Why Does Everyone Think Virgin Are Rubbish ?

[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by J..M

Umm....... Where are these optic fibres then ?

Do they feed the steel cubicals VM have at the side of the road ? ...... Cos the stuff under my garden is copper ........

What I do know is @ peak times both VM & BT sloooooooow right down...... Which ain't brill.... But it would appear to be one of those unfortunate facts of life......Another fact of life is that VM is cheaper

The fibre runs to the cabinets in the street then it's not copper to your home at all it's coax. Steel coated with copper to protect it. Still much better than coax and it prevents detiriation of the network and also your speed. (Sorry if i spelt that wrong)

The reason VM slow right down is because of STM.

---------- Post added at 09:37 ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 ----------

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I always thought it was fibre to the cabinet (but could be wrong), then copper to your house.

Close, but no quite right see above

[J..M]

STM ?

Suppositories
Tucked in
Midrift ?

Umm Err perhaps not ....... What is STM then ?

Steel coated Coax ? ......... Not here matey ........ Its a trench burying a green tube that contains twin bore cables in. One coax the other phone lines & that's ya lot.

Originally Posted by tvtimes

You really think BT's recent announcement that it will be rolling out fibre will come to VM's areas? Not likely mate. BT have insisted they won't make the investment unless ofcom slack regs which means they are able to make a worthwhile profit from their investment. This stink to me of BT wanting to charge over inflated prices to offer fibre bb connections. They also want max penetration of the market and have no competition which also tells me that they won't be doing it in VM areas for the forseeable future because they want to invest in areas where they are going to make money and where there is competition they won't make the sort of money they can if they offered fibre optic bb in non vm areas.

Where is your evidence that BT will not be providing to VM areas?
After all, if they are after " Max penetration " that you refer to your statement with all respect is blown out the water.
I for one would welcome any competition that gives the choice that even Richard Branson has stated customers should have.
People in vm areas could easily switch if BT are offering a better deal, which is all about choice after all, I do not agree with your sentiments at all with due respect.

---------- Post added at 09:32 ---------- Previous post was at 09:29 ----------

Originally Posted by tvtimes

The fibre runs to the cabinets in the street then it's not copper to your home at all it's coax. Steel coated with copper to protect it. Still much better than coax and it prevents detiriation of the network and also your speed. (Sorry if i spelt that wrong)

The reason VM slow right down is because of STM.

---------- Post added at 09:37 ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 ----------



Close, but no quite right see above

Atleast you admit that vm slows down for some reason, vm advertising BS does not even claim that their service slows down at all! merely ridiculing any other service provider, bring on the competition thats what I say.
VM must be a tad worried, how much are these adverts that they are running?

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by tvtimes

You really think BT's recent announcement that it will be rolling out fibre will come to VM's areas? Not likely mate. BT have insisted they won't make the investment unless ofcom slack regs which means they are able to make a worthwhile profit from their investment. This stink to me of BT wanting to charge over inflated prices to offer fibre bb connections. They also want max penetration of the market and have no competition which also tells me that they won't be doing it in VM areas for the forseeable future because they want to invest in areas where they are going to make money and where there is competition they won't make the sort of money they can if they offered fibre optic bb in non vm areas.

Its more to do with not been forced to wholesale their product at cost. BT will do city areas primarily thats a forgone conclusion. BTw is losing customers to LLU, rolling out fibre to LLU ares (which are typically also cable areas) is the best way to get those customers back. You right it may well cost more, but that isn't necessairly a bad thing because currently retail prices on many adsl isps at the moment is too low and stopping investment.

---------- Post added at 13:33 ---------- Previous post was at 13:32 ----------

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Based upon past performance, I doubt Sky would do that. What they may be trialling is a Homechoice/Tiscali style IPTV system based upon ADSL. Not sure they'd even trial that, as any such system would be competing against Sky's satellite system as well.

Unless, of course, VOD has affected Sky more than they are willing to let on, after all with the current Sky, Sky + and Sky HD boxes it is impossible to create a system that offers the amount of content Virgin's VOD does.

It is true sky have been trialling fibre to the cabinet, probably for VOD style services I expect. Sky anytime on the sky+ boxes has always only been an intermediate service. ADSL wont cut it on its without FTTC/H because only approx 25% of lines would have enough bandwidth to reliably supply the service.

---------- Post added at 13:35 ---------- Previous post was at 13:33 ----------

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Arthur, Sky bought EasyNet a couple of years ago, which gives them a network and local loop access, so your rumour is in fact, history.

They have their own backhaul, but not their own local loop.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by J..M

Umm....... Where are these optic fibres then ?

Do they feed the steel cubicals VM have at the side of the road ? ...... Cos the stuff under my garden is copper ........

What I do know is @ peak times both VM & BT sloooooooow right down...... Which ain't brill.... But it would appear to be one of those unfortunate facts of life......Another fact of life is that VM is cheaper

FTTx or Fibre to the Cabinet in this case, up to the last 200m is copper. Any slowing of internet speeds though is not down to the length of copper cable used and would be down to, probably, UBR usage etc.

---------- Post added at 09:05 ---------- Previous post was at 08:59 ----------

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Arthur, Sky bought EasyNet a couple of years ago, which gives them a network and local loop access, so your rumour is in fact, history.

Sky/Easynet or Sky Network Services as I believe they are now called do have their own national fibre optic network, in the same way that Thus, C&W, Global Crossing etc do.

Actually a large percentage of the Sky network is either in Virgin Media ducts or on Virgin Media fibre and is maintained by Virgin Media.

Sky will have equipment connected to their fibre network within BT exchanges so they will still be limited to long copper runs to reach their customers utilising the BT Access Network the same as all the ISPs.

Only Virgin, and to a massively smaller degree BT, have the capability of FTTx.

Oh and that Smallworld outfit up in the North West and South West Scotland.

"FTTx or Fibre to the Cabinet in this case, up to the last 200m is copper. Any slowing of internet speeds though is not down to the length of copper cable used and would be down to, probably, UBR usage etc."


Probably down to UBR usage?
If we are to believe the VM spin about " copper cable " being for "Telephone lines" whether it is 200m or even 10% of that then it is still going to be slowed down?
I can see right through the VM BS unfortunately there are some that cannot

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

"FTTx or Fibre to the Cabinet in this case, up to the last 200m is copper. Any slowing of internet speeds though is not down to the length of copper cable used and would be down to, probably, UBR usage etc."


Probably down to UBR usage?
If we are to believe the VM spin about " copper cable " being for "Telephone lines" whether it is 200m or even 10% of that then it is still going to be slowed down?
I can see right through the VM BS unfortunately there are some that cannot

No, you have your own agenda..

Actually, as far as it goes, VM's statement is not BS. The simple fact is that ADSL (even the wonderful 2+ that is used for LLU connections) does have distance limitations. Cable does not. Of course, it has other problems (such as capacity on UBRs), but ADSL could theoretically suffer those as well.

If you believe that is BS, just look at any vaguely technical documentation on ADSL..

Originally Posted by Stuart C

No, you have your own agenda..

Actually, as far as it goes, VM's statement is not BS. The simple fact is that ADSL (even the wonderful 2+ that is used for LLU connections) does have distance limitations. Cable does not. Of course, it has other problems (such as capacity on UBRs), but ADSL could theoretically suffer those as well.

If you believe that is BS, just look at any vaguely technical documentation on ADSL..

Stuart please dont insult me and say I have an agenda.
I am merely questioning VM'S publicity.
They claim that " Copper " has an effect on speed, they claim basically that copper is only used by BT, and that the use of copper is only good for telephone calls.
But then we hear, this is not in the adverts by the way, that around 200m of copper is used in its broadband service.
You believe what you want, dont accuse me of having an agenda.

[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Where is your evidence that BT will not be providing to VM areas?
After all, if they are after " Max penetration " that you refer to your statement with all respect is blown out the water.
I for one would welcome any competition that gives the choice that even Richard Branson has stated customers should have.
People in vm areas could easily switch if BT are offering a better deal, which is all about choice after all, I do not agree with your sentiments at all with due respect.

---------- Post added at 09:32 ---------- Previous post was at 09:29 ----------

BT have said to ofcom that they won't bother doing it unless there is something in it for them. In other words it can be read as they want maximum profit from their investment. They won't get this if they fibre up VM areas because competition will be rife and most VM customers now take 1,2 or even 3 or 4 services from VM which makes it much harder for BT to persuade them to move over to them. In the same report BT have said they want Ofcom to relax regs so they can get a decent return from their investment, in other words they want to charge a decent price for their bb offerings. I hope VM do get some competition and it drives prices down. It gives the likes of me more choice and better prices because they have to fight for my custom.

What do you mean you don't agree with my sentiments? I am more than happy for VM to have the competition if it means i get a better deal but from what BT have said it doesn't look likely and looks like they would sooner fibre up non cabled areas and therefore there would be no competition which means BT can demand a higher return for their fibre optic bb and won't be challenged.

When i said max penetration i meant max customer penetration, the only way they can do this and gurantee a good income from their investment is start of cabling non vm areas where there is no competition apart from ADSL and LLU ADSL+2


Atleast you admit that vm slows down for some reason, vm advertising BS does not even claim that their service slows down at all! merely ridiculing any other service provider, bring on the competition thats what I say.
VM must be a tad worried, how much are these adverts that they are running?

Why wouldn't i admit it? I think you are confusing me with someone else and think that i am gullibe to VM's PR spin which i am not. I am fully aware of what VM offers says and what it actually delivers.

I also welcome the competition but it won't be for years yet and even then BT won't own a whole fibre optic network and will still be stuck with an ageing infrastructure which is rotting under the ground and will require significant investment in the future. Bring on 100 MEG i can't wait to have more choice but by then i wholy expect VM to be offering even higher speeds as they have the head start.

Of course all this is indeed speculating and i never suggested i was posting facts. I am just reading into the reports and giving my opinion which i am entitled to as are you.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Stuart please dont insult me and say I have an agenda.
I am merely questioning VM'S publicity.
They claim that " Copper " has an effect on speed, they claim basically that copper is only used by BT, and that the use of copper is only good for telephone calls.
But then we hear, this is not in the adverts by the way, that around 200m of copper is used in its broadband service.
You believe what you want, dont accuse me of having an agenda.

No insult was intended, but you are very quick to criticise VM, and very slow to mention the possibility that other ISPs also have problems.

My statement about Cable not being distance limited, and ADSL being distance limited isn't opinion. It is fact.

Copper (as used in Phone lines) *does* have an effect on speeds. Over miles (unless the cable is specifically designed for high bandwidth signals, as VM's network is). This is why the cable network backbone is fibre, and copper runs are relatively short (as you note, less than 200 metres)

Basically, the problem as I understand it is signal loss. Now, I know that there are networks that use miles of copper for high bandwidth applications, but these use specially designed cable , and use various techniques to minimise signal loss. This techniques are not practical to use on BT's network.

BT's phone network was not originally designed for data transfer, hence the fact there can be miles of cable between the user and the exchange, which is what slows data transfer.

Not that I am defending VM's publicity. While it doesn't explicitly state that the entire network is fibre (the ASA would leap on them if it did), it does very strongly imply that, which is wrong.

[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Its more to do with not been forced to wholesale their product at cost. BT will do city areas primarily thats a forgone conclusion. BTw is losing customers to LLU, rolling out fibre to LLU ares (which are typically also cable areas) is the best way to get those customers back. You right it may well cost more, but that isn't necessairly a bad thing because currently retail prices on many adsl isps at the moment is too low and stopping investment.

---------- Post added at 13:33 ---------- Previous post was at 13:32 ----------

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

It is true sky have been trialling fibre to the cabinet, probably for VOD style services I expect. Sky anytime on the sky+ boxes has always only been an intermediate service. ADSL wont cut it on its without FTTC/H because only approx 25% of lines would have enough bandwidth to reliably supply the service.

---------- Post added at 13:35 ---------- Previous post was at 13:33 ----------

Hello mate
Yeah i agree of course, i was just putting another spin on it and we will have to wait and see what BT do.
I for one don't think we will see a mass roll out because it's too costly and i think for the time being they will fibre up non vm areas where there is no competiton in order to make their investment provide a return and become viable.

BT are still stuck going to be stuck with the majority of their infrastructure still being copper though as this fibre investment is apparently as said by someone else "The last mile." This means they will still be stuck behind VM in the future who have a more future proof infrastructure and will be able to offer greater speeds than BT. The companies that will really be screwed by this news are the likes of Sky who are investing heavily on the like of LLU which is quicky looking like becoming the old way or receiving internet. Customers are going to see the likes of BT and VM jumping on the fibre optic bb bandwagon with Sky stuck in the slow lane.


Sky need to be seen to be offering VOD for their customers soon but they really are going to struggle doing it this way because it means the majority of their customers wont have a reliable service because of poor speeds, even those with unbundled local exchanges will have problems with a vod service if they don't libe close to the exchange. It's such a shame as everyone should be able to enjoy true VOD.

[Chrysalis]

BT will stay behind VM in the local loop but will be ahead in the backhaul, of course BT are also ahead in profitability as well with the ability to invest when required.

The question is, what is the point of a local loop that can do 50mbit when the service provider can only cater for 5mbit of bandwidth uncongested?

[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

BT will stay behind VM in the local loop but will be ahead in the backhaul, of course BT are also ahead in profitability as well with the ability to invest when required.

The question is, what is the point of a local loop that can do 50mbit when the service provider can only cater for 5mbit of bandwidth uncongested?

There isn't going to be any bandwith congestion once they start using DOCSIS3.0. Streams will be freed up. VM's plan is apparently to offer DOCSIS3.0 bandwith to their 20meg and 50 meg tiers. This means these customers will no longer have to be shaped because of congestion and heavy downloaders affecting everyone else. They plan on keeping their tv and 2 and 10meg customers on the current one. They said once they have shut down all analogue streams this will free up more than enough bandwith for their lower tier customers to enjoy the bb speeds they currently pay for.

I don't think VM will staying behind because there majority of their network is fibre where as BT's isn't going to mainly fibre just the last bit from the cab to the home ,over copper is still going to cause poorer speeds and they will still not be able to offer speeds of 200MEG. It all looks good on paper saying we can offer 100meg in 2012 but VM are already half way there and once they have moved their streams to DOCSIS3.0 they could do it anytime they like. Bt are too far behind and in the long term future are still going to struggle to offer the speeds a near on fully fibre optic network can. Whose going to need more than 100meg anyway though?

[Chrysalis]

after BTs FTTC/H the local loops will be very similiar to VMs in terms of amount of fibre, and there has been indications VM will keep STM on docsis3 but we will see.

[paulpaddison]

Originally Posted by camy

hi, im sick of all of those people who say virgin is rubbish, there always complaning and most of them dont even have virgin, im with them for xl tv, l broadband and l phone and i have never had any problems with there broadband or tv sevices ive had a couple of problems with my phone service but when ive rang virgin they've always sent an engineer around as soon as they could and fixed the problems ,and ive never had any trouble with there on demand services and im on 4mb broadband (soon being upgrade to 10mb !!!) and whenever i check my speed i always get between 3.6 and 4 meg which is great so if your gonna talk about virgin in a badway FIND ANOTHER FORUM

he might work for them

---------- Post added at 00:10 ---------- Previous post was at 00:09 ----------

to be honest now when a virgin media user gets a problem its sometimes sorted out within a couple of days if lucky or might be an ongoing thing. there like many big companies they all have there ups and downs