[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by TraxData2

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.

You really do not have a clue do you whatsoever? How can they upgrade it considering the debt that they are in! They are upgraded some areas slowly where they can afford too. Where's your proof where VM say it isn't worth it? Source please?

Originally Posted by TraxData2

And you're facts are wrong.

No my facts are right you're wrong sorry to break it to you

Originally Posted by TraxData2

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

Makes no difference they are still competition whether it's in Scotland or not.
The reply was serious, funny how you only pointed the smallest company of the ones i mentioned hey?

Originally Posted by TraxData2

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 themselves 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?

No, the larger cable companies bought out smaller struggling companies that were going under, if they hadn't then those areas that were fibred up would have gone to waste as no company would be using the infrastructure. Again do some proper research. Like i said i don't care what you care about. It's not about you.

Originally Posted by TraxData2

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.

No you can compare them because VM do not have a monpoly as they have competition whether it's ADSL or not. If they have competition in any form then there is no monopoly. Fact is their are others companies offering BB where VM does forcing VM to compete for customers therefore no monopoly otherwise all people in VM areas who wanted bb would have to have VM. FACT.

Originally Posted by TraxData2

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...

Yeah thank god they did because now we have a massive company with lots more money investing into things like 50meg BB, VOD, Setanta, free music ondemand and iplayer. Smaller companies wouldn't have been able to afford to do that. Once again if we had loads of small companies the majority wouldn't be here now as they were debt ridden to the point where they were going bankrupt. VM isn't screwing customers, it's invested millions in to it's offering and customers are receiving free upgrades, plus 50meg being launched etc.

Originally Posted by TraxData2

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?

Sky operates in PAYTV! Freesat is not pay tv! God mate you do make me laugh
Is VM available to the whole country like Sky? No, So Sky has the monopoly in paytv

Originally Posted by TraxData2

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

No, they have a fibre infrastructure from the head end all the way to the cabinet and then it's coax from there which means there is no signal degrading, which may i add again cable paid for themselves. BT however have a mostly copper network which the uk tax payer paid for and now want to add a little fibre to it at the end from the cab to the customers home. Big difference! It's still a network paid for by the public! Why can't you grasp that? Take your tinted spec off please

Originally Posted by TraxData2

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.

FFS If you want BROADBAND you have a choice! That's not a monopoly! VM does not have a monopoly because there is choice! With Sky they have no competition from cable in over 50% of the country! Therefore they are the only PAYTv provider which means they have a monopoly! It's not about the way it's delivered!

Originally Posted by TraxData2

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.

No they don't abuse their customers. The customers affected are the ones that abuse their connections. If there wasn't so many pirated modems and boxes clogging up VM's bandwith then they wouldn't need to stm their customers would they? By the way it isn't all day actually They charge high prices (your opinion) because they offer a reliable bb connection much better than that of ADSL. Are you forgetting about the free upgrade for their customers? That's really abusing the postition isn't it?

Originally Posted by TraxData2

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.

Not it's not an unfair comparison. VM still have competition with ADSL and ADSL+2. Those companies offering ADSL bb are still operating in VM areas causing competition and resulting in no monopoly

Originally Posted by TraxData2

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.

Oh look more abuse i wondered how long it would take you to come out with that word and start getting personal, i think someone is getting a little rialled I'm no fanboy thank you very much and i don't accuse you of being one either. We are having a simple and what i thought was an adult debate but it seems i was sadly mistaken. If you are going to post nonsense about VM having a monopoly etc then you need to expect people to not agree with you and air their views. I am taking into account both sides and you are clearly not as you clearly have little knowledge of what BT preposed plans for their fibre roll outs are. You also seem to have little knowledge on VM's affairs and why opening up their network is no go area.

Originally Posted by TraxData2

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.

You have no idea what BT are planning either clearly! ROFL they are being forced to wholesale because the government owns the network which is what i have been saying along! They have no choice but offer wholesale because they don't own the network end of! BT have said they are investing £1.5bn compared to VM £15bn. BT will not be offering a fully operating Fibre optic network for many many years yet!

Originally Posted by TraxData2

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?

What's this about double standards again? It's very fair as i have said a hundred times now the government own BT's network as it was paid by the UK tax payer!!!!!!!!!!!!! that is why they are forced to offer the network to VM!

I'm gonna go now. I'm not debating this any further because you are looking at it from one prospective only.