Notification of Second Quarter 2008 Results

[Fatec]

Originally Posted by tvtimes

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.

Cable is not in a dire state, just people in VM dont know how to run a company (neil mainly who has destroyed it).

BT and Sky have asked for access for years and it's never been allowed because the government know it would detrimental to cable.

Things are different now, we wasnt so behind back then.

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.

VM bought out other networks for the most part...

Why should VM who have a monopoly over cable/fibre be allowed access to bts FTTH/N (and they do want access...) then? it works both ways you know.

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.

Actually, they have offered fibre in the past, just at high prices which no ISP was interested in (VM use some of bts network btw )

[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

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.

No it won't be a new network at all! It will still be reliant on the copper infrastructure, the last mile will be fibre. So it will still be down to the tax payer so therefore everyone should and will have access.

---------- Post added at 15:29 ---------- Previous post was at 14:30 ----------

Originally Posted by TraxData2

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).

No your point really isn't made at all because you don't seem to fully understand.
Virgin as a company may not have built the network and lots of little companies did. But all those companies subsequently formed VM years later and all the loans and debts from those companies VM inherited. Therefore VM is responsible for playing back the loans and therefore owns the network which means it hasn't come out of mine and your pockets! Other parts are analogue because VM haven't got the money to pay for the areas to be upgraded as they are lumbered with all the debt from the smaller companies. These areas will be left in the dark ages too unless the government step in and finance for these areas to be upgraded but they won't. Not VM's fault.

Originally Posted by TraxData2

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

I and many others couldn't care if you care less or not. Facts are facts.
What do you mean they made sure there was no competition exactly?
There was lots of little companies who got themselves into so much debt that the shareholders of all these little companies wanted out they took too much risk and it didn't pay off. It happened over and over again until there was 2 left and them two merged to offer a more level playing field with Sky and are now much better placed to start paying that debt back which they are doing. You say VM doesn't have competition? So what is BT, Sky, Carphone warehouse, small world cable etc then? Yeah they got themselves into debt and thank god they did because otherwise everyone would be stuck with ADSL exchange restricted Broadband a much poorer service than Fibre.

Originally Posted by TraxData2

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.

You don't have a clue what a monopoly is then. Sky has monopoly on TV because they offer tv to everyone and have no competition in the majority of their areas. VM may have fibre optic bb but that does make them have a monpoly as they have competition in their markets. People have the choice of different bb suppliers whether it's fibre or not. A monopolistic company also abuses it's postition in the market they dominate. VM does not dominate the bb market as they have lots of competition and they have to keep competitive and keep prices down in order to compete as their customers have the choice to go elsewhere.
http://tutor2u.net/economics/gcse/re...s_monopoly.htm
That link should help you understand what a true business monopoly is.

What do you mean most people can't get ADSL? Anyone can get ADSL!

Originally Posted by TraxData2

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

Precious VM? That is truly pathetic show some maturity or there is no point in debating with you. What's wrong can't you stand people having a different opinion to you?

I think you need to do some more research into what BT are ACTUALLY proposing my friend. They wil still be using their old network as a back bone and are only invested from the cab to the customers home! Therefore they are fibring up the last tiny preportion of the network and still using the network we all paid for! Completely different scenario to VM

Originally Posted by TraxData2

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...
We're so behind in this country because before now nowhere near enough companies have bothered to fibre the country up. If the governement got it's act together years ago then everyone could be enjoying proper BB. No VM won't be forced for several reasons, read my points above again.

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 [/QUOTE]
They are paying their debts, millions every quarter. They rightfully should be getting bonuses if they are hitting their targets set. Although in places i think their money could be better spent.

Virgin Media arent in a dire state look at the Q2 results, only problem is they dont invest enough in any service

I also do think as Trax does bring alot of info regarding VM which most turns out to be true, he does have a hatered towards VM maybe because he knows more than the average joe

[Fatec]

No your point really isn't made at all because you don't seem to fully understand.
Virgin as a company may not have built the network and lots of little companies did. But all those companies subsequently formed VM years later and all the loans and debts from those companies VM inherited. Therefore VM is responsible for playing back the loans and therefore owns the network which means it hasn't come out of mine and your pockets! Other parts are analogue because VM haven't got the money to pay for the areas to be upgraded as they are lumbered with all the debt from the smaller companies. These areas will be left in the dark ages too unless the government step in and finance for these areas to be upgraded but they won't. Not VM's fault.

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.

I and many others couldn't care if you care less or not. Facts are facts.

And you're facts are wrong.

What do you mean they made sure there was no competition exactly?
There was lots of little companies who got themselves into so much debt that the shareholders of all these little companies wanted out they took too much risk and it didn't pay off. It happened over and over again until there was 2 left and them two merged to offer a more level playing field with Sky and are now much better placed to start paying that debt back which they are doing. You say VM doesn't have competition? So what is BT, Sky, Carphone warehouse, small world cable etc then? Yeah they got themselves into debt and thank god they did because otherwise everyone would be stuck with ADSL exchange restricted Broadband a much poorer service than Fibre.

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

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 themselfs 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?

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.

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...

You don't have a clue what a monopoly is then. Sky has monopoly on TV because they offer tv to everyone and have no competition in the majority of their areas. VM may have fibre optic bb but that does make them have a monpoly as they have competition in their markets. People have the choice of different bb suppliers whether it's fibre or not. A monopolistic company also abuses it's postition in the market they dominate. VM does not dominate the bb market as they have lots of competition and they have to keep competitive and keep prices down in order to compete as their customers have the choice to go elsewhere.
http://tutor2u.net/economics/gcse/re...s_monopoly.htm
That link should help you understand what a true business monopoly is.

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?

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

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.

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.

What do you mean most people can't get ADSL? Anyone can get ADSL!

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.

Precious VM? That is truly pathetic show some maturity or there is no point in debating with you. What's wrong can't you stand people having a different opinion to you?

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.

I think you need to do some more research into what BT are ACTUALLY proposing my friend. They wil still be using their old network as a back bone and are only invested from the cab to the customers home! Therefore they are fibring up the last tiny preportion of the network and still using the network we all paid for! Completely different scenario to VM

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.

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?

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

They are paying their debts, millions every quarter. They rightfully should be getting bonuses if they are hitting their targets set. Although in places i think their money could be better spent.[/QUOTE]

Yea, they are paying their debts...too bad they are paying them by oversubscribing the network then traffic managing customers all day but blame it on "heavy" customers (which is a lie within itself, how poor is the network if it cant even handle just 1% of users using their connections at full capacity for more than 20 minutes at a time?).

Not a sign of a good company is it

---------- Post added at 15:49 ---------- Previous post was at 15:46 ----------

Originally Posted by darthlinux

Virgin Media arent in a dire state look at the Q2 results, only problem is they dont invest enough in any service

Exactly.

I also do think as Trax does bring alot of info regarding VM which most turns out to be true, he does have a hatered towards VM maybe because he knows more than the average joe

I dont have a hatred towards VM in general, infact they have some very nice honest and hard working staff there.

It's the people in power (neil, alex) who have ruined the company beyond belief.

[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by TraxData2

Cable is not in a dire state, just people in VM dont know how to run a company (neil mainly who has destroyed it).

They are in a dire state though, they have £6bn worth of debt. Their the worst off in their sector. Neil has mainly destroyed it? NOOOOO, since Neil Berkett took over it the company has posted the best quarters cable ever has in it's history! Record people signing up, cable is the fastest growing paytv and bb business in it's marketable areas.

Originally Posted by TraxData2

Things are different now, we wasnt so behind back then.

Things are no different! They are still lumbered with billions of debt that they won't be able to pay back for the forseeable future and were are talking decades. They still have limited access to the country unlike their competition.

Originally Posted by TraxData2

VM bought out other networks for the most part...

Yeah they did and inherited the debt that goes along with it.

Originally Posted by TraxData2

Why should VM who have a monopoly over cable/fibre be allowed access to bts FTTH/N (and they do want access...) then? it works both ways you know.

No it doesn't work both ways though, VM own their network. BT don't own theirs the UK tax payer does. I have already explained why i won't do it again.

Originally Posted by TraxData2

Actually, they have offered fibre in the past, just at high prices which no ISP was interested in (VM use some of bts network btw )

Yeah they offered it out and no one was interested because they were ripping people off. BT have also stated to ofcom that they won't bother investing unless they can charge high prices to see high return. BT want to make the investment worth their while whilst all the time still running from the head end to the cab of the UK taxpayers financed network.

Yeah VM use BTs network because everyone in the country contributed to paying for it. Therefore those that are outside of VM on net network have the choice of opting for ADSL bb. VM paid for their own network and therefore don't have to let everyone else use it.

---------- Post added at 15:58 ---------- Previous post was at 15:56 ----------

Originally Posted by darthlinux

Virgin Media arent in a dire state look at the Q2 results, only problem is they dont invest enough in any service

I also do think as Trax does bring alot of info regarding VM which most turns out to be true, he does have a hatered towards VM maybe because he knows more than the average joe

Yeah Quarter 2 was their lowest performance yet. They posted an operating profit last quarter and now have posted a £336m loss!

He has a hatred towards vm because he knows more than most? Yeah ok then

[Fatec]

Originally Posted by tvtimes

They are in a dire state though, they have £6bn worth of debt. Their the worst off in their sector. Neil has mainly destroyed it? NOOOOO, since Neil Berkett took over it the company has posted the best quarters cable ever has in it's history! Record people signing up, cable is the fastest growing paytv and bb business in it's marketable areas.

I think you'll find that is incorrect, if you look at their stats you'll find they have more customers signing up for multiple things (quad play?) but at reduced prices (retentions), they have quite alot of people disconnecting.

So he is ruining the company, sure more people signing up for combos but at retention pricing, they aint actually making all that much profit.

STM was supposed to be a stop gap measure till they could upgrade the network properly, Neil has decided to keep it permanently as it saves them bandwith and they dont have to do the upgrades actually required but still allows them to sign more customers up, yes, can see how he has improved the company

Things are no different! They are still lumbered with billions of debt that they won't be able to pay back for the forseeable future and were are talking decades. They still have limited access to the country unlike their competition.

Things are different, we are starting to get majorly behind with speeds, even america is now ahead of us with even a poor isp like comcast (like our tiscali service wise) offering 16/2 20/4 and 50/10 packages (50/10 coming soon).

Then there is fios who offer upto 50/50.

We used to be quite far ahead with BB speeds, things are different now, we are slipping behind and you can hardly class VM offering 50Mbit as moving forward when if you have the audicity to use it, they cap you and take it off you.

Yeah they did and inherited the debt that goes along with it.

Point? that what VM wanting to have a monopoly and make sure you couldnt go anywhere else for cable.

No it doesn't work both ways though, VM own their network. BT don't own theirs the UK tax payer does. I have already explained why i won't do it again.

Actually, again, you're incorrect, the tax payer owned it when it was all copper, you do realise over the years BT have upgraded (from their own pocket i might add) most of their network to fibre? and its now only copper from the exchang to you that's the problem, and now they are paying up to offer fibre even further, out of their own pockets, i might add.

So yes, it does.

Yeah they offered it out and no one was interested because they were ripping people off. BT have also stated to ofcom that they won't bother investing unless they can charge high prices to see high return. BT want to make the investment worth their while whilst all the time still running from the head end to the cab of the UK taxpayers financed network.

Again, incorrect, it wasnt that ISP's were not interested, it was the fact people in this country expect everything for free and dont want to pay for bandwith (thus we have the likes of tiscali and stupid price wars that have set off), ISP's decided it wasnt worth it as they wouldnt be able to make any profit (again, down to users not wanting to cough up) then there was the fact that isps decided that users would never want those speeds, you can hardly blame that on BT, they were going to charge less for wholesale of their fibre than they do now for crummy adsl1/2, yea, so, whats you're point? bandwith isnt cheat, rolling that sort of network out isnt cheap either, why shouldnt they be able to charge realistic prices for an uncapped/unshaped true fibre connection? its called being realistic.

As to your last statement, read my earlier reply about talks with ISPs to offer full FTTH to everyone, you'll hear about that over the next year or so if isps agree.

Yeah VM use BTs network because everyone in the country contributed to paying for it. Therefore those that are outside of VM on net network have the choice of opting for ADSL bb. VM paid for their own network and therefore don't have to let everyone else use it.

And what if they dont want ADSL? what if they want cable? oops, cant, only VM have cable and refuse to offer it to the countryside.

BT have paid for their own network (all the fibre and the new fibre extention) plus the network haul upgrades, the uplinks, do you not take this into consideration? you have any idea how much it costs to upgrade network link ups? BT coughed that up, BT isnt the bad company you make it out to be, they have problems like every companies does but still.

---------- Post added at 16:08 ---------- Previous post was at 16:06 ----------

Originally Posted by tvtimes

Yeah Quarter 2 was their lowest performance yet. They posted an operating profit last quarter and now have posted a £336m loss!

Q2 Results were bad, again, go look back, they aint exactly making new customers, they are taking more existing customers and having them sign up for multiple packages with retention deals, thats hardly a good thing for a business.

He has a hatred towards vm because he knows more than most? Yeah ok then

Refer to my earlier post about hatred towards VM, and yes i know more than most and i like to share that information here.

[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.

Thank god this debate is over

[Ignitionnet]

This thread is interesting. In the same thread we've had tvtimes say how well VM are doing, fantastic quarters, loads of investment in new services, and then saying what a dire state they are in, must be protected from network being opened up else they'll fold, etc.

Just to make a point the Openreach run copper plant was originally built by the taxpayer however it was then sold, not given for free. Since privatisation BT have spent tens of billions on network upgrades and continue to spend multi-billions a year, presently on replacing the legacy switch network (which by the way was funded privately, there were no digital exchanges pre-privatisation as the Govt just leeched the money BT made rather than investing) with an all-IP network.

BT PLC have paid for that copper plany many times over by now. They aren't demanding a high return on any fibre investment they are quoted as wanting a 'reasonable' one whatever that might be and are discussing terms with Ofcom. For anyone to say that they want a high return you are either privvy to these discussions or wrong. Given that no-one else has shown willingness to make this investment and the current economic climate I would say that some reasonable expectation of a return on the investment is pretty wise. If BT just threw fibre at the entire country and let Ofcom do as they pleased with it, and some ISPs have very unreasonable demands of BT's fibre network including wanting every home to have a fibre from the exchange and the ability to unbundle each fibre to their own switch which doesn't happen anywhere in the world, their board would be fired immediately.

[BexTech]

Originally Posted by tvtimes

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.

What about Birmingham Cable? Telewest took them over, were they going under?

[Ignitionnet]

ntl and Telewest were both chasing after Cable and Wireless Consumer Co in a huge way, it was the 2nd biggest cable operator at the time and both offered 10 figure sums for them. They were in less debt than either ntl or Telewest.

Dealing with a few earlier points, ntl said that they would upgrade analogue areas where it was financially viable, some areas are or have been switched off as they are not economically viable.

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?

Erm so BT are going to be running copper to cabinets then fibre from there? No. BT will be installing Fibre from exchange to cabinet mounted DSLAMs or all the way to customers. They will be replacing everything bar that last 400m. Also it's a network built by the public and sold to shareholders! Why can't you grasp that BT's sale was just that and they weren't gifted said network, or that BT have spent more on getting that network in order than the entire cost of VM's network with change? The ATM network, most of the national fibre network, the IP network, even the digital voice switching network were all installed post privatisation. BT are spending £3 billion a year on 21CN, but that's nothing right as they will be using 400m of copper the government sold to the private sector which will connect to BT PLC purchased DSLAMs, then BT PLC purchased fibre to a BT PLC purchased router and onto the BT PLC purchased IP backbone running with BT PLC purchased routers and switches connected by BT PLC laid transmission network.

I could waste my time taking your opinions which you pass off as facts apart tvtimes but really no point. If they are facts in your world they'll remain so

Oh actually one quick thing about analogue overbuilding. Look how much Virgin spend on advertising. The entire ntl Ex-Videotron London analogue to digital upgrade cost sub-50 million. Is it really that bank breaking? Answer is no but Virgin Media spend a terribly low amount on network overbuild compared with other cablecos.

[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

This thread is interesting. In the same thread we've had tvtimes say how well VM are doing, fantastic quarters, loads of investment in new services, and then saying what a dire state they are in, must be protected from network being opened up else they'll fold, etc.

Uhhh read it again and digest properly. They are in the best position they have ever been for a cable company and previous to this quarter posted great statistics. This last quarter because of the write off virgin mobile it was a poor quarter.

---------- Post added at 17:58 ---------- Previous post was at 17:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

I could waste my time taking your opinions which you pass off as facts apart tvtimes but really no point. If they are facts in your world they'll remain so

Oh actually one quick thing about analogue overbuilding. Look how much Virgin spend on advertising. The entire ntl Ex-Videotron London analogue to digital upgrade cost sub-50 million. Is it really that bank breaking? Answer is no but Virgin Media spend a terribly low amount on network overbuild compared with other cablecos.

No please do. I want to hear you "facts" please because i would like a good laugh i really would. Some of you are so dilluded you really are.
BT got governemtn funding FACT!
Cable funded itself by loans which they are paying back! FACT! How is any of that not facts?! Come please do tell

As for revenue that goes to all different aspects of the business and they wouldn't put all their revenue from their tv channels into upgrading analogue areas. It goes to all different things like investing more into ondemand etc in order to help customer growth.

VOD is great but stm and trying to stick two fingers to adsl providers isnt right they need to invest heavily into the broadband network to make it a real hero product

Don't you need revenue to do that?

Most posters on here seem to think that VM are too expensive - seem to be mutually exclusive requirements.

They have money but choose to pay samuel L jackson £20 million for a adverts and £40 million to uma