[Fatec]

No your point really isn't made at all because you don't seem to fully understand.
Virgin as a company may not have built the network and lots of little companies did. But all those companies subsequently formed VM years later and all the loans and debts from those companies VM inherited. Therefore VM is responsible for playing back the loans and therefore owns the network which means it hasn't come out of mine and your pockets! Other parts are analogue because VM haven't got the money to pay for the areas to be upgraded as they are lumbered with all the debt from the smaller companies. These areas will be left in the dark ages too unless the government step in and finance for these areas to be upgraded but they won't. Not VM's fault.

Actually, you're incorrect, those areas are still analogue not because VM cannot afford to upgrade it, but because they dont see it as worth it.

Yes it is VMs fault, its nothing to do with debt.

I and many others couldn't care if you care less or not. Facts are facts.

And you're facts are wrong.

What do you mean they made sure there was no competition exactly?
There was lots of little companies who got themselves into so much debt that the shareholders of all these little companies wanted out they took too much risk and it didn't pay off. It happened over and over again until there was 2 left and them two merged to offer a more level playing field with Sky and are now much better placed to start paying that debt back which they are doing. You say VM doesn't have competition? So what is BT, Sky, Carphone warehouse, small world cable etc then? Yeah they got themselves into debt and thank god they did because otherwise everyone would be stuck with ADSL exchange restricted Broadband a much poorer service than Fibre.

I'm trying to work out if that reply is serious, smallworldmedia only operates in scotland, hardly competition there.

VM used their monopoly to buy out (or make other companies go under) other cable companies and spend silly prices on then to make sure the companies would accept the offer, VM made themselfs get in debt by handling money bandly and opting for extremely cheap installs of their network, why should i care if they got in debt because of that?

BT, Sky and everyone else is ADSL1/2, you cannot compare them because the network is completely different and cannot offer the speeds that cable can, only when bt roll out fibre can they be competition against VM, H2o is only in one area at the moment as well, so also not competition.

Thank god they did? no i think you'll find if they hadnt bought everyone out we'd have quite a range of cable suppliers to choose from and we'd have healthy competition, as VM have no competition they can screw customers over as much as they like and get away with it, why? because there isnt anything better, because they have the monopoly over cable...

You don't have a clue what a monopoly is then. Sky has monopoly on TV because they offer tv to everyone and have no competition in the majority of their areas. VM may have fibre optic bb but that does make them have a monpoly as they have competition in their markets. People have the choice of different bb suppliers whether it's fibre or not. A monopolistic company also abuses it's postition in the market they dominate. VM does not dominate the bb market as they have lots of competition and they have to keep competitive and keep prices down in order to compete as their customers have the choice to go elsewhere.
http://tutor2u.net/economics/gcse/re...s_monopoly.htm
That link should help you understand what a true business monopoly is.

What is freesat then? what is cable then? you realise freesat itself has been around for years, sky do not have a monopoly on tv, you can get the free channels with a dish and a reciever, you can get sky channels from sky or vm or indeed freeview using topuptv, thats monopoly, is it?

Ok, VM do NOT have fibre optic broadband, they only have fibre to the node then its coax/copper to you, if you want to go down that path you can say BT is fibre optic as they are fibre upto a point the copper to you

Again, if you want cable, you can only get virginmedia, dont you get that? there is no other companies at all, that's a monopoly, infact, you contradict yourself here, refer to you're point about sky, the same applies to VM here, except, as i said, you CANNOT get cable from anyone else, monopoly.

VM doesnt abuse and dominate the cable market? oh really...this all day traffic management while charging high prices just because they can must be my pure imagination.

What do you mean most people can't get ADSL? Anyone can get ADSL!

And again, alot of people are 3-5KM away from the exchange, meaning they cant connect to ADSL at all, new builds are the same as well, you cannot compare an ADSL 512k-2Mbit connection next to VMs cable 2/10/20, It's an unfair comparison.

Precious VM? That is truly pathetic show some maturity or there is no point in debating with you. What's wrong can't you stand people having a different opinion to you?

I have no issues with someone having a difference of opinion but the simple fact is you're being a fanboy here, your not taking into account both sides, you think its OK for BT to have to be forced to wholesale their FTTH/N even though they are paying for it yet u think its not OK for VM to be forced to open up their network, double standards there.

I think you need to do some more research into what BT are ACTUALLY proposing my friend. They wil still be using their old network as a back bone and are only invested from the cab to the customers home! Therefore they are fibring up the last tiny preportion of the network and still using the network we all paid for! Completely different scenario to VM

Only half correct, new builds will get FTTH, other areas will get FTTC, this will offer speeds of 20-60Mbit, what you should note however that this is only a measure till they can afford full FTTH to all areas, do you work for BT? you have no idea what their plans are, if you did u'd know they are in talks with ISPs over being able to offer wholesale FTTH to everybody provided ISP's cough up some money as well.

And again, VM want access to BT's network when its done so they can offer Cable BB/TV to areas where they couldnt before, do you think thats fair? or you playing the double standard thing again?

If you're so bothered about VM paying off their debts why dont you go tell them to stop giving bonuses to each other ever year

They are paying their debts, millions every quarter. They rightfully should be getting bonuses if they are hitting their targets set. Although in places i think their money could be better spent.[/QUOTE]

Yea, they are paying their debts...too bad they are paying them by oversubscribing the network then traffic managing customers all day but blame it on "heavy" customers (which is a lie within itself, how poor is the network if it cant even handle just 1% of users using their connections at full capacity for more than 20 minutes at a time?).

Not a sign of a good company is it

---------- Post added at 15:49 ---------- Previous post was at 15:46 ----------

Originally Posted by darthlinux

Virgin Media arent in a dire state look at the Q2 results, only problem is they dont invest enough in any service

Exactly.

I also do think as Trax does bring alot of info regarding VM which most turns out to be true, he does have a hatered towards VM maybe because he knows more than the average joe

I dont have a hatred towards VM in general, infact they have some very nice honest and hard working staff there.

It's the people in power (neil, alex) who have ruined the company beyond belief.