Why Does Everyone Think Virgin Are Rubbish ?

[hoggie]

I've been with Telewest/virgin since 1997 and haven't seen much change.
my TV has got better, i only pay for what i need and no sky hasn't made any difference to my viewing.
my Broadband/internet is what i need and i have no need for more speed.
as for STM and Phorm.don't you think they are not already watching what you do. got a link scanner on your anti virus.
well just google the words link scanner.
I joined this forum because i wanted some help with V+,
and the forum worked for and answerd my questions.
you need forums to help and for some where to have a rant.
cable forum is what you want it to be

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by colin-bennett

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

To be fair the only reason SABS was started was because the billing systems NTL had were not designed for broadband. That was what it originally did, dial-up and cable modem broadband.

Then some bright spark sold the idea of cheaper support costs to NTL managment. This is when the TV and phone started to get added

IMO By 2005 ntl already knew it was a pile of c**p, this why they did no more billing migrations (that and it crashed when they tried to migrate those now in bill areas 24-28) I reckon they were waiting for the merger so they could get their hands on ICOMS

[m419]

They should just use one simple system which charges one fixed fee to all braodband customers.

I wonder if it would be more economical and better in the long run to offer the maximum speed at all times to all customers for £20.

So if they got rid of all broadband packages and offered only L Broadband for £20 i'm sure they would rake more customers in, I mean £35 per months does feel a bit terrifying to some people.

Also for those who just want the internet for occasional use, I suppose they could launch 3-2-1FREE 20MB broadband!

3p per minute daytime access
2p per minute evening access
1p per minute weekend access
FREE weekend access after the first 30 minutes of internet usage during the weekend, then after that its free for the rest of the weekend.

Bulldog and AOL launched something like that too

Also does anyone know if Virgin Media will ever launch or promote there own Voip service???

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by m419

So if they got rid of all broadband packages and offered only L Broadband for £20 i'm sure they would rake more customers in, I mean £35 per months does feel a bit terrifying to some people.

I doubt if they did that it would bring in enough revenue to maintain the network.

Oh and and XL BB when you swap your phone to Virgin is only £20 per month.

Bulldog and AOL launched something like that too

Yes they did, and they both got sold, so hardly a advert for that business model

Also does anyone know if Virgin Media will ever launch or promote there own Voip service???

I doubt it. There are still serious quality and stability issues over VoIP services. Even BT is only getting as close as 21CN which isn't full VoIP

[colin-bennett]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

To be fair the only reason SABS was started was because the billing systems NTL had were not designed for broadband. That was what it originally did, dial-up and cable modem broadband.

Then some bright spark sold the idea of cheaper support costs to NTL managment. This is when the TV and phone started to get added

IMO By 2005 ntl already knew it was a pile of c**p, this why they did no more billing migrations (that and it crashed when they tried to migrate those now in bill areas 24-28) I reckon they were waiting for the merger so they could get their hands on ICOMS

good point Ben.
However do you not think TW at the same time were not migrating systems.
Funny how TW managed this but NTL did not.
May come back to my point on investment ??

Originally Posted by colin-bennett

good point Ben.
However do you not think TW at the same time were not migrating systems.
Funny how TW managed this but NTL did not.
May come back to my point on investment ??

TW had 10 or so digital headends (regions previously other companies), ntl/CWC had around 48. The maths is straightforward.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by colin-bennett

good point Ben.
However do you not think TW at the same time were not migrating systems.
Funny how TW managed this but NTL did not.
May come back to my point on investment ??

It could be that, which also would have affected the IT choice.

Telewest chose ICOMS as their migration bill platform, and obviously had better luck with it, as this is what Virgin now use. But it a bought in system, and has all the increased support costs that comes with that.

NTL, maybe had to spend more on the network, so had less to play with for IT/Billing systems, which is why the chose an in-house solution.

[cybernetic_tiger]

Originally Posted by Losttheplot

TW had 10 or so digital headends (regions previously other companies), ntl/CWC had around 48. The maths is straightforward.

I'm not too sure the maths is that straight forward... less headends equal less customers which equals less revenue so although on a smaller scale the overall effect it had on performance relational to cost was the same.

The benefit of being a smaller company was that the managers who made the decissions and the frontline staff were not completely disassociated and when decissions needed to be made there was a focus on empowering individuals to speak up (it was Virgin branding before virgin). On the flip side of the coin the ex-NTL side was was very much "I'm not making that decision as I may get shot for it".

As for the network slowdown ex-TW since the merger it's more than likely due to the increased number of hops to the internet due to the fact that traffic is being forced across the ex-NTL core network causing increased congestion at peak times.

IMO post merger for me it's gone more ex-NTL and from my point of view thats a long way in the wrong direction.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by m419

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.

I wondered the same thing, but I expect its because ntl's priorities were buying companies rather than investing in their infastructure.

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Oh and and XL BB when you swap your phone to Virgin is only £20 per month.

Where did you know that? please provide link if you can....

[BenMcr]

http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html...l_size_xl.html

[colin-bennett]

Originally Posted by Losttheplot

TW had 10 or so digital headends (regions previously other companies), ntl/CWC had around 48. The maths is straightforward.

I have lost the plot here losttheplost...
Are you talking about headends,,platforms,,or franchises ???????????????????
Either way the maths do stack up !!!!!!!

It is clear (even on this NTL site) that the losers in the NTL / TW merger was TW.

Of course this is only my view and may not be reflected by others...

[cybernetic_tiger]

Originally Posted by colin-bennett

It is clear (even on this NTL site) that the losers in the NTL / TW merger was TW.

Unfortunatly it appears clearer each day that the loosers are the customers of the two respective companies.

[colin-bennett]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

It could be that, which also would have affected the IT choice.

Telewest chose ICOMS as their migration bill platform, and obviously had better luck with it, as this is what Virgin now use. But it a bought in system, and has all the increased support costs that comes with that.

NTL, maybe had to spend more on the network, so had less to play with for IT/Billing systems, which is why the chose an in-house solution.

Once again good point ben

However the multiple of systems NTL were working on could have been intergrated (have not VM done this)
Migrating systems is still ongoing and is a painfull process for customers and staff.
It just seems to me (only my opinion) NTL senior management had no contact or control over the front line staff and as such ignored the problems the billing and provisioning system was causing the customer.

It was not luck TW chose ICOMS but more perhaps good leadership/
Poor leadership and weak management led NTL into the state they found themselves in.
I am really sad to say VM are following in the footsteps of the old NTL.

I hope I am wrong but only time will tell

[shawty]

Originally Posted by colin-bennett

Once again good point ben

However the multiple of systems NTL were working on could have been intergrated (have not VM done this)
Migrating systems is still ongoing and is a painfull process for customers and staff.
It just seems to me (only my opinion) NTL senior management had no contact or control over the front line staff and as such ignored the problems the billing and provisioning system was causing the customer.

It was not luck TW chose ICOMS but more perhaps good leadership/
Poor leadership and weak management led NTL into the state they found themselves in.
I am really sad to say VM are following in the footsteps of the old NTL.

I hope I am wrong but only time will tell

Correct me if Im wrong, but thats because Virgin Media are the old NTL. Virgin Media was just a name change.