Codevelopment implies respect and mutual interest from any hegemonic referredI want to take the time to the reflectionThere is a real pride to buy his first car Rumours had indeed discussed BHP and CVRDA vote will be held if more candidates areToo late and too little for Northern RockThey give the illusion of a talent at allIt will be associated with certain appointmentsRisky asset classAttention to unpleasant surprisesThe current officers of listed companies are therefore concernedWho owned cable networks
The cable operator, of course, that was built and funded. This was found by notarial acts in their surrender to our group. One year after the consolidation of the sector by Numéricâble, some would like to believe the contrary. The confusion comes from the appearance of public service (CSPs) of certain contracts with communities. If this characterization of DSP, the network would return to the community at the end said contracts. But our view is that there is no DSP, except possibly when a co-financing has been in place. Indeed, for a contract of DSP, case law fixed a long list of conditions, which are not met. In addition, the statement of the reasons for the Act Leotard of 1986 specifies that wired networks are not considered as part of public service. Anyway, this DSP debate or not is that very few networks, including not networks of the cable plan Editor's Note: where the trenches and scabbards belong to France Telecom, and cable and equipment to Numéricâble.
What do you think of the report of the Arcep
The package of directives on telecommunications of 2002 prime on the French right places that wired networks are treated as networks of Telecom, with which we are now in direct competition. We therefore benefit from the same regime as the telecom operators. However, today, our agreements with communities still contain many obligations weighing on us, contrary to the telecoms operators, and causing considerable costs and misunderstandings in our relations with local communities. The instructions must therefore be to delete all these obligations.
What do you propose to Commons
We propose to replace the existing agreements, conventions of occupation in the public domain. It is this type of agreement which already governs relations between Commons and telecoms operators. Editor's Note: in this type of agreement, the network belongs clearly to the operator, not the community. Today, a hundred of Commons have already signed this type of agreement with us. For a commune, the advantage is threefold. First, we pay him a royalty of occupation in the public domain. Then, in the renewed framework, we can invest in the long term, particularly in fiber optics, which we started to make massive way. Finally, the common escape all the risks associated with the DSP. Indeed, in a DSP, the delegate must be compensated if the economy of the contract is upset. Editor's Note: Arcep discourages communities to accept this market, and their "recommended" keep "this essential heritage".
What do you think of infrastructure sharing imposed by the Act TV of the future
With regard to our infrastructure, they are not public and therefore outside the scope of this amendment. Especially, we have not expected this amendment to our competitors offer rental of our fibre-optic, attractive commercial terms Editor's Note: fixed freely by Numéricâble and unregulated. Numéricâble intends to show in fact that it is the engine of the development of very high flow through its own network. Today, we've already hooked fiber over 1 million homes; This figure will increase to 2.5 million in late 2007, 5 million end 2008, and 7.5 million end of 2009. We are very far away and for a long time, the number one optical fibre and very high flow due to the number of households served, offered by client flow and the amount of our investment.
