Unbundling the UPC/NTL network

GreenLad

Given all the talk about Local Loop Unbundling of the eircom network, has anyone considered another major 'last-mile' delivery platform, the UPC/NTL cable network?

Should Alternative Operators be given access to the UPC/NTL network?

I understand there are interconnects between UPC/NTL and eircom plus other operators, so it shouldn't be too difficult to set this up?

Opening up the UPC/NTL network would allow operators to offer true broadband (free from the limitations of the ageing eircom copper network) and IPTV. This can only benefit the Consumer?

DECEiFER

The thing is, you'll find that throughout the world over that there is always only one cable company operating on one piece of turf. Even in the U.S., there can be a few or more cable companies in a city, but for your home in that city, only one of them can provide a service to you.

Competition is great, but I don't see cable broadband going down the same road as ADSL broadband. But I suppose it can happen. All it would take is for each company to sell on a wholesale product to any company that's interested in re-selling it. Of course, there needs to be provisions in law made for this to happen. It might do, but I doubt it will anytime soon/

hightower1

Why would UPC want to resell? As it stands there is an exodus from other ISP to them considering their line speed /price not to mention their potential in terms of speeds possible comapred to ADSL networks.

Eircom, Smart etc are struggling to compete with supplying 20mb+ bb to their customers and can only really be done if your close to an exchange.. when their announced upgrades to the likes of 100mb+ come in early 2010 ADSL networks will be left in the dust even more so netting UPC a healthy income in urban centers.

ADSL will become "bogger" broadband simply because if you live in a city and have an ISP with speeds a multipal times faster than the nearest rival why would you use them? UPC pay for their ourn network from investors and dont have to let any ISP use it if they dont want to..... and judging by their product line up and announced line ups why WOULD they want to.

jor el

LLU is possible on a PSTN network because the competitor can install their own equipment in the exchange, and the customers line is physically switched over to that equipment. This is not possible on a cable network, without running a whole new line to the customers house.

It would be possible to have re-sellers, in the way that eircom resells to the likes of Vodafone, UTV, Imagine, etc. It would be fairly pointless though, and I'd doubt any competitor would even bother. The profits would be likely be tiny.

Bottom line; if it was worth doing, someone would be doing it already.

Sponge Bob

The cable segments typically serve 50-250 customers , an unbundled exchange will typically have 10k lines + in Ireland .

markpb

GreenLad wrote: »

Given all the talk about Local Loop Unbundling of the eircom network, has anyone considered another major 'last-mile' delivery platform, the UPC/NTL cable network?

Ignoring the technical aspect of it, the reason no-one is calling for it in Ireland is because the last mile was paid for by taxpayers while Telecom Eireann was publically owned. UPC, on the other hand, paid for their last-mile themselves without (as far as I know) any public subsidy. It would be unfair on a private company to spend all the money and then be forced to share it out.

bk

No, for a variety of reasons.

1) The tax payer paid for Eircoms lines and infrastructure therefore the requirement to unbundle. UPC paid for all their own infrastructure and lines.

2) Technically you can't as cable is a ring network, while phone lines are a point to point network. That means that with cable, it is shared with 50 houses or so, unlike a telephone line which isn't shared with anyone.

3) UPC are spending a fortune upgrading their network and they are pretty much the only teclo investing in their network. They still have a lot to do, if they were forced to unbundle then they might slow down or stop that investment.

At best you could allow ISP's to resell UPC's broadband service, like how Eircom bitstream works. But there is little benefit to that, it doesn't really create any meaningful competition.

DECEiFER

jor el wrote: »

LLU is possible on a PSTN network because the competitor can install their own equipment in the exchange, and the customers line is physically switched over to that equipment. This is not possible on a cable network, without running a whole new line to the customers house.

It would be possible to have re-sellers, in the way that eircom resells to the likes of Vodafone, UTV, Imagine, etc. It would be fairly pointless though, and I'd doubt any competitor would even bother. The profits would be likely be tiny.

Bottom line; if it was worth doing, someone would be doing it already.

Remember, they those re-sellers of Eircom's bitstream can only do so now because of the de-regulation of the telecoms market in Ireland back in 2000. As far as I know, it wouldn't be written into law for someone to re-sell a cable service. At this point, I guess UPC would have to allow it to happen, at best. But it's unlikely.

jor el

bk wrote: »

1) The tax payer paid for Eircoms lines and infrastructure therefore the requirement to unbundle. UPC paid for all their own infrastructure and lines.

I was thinking this myself, but is this the reason the network was opened up though? When Telecom Eireann was sold, the shareholders bought that network, hence paying back the tax-payer.

DECEiFER wrote: »

At this point, I guess UPC would have to allow it to happen, at best. But it's unlikely.

I'd say it's even less likely that another company would even want to do this. Which is probably why it's not done in any country. If there was money to be made, then the competitors would be actively looking for the regulators to open up the cable market in the way the PSTN market was.

Sponge Bob

Neither NTL nor Chorus served over 25% of homes with cable pre UPC and UPC serves not much more than 40% now either.

UPC does not really have significant market power and it is when you do that you must open your network up on the wholesale level . This may well change as customers abandon eircom in their droves....not least to UPC .

paulm17781

What about what's happening in The Netherlands at the minute?

http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2009/09/23/upc-10-months-to-introduce-reseller-model/

Would that be any benefit or is that what posted above have already thought pointless?

One thing I would say is if an operator with similar products and good customer service came along, I'd be quick to jump.

dub45

Given UPC's dictatorial tendencies towards their customers their growing power at least in cities really frightens me. UPC now have 22 pages of Terms and Conditions most of which are obligations of their customers. These 22 pages do not include their 'fair use' policy document.

These are their obligations to their customers:

2.2 In supplying the Services we will always use our reasonable skill and care but are unable to guarantee fault free performance. The Services are provided on a best efforts basis and we do not warrant that any connection to, transmission over, or results of the Equipment or the Services will meet your requirements or will provide uninterrupted use or will operate as required or at any minimum speed, or error free. We can not guarantee minimum bandwidth delivered to you and we can not guarantee that all data traffic can be transported complete and without delay. If a fault occurs you should notify us by contacting our customer management centre. If you are unable to access the Services, you remain liable to pay all Charges that would otherwise apply.

The bold emphasis is mine.

I reckon that UPC could make up to 500,000 euros per billing period through their 'non payment' direct debit charge - if 10% of their customers don't meet their direct debit. A figure which is probably reasonable enough given the economic climate. Of course UPC (and other companies) do not advise customers when they are filling out their direct debit mandates about such charges.

hightower1

bk

jor el wrote: »

I was thinking this myself, but is this the reason the network was opened up though? When Telecom Eireann was sold, the shareholders bought that network, hence paying back the tax-payer.

I believe when Eircom was first privatised (and ever since), it was under the requirements to open up the network, so that would have been priced into the purchase cost, or at least it should have been.

probe

dub45 wrote: »

Given UPC's dictatorial tendencies towards their customers their growing power at least in cities really frightens me. UPC now have 22 pages of Terms and Conditions most of which are obligations of their customers. These 22 pages do not include their 'fair use' policy document.

These are their obligations to their customers:



The bold emphasis is mine.

I reckon that UPC could make up to 500,000 euros per billing period through their 'non payment' direct debit charge - if 10% of their customers don't meet their direct debit. A figure which is probably reasonable enough given the economic climate. Of course UPC (and other companies) do not advise customers when they are filling out their direct debit mandates about such charges.

UPC also appears to be tracking customer's internet surfing, shopping habits, and who knows perhaps even listening to one's phone calls and reading emails given the extent of the wording of their terms and conditions:

eg

"8.2 We may, subject to the relevant legal and regulatory provisions, whilst you are a customer and for as long as necessary for the specified purposes after you terminate purchasing Services, use your personal information together with other information for the purposes of administration, credit scoring, customer services, training, marketing, tracking use of our services (including processing call, usage, billing, viewing and interactive data), profiling your usage and purchasing preferences and providing you with services,. We may disclose your personal information to UPC or any Group Company and our sub-contractors and agents for these purposes. For additional details regarding your privacy and our use of your personal information, please see our Privacy Policy, located at www.upc.ie. "

It looks as if UPC might be using or planning to use Phorm or a similar spying operation to systematically snoop on customers and sell the information?

UPC's acceptable use policy* bans the use of VPNs - which means you can't use a home UPC internet connection to connect to your office computer to check your email, access the intranet or whatever. Why not? No other internet service provider has a problem with VPNs - they don't do anything to internet data packets aside from encrypting them. This tends to confirm to one that UPC is engaged in systematic snooping of customers' traffic and wants everything to be sent in the clear so they can see everything you send and receive, verbatim.

http://www.phorm.com/isps/faq.html

UPC's conditions constitute a gross abuse of their cable monopoly, and testament to the uselessness of comreg and dataprivacy.ie.

Ireland needs to move to an independent fibre optic to the home service, using an open solution giving one a choice of service providers over a single national infrastructure.

UPC Ireland's broadband speeds are among the slowest of any cable operator in Europe or North America. The company appears to me to be engaged in a Murdoch style anglo-saxon "tabloidisation" of television services by refusing to make Europe's high quality TV channels available in Ireland. Watching TV is the fastest way for young people to learn other languages. Ireland is "educating" generation after generation of people in an environment where they end up incapable of doing business or working fluently in other European languages.

High time policies were put in place to break the UPC cable monopoly and open up the market to FTTH. Cable is incapable of providing high quality bandwidth to every customer - particularly as the consumption of video internet services grows among consumers.


*UPC's dogmatic VPN "policy":
"Section 12: Use of Virtual Private Network (VPN)

As stated above, the UPC Services are for residential use only and we do not support the use of VPN. If we find you are using VPN we may instruct you to stop using it and you must comply with this request. This is in order to prevent problems with our network and other Internet users."

Sponge Bob

probe wrote: »

*UPC's dogmatic VPN "policy":
"Section 12: Use of Virtual Private Network (VPN)

As stated above, the UPC Services are for residential use only and we do not support the use of VPN. If we find you are using VPN we may instruct you to stop using it and you must comply with this request. This is in order to prevent problems with our network and other Internet users."

That is actually illegal if they attempt to cite it or enforce it.

I doubt if UPC have ever tried it on in Ireland and I very much doubt that any named manager would put their name to a written customer instruction based on that . If they have a family to support they should not even try if they know what is good for them .

Furthermore if some silly droid tries it on then UPC are wide open to being sued as is the droid ....personally...as well

I know the droids read this so do not even try this one on unless you have a Barristers opinion on the specific circumstances , m'kay !!

dub45

Sponge Bob wrote: »

That is actually illegal if they attempt to cite it or enforce it.

I doubt if UPC have ever tried it on in Ireland and I very much doubt that any named manager would put their name to a written customer instruction based on that . If they have a family to support they should not even try if they know what is good for them .

Furthermore if some silly droid tries it on then UPC are wide open to being sued as is the droid ....personally...as well

I know the droids read this so do not even try this one on unless you have a Barristers opinion on the specific circumstances , m'kay !!

But why put it in? They appear to regard their customers as 'subjects' who must obey!

dub45

I previously posted about their provision on price increases but no one seemed unduly disturbed - I was appalled when I saw this so here I go again:)

12. Cancellation Rights

You may cancel the Services at any time, and the minimum period obligations contained in Paragraph 3 will not apply, in the following circumstances:(i) if we materially change the Terms and Conditions as per Section 16 you may terminate this Agreement in accordance with that section; (ii) if we increase your Charges for the Services by more than fifteen (15) percent in any twelve (12) month period, you may terminate your use of such Services by notifying us within 30 days of such increase. During that notice period the increased Charges will not apply to you;

So UPC can up their prices by 15% and you cannot cancel your contract (in your initial 12 month period anyway) and this at a time of deflation:eek:

As I understand it without such a provision a customer can break their contract if they decide that they are unwilling to pay the price increase.

Sponge Bob

dub45 wrote: »

But why put it in? They appear to regard their customers as 'subjects' who must obey!

The qualified solicitor they have working for them is a stupid bitch

dub45

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The qualified solicitor they have working for them is a stupid bitch

It really is appalling though that the average person is faced with this type of thing. So much for the idea of a 'contract' - their terms and conditions list no obligations for them and yet they are draconian for the customer.

At least some of the other companies stick to the terms and conditions that you signed up under until such time as you vary your contract.

It appears that companies can put whatever they like into their Terms and Conditions and the only way to challenge them is in court - which of course the average person simply cannot afford to do.

Sponge Bob

Clearwire have had US legal tems and conditions for about 5 years, this sort of legal BS muppetry looks impressive and is utterly without foundation .

Some background below, every time they change it in the US they change it here .

Utter BS but LOTS OF BIG CAPS to scare the little people off .

http://clearwiresucks.com/blog/2009/09/02/clearwire-just-changed-their-terms-and-conditions-user-submission-by-chase-w/

probe

Sponge Bob wrote: »

That is actually illegal if they attempt to cite it or enforce it.

The UPC purported assumption of legal authority to collect customer data on shopping patterns and other stuff from internet traffic and peddle it to their business associates, as well as the company’s ban on VPNs is almost certainly in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8.1 “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence”.

It is also in breach of Article 40.4.1 of Bunreacht na hÉireann in that it impinges on the personal liberty of the individual – eg to communicate with their employer in the manner their employer requires (eg using a VPN). (If the employer does not require the use of a VPN on connections from outside the company, the company is almost certainly in breach of data protection laws, and risking their own computer system security).

It is also not very environmentally friendly, in that it legally prohibits people from perhaps doing a day work from home rather than commuting to the office. As things stand, UPC Ireland customers risk having their services (internet, television and telephone) terminated if they use a VPN or don’t wish to have their internet traffic subjected to deep packet inspection for nuggets of information on their browsing patterns, perhaps where they bank, who they work for, their health records, and the contents of their inbound and outbound emails. And perhaps sold to Phorm or whoever so that “maximum value” can be extracted from the asset (one’s private communications).

For the past few years, the incompetent overpaid people at www.comreg.ie have continued to allow Ireland’s cable TV monopoly (to whom they granted the monopoly license), to continue to break human and constitutional rights, and have taken no action.

If the situation continues, either UPC Ireland should have its cable license terminated, or comreg be shut down for failure to do its job (I don’t mean an ODTR re-branding like comreg turned out) and be replaced by a lean and mean communications regulatory agency that gets the job done. Failing that the buck stops at the top.

In any event co-axial cable TV is not up to the job. The country needs fibre to the premises. An open infrastructure of fibre to provide a choice of service providers to the customer. This will put an end to UPC style arrogant conditions of business. And we’ll be less likely to hear reports from journalists from all over the world covering a Lisbon referendum type of event that they can’t get a decent broadband connection to report back home from Dublin (or anywhere else in the country).

World class incompetence, Made in Ireland.

GreenLad

Interesting points raised.

I wonder whether UPC/NTL actually has SMP in the cable market (has there been a regulatory study carried out on the Cable market in Ireland)? If so, are they required to open up their network and offer access to other operators on a non-discriminatory basis?

eircom has been privatised a long time now. Apart from some buildings and old copper, I'm sure most of the network has been upgraded and/or replaced since Joe (and Mary) Taxpayer owned the place, so it's essentially as 'private owned' as UPC/NTL.

The cable network is definitely capable of offering voice services using VoIP. This is currently being offered by the company and there is PLENTY bandwidth to support many more connections.

Still, I'm sure the hard-working boys and girls in ComReg and their expensive advisors have already given this exhaustive thought. Maybe they have time to send out a consultative paper on this?

hightower1

probe wrote: »

The UPC purported assumption of legal authority to collect customer data on shopping patterns and other stuff from internet traffic and peddle it to their business associates, as well as the company’s ban on VPNs is almost certainly in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8.1 “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence”.

It is also in breach of Article 40.4.1 of Bunreacht na hÉireann in that it impinges on the personal liberty of the individual – eg to communicate with their employer in the manner their employer requires (eg using a VPN). (If the employer does not require the use of a VPN on connections from outside the company, the company is almost certainly in breach of data protection laws, and risking their own computer system security).

It is also not very environmentally friendly, in that it legally prohibits people from perhaps doing a day work from home rather than commuting to the office. As things stand, UPC Ireland customers risk having their services (internet, television and telephone) terminated if they use a VPN or don’t wish to have their internet traffic subjected to deep packet inspection for nuggets of information on their browsing patterns, perhaps where they bank, who they work for, their health records, and the contents of their inbound and outbound emails. And perhaps sold to Phorm or whoever so that “maximum value” can be extracted from the asset (one’s private communications).

For the past few years, the incompetent overpaid people at www.comreg.ie have continued to allow Ireland’s cable TV monopoly (to whom they granted the monopoly license), to continue to break human and constitutional rights, and have taken no action.

If the situation continues, either UPC Ireland should have its cable license terminated, or comreg be shut down for failure to do its job (I don’t mean an ODTR re-branding like comreg turned out) and be replaced by a lean and mean communications regulatory agency that gets the job done. Failing that the buck stops at the top.

In any event co-axial cable TV is not up to the job. The country needs fibre to the premises. An open infrastructure of fibre to provide a choice of service providers to the customer. This will put an end to UPC style arrogant conditions of business. And we’ll be less likely to hear reports from journalists from all over the world covering a Lisbon referendum type of event that they can’t get a decent broadband connection to report back home from Dublin (or anywhere else in the country).

World class incompetence, Made in Ireland.

I think your looking over the fact that these are terms and conditions of a contract needing to being entered into by both parties. Any UPC customer has agreed to all of this by reading the terms and conditions and adding pen to paper. To then turn around and try sue someone for something you prior agreed for would be fundamentally ridiculous to say the least.