Josher Posted November 22, 2010 Report Share Posted November 22, 2010 This case (not involving BW) has been rumbling on for a while - looks like it is coming to a head now. A LEGAL battle between a high-speed internet company and the owners of an 18th century canal has gone before three of the country’s most senior judges here (Warrington Guardian). As the article says, "The case is being closely watched by land owners and internet providers as a ruling in favour of Bridgewater Canal Company could have huge financial consequences". Surely the most obvious beneficiary would be BW - as I assume that they have similar opportunities but on a much larger scale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted November 22, 2010 Report Share Posted November 22, 2010 Surely the most obvious beneficiary would be BW - as I assume that they have similar opportunities but on a much larger scale? I thought the cables under BW's towpaths were already fibre-optic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted November 22, 2010 Report Share Posted November 22, 2010 John this is the Bridgewater Canal which doesn't come under BW's jurisdiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mayalld Posted November 22, 2010 Report Share Posted November 22, 2010 John this is the Bridgewater Canal which doesn't come under BW's jurisdiction. I believe that there is a question as to whether the case will set a precedent that will be of use to BW. The telecoms firm currently pays Peel Holdings for a wayleave to run cables under the towpath. The amount of that wayleave having been determined when the cables were laid (possibly including some index linking). Such agreements make sense, because a company doesn't want to lay cables, then find that the price for the wayleave goes up to ten times the amount the next year, once it is a captive audience. It also makes sense that having obtained a wayleave, the telecoms company can replace the cables without the landowner being able to demand a change to the rent. The issue here is that; The teleco believes its wayleave allows it to run whatever it wants under the towpath for the price stated. Peel holdings say that the wayleave is for copper cables, not fibre, and that if they wan to run fibre, they should pay for a different wayleave (at a higher price) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted November 22, 2010 Report Share Posted November 22, 2010 I'm suprised the cables have lasted this long, with only having mooring rings right in the center of the village a lot of people need to use mooring pins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now