access to their overpriced content" works. I can see it for Virgin, but Sky?

However many times I read this it makes no more sense.

[WWWombat]

Those guys were unhappy enough about having Openreach branded CPE in customers' premises let alone customers continuing to pay what would be seen as BT directly. Also makes it harder for them to hide broadband cost in line rental, as said rental wouldn't be paid to them.

Why is there a requirement to keep them happy? Ofcom seem to have got sidetracked in thinking the people it regulates have to be happy, its like a police officer telling a burgler we will only arrest you if you agree to it.

If Sky and TalkTalk aren't kept happy enough, they take away their LLU ball, and go home. Ofcom's policy will show itself to have been a decade of sham. No quango likes to have been proven pointless.

It must be complicated when teetering on the edge of blamed for being a cause of problems rather than a solution.

[WWWombat]

The NTT model, in common with Singapore, Korea, etc, a abandons LLU in favour of bitstream in a similar manner to GEA services and infrastructure competition from the cable company.

Is LLU abandoned there?

The problem here appears that Ofcom have only started to embrace infrastructure competition, but wants to keep LLU too.

[WWWombat]

.  I'm sure you had some input.. if not wombat certainly covered it too.

Yes.

I've largely avoided this thread, deliberately, as a no-win discussion. However, I don't agree with the Sky/TT perspective that they have the right to an exclusive relationship with the end-user. As a householder, the communication connectivity of the house is a part of the asset. I believe that gives me a right to discuss the asset directly with the provider.

Further, I can't help but wonder whether the USO helps highlight this.

[Chrysalis]

Why is there a requirement to keep them happy? Ofcom seem to have got sidetracked in thinking the people it regulates have to be happy, its like a police officer telling a burgler we will only arrest you if you agree to it.


If Sky and TalkTalk aren't kept happy enough, they take away their LLU ball, and go home. Ofcom's policy will show itself to have been a decade of sham. No quango likes to have been proven pointless.

It must be complicated when teetering on the edge of blamed for being a cause of problems rather than a solution.

they wont do that, ofcom may think that, but no way are sky going to put their business to the pit just out of spite.  They would just get on with it.

[Ktor]

There is more to accountability than being able to use another supplier.

Availability of alternate suppliers has nothing to do with what accountability is, just a lot to do with if you are going to get any.