Notification of Second Quarter 2008 Results

[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by darthlinux

50Mb - Has harsh stm and isnt using full DOCSIS 3.0 so not much investment there
Setanta Sports - That was a quick fix for losing sky sport news and making customers happy.
VOD - Very messy atm some season have half the shows on there - needs more investment.

Virgin Media could be massive right now but whilst they have STM, limited HD and paying celebs millions for adverts they will be just a company in the middle of sky and bt

I'm not going to debate about STM as i agree but as soon as BT come out and offer a non STM'd fibre optic bb offering then VM will have to do the same otherwise people will leave em.

I don't agree about Setanta sports. Setanta sports is a premium offering and they didn't have to sign a £40m quid deal and offer it to their xl customers.
The customers bothered about the loss of Sky one either defected or got a retention offer on their bills for 12 months.

We now have Setanta sports news and Setanta 1,2,3 etc.

I'm happy with VOD, we have iplayer which is great and there is more than enough full series on there. Not all of them are half and there is a lot off one off docs etc. Free music ondemand etc. We have had HBO etc all added since the removal of Sky basics.

[BexTech]

When BT bring out their fibre service, they might not cap the speed like VM do, but they may well cap the amount you can download.

I would rather have STM than a hard cap, however the limits VM have set for STM are way way too low.

[Toto]

Originally Posted by darthlinux

I dont see Virgin will do as bad as people think, they have started to do alittle more but however I can see the next few years will test VM to the limit and then when BT release there uncapped unlimited FTTH service VM could fail

OK, but how many homes, and in what areas will their FTTH pass. That question needs answering before you make a general assumption that VM's customer base will be tested to the limit.

We are talking a few years away, and personally I believe that the amount BT says it needs to spend to realise a fibre network that can compete with VM and possibly H2O seems awfully small. I don't doubt their intent, but I am wondering how much of the announcement was more for the financial markets in what is a very difficult time right now.

Don't get me wrong, if there is ever a serious competition to my very good non STM'd 20Mb service, and its competitive, then VM will have competition as far as I am concerned.

---------- Post added at 18:56 ---------- Previous post was at 18:54 ----------

Originally Posted by BexTech

When BT bring out their fibre service, they might not cap the speed like VM do, but they may well cap the amount you can download.

Yes, we don't, nor does BT know exactly what they may have to do when the bandwidth hogs jump ship to BT.

[Fatec]

Originally Posted by BexTech

When BT bring out their fibre service, they might not cap the speed like VM do, but they may well cap the amount you can download.

Incorrect, they have their plans and it isnt going to involve any sort of shaping/throttling (infact, they are getting new hardware in place to handle p2p more effienctly for FTTH).

They have huge network capacity (much, much, much more than VM)

I would rather have STM than a hard cap, however the limits VM have set for STM are way way too low.

I wouldnt, excuse me but sometimes you know, just sometimes, i actually like to be able to use my connection to its full potential when im actually at home, STM is worse than a hard cap as with STM you can NEVER use it when you're actually there (to what you need it to, at least) only when you are 1)fast asleep or 2)..err, oh yea, since daytime STM there is no number 2.

---------- Post added at 21:05 ---------- Previous post was at 21:00 ----------

Originally Posted by Toto

OK, but how many homes, and in what areas will their FTTH pass. That question needs answering before you make a general assumption that VM's customer base will be tested to the limit.

We are talking a few years away, and personally I believe that the amount BT says it needs to spend to realise a fibre network that can compete with VM and possibly H2O seems awfully small. I don't doubt their intent, but I am wondering how much of the announcement was more for the financial markets in what is a very difficult time right now.

They have some BIG plans which are not public knowledge right now, but over the next year or so (when VM apparently offer their *premium* 50Mbit) you'll see more info on what BT are upto (i will note that alot of places are interested in bts fibre rollout and there will be alot more FTTH areas than you think if it can be worked out ok with wholesalers, which will be in talks soon)

Don't get me wrong, if there is ever a serious competition to my very good non STM'd 20Mb service, and its competitive, then VM will have competition as far as I am concerned.

Since STM VM already have competition, believe it or not most people can get pretty fast ADSL+2 speeds, while most people are in the 10Mbit range on ADSL2 it is still MUCH better than VM's 20Mbit as you can actually use it when you need it without worrying about having 75% of your connection taken from you, before the merger, VM have no competition as it was pretty much unlimited, although having problems in a few areas (network falling apart) overall customer satisfaction was pretty high, this has changed since the introduction of STM, the people who know about it, well, alot have left (infact, VMs service speedy down here as over 150 people have left just on the last 5 streets since the introduction of STM).

Most of the others i know havent left but have resorted to cloned modems, which these days i just dont care about.

Yes, we don't, nor does BT know exactly what they may have to do when the bandwidth hogs jump ship to BT.

Oh BT know, that's all i'll say for now

[Haighy]

Read in PC Pro today that BT want access to Virgin's cable network, and they may threaten to not get involved if they don't. The government are a bit miffed about GB being low down in the "Superspeed Broadband" league and there was a hint that Oftel may cave in to BT's wishes in order to move up the league table. Sounds like BT may have all sorts of plans in mind to beat VM :-(

[Fatec]

Originally Posted by Haighy

Read in PC Pro today that BT want access to Virgin's cable network, and they may threaten to not get involved if they don't. The government are a bit miffed about GB being low down in the "Superspeed Broadband" league and there was a hint that Oftel may cave in to BT's wishes in order to move up the league table. Sounds like BT may have all sorts of plans in mind to beat VM :-(

You make it sound like thats a bad thing? removing the huge monopoly VM has (being that if you want cable, you can only go with VM) would be a good thing!

[cybernetic_tiger]

Originally Posted by TraxData2

removing the huge monopoly VM has (being that if you want cable, you can only go with VM)

VM does not have a monopoly.

Customers buy "broadband" not the access medium as such there are many "broadband" providers.

If customers make the CHOICE of cable over ADSL then this is more to do with their perception of the technology and this is completely within BT's power to change.

VM has invested several billions of pounds building their network why should others be allowed to benefit from that investment? The main reason the BT network was opened up to OLO's was the fact that the investement was made with public money; this is not the case with VM.

[Haighy]

Didn't mean to make it sound like a bad thing, didn't think there was actually an opinion in there :-) Was more a comment on the BT vs Virgin thing this thread had wandered into
Have to agree a bit with tiger, it's kind of like making Tesco's let Asda have a few stalls in their supermarkets, why would anyone want to invest in a private industry if they knew it could be taken off them at the whim of the government ?
The article is here for information
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/212547/b...ins-cable.html

[brundles]

Originally Posted by Haighy

Didn't mean to make it sound like a bad thing, didn't think there was actually an opinion in there :-) Was more a comment on the BT vs Virgin thing this thread had wandered into
Have to agree a bit with tiger, it's kind of like making Tesco's let Asda have a few stalls in their supermarkets, why would anyone want to invest in a private industry if they knew it could be taken off them at the whim of the government ?

Although I agree with the fact the choice is among broadband providers rather than among ADSL or cable providers, it's the very fact of being forced to share the investment among your competition that's held back BTs investment in FTTH.

I thought BT's answer to whether they actually want to use VMs network was interesting:

Originally Posted by PcPro

"We think, as a principle, that would be worth extending. It's about applying that principle across the board."

I'm not convinced they really want access but are just trying to muddy the waters. Having VMs network forced open would complicate matters for VM potentially lowering the capital they have available to invest in their own network to compete. If the network isn't forced open then BT have an argument for not opening this portion of their network.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by brundles

I'm not convinced they really want access but are just trying to muddy the waters. Having VMs network forced open would complicate matters for VM potentially lowering the capital they have available to invest in their own network to compete. If the network isn't forced open then BT have an argument for not opening this portion of their network.

Not really, as has been discussed many times on this forum, BT's access Network (i.e. the last couple of km of copper) was paid for by the tax payer. This is the bit that other operators use.

They very rarely use the BT national fibre optic network that links all the exchanges for their backhaul. In fact many (carphone warehouse, orange,tiscali) use VMs Network. Sky have their own, others will use C&Ws or Thus's Networks.

There is no justification to force VM to open their network.

[BexTech]

Originally Posted by ANTOINE

Not really, as has been discussed many times on this forum, BT's access Network (i.e. the last couple of km of copper) was paid for by the tax payer. This is the bit that other operators use.

They very rarely use the BT national fibre optic network that links all the exchanges for their backhaul. In fact many (carphone warehouse, orange,tiscali) use VMs Network. Sky have their own, others will use C&Ws or Thus's Networks.

There is no justification to force VM to open their network.

... and usually why these Telco's charge more for 0845 and 0870 than BT and why they don't like 03 numbers, they have less break-in and break-out areas so can't as efficiently route route calls, for example someone could call an 0845 number and it might be on the same exchange as the person calling it, BT are able to keep it local, other telcos it might have to go to a central look-up and back out again.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by ANTOINE

Not really, as has been discussed many times on this forum, BT's access Network (i.e. the last couple of km of copper) was paid for by the tax payer. This is the bit that other operators use.

They very rarely use the BT national fibre optic network that links all the exchanges for their backhaul. In fact many (carphone warehouse, orange,tiscali) use VMs Network. Sky have their own, others will use C&Ws or Thus's Networks.

There is no justification to force VM to open their network.

The justification is that when BT roll FTTP/K this will be new network which is not paid for by the tax payer but private money, yet this network will have to be wholesaled.

Their point is asking why they have to open up this network when the tax payer is not involved while VM can keep theirs closed.

---------- Post added at 11:21 ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 ----------

Originally Posted by cybernetic_tiger

VM has invested several billions of pounds building their network why should others be allowed to benefit from that investment? The main reason the BT network was opened up to OLO's was the fact that the investement was made with public money; this is not the case with VM.

This goes the other way as well, BT's next generation network when complete will have cost several billion pounds of private money, why should others be allowed to benefit from that investment? The main reason the legacy copper was opened up was as you said because the investment was made with public money, this is not the case with a fibre overlay.

[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by TraxData2

You make it sound like thats a bad thing? removing the huge monopoly VM has (being that if you want cable, you can only go with VM) would be a good thing!

It wouldn't be a good thing for cable, it would spell the end of cable. They would never pay back their debts if they had loads of companies using their network. VM need the exclusitivity and the customers in order to meet debt repayments. I can't them being forced to open up their network to the likes of BT unless their debt is written off some how. The government would recognise that the company would certainly go under if they don't keep their monopoly and have to keep their debt, it's certainly no where near the same as BT where it was the government who funded their infrastructure in the first place.

[Fatec]

Originally Posted by tvtimes

It wouldn't be a good thing for cable, it would spell the end of cable. They would never pay back their debts if they had loads of companies using their network. VM need the exclusitivity and the customers in order to meet debt repayments. I can't them being forced to open up their network to the likes of BT unless their debt is written off some how. The government would recognise that the company would certainly go under if they don't keep their monopoly and have to keep their debt, it's certainly no where near the same as BT where it was the government who funded their infrastructure in the first place.

Read the reply above and my point is made

And i dont care, VM didnt build half the network, they kept buying smaller cable companies out (and this is the reason why some parts of the network is in great shape while others are falling apart and while others are only analogue and will stay that way).

They made sure there was no competition, they got themselfs into debt, do you think i care if they get screwed?

If you want fast broadband, if you want cable (or fibre optic...) then you only have 1 choice of supplier and thats virginmedia, if you dont like their terms then you're completely screwed, some people cannot get adsl so are trapped into cable, that, my friend is a monopoly.

So what about BT's FTTH/N rollout then, they are being forced to go wholesale despite having to spend their own money on it, oh but that's fair because its BT, not precious VM

From what's been going on lately and how far behind we are with net services...and how bad a condition things are in its looking very likely that VM will be forced to open the network up...

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

[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by brundles

Although I agree with the fact the choice is among broadband providers rather than among ADSL or cable providers, it's the very fact of being forced to share the investment among your competition that's held back BTs investment in FTTH.

I thought BT's answer to whether they actually want to use VMs network was interesting:


I'm not convinced they really want access but are just trying to muddy the waters. Having VMs network forced open would complicate matters for VM potentially lowering the capital they have available to invest in their own network to compete. If the network isn't forced open then BT have an argument for not opening this portion of their network.

BT can scream and shout they want access as much as they like but i can't see it happen given the dire state cable is in.
BT and Sky have asked for access for years and it's never been allowed because the government know it would detrimental to cable.
BT didnt finance their own infrastructure VM did big difference. Why should BT who already hold a monopoly be allowed further monpoly by accessing VM's fibre network.

BT do not have an argument for not offering their fibre as wholesale as it's still run from their copper infrastructure, only the last mile or so will be fibre which means they are still using the same infrastructure financed by the public.