Can another company resell services on a Cable network?

Elmo

Can another company provide TV, Telephone and Broadband services on a cable network in the same manner that companies can resell services on telephone networks?

I don't think I am wording the question correctly.

Ranicand

Elmo wrote: »

Can another company provide TV, Telephone and Broadband services on a cable network in the same manner that companies can resell services on telephone networks?

I don't think I am wording the question correctly.

No.

paulm17781

Not hear. However they have opened up the Dutch networks so I'd say it's only a matter of time.

Elmo

Ranicand wrote: »

No.

Is that a technical no or a policy no. Or do you mean I am not wording the question correctly

However they have opened up the Dutch networks so I'd say it's only a matter of time.

Has there been anything written on it here?

Ranicand

Elmo wrote: »

Is that a technical no or a policy no. Or do you mean I am not wording the question correctly

Cable is a private network paid for by private money.

Elmo

Ranicand wrote: »

Cable is a private network paid for by private money.

Eircom could say the same thing. Don't forget UPC Dublin, Waterford and Galway were all semi-state at one stage.

Ranicand

Elmo wrote: »

Eircom could say the same thing. Don't forget UPC Dublin, Waterford and Galway were all semi-state at one stage.

True but UPC has spend way more on the System then the new owners of Eircom.

Plus Eircom was sold as an open system.

Eircom lines in my area are almost useless for broadband others reselling Eircoms bandwidth is stupid when the lines are in tatters.

UPC spend money on upgrading the system if others want to provide services they should build their own network or help improve the network on which they want to operate.

Elmo

Doesn't this just build a large monopoly in the cable area. There were several cable companies in the state before UPC entered the market. Now there is a very large one and a few smaller ones (I understand that they were basically monopolies in their individual areas).

I am not saying that UPC haven't spent money on either their formerly private owned or formerly stated owned cable networks, but Eircom's owners have also spent large amounts on their network, while also having to open that network up to competitors. And I assumed that both BT and Smart's non-Eircom networks were also open to resellers. Did I not read that BT where chasing the wholesale telecoms market.

http://www.btireland.ie/mediacentre/pr_2009_08_21_ca.shtml

Ranicand

Elmo wrote: »

Doesn't this just build a large monopoly in the cable area. There were several cable companies in the state before UPC entered the market. Now there is a very large one and a few smaller ones (I understand that they were basically monopolies in their individual areas).

I am not saying that UPC haven't spent money on either their formerly private owned or formerly stated owned cable networks, but Eircom's owners have also spent large amounts on their network, while also having to open that network up to competitors. And I assumed that both BT and Smart's non-Eircom networks were also open to resellers. Did I not read that BT where chasing the wholesale market.

There is also the issue of security UPC has spent big money to upgrade to Nagra 3.

If other companies are going to resell who controls the encryption?
I am all for competition but reselling does not make any sense to me.

It could work if say for example a company wanted to join the system they should add to the network.
How many areas don't have phone or HD?

Elmo

Ranicand wrote: »

There is also the issue of security UPC has spent big money to upgrade to Nagra 3.

If other companies are going to resell who controls the encryption?
I am all for competition but reselling does not make any sense to me.

It could work if say for example a company wanted to join the system they should add to the network.
How many areas don't have phone or HD?

Well how does it work on Dutch networks. UPC have a dutch company. One of the main issues of the planned Cablelink company was the lack of competition in the area, it was decided that it was unrealistic to think that 2 or 3 cable companies would cable the same area, that was in 1985. Now we have wholesale.

UPC may say "no, you cannot piggy back on Digital TV for the moment due to technical issues but you may piggy back on phone and broadband". UPC could be wholesalers like the rest of the telecommunications industry.

Bazzy

afaik phone is considered an essential (oap's have there line rental paid for free) instead of a luxury which digital tv phone and broadband are considered as.


If you want free tv and you arent fussy get a rabbits ears for your tv signal wont be great but it will cost you the same as one months subscription

if you have a heart attack and have no phone your tv wont call you an ambulance....

paulm17781

The only thing that occurred to me is 'how would it differ?' I don't see how other services could be sold on the network as the bandwidth would be needed for the owner's services. I know they are doing this in The Netherlands (I posted above ) but I don't know the technical side.

A phone line is point to point from home to the exchange / cab. There is nothing on it other than the services the user subscribes to. Cable is shared and has multiple services on it at all times (TV / BB).

Even though I know it is being done, I don't know how it can be done.

[edit]I just reread about The Netherlands and cable. Other operators are allowed resell analogue cable to compliment their own telephony and DSL. They haven't actually forced the operators to open their networks as I had thought. [/edit]

Elmo

Bazzy wrote: »

afaik phone is considered an essential (oap's have there line rental paid for free) instead of a luxury which digital tv phone and broadband are considered as.

I had this conversation with a CSR in UPC. There service went down for a number of hours and I asked how can the provide a phone service if it is down during an emergency of some kind. (Did effect my area since we can get UPC phone but I just thought it was important to mention to the company).

Cable is shared and has multiple services on it at all times (TV / BB).

Different packages but the same channels. Top up TV, Boxoffice type service etc could all be provided by different operators on the network.

When you think about it the telephone service you get from Vodaphone is the same as BTs but BT is just the wholesaler.

For example a Teleco company like vodaphone could provide TV, Broadband and Home phone from UPC but packaged from vodaphone.

As for the encryption I think that each company would be able to support the encryption it would make sense for them to be involved after all they don't want people robbing the signal either.

Or they could have a completely separate digital service on the same cables depending on the bandwidth, in the same way as UPC have Digital and Analogue on the same cable. But I also don't know the ins and outs of the technology.

Kensington

There's a number of ways you could do it:

1) If an operator is looking into providing TV service, then they could split channel distribution costs with UPC. It is possible to "simulcrypt" (encrypt using two, or more, completely different algorithms) channels. So UPC could have their own encryption system (Nagra) and the third party have their own, completely seperate encryption system (eg. NDS). Each operator controls their own subscription systems, smart cards and package entitlements. The huge benefit is there is no neglible increase in the current bandwidth usage.

2) UPC could treat their network as a wired satellite. They would simply lease off transport streams (transponders) to third parties who are then responsible for broadcasting their service down it. UPC subscribers would only tune to UPC transport streams and third party subscribers get their subscriber equipment to tune to their respective streams.

3) UPC could repackage their services such as broadband and phone, similar to eircom bitstream. UPC carries the physical data on the cable network, but the third party is responsible for the head-end connectivity (routing calls and internet traffic to the internet).

Elmo wrote:

I had this conversation with a CSR in UPC. There service went down for a number of hours and I asked how can the provide a phone service if it is down during an emergency of some kind. (Did effect my area since we can get UPC phone but I just thought it was important to mention to the company).

Get yourself a cheapo UPS!
The majority of the green street cabinets have battery backup which will run the network for a couple of hours. If you have local power to keep your cablemodem on, then your phone service will continue to work during a powercut.

paulm17781

Different packages may work, I wouldn't see it being hugely profitable though. I would be happy to be proved wrong.

Comparing Eircom / Vodafone isn't relative. It all comes down to bandwidth which is finite, with Telcos the line is point to point and operators connect it to their own equipment / backhaul. With cable, the cables running to each house already have data on them, not like phone lines, there is no additional bandwidth to be used. Different packages is all you could do because to offer different channels, you would have to use the cable co's bandwidth, a limited resource.

Elmo

paulm17781 wrote: »

Comparing Eircom / Vodafone isn't relative. It all comes down to bandwidth which is finite, with Telcos the line is point to point and operators connect it to their own equipment / backhaul. With cable, the cables running to each house already have data on them, not like phone lines, there is no additional bandwidth to be used. Different packages is all you could do because to offer different channels, you would have to use the cable co's bandwidth, a limited resource.

I was really only comparing them due to the fact that someone suggested that UPCs cable infrasture should not be forced to wholesale their service to competitors as it was not a semi-state body but a private company. Eircom was not a good example. A better one be Vodaphone, O2 and Meteor who all have to let other operators piggy back on their mobile services. However only O2 has Tesco and Meteor has Eircom (Their parent company).

coylemj

It would not be economic for any company to lay cables to houses in large towns anywhere in Ireland if there was a requirement that the network be made available to their competitors.

The situation with Eircom is different, they laid telephone cables across telegraph lines and via underground ducts which was paid for with taxpayers money over the lifetime of what used to be called the Department of Posts and telegraphs before Telecom Eireann was floated all those years ago. The same applied to most telecoms monopolies across Europe so it makes sense that those networks be thrown open to competitors because otherwise the successors to the old state monopolies (Eircom in Ireland, BT in the UK) would never be exposed to competition given that they had a huge headstart over any potential competition.

Elmo

coylemj wrote: »

It would not be economic for any company to lay cables to houses in large towns anywhere in Ireland if there was a requirement that the network be made available to their competitors.

The situation with Eircom is different, they laid telephone cables across telegraph lines and via underground ducts which was paid for with taxpayers money over the lifetime of what used to be called the Department of Posts and telegraphs before Telecom Eireann was floated all those years ago. The same applied to most telecoms monopolies across Europe so it makes sense that those networks be thrown open to competitors because otherwise the successors to the old state monopolies (Eircom in Ireland, BT in the UK) would never be exposed to competition given that they had a huge headstart over any potential competition.

As I have pointed out companies coming into the market since the deregulation of the telecoms market have laid networks and for example BT are now wholesalers rather than direct competitors with Eircom.

The same goes for the Mobile phone networks. This is possible a better example as Eircell was only a few years old when it was sold to Vodaphone and both Esat's, 3's and Meteor's networks were only provided through private funds. Yet the mobile phone industry also has to wholesale their services to other companies. Tesco on O2 being the better of the 2 examples, the other being Eircom on meteor.

So this idea of the cable company being a private concern is a moot point in relation to this this idea. Especially when Cablelink was a semi-state body.

Why should a well established cable monopoly be any different to a well established monopoly in other areas? Just because its private?

paulm17781

Elmo wrote: »

As I have pointed out companies coming into the market since the deregulation of the telecoms market have laid networks and for example BT are now wholesalers rather than direct competitors with Eircom.

The same goes for the Mobile phone networks. This is possible a better example as Eircell was only a few years old when it was sold to Vodaphone and both Esat's, 3's and Meteor's networks were only provided through private funds. Yet the mobile phone industry also has to wholesale their services to other companies. Tesco on O2 being the better of the 2 examples, the other being Eircom on meteor.

Why should a well established cable monopoly be any different to a well established monopoly in other areas? Just because its private?

Technically cable and telecoms (including mobile) are massively different. They can't really be compared at all.

Elmo

paulm17781 wrote: »

Technically cable and telecoms (including mobile) are massively different. They can't really be compared at all.

That is fine but I am just making the point that you can't point to it being a private company when opening up the market. So I am purely comparing them in terms of public policy.

If it is technically not possible then it is technically not possible.

Freddie59

Elmo wrote: »

Eircom could say the same thing. Don't forget UPC Dublin, Waterford and Galway were all semi-state at one stage.

Not so. They were a standalone, self-funding company in the which the semi-state owned a share. Big difference. This was tried in the States a few years ago.It was rejected out of hand.

You should also remember that the Dutch cable networks were originally built and owned for many years by local authorities (the equivalent of our City Councils).

Elmo

Freddie59 wrote: »

Not so. They were a standalone, self-funding company in the which the semi-state owned a share. Big difference. This was tried in the States a few years ago.It was rejected out of hand.

Cablelink was owned by both RTÉ and Eircom. It was a semi-state body. Even in the US they wouldn't allow a monopoly to take shape.

What if cablelink was still owned by RTÉ, they didn't want to sell the company. They wanted Eircom out because many felt that Eircom was holding back the company from delivering Telecoms and other services.

UPC is now the largest Cable company in Ireland. Their only competition is Sky and perhaps One Vision which will be owned by Eircom.

paulm17781

Elmo wrote: »

UPC is now the largest Cable company in Ireland. Their only competition is Sky and perhaps One Vision which will be owned by Eircom.

They never had any competition though. It was different operators vs Sky / terrestrial. Now it is UPC vs. Sky / Terrestrial. If anything, that is better.

Elmo

paulm17781 wrote: »

They never had any competition though. It was different operators vs Sky / terrestrial. Now it is UPC vs. Sky / Terrestrial. If anything, that is better.

Well we don't know really since UPC bought up all the smaller cable companies. Cablevision in Dungarvan seems to have been able to role out Broadband. Do they provide Digital TV? As I siad I under stood that infect each of the smaller companies had a cable monopoly in their area.

Cable V FTASat, Terrestrial and Sky.

paulm17781

Elmo wrote: »

Well we don't know really since UPC bought up all the smaller cable companies.

We do know though. There were always cable monopolies, it is no different now. The only thing that has changed is now they can compete on a national level where as before it was like Casey Cablevision in Dungarvan who have to compete with satellite and terrestrial now it is UPC, who can afford to compete.

Elmo

paulm17781 wrote: »

We do know though. There were always cable monopolies, it is no different now. The only thing that has changed is now they can compete on a national level where as before it was like Casey Cablevision in Dungarvan who have to compete with satellite and terrestrial now it is UPC, who can afford to compete.

Casey as a local operator seem to be doing quite well I don't know much about their operation. To me this proves that local operators can role out digital TV, broadband and phone and compete quite well with large multinationals and FTA outlets.

What I am suggesting also includes Casey opening up their services to the wholesale market.

What we don't know is how Cablelink, Multichannel etc would have worked today againist Sky. Would they have been any better/worse than Chorus and NTL???? Okay UPC have turn a corner.

Everyone seems very much against this just because its a private company. If Eircom had built their monopoly privately would we feel the same way????

Freddie59

Elmo wrote: »

Casey as a local operator seem to be doing quite well I don't know much about their operation. To me this proves that local operators can role out digital TV, broadband and phone and compete quite well with large multinationals and FTA outlets.

Caseys (and Crossan in Longford) are the exception to the rule. The Casey network is one of the most modern in the world. But that is after years of judicious and prudent investment.

Elmo wrote: »

What I am suggesting also includes Casey opening up their services to the wholesale market.

Can't see it happening. Why should a company like Caseys (built with private money) accommodate a competitor. What next - mini supermarket competitors in Tescos?

Elmo wrote: »

What we don't know is how Cablelink, Multichannel etc would have worked today againist Sky. Would they have been any better/worse than Chorus and NTL???? Okay UPC have turn a corner.

You can be certain it was not have been as efficient as UPC. A unified entity with more bargaining and purchasing power stands a much better chance.

Elmo wrote: »

Everyone seems very much against this just because its a private company. If Eircom had built their monopoly privately would we feel the same way????

I wouldn't say everyone's against it on here. But there would be HUGE obstacles to this. And it would be grossly unfair to companies like Caseys and UPC IMHO.

Elmo

Freddie59 wrote: »

Caseys (and Crossan in Longford) are the exception to the rule. The Casey network is one of the most modern in the world. But that is after years of judicious and prudent investment.

Can't see it happening. Why should a company like Caseys (built with private money) accommodate a competitor. What next - mini supermarket competitors in Tescos?

You can be certain it was not have been as efficient as UPC. A unified entity with more bargaining and purchasing power stands a much better chance.

I wouldn't say everyone's against it on here. But there would be HUGE obstacles to this. And it would be grossly unfair to companies like Caseys and UPC IMHO.

Why can't all companies be "Judicious and prudent". How is their bargaining power in comparision to UPC and if UPC bargaining power is greater than either to me it seems like anti-competitive practices from UPC. And if UPC were to buy any smaller Cable company I would be question them.

TBH the competition authority would have to take a look at each case individually and Casey and Crossan IMO would be exempt due to their size.

How efficient are Casey and Crossan?

Also you should walk into any big department store like Arnots to see how they have different companies with in their store

Freddie59

Elmo wrote: »

How is their bargaining power in comparision to UPC and if UPC bargaining power is greater than either to me it seems like anti-competitive practices from UPC.

Numbers. Volume of. What is the bargaining power of, let's say, Tescos, compared to a corner shop?

Elmo wrote: »

TBH the competition authority would have to take a look at each case individually and Casey and Crossan IMO would be exempt due to their size.

This in itself could be classed as discriminatory and anti-competitive.

Elmo wrote: »

How efficient are Casey and Crossan?

Very, I would imagine. It must be remembered that Caseys would have profited greatly from their supply deal to Irish Multichannel in the 1980s. You must also remember that a smaller company has none of the shareholder constraints that a major company has. (Very profitable) decisions can be taken at the brekky table.

Elmo wrote: »

Also you should walk into any big department store like Arnots to see how they have different companies with in their store

Not quite the same. How many competitors operate in NATIONWIDE chain stores like Tesco, Lidl, or Aldi. Thought so.:)

The reality is that a major unified entity is far more desirable in duelling with Sky (the major digital broadcaster on the planet) than a haphazard arrangement of smaller operators. Were UPC not in Ireland, we would not see prices where they are, nor the drive in increased broadband speeds and availability.

It must also be remembered that we are not the UK. We are Lilliputian in comparison. An economic fact.

Elmo

Freddie59 wrote: »

Not quite the same. How many competitors operate in NATIONWIDE chain stores like Tesco, Lidl, or Aldi. Thought so.:)

The reality is that a major unified entity is far more desirable in duelling with Sky (the major digital broadcaster on the planet) than a haphazard arrangement of smaller operators. Were UPC not in Ireland, we would not see prices where they are, nor the drive in increased broadband speeds and availability.

It must also be remembered that we are not the UK. We are Lilliputian in comparison. An economic fact.

No but many Nationwide chain stores sit side by side smaller stores, for example in many of the new "retail" centres you can have 2 competiting supermarkets along side smaller news agencies and more expensive high street shops.

This point seems to be disproved based on Casey. Again I am not sure of casey prices or if they provide Digital TV. Why can't I get Casey? or why cann't UPC be provided in Dungarvan?

I never compared us to the UK. I don't think Virgin Media provides space to other competitors. Why not? But that is a question for the UK.

This in itself could be classed as discriminatory and anti-competitive.

The competition authority and ComReg have both dished out price fixing on the semi-state bodies. This allows for new competition. At this stage why should Eircom be forced to keep prices higher then their competitors?

Theta

Elmo wrote: »

Why not? But that is a question for the UK.

At this stage why should Eircom be forced to keep prices higher then their competitors?

Why should a network have to carry traffic that is not its own? Why should it be made?

And it keeps its prices high because of its massive debts. In the region of billions I believe.

paulm17781

Elmo wrote: »

This point seems to be disproved based on Casey. Again I am not sure of casey prices or if they provide Digital TV. Why can't I get Casey? or why cann't UPC be provided in Dungarvan?

Because Casey's do not have the spare bandwidth to supply UPCs channels and likewise for UPC. There is nothing stopping the other rolling out a new network.

All your arguments are missing the point that this is technically not possible (unless some pointless reselling is done). Any comparisons / rationalisations you've made is simply comparing apples and oranges. There is no benefit to reselling services on cable and there is not enough bandwidth to offer competing services. Verizon are rolling out FTTH in the US as they know it is the only way to compete with cable. Opening cable to other operators has no benefit to them.

Elmo

paulm17781 wrote: »

Because Casey's do not have the spare bandwidth to supply UPCs channels and likewise for UPC. There is nothing stopping the other rolling out a new network.

All your arguments are missing the point that this is technically not possible (unless some pointless reselling is done). Any comparisons / rationalisations you've made is simply comparing apples and oranges. There is no benefit to reselling services on cable and there is not enough bandwidth to offer competing services. Verizon are rolling out FTTH in the US as they know it is the only way to compete with cable. Opening cable to other operators has no benefit to them.

In relation to Casey has anyone got information about their services?

What if UPC have the rights to provide a channel that casey are unable to provide. It might make scene for Casey to have UPC run along side its service. UPC would just add the additional channel on to their EPG while it just wouldn't be available on Casey's.

The bandwidth issue would be resolved by agreements on the TV services available on the services, in other words you wouldn't have Casey's RTÉ 1 and UPC's RTÉ 1 you would just have RTÉ 1 under the banner of either Casey or UPC. EPG would be the main difference. I assume that each company could wholesale their Broadband and Phone services in the same way other telecos can.

Theta

Elmo wrote: »

In relation to Casey has anyone got information about their services?

What if UPC have the rights to provide a channel that casey are unable to provide. It might make scene for Casey to have UPC run along side its service. UPC would just add the additional channel on to their EPG while it just wouldn't be available on Casey's.

The bandwidth issue would be resolved by agreements on the TV services available on the services, in other words you wouldn't have Casey's RTÉ 1 and UPC's RTÉ 1 you would just have RTÉ 1 under the banner of either Casey or UPC. EPG would be the main difference. I assume that each company could wholesale their Broadband and Phone services in the same way other telecos can.

That sounds like a whole load of effort for little or nothing in return for UPC so why would they bother expend the money..

Elmo

Theta wrote: »

That sounds like a whole load of effort for little or nothing in return for UPC so why would they bother expend the money..

Might help the customer. Competition in the pay TV sector is just between Sky and UPC, smaller companies are finding it difficult to compete with either.

Ranicand

Elmo wrote: »

In relation to Casey has anyone got information about their services?

What if UPC have the rights to provide a channel that casey are unable to provide. It might make scene for Casey to have UPC run along side its service. UPC would just add the additional channel on to their EPG while it just wouldn't be available on Casey's.

The bandwidth issue would be resolved by agreements on the TV services available on the services, in other words you wouldn't have Casey's RTÉ 1 and UPC's RTÉ 1 you would just have RTÉ 1 under the banner of either Casey or UPC. EPG would be the main difference. I assume that each company could wholesale their Broadband and Phone services in the same way other telecos can.

UPC have laid the network other companies reselling their product and producing nothing makes no sense.

All the Eircom resellers are useless.
DSL in my area is useless so none of those resellers provide any competition to Eircom.

From reading the Broadband boards reselling DSL only makes problems worse the reseller blames Eircom and Eircom blames the reseller.

Sky do not share their system Sky rent space on 28.2 Astra or whatever and so do other channels.

Sky run the EPG and channels can pay for a place in it or they can join the Sky pack and be encrypted with NDS Videoguard.

Freesat do not share the system no channels that are part of the Sky pack are in the Freesat epg rather some free channels pay for a place in the Sky EPG.


UPC do not rent space on cable they run and maintain the system and have being upgrading it.

Eircom is in dire debt and none of those resellers have fixed the state of the lines in my area.
UPC have given me a line with phone and broadband.

I am all for choice Magnet run a fiber line for broadband in some areas.

DSL line in my area can't give a stable 1meg connection UPC cable give this

.

BT in the UK are building a fiber network and Virgin are in many of the same areas now that's choice.
BT runs that BT vision tv thing.
UPC provide triple play TV phone Internet.
If another company want to run a fiber cable to my door with all 3 services that beats UPC I would go for it.

Now that would be competition.

Resellers buy from the network and then resell to us they are just middle men.



Here is choice

http://www.bt.com/
http://www.virginmedia.com/
Plus Sky do a Broadband and phone package with their TV in the UK.
Yes they are reselling Phone and Net but they provide the TV.

Freddie59

Elmo wrote: »

smaller companies are finding it difficult to compete with either.

Such as? Heat, kitchen, big boys, etc.

Steviemak

Theta wrote: »

And it keeps its prices high because of its massive debts.

This is not true. Eircom are forced to keep there prices high to allow competition to flourish. For example eircom recently tried to repackage its 20mb business broadband product for consumers and reduce the price accordingly. ComReg refused to let them reduce the price as it would impact on the ability of LLU operators to sell their products. With out ComReg prices would reduce significantly in the telecoms market as eircom now only carried 40% of voice traffic in the country so they no longer have a monopoly.

Theta

Steviemak wrote: »

This is not true. Eircom are forced to keep there prices high to allow competition to flourish. For example eircom recently tried to repackage its 20mb business broadband product for consumers and reduce the price accordingly. ComReg refused to let them reduce the price as it would impact on the ability of LLU operators to sell their products. With out ComReg prices would reduce significantly in the telecoms market as eircom now only carried 40% of voice traffic in the country so they no longer have a monopoly.

Why do you think they now have the highest line rental in europe and by some accounts the world and an increase in phones charges. Thats there bread and butter and they are saddled with 3 bn in debt.

Freddie59

Steviemak wrote: »

This is not true. Eircom are forced to keep there prices high to allow competition to flourish.

Yep. Spot on. Otherwise, why would Eircom wholesale something for say, €10 (which, let's say they're charging €20). Middleman says I'll give it to you for €15. Obviously you'd then expect Eircom to say 'nah - here it is for €13'. But no - they can't. FFS.:eek:

Isn't this why electricity and gas prices were hiked so that 'competition' could be offered. I'd have settled for the previous low prices.

begs the question: is there really ANY competition?

So do we really want to see UPC forced to shove their prices UP so that 'competition can flourish'?

neil_hosey

is this not what sky conway do though?

I am no expert on this though.

We pay sky conway 170 quid a year or something for about 20 channels. On some channels you see the sky info bar pop up at the bottom.. and aswell late at night when shows are stopped..


Probably brought up before, if so apologies..


If Im right and its illegal, i will be reporting them cas they are ****!

Elmo

Freddie59 wrote: »

Such as? Heat, kitchen, big boys, etc.

There are no examples as UPC have a closed marketplace

Elmo

Freddie59 wrote: »

Isn't this why electricity and gas prices were hiked so that 'competition' could be offered. I'd have settled for the previous low prices.

The ESB and Eircom cannot reduce price with out asking the Regulator. Unlike UPC who can do as they please the regulator does not regulate them.

ESB have kept prices high to allow Bord Gais and Airtricity into the market place. After 10 years of deregulation Eircom should be allowed to begin deciding their own prices. However the issue of Eircom's Network comes to mind in reality it should be own by a separate wholesaler to allow equal competition in the sector.

Freddie59

Elmo wrote: »

There are no examples as UPC have a closed marketplace

But you have stated that 'smaller companies are finding it difficult to compete'. Who are these 'smaller companies'?;)

Freddie59

Elmo wrote: »

ESB have kept prices high to allow Bord Gais and Airtricity into the market place.

I rest my case.:)

Elmo

Freddie59 wrote: »

But you have stated that 'smaller companies are finding it difficult to compete'. Who are these 'smaller companies'?;)

The lack of other competitors in the marketplace.

I rest my case.

This allows new companies to break the monopoly once held by the incumbents. The ESB have to look for a price reduction while Bord Gais and Airtricity can do as the please until such time as they are established players. The same goes for Bord Gais with the gas market the must ask their regulator for a price reduction, newer entrants can deploy their service.

Also why should private companies benefit of state infrastructures? Let them build their own. Why should Airtricity get a huge state subsidy? Because their use of the ESB network is exactly that.