[skyscraper101]

Hello, I live in London and I want to get a simple cable service in my home. Just a few extra pay channels, nothing too complicated. I'm not after a broadband connection, or a phone service. I've got them already, thanks.

As Virgin can't offer a service because my 'home is in a non-cable area' I rang Tiscali. They said: You need a Tiscali Broadband account to have our TV services. 'Why?' I asked. The girl on the phone said, because it 'like, comes through the internet' or something and you can't have one without the other.

So what's the deal? Is it not possible to pay for a service that just delivers a cable service into my home without signing up to services I don't want or need? Why can't I just 'pay for TV'? This is London FFS!! The largest city in Europe!

Why is it so difficult? Are we the only national capital in the west like this with such limited access to cable? It seems like it's either the Sky way or the highway (I have Sky for this reason).

In other countries I go to, they simply plug the TV in, connect the cable and tune in any of the 99 channels they want. One remote, one power supply. Simple.

Why does everything have to be so fussy over here with set top boxes for each tv in each room, extra power supplies for everyone of them needed, extra remotes, cables everywhere, bundled broadband and phone requirements, BT line mandatory, 12 month minimum subscription etc etc...

[Zapomatic]

Tiscali TV isn't cable as such, it's IPTV. The TV is delivered over broadband (ADSL) and you can't have more than one ADSL provider on your line at once. Just consider the broadband free with your TV (or vice-versa). You need the BT line because that's what is used to deliver your TV and internet.

Also cable TV that just plugs straight into the TV without an STB will be analogue cable, which is being phased out. STBs have always been used in this country (even in analogue days) because most TVs sold here don't have the hyperband capable tuners required.

[skyscraper101]

I see. So it really does underline my point, we have the poorest cable service for such a large city.

If analogue is being 'phased out' why don't they at least make sure they can provide the upgraded version before discontinuing the analogue version.

I like analogue cable. It has a lot of plus points. Not least the space saved with clutter and the ability to distribute around the house cheaply. If 50 odd analogue channels can be delivered to my TV through one wire, I'm fine with that. I'd like to have the option at least.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapomatic

because most TVs sold here don't have the hyperband capable tuners required.

Why did this country not choose to have hyperband with no stb? Seems more economical than having to manufacture STBs no?

[zenith52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrishampson

I see. So it really does underline my point, we have the poorest cable service for such a large city.

If analogue is being 'phased out' why don't they at least make sure they can provide the upgraded version before discontinuing the analogue version.

I like analogue cable. It has a lot of plus points. Not least the space saved with clutter and the ability to distribute around the house cheaply. If 50 odd analogue channels can be delivered to my TV through one wire, I'm fine with that. I'd like to have the option at least.




Why did this country not choose to have hyperband with no stb? Seems more economical than having to manufacture STBs no?

Because it is open to theft/fraud (Cable Guy ).

London is actually the worst place to get anything because it is very difficult to dig up any roads, drill through any buildings because alot of them are older than most of the cities in the US , put up any street furniture (cabinets). You may have also noticed we don't have shed loads of Telephone Poles in this country and those we do have are owned by BT.. Therefore it is very expensive to lay cable as it has to be buried rather than strung on poles like the US.

[Rufus Londinii]

You can always buy a modulator to convert the signal to an RF (analogue) signal.

Or do what I do and plug your box into a VCR - I can run my signal on 2 TVs then (I have to do some trickery with a Scart splitter as well but it works!)

Zapomatic's reply just about sums it up though...

[M_at]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrishampson

Why did this country not choose to have hyperband with no stb? Seems more economical than having to manufacture STBs no?

Because this country didn't have cable for a long long long time. Neither did much of Europe.

Direct analogue broadcasts are what we had for ages.

If there are no services required then no one will enable the technology for them.

It was purely market forces and not a decision.

In answer to your first question - Tiscali TV is TV delivered over your existing phone line - you can't run multiple ADSL services over a single line so if you want their television you have to take everything else they supply over ADSL at the same time.

[tv watcher]

you used to get just a tv service from them i dont know if you still can.
at £14.99 you got was the big pack tv without an internet connection,
or
£14.99 you got base pack tv with a 2 meg internet connection
however as said above you can only have one adsl service provider on one telephone line
as the tv supplyed by tiscali is an adsl sevice!

[TaG Eledhel]

if its just basic you want why not get free view with the plus package.

[skyscraper101]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TaG Eledhel

if its just basic you want why not get free view with the plus package.

Because:

a) I don't want to install a new 'freeview strength' aerial at my personal cost on a property I don't own
b) I don't want to buy a seperate 'freeview' box for each tv in each room which would require an extra power socket for each one, an extra remote for each one, a seperate scart lead for each one, more cable clutter, more power wastage etc...
c) I want to have a choice between rival cable companies, with differing packages and channels rather than the 'one size fits all' model of freeview.

[skyscraper101]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M_at

...so if you want their television you have to take everything else they supply over ADSL at the same time.

It seems a bit anti-competitive to me. Is that not like BT saying you can only access their copper lines if you have a BT phone account back in the nineties before Ofcom came in and forced them to open up to rival companies?

[DrinkingBuddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrishampson

It seems a bit anti-competitive to me. Is that not like BT saying you can only access their copper lines if you have a BT phone account back in the nineties before Ofcom came in and forced them to open up to rival companies?

It's not anti-competitive, its's just a limitation of the technology. The only way an IPTV company can guarantee service quality is to manage the pipe down which the service comes. Alternative IPTV applications as opposed to services, such as Joost are in early stages and all suffer from not being able to guarantee service quality.

If more people wanted choices of cable company and were willing to pay for them, then more would exist. It's simple market economics, just because you want more choice of cable provider does not justify companies investing in the technology. I'm sure there are plenty of companies out there that would invest the money if there was a likely return, but as the cable industry showed when it first started up and the were competitors such as NTL, Telewest, London Cable, etc. there was not enough demand from people to make them profitable, especially when you consider the infrastructure investment required, hence why nearly all of the previous cable providers have now merged / been taken over to become Virgin Media, they needed the scale to make the business even potentially viable as there were not enough customers demanding the service choice you seem to crave. You can't blame companies for not offering a product the market doesn't want to buy.

[skyscraper101]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrinkingBuddy

... its's just a limitation of the technology.

Yes indeed it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrinkingBuddy

If more people wanted choices of cable company and were willing to pay for them, then more would exist.

How do we know that people don't want a choice? Have you seen the rants and complaints about Virgin Media's shoddy service and lack of content? I'd take that as a given that people would like to have an alternative choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrinkingBuddy

It's simple market economics, just because you want more choice of cable provider does not justify companies investing in the technology.

So how does it work in other countries? Is there a consumer lobby group banging on the doors of TV stations and media companies demanding new cable companies be set up? I doubt it. I think people are more likely to demand something that actually exists first.

[zenith52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrishampson

Because:

a) I don't want to install a new 'freeview strength' aerial at my personal cost on a property I don't own
b) I don't want to buy a seperate 'freeview' box for each tv in each room which would require an extra power socket for each one, an extra remote for each one, a seperate scart lead for each one, more cable clutter, more power wastage etc...
c) I want to have a choice between rival cable companies, with differing packages and channels rather than the 'one size fits all' model of freeview.

Well for C. you have no chance as there are no and will not be any competition with regards to Cable Companies.. The UK Government set up the cable franchises in a way that meant only one franchise holder was allowed to provide service in a particular area. These franchises have now been consolidated into what is now Virgin Media.. (with a couple of exeptions in small pockets). So the choice you have is Virgin Media CableTV (in what ever form it takes in your area), SKY, Freeview, BTVision (Which is Freeview with some IPTV VOD Service), TiscaliTV (Which is IPTV) or one of the other IPTV Services being sold on Broadband Internet.

[zenith52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrinkingBuddy

It's not anti-competitive, its's just a limitation of the technology. The only way an IPTV company can guarantee service quality is to manage the pipe down which the service comes. Alternative IPTV applications as opposed to services, such as Joost are in early stages and all suffer from not being able to guarantee service quality.

If more people wanted choices of cable company and were willing to pay for them, then more would exist. It's simple market economics, just because you want more choice of cable provider does not justify companies investing in the technology. I'm sure there are plenty of companies out there that would invest the money if there was a likely return, but as the cable industry showed when it first started up and the were competitors such as NTL, Telewest, London Cable, etc. there was not enough demand from people to make them profitable, especially when you consider the infrastructure investment required, hence why nearly all of the previous cable providers have now merged / been taken over to become Virgin Media, they needed the scale to make the business even potentially viable as there were not enough customers demanding the service choice you seem to crave. You can't blame companies for not offering a product the market doesn't want to buy.

The original CableCo's were not competitors they only operated in the franchise area in which they were licensed. There was never more than one cable option available in a single location

[skyscraper101]

What a rubbish situation! No wonder the cable market died if there was only ever allowed to be one service.

Who decided this law and why? That has to be anti competitive surely??

[Peter We]

Its not cost effective to lay cable now (especially with ADSL to compete) or in the past. Thats why the many companies were given local monopolies.

But they still lost a lot of money and have consolidated up to what is now Virgin Media, complete with the billions of dollars of debt.

Laying cable in London is simply not worth the investment, digging up roads and killing the trees is a problem and finding somewhere to house the distribution/exchange is difficult and expensive.

You know, you should have complained about this 10 years ago when the Government was handing out licenses

[crane grove]

The cable industry was protected from competition by the regualtor so it could grow and comptete with BT. That is why BT is only now launching IPTV.

Plus to go back to all the people who say there is no choice, there are 4 pay tv providers in London: BT, Tiscali, Virgin and Sky. Surely that is competition?

Plus Orange are rumoured to be launching an IPTV service.

[Zapomatic]

I'm now wondering if we're dealing with a troll here?

[skyscraper101]

Oh please. I'm not a troll by any standards.

Unimpressed by London's cable network yes, but no not trolling. I've been on these boards for ages go take a look. It's a simple rant based on the fact I don't seem to be able to get a basic cable service in the largest and richest city in Europe. Analogue has been 'phased out' before the 'phasing in' of new digital cable has even started in my area.

It seems to me that owing to the fiasco over cable's early days here, Sky has simply taken the lions share of business in the Pay TV world. No thanks to the UK government for insisting that there only be one provider. If there was some competition, perhaps we would have more choice and perhaps even be able to buy channels a la carte like in other countries.

[Rufus Londinii]

Well we're in danger of drifting into Politics and History here but I would make the following general points.

1) I don't know what they do in the USA (which has been mentioned a lot through this thread). I get the feeling though that they have been reliant on cable for a far longer period than we have given that a Transmitter Network was easily sufficient for our needs but would not have been economical in the States.

2) There were originally 2 competing satellite companies - Sky and BSB (of "squarial" fame). They both ended up having to merge because otherwise they would have both gone bust. In fact it has often been said that, had it not been for cross-promotion and funding from the rest of Murdoch's business empire and the last-minute success in winning the Premiership Football rights, they would have gone bust anyway! Nonetheless, the success of BSkyB now means that any new entry to the market has 2 giants (BT & BSkyB) to contend with.

3) The dominance of BSkyB and the emergence of OnDigital (Later the much derided and bust ITV Digital) undercut the nascent cable industry and meant that, even with a local monopoly, there was no financial benefit in expanding the cable network in the London area outside of the City and already cabled areas.

4) Likewise, with the development of ADSL broadband and Local Loop Unbundling, 3rd Party Companies have been happy to cherrypick customers from BT without setting down their own network. Arguably this has meant there is no economic benefit in BT upgrading their Exchange>Home network either and why we're still stuck with copper wires and ADSL when, particularly in London, BT might have been able to push a fibre-optic solution much sooner.

5) Ironically, it is Tiscali's predecessor, Homechoice, which has come in to break up the Sky/BT/Cable stranglehold. Being able to use the BT line meant they were able to supply a service to users who couldn't get Cable or Satellite. However, the failure to get Sky's basic channels meant they suffered in relation to Sky while the costs of implementing their equipment in the limited number of exchanges led eventually to they having to sell up to Tiscali who, a couple of EPG changes apart, have yet to significantly progress the service.

6) To address your original point, what Homechoice has done does not have to be unique - there is nothing to stop other companies doing the same. So perhaps you should ask yourself why other companies (apart from BT who have the benefit of their massive size, reputation and access to the Network) aren't doing this - particularly Freeserve/Wanadoo/Orange who were supposed to be introducing a Livebox Service (similar to what they have in France) years ago...




and breathe...

[Rufus Londinii]

Incidentally, you can't get BT Vision (BT's equivalent service) unless you get BT Total Broadband either!

[Rufus Londinii]

...and if you were able to get Cable from Virgin you would only be able to get their service over their line as well - no Local Loop Unbundling on cable!

[zenith52]

But... When BT complete the 21CN rollout, we may well have the opportunity for better services.. But that is yet to be seen

[AlexD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrishampson

Oh please. I'm not a troll by any standards.

Unimpressed by London's cable network yes, but no not trolling. I've been on these boards for ages go take a look. It's a simple rant based on the fact I don't seem to be able to get a basic cable service in the largest and richest city in Europe. Analogue has been 'phased out' before the 'phasing in' of new digital cable has even started in my area.

When the person abover mentioned phasing out of analogue cable, they were clearly talking about other countries, in response to your assertion that when you went to other countries you could simply plug a cable into your TV to watch cable without the need for a set top box. The poster was saying that this soon would no longer be the case in other countries. You seem to have latched onto this and are saying it happened in your area - but earlier you said there was no cable available in your area at all, so how could it have been phased out? This is why you are being accused of being a troll, because of inconsistencies in what you are saying. I am not saying you are a troll, just that you are being inconsistent in what you say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrishampson

It seems to me that owing to the fiasco over cable's early days here, Sky has simply taken the lions share of business in the Pay TV world. No thanks to the UK government for insisting that there only be one provider. If there was some competition, perhaps we would have more choice and perhaps even be able to buy channels a la carte like in other countries.

There was no fiasco, and cable started in this country long before sky launched their analogue satellite service in 1989. The reason there was one cable franchise per area was to make cable cost effective to lay cable and get customers, and so that more areas would get cable.

If you had competition between cable companies in each area, they would all go after the big cities like London, and leave out the smaller towns altogether. Also, the prices would be much more expensive - if you have one cable company in London with one million customers then the cable installation costs are shared out between all those customers. If you had 10 companies fighting over the same one million customers then they would only have 100,000 customers each, shared equally - therefore the costs of installation would be ten times higher per customer.

So, would you want to have cable if ten companies dug up London and you had the choice between all of them, but they charged you a £1000 install fee to cover their costs?

The whole idea of cable in th 1990s was to compete with satellite (SKY) and BT - not with itself.

[AlexD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rufus Londinii

2) There were originally 2 competing satellite companies - Sky and BSB (of "squarial" fame). They both ended up having to merge because otherwise they would have both gone bust.

This is factually incorrect, they did not "merge", Sky bought BSB and then closed it down so it did not have any competition.