More sweet deals for Developers

watty

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/watchdog-allows--tv-firms-twoyear-monopoly-1860953.html

Yet again Ireland is RUBBISH RUBBISH RUBBISH for consumers and looks after Sweet deals for Developers.

Shh.. don't even mention NAMA or ESOT

Mossy Monk

Outrageous decision.

BrianD

In the Irish Times as well:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0815/1224252591158.html

It would seem to me that the Competition Authority are looking at this from the wrong angle or lacking overview of the problem. On the straight and narrow the decision is correct but it ignores a lot of issues such as how pricing is arrived at, the fact that other providers such as UPC would probably install the same infrastructure for free. At the end of the day, most apartment blocks are stuck with one cable tv supplier and despite the various views on UPC, at least they are regulated.

Who exactly regulates these private TV and telecoms cos? Is it COMREG?

watty

Sky, UPC* and magnet** are the 3 best and will all install for free and all together, none exclusively.

The other ones are Cowboys that pay the Developers.


* Assuming Cable is in Area
** Assuming fibre is in Area

BrianD wrote: »

Who exactly regulates these private TV and telecoms cos? Is it COMREG?

No-one really, you only need BCI licences for the content on Cable & Fibre.
Sky is totally unregulated here, except if you uplink from Ireland.
But Sky, UPC and Magnet are not the problem.

There is no regulation now of providing cabled TV other than content.

Lister1

May interest some people....

Not sure if its the correct forum but feel free to move...


http://rapidshare.com/files/267825882/E_09_001_Pay-TV_Exclusivity_Decision_Note.pdf.html

BrianD

The more I read the findings, it seems to me the real issue is regulation and not competition when it comes to apartment block development.

In most cases, the TV provider is an exclusive deal anyway. The developer has seen the provision of TV/BB (and telephony?) as a revenue stream and did it themselves. The precedent over the years has always been an exclusive provider of TV services in apartment blocks by one supplier. Competition from satellite is generally knocked out by the rules of the management company in both old and new blocks (and probably more likely to be enforced in newer developments).

While I'm sure UPC (and others ) would be happy to get new customers, is it cost effective for them to run a cable to one apartment? Nor those it make sense for a number of companies to put in competing networks in apartment blocks. It just doesn't add up for the provider or the consumer as either will have to pay for the upkeep of the infrastructure. Unless there is a technology that allows multiple providers access to a single cable infrastructure within a block it makes perfect sense to have a monopoly cable provider. In the ideal world it would be great to be able to switch TV providers like you can change your other utilities.

The problem is that these developer providers aren't regulated and can do what they want. So there needs to be some law that requires each of them to have a mimimum service requirement and be regulated. This would allow the customer some comeback on the issues of poor reception, service levels and billing. Unfortunately, there seems to be little political appetite to deal with this issue.

watty

Sky, UPC and magnet will "plumb" every apartment to their systems at no charge to developer, during construction. Non-exclusively. Users would pay the normal connection charges.

Sky will retrofit to an existing apartment block charging users just the normal install cost.

One dish can feed 500 Sky HD boxes.

One fibre or coax into an average apartment can feed it all. If done at build time the cost per apartment is lower than regular houses. This is why the Competition Authority ruling is only of benefit to Developers. Developers get nothing from Sky, UPC or Magnet.

Apartments should have choice of all three. Then there is choice of BB and TV from different suppliers. The "Sky" feed can do FTA Sat and aerial.

It's possible to do Sky+ / SkyHD (needs two coax) and share those coax with Terrestrial TV, Digiweb Metro BB, Cable BB and Cable TV.

No-one wants these Monopoly suppliers People want Sky/UPC and to a lesser extent Magnet (more for BB than TV).


Lots of people I know have Sat dish + Aerial for TV and Digiweb Metro or UPC for BB.

The Competition Authority is artificially hurting the people that do real infrastructure to promote shabbily done un-professional systems and put more money in pocket of developers.

Ironically usually every apartment is wired for eircom and most people don't take it up. Even when wired for UPC (Chorus/NTL) there is no terrestrial Aerial feed to the apartments which is criminal.

The Developers are Greedy, Inefficient and Clueless and now we are all being taxed (NAMA) to subsidise them too.

keith99

watty wrote: »

Sky, UPC and magnet will "plumb" every apartment to their systems at no charge to developer, during construction. Non-exclusively. Users would pay the normal connection charges.

Sky will retrofit to an existing apartment block charging users just the normal install cost.

One dish can feed 500 Sky HD boxes.

One fibre or coax into an average apartment can feed it all. If done at build time the cost per apartment is lower than regular houses. This is why the Competition Authority ruling is only of benefit to Developers. Developers get nothing from Sky, UPC or Magnet.

Apartments should have choice of all three. Then there is choice of BB and TV from different suppliers. The "Sky" feed can do FTA Sat and aerial.

It's possible to do Sky+ / SkyHD (needs two coax) and share those coax with Terrestrial TV, Digiweb Metro BB, Cable BB and Cable TV.

No-one wants these Monopoly suppliers People want Sky/UPC and to a lesser extent Magnet (more for BB than TV).


Lots of people I know have Sat dish + Aerial for TV and Digiweb Metro or UPC for BB.

The Competition Authority is artificially hurting the people that do real infrastructure to promote shabbily done un-professional systems and put more money in pocket of developers.

Ironically usually every apartment is wired for eircom and most people don't take it up. Even when wired for UPC (Chorus/NTL) there is no terrestrial Aerial feed to the apartments which is criminal.

The Developers are Greedy, Inefficient and Clueless and now we are all being taxed (NAMA) to subsidise them too.

A work colleague of mine lives in a apartment complex in donaghmede, the developer of the complex did a exclusive deal with magnet, my colleague was not connected to magnet due to complaints from neighbours about the bad service, I advised him to get freesat HD and a outdoor aerial from freesat.ie for 2 connections for 600euro he is very pleased with the service

there are 180 apartments and 30 apartments have satellite dishes so far

watty

Yet Magnet claims they don't do exclusive deals!

Crazy when one big dish of Roof would supply Sky + 3 other Satellites at cost per apartment under €50. Better rain margin too.

bk

Let me give an example of this crazy situation.

Smart Telecom provide the tv, phone and BB exclusively in my development.

They have now decided to discontinue their TV service in my development!!

Fortunately Sky brought their shared dish service to the building just a few months ago at no cost to the residents (other then the normal install cost if you sign up).

But what happens if Smart decide to drop the phone and BB as well, will we be left up s**t creek without a paddle?

This is a crazy decision by the competition authority given that all the main infrastrucutre companies are happy to connect up a building with no guarantee and no cost to the developers.

This is evident by one building I know of in the city center that has Sky, UPC, Magnet (fibre 50mb/s BB) and Eircom in the same building. Probably the best connected building in the country and I must say fair play to the developers who put in the effort to do that.

I'm guessing that given the recession and that it is now an extreme buyers market, it would be suicide for any developer to continue with these antics. People want UPC/Sky/Magnet and if they aren't available, they may go elsewhere.

BrianD

Watty - would I be correct in interpreting from your post that an apartment block could be cabled with a single 'ring' that would allow universal access to different suppliers? So that any service can be connected to it and then individual apartments can then access the service?

As I said before a thread on the in;s and outs of these services would be beneficial to all. I believe that on paper that the Competition Authority reached the correct decision purely on the basis of precedent and that it is not unreasonable that if a company pays to cable an apartment block then they should have exclusive access to it. However, obviously taking a global view consumers should have the benefit of being able to select from providers just like they do for other telecoms.

However, it doesn't make economic sense for multiple companies to put in duplicate cabling in apartments so if a single ring with universal access would be the best option. I'm just wondering that did those taking the recent case to the Competition Authority take it from the right angle. Or was there any point? Is it something for a government policy?

watty

no, not a ring. But two coax per sat outlet to 4 way plate: 2x sat, 1 x UPC (UPC's FM, BB, Cable TV), 1 xTerrestrial (Metro + dab +FM + DTT +Analogue UHF+ Analogue VHF TV).

There is then a central distribution. 2 x CAT5 for eircom/smart/Magnet to a central point with fibre and DSLAM. Note actual ethernet has 100m limit, stuff on coax nor VDSL/ADSL2+ has not got that limit.

Consumers don't count. Nor does strategic development. The Government has ignored it's own committes recomendations for years on Insulation, Ducting, Broadband etc.

bk

BrianD wrote: »

Watty - would I be correct in interpreting from your post that an apartment block could be cabled with a single 'ring' that would allow universal access to different suppliers? So that any service can be connected to it and then individual apartments can then access the service?

That isn't the way it works at the moment, but that is the way that it should do.

IMO the government should lay down certain minimum specs for all new developments, that requires cat5e and coax * runs to central location in the building which then can be accessed by any and all suppliers.

* The coax should be connected to an aerial for FTA by default.

BrianD

bk wrote: »

That isn't the way it works at the moment, but that is the way that it should do.

IMO the government should lay down certain minimum specs for all new developments, that requires cat5e and coax * runs to central location in the building which then can be accessed by any and all suppliers.

* The coax should be connected to an aerial for FTA by default.

In your case, where the original supplier fails to or stops providing iwould it not be up to the management committee to bring in a new supplier? Perhaps, a deal can be done to get a better unit rate but then again these deals usually come with conditions - one of which would be exclusivity.

Of course there's also problems with management companies (many still controlled by the developers) and that many members of companies simply will not change no matter how bad a service is.

Watty - in relation to the the internal distribution, it all sounds a little complex and a lot of wiring. What happens if more operators appear in the market, how do you cater for them? There are certain situations where a monopoly actually works best and this is one of them. The trick is getting the right monopoly. I wonder how far back down the process did the Competition Authority examine.

DingDong

bk did you approach UPC about supplying service to your development. Is there coax running back to a comm's room from each apartment. Did smart give a reason for pulling the plug on their TV service?.

Some Developers are now putting into the contacts with suppliers, that they retain ownership of the ducting on site. I see this as a good thing as it means, should your development choose to change providers it will make it a lot easier.


Multiple suppliers in an apartment is very easily done, pretty much the setup Watty has said with not much difference in cost to the developer. Houses on the other hand are more complicated, as a lot more duct and chambers are required . It wouldn't be impossible just have higher cost.

bk

BrianD wrote: »

In your case, where the original supplier fails to or stops providing iwould it not be up to the management committee to bring in a new supplier? Perhaps, a deal can be done to get a better unit rate but then again these deals usually come with conditions - one of which would be exclusivity.

Yes I'm sure they would, but how long a down time until an alternative provider runs fibre to the building and installs their own gear?

I would rather have an alternative provider in place beforehand.

BrianD wrote: »

Watty - in relation to the the internal distribution, it all sounds a little complex and a lot of wiring. What happens if more operators appear in the market, how do you cater for them? There are certain situations where a monopoly actually works best and this is one of them. The trick is getting the right monopoly. I wonder how far back down the process did the Competition Authority examine.

It isn't really, what I'd propose is the government set out different levels, which would then have to be clearly advertised in all new developments.

The most basic level could be just one coax and one ethernet cable running from the basement to a central cabinet in the apartment for further distribution.

Almost every building built has something like this anyway, so shouldn't be any extra cost. Just mandating spec and equal provider access.

This could be bronze level, the government code also set out a higher silver and gold levels which have multiple coax and ethernet runs for easier Sky+, etc. I could see developers ending up competing to get gold level in order to attract buyers.

Elmo

What companies?

Also can the custs in the apt not get sky?

BrianD

Elmo wrote: »

What companies?

Also can the custs in the apt not get sky?

Most residents of apt blocks can't install Sky as it requires a dish to be installed externally. This is normally in breach of the management company rules. This is fair enough as most people would prefer to live in the development as designed by the architect as opposed to a block that looks like a NATO listening post.

The installation of a community Sky system mentioned above would require the agreement of the members of the management company. No doubt there would be plenty of politics with that.

BTW if Sky put in a community system ... do they allow non-Sky kit to be connected to it?

watty

Yes they do. You simply get one or two sat outlets.

If you pay the install company extra you can have 13E, 19E and one other also on same cable. The 28.2E is set as LNB1, so regular Sky Boxes only see the correct satellite.

Also extra can be paid to have two cables to two rooms (Sky+, SkyHD and other PVRs need two cables).

Elmo

So who is providing the television? Also they do have competition from RTÉ NL and its free. (Apt prob cann't pick up terr sigs)

bk

watty wrote: »

Yes they do. You simply get one or two sat outlets.

If you pay the install company extra you can have 13E, 19E and one other also on same cable. The 28.2E is set as LNB1, so regular Sky Boxes only see the correct satellite.

Also extra can be paid to have two cables to two rooms (Sky+, SkyHD and other PVRs need two cables).

Not in my case, it was all done by Sky contractors, they ran cables to the outside of each apartment, but not into the apartment, they only run the cables into the apartment when you sigh up for Sky. Also I've tried the cable and it doesn't seem to be connected to the dish on the roof.

Also I don't think you could get multiroom in my building.

Elmo wrote: »

So who is providing the television? Also they do have competition from RTÉ NL and its free. (Apt prob cann't pick up terr sigs)

Are you asking about my development?

Smart were providing TV to my development for the last 2 years over IPTV (Fibre To The Building). They are now pulling out and Sky have recently installed their Sky community shared dish system which everyone will need to get.

There is no aerial feed in the apartment.

BrianD

I would be surprised if Sky would pay to install a community system into an apartment block and then allow non-Sky equipment to be connected to it.

Who ever this thread is useful as I think there is a lot of information to empower both existing apartment dwellers who have TV/BB issues and developers of future blocks who are interested in knowing what infrastructure should be sunk in at the time of build.

How about a FAQ for both of the above? Checklist for builders which could become a best practice and then a help and advice for existing dwellers who want to improve their options?

watty

Sky own nothing.

Not the dishes, not the boxes. Even on Contract, you own the box from day1, though there is a warrenty on it and you do have to pay the contract for the year. The Domestic install charge, even when charged doesn't even cover equipment cost. The real Install cost is about 1.5x the equipment cost if you wanted to eke out a living installing independently. Installs are subsidized.

I presume the management company, not Sky, own and control the communal dish.

Sky don't even own a Satellite.

bk

I'm not so sure about that watty, I'd be surprised if Sky don't retain some ownership.

Either way practically speaking Sky control it. In my building they only dropped two wires to the outside of each apartment, not connected into the apartment. When you order the install they then come out and bring it into the apartment. Sure you could do it yourself, but you would need an awfully big drill bit. Also I've tested the cable and it seems it isn't attached to the satellite on the roof and I wouldn't recommend climbing on top of a 4 floor building.

So really you need to get Sky in to finish the install. However after the 12 months contract, I don't think there is anything stopping you going FTA sat.

BrianD

If Sky undertake to subsidise fully or partially the installation of a community satellite system where every apartment has a connection then they own it as they paid for it.

They may well immediately sign it over to the management company or owner of the block but I'm sure they would be looking for exclusivity i.e. sign up to their service for a period of time. I'm sure their only motivation is profit.

Ultimately, this is not unlike what the Competition Authority decided was lawful in the case that started this post.

watty

Not nessarilly true. Ordinary Sky installs are never owned by sky and 50% to 100% subsidized.

BrianD

watty wrote: »

Not nessarilly true. Ordinary Sky installs are never owned by sky and 50% to 100% subsidized.

With respect, we are referring to a body corporate and retrofitting an apartment block (lets say 100 units) to receive Sky. This includes the dish, all the cabling, wall points and any other ancillary equipment required. Somebody has to pay for this and then in the long run maintain it.

There is only two ways that this will happen. The management company commissions the installation or a company such as Sky offers to install it under some type of deal. You can be guaranteed that Sky would not subdsidise this project unless there was an exclusivity deal for a defined period of time. Why would they install the system so every one could hook up a FTA box?

watty

In retro-fitted systems, only those signing with Sky get a connection. After that the minimum contract they would not be disconnected.

The Management Company, as with other shared infrastructure, would own and have to maintain (typically very little cost) the shared dish and "multiswitches" and power them. Shared stairwell lights is more electricity.

As you say, for a pre-installed to every apartment setup the scenarios are more varied. I've had a tour of Adamstown during fitting out and visited an Apartment block with Satellite and UPC cable distribution.

There should be standards that include free terrestrial Aerial distribution. At build time the extra cost per apartment is negligable. Retro-fit is much more expensive.