Why Does Everyone Think Virgin Are Rubbish ?

[RUSTY]

for me they are 100% better than aol,bt & sky.

i hear you brother...^^^...been with them for under a year and been exellent so far, they have messed up on some occasions on billing, but thats okay, with bt sum1 else was using my line making £30 calls every quarter. Bt bb kept disconnecting, and so on...

virgin media just need to get rid of stm and phorm, sort out a few niggles and GAME ON b!tch...

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by camy

you have had problems with vm because youre on the ex ntl network and everyone knows that the ex telewest network (whitch im on) performs alot better because it wasnt rushed and telewest engineers new what they were doing unlike ntl they didnt have the slightest clue what they were doing and thats why you have had problems with your services so if you should be blaming ntl for the poor network they built not virgin its not there fault they just dont have the money to upgrade there network just yet and considering that there 5.6 billion pounds in debt wont help either!!!

peace out

I know of several people who worked for Telewest who could highlight massive problems in the ex-telewest network largely caused by a distinct lack of investment in the network. Particularly oversubscribed UBRs (a problem which NTL didn't tend to have, but Virgin do). It's interesting (in that light) to think that the Telewest management now run Virgin.

It's also interesting to note that NTL were planning to go for an MPEG4 compatible PVR (like the rest of the UK HD TV industry) for HD rather than the out of date MPEG2 one Telewest had, which now means that VM don't have the capacity to add a lot of HD channels.

NTL's problems were largely caused by the fact that their networks (particularly the ex-Bromley one) were built from networks built by and for other cable companies, so they had to do a *lot* of work integrating differing systems. Then, just as they started buying other companies, the comms market collapsed (so, no more credit).

However, that isn't to say NTL were perfect. They weren't.

However, back to my main point.

Virgin, like NTL, Telewest and any number of large companies has a lot of customers who get good service and a lot who get bad.

One reason why sites (such as this one) tend to have a lot of complaints is that people tend not to bother to sign up to say the service is good. Most people sign up to either ask a question, or complain when something goes wrong.

There's also the fact that this site (through it's various nthellworld incarnations) has a long history of helping NTL customers, but until the merger, didn't actually get a lot of Telewest customers signing up. Not sure why. They may have assumed that because of the name, we were NTL specific (we actually weren't).

[colin-bennett]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

I know of several people who worked for Telewest who could highlight massive problems in the ex-telewest network largely caused by a distinct lack of investment in the network. Particularly oversubscribed UBRs (a problem which NTL didn't tend to have, but Virgin do). It's interesting (in that light) to think that the Telewest management now run Virgin.

It's also interesting to note that NTL were planning to go for an MPEG4 compatible PVR (like the rest of the UK HD TV industry) for HD rather than the out of date MPEG2 one Telewest had, which now means that VM don't have the capacity to add a lot of HD channels.

NTL's problems were largely caused by the fact that their networks (particularly the ex-Bromley one) were built from networks built by and for other cable companies, so they had to do a *lot* of work integrating differing systems. Then, just as they started buying other companies, the comms market collapsed (so, no more credit).

However, that isn't to say NTL were perfect. They weren't.

However, back to my main point.

Virgin, like NTL, Telewest and any number of large companies has a lot of customers who get good service and a lot who get bad.

One reason why sites (such as this one) tend to have a lot of complaints is that people tend not to bother to sign up to say the service is good. Most people sign up to either ask a question, or complain when something goes wrong.

There's also the fact that this site (through it's various nthellworld incarnations) has a long history of helping NTL customers, but until the merger, didn't actually get a lot of Telewest customers signing up. Not sure why. They may have assumed that because of the name, we were NTL specific (we actually weren't).

First
Do not see relevance for the topic.
Please advise how you know ex telewest management are running VM.
Second
Do you not think if Telewest had the same problems as NTL a site would not have been created for them. ??????????? Doh
When the merger ?? (TW / NTL ) took place TW were making money and NTL were bleeding money.
TW won awards for IP and C/S and NTL had this site ??
Again
Is this post on topic or just a moderator making their views prevelant.
PS
This site is for ALL views is it not ????????????????????????????????????????????/

[georgepomone]

Hi All,
how I see it,when it changed over to VirginMedia expectations went through the roof because of all the hype. Then the spat with Sky happened and that made a lot of people angry because they were expecting what VirginMedia couldn't at the time provide. Which brings us to the present. There are things which will happen-IPTV etc. Of course this will take time. Ntl customers are used to this as we were always told it's coming soon.
George.

[Chrysalis]

camy I am a ex cable customer here are my reasons for not wanting to go back.

1 - analogue only service, the analogue tv service is hideous value for money, less channels for more money umm no thanks.
2 - at my new address broadband isnt available at all, VM/ntl have a stubborn decision that they prefer to invest again and again in their best areas to raise headline speeds rather than invest in the worst areas so they can provide a universal service to all of their customers.
3 - at my old address whilst analogue it did allow broadband but the congestion was hideous, pings all over the place, full speed only 2-3 hours in early morning, and peak time speeds about 10-20% of max speeds, also hate the proxy servers.

Also these reasons but these arent as serious.

1 - less interactivity, things like sky sports extra champions league dont work properly on cable digital.
2 - india based call centres.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

2 - at my new address broadband isnt available at all, VM/ntl have a stubborn decision that they prefer to invest again and again in their best areas to raise headline speeds rather than invest in the worst areas so they can provide a universal service to all of their customers.

It is a lot cheaper to increase the speed of broadband than to upgrade an area to digital. Not saying it is right, but Virgin are a business and have to do what is cost effective.

also hate the proxy servers.

There have been no proxy servers in place since it became Virgin Media

1 - less interactivity, things like sky sports extra champions league dont work properly on cable digital.

Which is a Sky decision not to provide those streams to Virgin Media

2 - india based call centres.

I agree it can be frustrating, but they sometimes actually get higher scoring on the customer surveys than the UK centres do

Originally Posted by BenMcr

I agree it can be frustrating, but they sometimes actually get higher scoring on the customer surveys than the UK centres do

The Technical Support Department in India do not score higher than the UK Centres, and that surprises me

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by colin-bennett

First
Do not see relevance for the topic.

The relevance is simply this (and is explained at the bottom of that post, if you bother to read it). All companies have customers who have good experiences. All have customers who have bad.

Please advise how you know ex telewest management are running VM.

IIRC, news reports at the time of merger. That, plus the fact that the combined company seems to favour the direction Telewest took, even where the direction NTL was going would have been better (the V+ being one example).

Second
Do you not think if Telewest had the same problems as NTL a site would not have been created for them. ??????????? Doh

How do you know there wasn't? This site (and it's forerunner) prospered because NTL were bad for a lot of people, and also had inept PR, which meant a lot of stuff to moan about. How do you know that such a site wasn't created for Telewest, and simply didn't prosper?

When the merger ?? (TW / NTL ) took place TW were making money and NTL were bleeding money.

NTL were bleeding money for one reason, and one reason only. The amount of debt they had got into buying up other cable cos at a rate of knots.

Telewest also did, but on a much smaller (and more sensible) scale.

TW won awards for IP and C/S and NTL had this site ??

IP? Internet Provision?

I wasn't talking about Customer Services.. I was talking about network upgrades and maintenance. My info comes from people I know who worked for TW.

Is this post on topic or just a moderator making their views prevelant.

I do not believe my views are prevalent, nor should they be. The post is on topic because of the reasons explained at the bottom.

PS
This site is for ALL views is it not ????????????????????????????????????????????/

It is, and I have never suggested otherwise.

[Chrysalis]

benmcr there may be good reasons for as to why VM keep the service crap in my area, but those reasons dont stop it been crap I was just pointing out why I wont be joining VM any time soon.

[m419]

Yeah Telewest was really good during between 2005 and 2006, I mean they introduced:

First company to abolish National call rates between 01 an 02 numbers(1999)

Talk weekends: Unlimited weekend calls-2005

Talk Anywhere: Call anywhere at anytime for one simple rate.-2006

Teleport(On demand): Catch up tv ect.....-2005

And they were much faster at upgrading to digital, some whole franchises of NTL are still analogue and thats worrying!

And where you say it was delayed because of the intergrating of other cable companies is rubbish because Telewest went through the same thing but still managed to upgrade its areas.

Telewest franchises consist of:

Cable London 50% Telewest owned till 1999
Yorkshire Cable
Birmingham Cable 50% Telewest owned till 1999
United Artists Telewest orginal franchise
Cable Corp
Eurobell South West
Eurobell South East
General Cable

NTL franchises consist of:

Nynex and Videotron (Same systems)
Bell Cable/Videotron (Same systems depending on area)
Diamond Cable
Cable Tel (NTL original area)
Comtel
CableCom
BT (Still owned by BT and is up to BT to upgrade)
Encom
Telecential
East Coast Cable

Virgin Media have missed a bit!

SMALLWORLD MEDIA!

It covers Southern Glasgow,Carisle,Morecombe,Lancaster and other parts of far northern England and Southern Scotland.

It passes around 50,000 properties excl large businesses. It used to be called OMNE and Wight Cable North but has had a big rebrand. Its network is 100% digital and this should be worth snapping up now. It will also make Glasgow wholly covered by Virgin Media too.

They might as well become part of Virgin Media, because Virgin Media's marketing budget is much higher and also aim and have the ability to serve businesses.

Back to the subject now:

NTL wasn't really the one that under invested in the cable franchises, it was the previous owners.

Cable and Wireless communications was incorporated in 1997 and was owned by Videotron,BellAtlantic,Nynex and Cable and Wireless(Mercury). They all owned 25% of it and thought by using one name would give it a stronger national presence. They waited till 1999 to begin work on upgrading, they spent very little money on the Cable franchises as they didn't know which way to turn, in 1999, they also talked about acquiring Telewest if NTL didn't buy CWC. In fact probably the worst franchise was Videotron, Videotron covered London and some of it I think is still analogue only, when we used to live in a Videotron area, the service kept going down and thought it was a complete shambols to be honest!

Then we have the BT franchises, these date back to the 1970's and where introduced by publicly owned BT and publicly owned Cable and Wireless, they were to combat the problems with bad TV reception after BT and Cable and Wireless was privatised, Cable and Wireless no longer had direct responsibilities with residential users and focused on Mercury and international telecoms. The franchises became commercialised espcecially after when Rediffusion collapsed and started showing more than just basic BBC and ITV channels. So in the 1980's there was only a few cable companies which were BT,Rediffusion and United Artists.

BT spent little money on these franchises and was forced to stop selling pay tv services by certain authorities in the UK and EU. NTL have leased them since 1999.

Off-topic posts removed. This thread is not for discussion of staff decisions.

[saabmania2]

imho i think VM are quite good considering, and for me yes i have had a few problems but that's life, but i personally don't think that the grass would be much greener on the other side infact i think it's quite brown for me slow adsl and i won't consider moving until VM does something really stupid like phorm, when/if that does come about i might have to re-think but until then i'll stay

I must admit VM have seem to go downhill I personally hate my BB atm un til the upgrade (july 18th) however I muc prefer telewest as my service was fault less but again I cant say if the merger had never happen that my BB speeds would have gone down under Telewest but they never did when Telewest was around

[colin-bennett]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

The relevance is simply this (and is explained at the bottom of that post, if you bother to read it). All companies have customers who have good experiences. All have customers who have bad.



IIRC, news reports at the time of merger. That, plus the fact that the combined company seems to favour the direction Telewest took, even where the direction NTL was going would have been better (the V+ being one example).

How do you know there wasn't? This site (and it's forerunner) prospered because NTL were bad for a lot of people, and also had inept PR, which meant a lot of stuff to moan about. How do you know that such a site wasn't created for Telewest, and simply didn't prosper?


NTL were bleeding money for one reason, and one reason only. The amount of debt they had got into buying up other cable cos at a rate of knots.

Telewest also did, but on a much smaller (and more sensible) scale.

IP? Internet Provision?

I wasn't talking about Customer Services.. I was talking about network upgrades and maintenance. My info comes from people I know who worked for TW.


I do not believe my views are prevalent, nor should they be. The post is on topic because of the reasons explained at the bottom.

It is, and I have never suggested otherwise.

Ok
Good responce.
Some points I do not agree on are as below >
I joined this thread as it appeared all views were accepted as long as they were in line with a moderator.
A threat to remove some one from this forum for this thread is deplorable.

you said IIRC, news reports at the time of merger. Please expand ???

The forerunner of this site was sold out and indeed the site was closed.
No such site for ex TW. Unless of course you can show me one..

NTL were not investing,,,,, all the money they had was used to stay afloat.

IP (internet provider) However if you wish to talk about provisioning then shall we talk about SABS,, Before VM got involved TW and NTL were allready getting rid of this old billing and provisioning system. No investment here from NTL.
TW DID win awards as being a quality internet provider (IP)
TW DID win awards for customer care.
NTL won this site

Moderators on any forum should not be allowed to post questions or responces.
They are there as moderators. If they wish to get involved in a forum then they should log in as a memeber and not a moderator.
This is only MY view and may not be refected by other members