HD : Is BT a threat to Virgin Media

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

I would say Tivo and OnDemand.


That would be because those companies neither own nor produce the content they have

(Yes. I know he won't see my comment as he's 'ignoring' me but that doesn't stop me pointing out any stupid comments he makes )

I don't think OnDemand will take over from broadcast TV until all the content that is currently broadcast on TV is made available OnDemand. Not only that but they'd have to make navigating content - ie FF/REW - more responsive.

Also, on demand content needs storage, meaning stuff can only remain available for a limited period of time due to turnover. Record a series to your TiVo and you can watch it at your leisure. I agree, I think we're a long way off on demand being anything other than a companion to "normal" TV.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Telly_

I disagree, Virgin have some good products.

TiVo seems to be working well for them with 1 million sales, Superfast broadband(although limited with STM and traffic management) Ondemand.

Virginmedia offers a great choice and alternative to other providers, where its future lies only Virgin knows.

Have you mentioned these positive VM aspects in any of your other posts, especially, "Virginmedia offers a great choice"? You may well have done, but the overall impression I get from your other posts is one of being critical of VM and promoting Sky. It seems that only when being challenged on this, have you posted positives with regard to VM.

[jamiefrost]

Originally Posted by Telly_

You can keep saying half the UK doesnt have fast BB, well it does..VM cover 14 million homes although only 4 million take their services, Open reach is rolling out fibre to thousands of homes A DAY. In 5 years it will be the norm to have 40mb+. If ya think I'm worng come back in 2017 an tell me via your "Insert any name" cable connection lol.

I think that FTTC will only provide 40mb+ to around 50% of the population on VDSL2, so it would not be the norm.

This would be solved by FFTP but how long will that take. In 5 years time what will the requirements be? Full HD audio and sound takes over 10mb to stream. With multiple streams this would eat up an 'average’ connection.

At the moment streaming will always be playing catchup in terms of quality.

J

Tellys post - In my office we get the impression VM are feeling like a headless chicken right now. Not quite sure where they fit in the market over the next 5 years, where is thier strength, the USP?

Telly - I will probably get banned for this <edit Rob: if you know it's against the site's rules, don't say it>. VM have got a superb game plan and are not running around like headless chickens. How do I know? Because I invest in media companies and VM are one of the best investments in the community I work within, they have the products, the infrastructure, the brand and lots of other blinding opportunities up their sleeves that you would never have any idea about. Lets look at some facts from an investment perspective -

If you look at both companies results you will see the following. VM have 4.8 million customers from the 12 million homes they pass and Sky have 10.6 million customers from the 26 million homes that they could take their services.

Therefore, VM has 40% penetration into homes that they pass and Sky has 40% penetration into the homes they could serve.

However Sky does not have Virgin as a competitor in half the country whereas Virgin does have Sky as a competitor in all the areas it operates in.

Therefore it’s logical that if Virgin were nationwide they could have more customers than Sky.

I appreciate that may be hard for your Sky biased head to follow - Telly - but facts are facts and the facts are that a huge number of people are happy with what VM offer.

And BTW - 64.6% of Virgin Media customers take a triple package, in comparison 32% of Sky customers are on triple. Skys claim of being the biggest triple play company is simply based on volume and is typical spin doctoring from Sky!

So why not bugger off to a Sky forum where you can all believe in better together - like lemmings!!

[carlwaring]

<edit Rob: Please don't repeat stuff that you know is against Cable Forum Rules>

And BTW - 64.6% of Virgin Media customers take a triple package, in comparison 32% of Sky customers are on triple. Skys claim of being the biggest triple play company is simply based on volume and is typical spin doctoring from Sky!

Indeed. A clever use of words by Sky. But if that's true then surely it's false advertising?

Originally Posted by carlwaring

I don't think that was the insult you thought it was. You missed a letter out

Well said though


Indeed. A clever use of words by Sky. But if that's true then surely it's false advertising?

They are clever though Carl, they claim to be the most popular but it's based on volume. Sky are the masters of spin and good luck to them.

In the investor world Sky are looked upon as the ford focus - lots of extras that are not too sophisticated whereas VM are seen as BMW - not too many extras but what they do have work very well e.g watch out for the TiVo I player app - phenonimal

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Top banana

what they do have work very well e.g watch out for the TiVo I player app - phenonimal

I don't think the iPlayer app is very good at all, to be honest.

ETA:
Sorry. Didn't explain that properly. To clarify. The app is brilliant but the implementation isn't very good. 1m skip back/forward? And not particularly quick. Seems faster on Freeview.

[27monksbury]

What difference would it make to have Tivo over Ethernet rather than coaxial cable? Forgive my ignorance.

---------- Post added at 08:41 ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 ----------

I wonder if Virgin Media are going to increase there availability by cabling more areas? My brother in law lives in a village, and half who live on the East side of the M11 get BT INTERNET, the West side do not. Because BT who are rich beyond hades say it would cost too much. Cabling is so expensive, and difficult in some areas. Sky have the advantage of not needing cables. This must be offset by the incredible cost in launching a satellite. Virgin would have a huge market share if they expanded, they are definitely best by far. I heard that the cabling would not be economical in the future.

[carlwaring]

Well for a start they'd be able to "sell" it nationally instead of just in cabled areas

[andy_m]

I'm sure just a couple of years ago Branson announced that he expected to have cabled the whole country, or at least most of it, by now.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by andy_m

I'm sure just a couple of years ago Branson announced that he expected to have cabled the whole country, or at least most of it, by now.

Thats the first time l have ever heard of that Andy.

[andy_m]

I'm desperately looking for the link...

[andy_m]

Can't find anything-possibly confusing quotes that he planned to offer a TV service to the whole country, that doesn't necessarily mean by cable, obviously.

[carlwaring]

That will be more like it. VM have, in the past, said they got into the Tivo specifically because of its IPTV capability; so they could eventually offer it in non-cable areas.

[Telly_]

Originally Posted by Top banana

Tellys post - In my office we get the impression VM are feeling like a headless chicken right now. Not quite sure where they fit in the market over the next 5 years, where is thier strength, the USP?

Telly - I will probably get banned for this <edit Rob: if you know it's against the site's rules, don't say it>. VM have got a superb game plan and are not running around like headless chickens. How do I know? Because I invest in media companies and VM are one of the best investments in the community I work within, they have the products, the infrastructure, the brand and lots of other blinding opportunities up their sleeves that you would never have any idea about. Lets look at some facts from an investment perspective -

If you look at both companies results you will see the following. VM have 4.8 million customers from the 12 million homes they pass and Sky have 10.6 million customers from the 26 million homes that they could take their services.

Therefore, VM has 40% penetration into homes that they pass and Sky has 40% penetration into the homes they could serve.

However Sky does not have Virgin as a competitor in half the country whereas Virgin does have Sky as a competitor in all the areas it operates in.

Therefore it’s logical that if Virgin were nationwide they could have more customers than Sky.

I appreciate that may be hard for your Sky biased head to follow - Telly - but facts are facts and the facts are that a huge number of people are happy with what VM offer.

And BTW - 64.6% of Virgin Media customers take a triple package, in comparison 32% of Sky customers are on triple. Skys claim of being the biggest triple play company is simply based on volume and is typical spin doctoring from Sky!

So why not bugger off to a Sky forum where you can all believe in better together - like lemmings!!

Sky have more tripple pay customers then Virignmedia that is a fact and its growing.

Also you comment that investors prefer Virginmedia to Sky, With the greatest respect I have to disagree.

1 company made £1.2billion profit with 11 million customers, the most sports rights and EPL rights all movies rights and a great future. The other company creates no content, has zero content rights and is £7billion is debt.

Please never become a fund manager, this is not anti VM its factual.