ADSL : Virgin National closes to new customers

[kwikbreaks]

Originally Posted by sollp

So BTW was now providing the VM ADSL service and they aren't going to improve there bandwidth to improve the service of VM ADSL are they!

I'm pretty much certain that BTW would be happy to sell VM as much capacity as they cared to pay for. If the service was congested blame Virgin National for not buying enough capacity.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by everyday

But they can't do that- under the OFCOM code of conduct whatever which they are signed up to?. An isp cannot charge a customer for service and support that the customer can't receive and the ISP can't provide past the date of disconnection. in fact if you cancel I am sure they simply bill you until you are disconnected..

Or has it recently changed?

Virgin don't charge the full cost, they charge as set out here http://store.virginmedia.com/the-leg...tion-fees.html , which does comply with OFCOM's rules as published here 3 years ago http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2010/0...one-contracts/

Cheers,

I've no plans to move just interested.

I guess now they have more money for their network? The money from the sky deal will help?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I believe that VM did want to go FTTC but hadn't the critical mass to make the sums work - especially given the headstart that their competition has.

Incorrect, the "fibre project" as it was called was fully fined and well under way with many exchanges fibred to and kit installed.

The whole project was then cancelled out of the blue, and the kit that was installed started to be removed.

This all happened exactly at the same time the BT Sport deal was announced. Make of that what you will.............

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 20:12 ----------

Originally Posted by Kushan

Interesting, so Virgin is now focussing on expanding their cable infrastructure rather than supplementing it with FTTC? I guess that makes sense in a way.

Then again, didn't LibGlob say something about focussing on getting existing customers to spend more rather than trying to expand to get more customers?

That was also the original VM model, and has been successful so far.

A modest amount of homes (around 50,000) are added on-net each year nationally.

I don't know if Liberty intend to increase that number, it's very expensive so I would doubt it.

However, Liberty need to grow and maximise their European operations to the level that VM are operating at.

[kwikbreaks]

Originally Posted by Pierre

with many exchanges fibred to and kit installed.

I think you need to do some research on what FTTC means...

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by sollp

They had project to have VM equipment installed into BT exchanges, lots of money spent already, equipment and process in place ready to start and was pulled by Lib Glob just as it about to start, no explanation, just stopped dead in it's tracks

Correct, came as a surprise to everyone involved. But like I say announced the same time as the BT Sport deal, so either they needed the cash to fund the BT deal, or as part of the negotiations they agreed not to compete with BT off-net, either or both.

---------- Post added at 20:22 ---------- Previous post was at 20:21 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It's like I said - VM were behind the FTTC curve and wouldn't have had the critical mass to sustain the costs.

Nope, you're wrong.

---------- Post added at 20:27 ---------- Previous post was at 20:22 ----------

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

I think you need to do some research on what FTTC means...

I hate it when dealing with people on here who think they know about VM and the industry when they don't.

The project for providing VM services over the BT FTTC network involved VM connecting their own fibre to all of BT's exchanges thereby backhauling all of the traffic on their own fibre directly into their own Core Network.

Unlike other FTTC providers that don't have the fibre reach that have to pay BT or other carrier to backhaul their traffics.

I think it is you that needs to do some research.

[Skie]

I wonder if VM could then undercut BT and provide other ISP's exchange backhaul. That would be an amusing scenario.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Skie

I wonder if VM could then undercut BT and provide other ISP's exchange backhaul. That would be an amusing scenario.

They already do to some level, it's a matter of degrees, and VM fill in a lot of holes for other providers.

They already provide backhaul of varying levels for Sky, Talk Talk, plus all the mobile operators.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Correct, came as a surprise to everyone involved. But like I say announced the same time as the BT Sport deal, so either they needed the cash to fund the BT deal, or as part of the negotiations they agreed not to compete with BT off-net, either or both.

---------- Post added at 20:22 ---------- Previous post was at 20:21 ----------

I won't argue with Pierre because he's much closer to events than most of us.

I fuind the cash reason more plausible than the non-compete negotiation. BT Sport AFAIK is not part of BT Openreach nor part of BT Wholesale. Because of the enforced arm's length relationship between those entities and BT Retail, I would question that BT would throw that into a negotiation.

[kwikbreaks]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I hate it when dealing with people on here who think they know about VM and the industry when they don't.

I don't know anything about VM but I do know that the only provider of the "last mile" section of FTTC is Openreach. OK so VM had planned to install some backhaul and have now scrapped that plan but they had no absolute need to do so to provide FTTC as there are several options for backhaul already in place - they were already using backhaul from the exchanges for their ADSL offering.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

I don't know anything about VM

Evident.

but I do know that the only provider of the "last mile" section of FTTC is Openreach.

Yes?

OK so VM had planned to install some backhaul and have now scrapped that plan but they had no absolute need to do so to provide FTTC

They were thinking a bit bigger than just FTTC. By having their own kit and own fibre they are able to freely control what services they provide. They were not just going to provide broadband off- net.

But maybe they should get you in as a business consultant.

[MaverickJesus]

They aren't going to expand the cable network, because if you are going to the extent of digging up roads it makes much more sense to stick FTTP in there instead.

But given thats true, it would make even more sense for them to do FTTP to the denser areas they already cover with cable, as there is a larger customer footprint to target.

Given that, are a sufficient number of the customers that currently get cable in those areas likely to want to pay enough extra for FTTP, to justify the cost? No chance.

Hence, we are where we are. All told its a pretty crap position to VM to be in, although DOCSIS 3.1 may be a saviour.

[sollp]

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

I'm pretty much certain that BTW would be happy to sell VM as much capacity as they cared to pay for. If the service was congested blame Virgin National for not buying enough capacity.

You could be correct but then again could be wrong, who knows?

---------- Post added at 22:19 ---------- Previous post was at 22:12 ----------

Originally Posted by MaverickJesus

They aren't going to expand the cable network, because if you are going to the extent of digging up roads it makes much more sense to stick FTTP in there instead.

But given thats true, it would make even more sense for them to do FTTP to the denser areas they already cover with cable, as there is a larger customer footprint to target.

Given that, are a sufficient number of the customers that currently get cable in those areas likely to want to pay enough extra for FTTP, to justify the cost? No chance.

Hence, we are where we are. All told its a pretty crap position to VM to be in, although DOCSIS 3.1 may be a saviour.

They will be putting the fibre nodes closer to the home in the cabinets, so you will have fibre to the cabinet still but closer and serving the customers within that cabinet.

[kwikbreaks]

Ofcom does not allow any section of BT to favour another section over and above any other ISP so they would have the same ability to purchase capacity as any other ISP. If they didn't provide sufficient capacity then it was penny pinching and not some BT conspiracy to make them look bad.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I won't argue with Pierre because he's much closer to events than most of us.
.

Thanks BTW, I did announce this a couple of months ago.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...ic-page-5.html