Virgin Media Third Quarter 2012 Results.

[batchain]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Funny, BT's own performance indicators indicate 136,000 net additions representing 44% of the xDSL market, indicating total net additions for BT Group of 309,000 for "Q4 2012" (FY).
We were talking about VM total net adds (60k including wholesale) vs BT Group (309k including wholesale).

If you want to separate superfast from non superfast, in the non-superfast category you have VM losing 390,000 customers and BT Group gaining 139,000.

BT "Q4" is for the 3 months ending 31st March 2012

Virgin "Q3" is for the 3 months ending 30th Sept 2012


BT results for the 3 months ending 30th Sept 2012 are not due until November.


Last BT results are for the 3 months ending 30th June which is why I quoted those figures.


25th July 2012:

BT Group plc (BT.L) results for the quarter ending 30 June 2012.


Broadband

We added 85,000 retail broadband customers in the quarter, representing 50% of the broadband market net additions* of 170,000.


* DSL, LLU and fibre, excluding cable


We added over 150,000 BT Retail fibre broadband customers and the customer base currently stands at more than 700,000


Openreach

Operational

44,000 reduction in physical lines

170,000 broadband users added*

* DSL, LLU and fibre, excluding cable

Fibre roll-out

11m premises now passed

In the Superfast category you have VM and BT counting "superfast" differently, with superfast on VM being >=30Mb and on BT being >=38Mb. If you use VM's lowest tariff as a cutoff, obviously making their own numbers look bigger you have around 450,000 net adds on VM and 150,000 on Openreach whereas if you use BT's lowest as a cutoff you only have 247,500 net adds on VM "superfast".

Virgin don't get to set the cut off point to make their numbers look bigger. Ofcom defines "superfast" as a connection with an advertised speed of up to 30Mb/s.

In terms of total uptake, you have a somewhat over 700,000 active customers on Openreach fibre (with around 40% UK coverage, aka 7% uptake) vs. 837,500 active customers on VM on the same or higher tariffs (with 51% UK coverage aka 6.5% uptake).

700,000 out of a potential 11m BT fibre homes.

Virgin cable covers roughly 12.9m homes

As of 30th June Virgin had 1.3m superfast subs (as defined by Ofcom, not you or BT), 1.8m by 30th Sept


BT (30th June) = around 6.5%

VM 1.3m (30th June) = around 10%

VM 1.8m (30th Sept) = around 14%

As of 30th Sept Virgin had 42% of their cable broadband base on superfast speeds (30Mb or higher) with 44% of new subs in the quarter taking 60Mb or higher at point of sale.

Course all the BT Group figures are a few months out of date and will be higher now...

As I said, latest BT results are for the 3 months ending 30th June which is why I originally compared Virgin's superfast net adds for the same period and not the latest results which further extend Virgin's superfast lead.

For all intents and purposes they're competing on pretty even footing now with VM losing their early lead on and off. And as they say, competition is good.

Virgin's CEO noted in Q2 (and again in Q3) that BT Infinity was having little or no impact on Virgin in areas where they went head to head. As such Virgin was maintaining its overall market share/lead with BT Infinity net adds cannibalising the existing DSL market.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by batchain

Virgin don't get to set the cut off point to make their numbers look bigger. Ofcom defines "superfast" as a connection with an advertised speed of up to 30Mb/s.

Great, so you deliberately pick a cutoff that makes VM's figures look bigger for them. Bravo.

Actually, I think you'll find OFCOM originally defined, back in 2010:
"Super-fast broadband is generally taken to mean broadband products that provide a maximum download speed that is greater than 24 Mbit/s"

Since BT Group had over 10 million ADSL2+ customers in 2010 and ADSL2+ theoretically has a maximum download speed of 26.768 Mbit/s, by OFCOM standards, BT had 10 million "superfast" subscribers in January 2010.

On a similar note, the BDUK part of the government defines "Superfast Broadband as having a potential headline access speed of at least 20Mbps" which again covers all of BT's ADSL2+ services under "superfast" and BT Group have had over 10 million "superfast" customers since January 2010.

Then there's the Broadband Stakeholder Group's viewpoint (included only because it was in the same article which seemed to use superfast and next-gen interchangeably):
"With next generation broadband consumers could experience a better quality and consistency of service, without necessarily using higher download speeds. For example, a service that provided a consistent 10Mbps download and 5Mbps upload, while not providing faster download speeds than current copper-based broadband is capable of, is well beyond the capabilities of the current network and would require NGA.

Download speed is just one feature of a broadband service (albeit the main feature that services are marketed on). With NGA, we will see a step change in the quality of service that consumers receive that is about more than just download speeds, but covers upload and quality of service characteristics mentioned above too. For many, it is these improvements that are most exciting in terms of how next generation services will evolve."

That'd mean pretty much all BT Infinity (and related FTTC services) qualify as next-gen whereas only 100-120Mbps service(s) on VM do, if you look at the upload speed alone, and absolutely no VM services qualify if you take into account STM and/or upstream jitter. By that reckoning, BT Group have 700,000 NGA subscribers while VM have zero.

Want to try again?

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Great, so you deliberately pick a cutoff that makes VM's figures look bigger for them. Bravo.

Actually, I think you'll find OFCOM originally defined, back in 2010:
"Super-fast broadband is generally taken to mean broadband products that provide a maximum download speed that is greater than 24 Mbit/s"

Since BT Group had over 10 million ADSL2+ customers in 2010 and ADSL2+ theoretically has a maximum download speed of 26.768 Mbit/s, by OFCOM standards, BT had 10 million "superfast" subscribers in January 2010.

On a similar note, the BDUK part of the government defines "Superfast Broadband as having a potential headline access speed of at least 20Mbps" which again covers all of BT's ADSL2+ services under "superfast" and BT Group have had over 10 million "superfast" customers since January 2010.

Then there's the Broadband Stakeholder Group's viewpoint (included only because it was in the same article which seemed to use superfast and next-gen interchangeably):
"With next generation broadband consumers could experience a better quality and consistency of service, without necessarily using higher download speeds. For example, a service that provided a consistent 10Mbps download and 5Mbps upload, while not providing faster download speeds than current copper-based broadband is capable of, is well beyond the capabilities of the current network and would require NGA.

Download speed is just one feature of a broadband service (albeit the main feature that services are marketed on). With NGA, we will see a step change in the quality of service that consumers receive that is about more than just download speeds, but covers upload and quality of service characteristics mentioned above too. For many, it is these improvements that are most exciting in terms of how next generation services will evolve."

That'd mean pretty much all BT Infinity (and related FTTC services) qualify as next-gen whereas only 100-120Mbps service(s) on VM do, if you look at the upload speed alone, and absolutely no VM services qualify if you take into account STM and/or upstream jitter. By that reckoning, BT Group have 700,000 NGA subscribers while VM have zero.

Want to try again?

Mmm, good old flabby BT who did nothing in this space until it saw itself being out manoeuvred by a company who is tiny in comparison. This was a topic about VM, which today posted fantastic results.

[Itshim]

[QUOTE=Top banana;35488253in comparison. This was a topic about VM, which today posted fantastic results.[/QUOTE]

Really you call them fantastic

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11722...aded-vmed.html

"VMED, with its decline in revenue, underperformed when compared the industry average of 10.5%. Since the same quarter one year prior, revenues slightly dropped by 0.3%. Weakness in the company's revenue seems to have hurt the bottom line, decreasing earnings per share."

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Itshim

Really you call them fantastic

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11722...aded-vmed.html

"VMED, with its decline in revenue, underperformed when compared the industry average of 10.5%. Since the same quarter one year prior, revenues slightly dropped by 0.3%. Weakness in the company's revenue seems to have hurt the bottom line, decreasing earnings per share."

That's one part of the report, and considering the top of the page says:

VMED has been upgraded by TheStreet Ratings from hold to buy. The company's strengths can be seen in multiple areas, such as its expanding profit margins and increase in stock price during the past year

Then others seem to think it's a good report

Originally Posted by Itshim

Really you call them fantastic

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11722...aded-vmed.html

"VMED, with its decline in revenue, underperformed when compared the industry average of 10.5%. Since the same quarter one year prior, revenues slightly dropped by 0.3%. Weakness in the company's revenue seems to have hurt the bottom line, decreasing earnings per share."

You may want to check the date of the link you posted. The results are fantastic and the share price has shot up off the back of them

http://community.nasdaq.com/News/201...8#.UIfARJG9KK0

---------- Post added at 11:22 ---------- Previous post was at 11:12 ----------

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Great, so you deliberately pick a cutoff that makes VM's figures look bigger for them. Bravo.

Actually, I think you'll find OFCOM originally defined, back in 2010:
"Super-fast broadband is generally taken to mean broadband products that provide a maximum download speed that is greater than 24 Mbit/s"

Since BT Group had over 10 million ADSL2+ customers in 2010 and ADSL2+ theoretically has a maximum download speed of 26.768 Mbit/s, by OFCOM standards, BT had 10 million "superfast" subscribers in January 2010.

On a similar note, the BDUK part of the government defines "Superfast Broadband as having a potential headline access speed of at least 20Mbps" which again covers all of BT's ADSL2+ services under "superfast" and BT Group have had over 10 million "superfast" customers since January 2010.

Then there's the Broadband Stakeholder Group's viewpoint (included only because it was in the same article which seemed to use superfast and next-gen interchangeably):
"With next generation broadband consumers could experience a better quality and consistency of service, without necessarily using higher download speeds. For example, a service that provided a consistent 10Mbps download and 5Mbps upload, while not providing faster download speeds than current copper-based broadband is capable of, is well beyond the capabilities of the current network and would require NGA.

Download speed is just one feature of a broadband service (albeit the main feature that services are marketed on). With NGA, we will see a step change in the quality of service that consumers receive that is about more than just download speeds, but covers upload and quality of service characteristics mentioned above too. For many, it is these improvements that are most exciting in terms of how next generation services will evolve."

That'd mean pretty much all BT Infinity (and related FTTC services) qualify as next-gen whereas only 100-120Mbps service(s) on VM do, if you look at the upload speed alone, and absolutely no VM services qualify if you take into account STM and/or upstream jitter. By that reckoning, BT Group have 700,000 NGA subscribers while VM have zero.

Want to try again?

Virgin's CEO noted in Q2 (and again in Q3) that BT Infinity was having little or no impact on Virgin in areas where they went head to head. As such Virgin was maintaining its overall market share/lead with BT Infinity net adds cannibalising the existing DSL market.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Top banana

You may want to check the date of the link you posted. The results are fantastic and the share price has shot up off the back of them

Sorry I was questioning the choice of words. If that is fantastic...... ?
Time line yesterday

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Itshim

Sorry I was questioning the choice of words. If that is fantastic...... ?
Time line yesterday

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

Share price was at 29.75 pence per share a month ago an it's now at 34.13 pence per share which is an 8% rise, and it's risen 45% since the beginning of the year

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Share price was at 29.75 pence per share a month ago an it's now at 34.13 pence per share which is an 8% rise, and it's risen 45% since the beginning of the year

That's Dollars actually, but I know, woo hooo.................roll on November 1st!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Pierre

That's Dollars actually, but I know, woo hooo.................roll on November 1st!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The point was look at the open & close. Its not fantastic.

---------- Post added at 12:43 ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 ----------

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Share price was at 29.75 pence per share a month ago an it's now at 34.13 pence per share which is an 8% rise, and it's risen 45% since the beginning of the year

4.5c (3p) over a month & on release of quarterly figures Is not great .

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Itshim

The point was look at the open & close. Its not fantastic. :erm

It is for me, and anyone else in the VM share save scheme that matures on 1st November.

Originally Posted by Itshim

The point was look at the open & close. Its not fantastic.

---------- Post added at 12:43 ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 ----------



4.5c (3p) over a month & on release of quarterly figures Is not great .

Please don't post when you have no idea what you are on about. The price in this post is dollars, so they went up by 3 dollars.

So if you bought 100 dollars worth at 10am by close of play that was a 300 dollar profit

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Top banana

Please don't post when you have no idea what you are on about. The price in this post is dollars, so they went up by 3 dollars.

So if you bought 100 dollars worth at 10am by close of play that was a 300 dollar profit

That why I employ a stockbroker Did yours buy or sell & please talk in real numbers not a child`s pocket money
[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]
My eye must be bad that looks like around 33.7 rising to 34 at the end of that day.
But I am sure your portfolio shows how great you are at this sort of thing. As I stated I pay other people to look at these things - So I can think how to spend it !!

Originally Posted by Itshim

That why I employ a stockbroker Did yours buy or sell & please talk in real numbers not a child`s pocket money

My eye must be bad that looks like around 33.7 rising to 34 at the end of that day.
But I am sure your portfolio shows how great you are at this sort of thing. As I stated I pay other people to look at these things - So I can think how to spend it !!

32.50 at 9.45, not sure why you are being so pedantic here, the city think they are great, you don't, can't understand why you don't think the same.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Top banana

32.50 at 9.45, not sure why you are being so pedantic here, the city think they are great, you don't, can't understand why you don't think the same.

Because I can be pedantic I will point this out & it was the reason for my original post the WORD I questioned was fantastic . Way to strong for what was posted.
Please note the minus signs or have I got that wrong
As at 2.36pm (guess my clock was slow )

VMED (NASDAQ) VMED (LSE) Last: 33.25$ Last: 2,075GBX Change: -0.88 Change: -16.00 Change%: (-2.58%) Change%: (-0.77%) Time: 09:36 am ET Time: 02:36 pm UKT

---------- Post added at 16:09 ---------- Previous post was at 14:55 ----------

Originally Posted by Itshim

Because I can be pedantic I will point this out & it was the reason for my original post the WORD I questioned was fantastic . Way to strong for what was posted.
Please note the minus signs or have I got that wrong
As at 2.30pm

VMED (NASDAQ) VMED (LSE) Last: 33.25$ Last: 2,075GBX Change: -0.88 Change: -16.00 Change%: (-2.58%) Change%: (-0.77%) Time: 09:36 am ET Time: 02:36 pm UKT

spoke to my brother - he just laughed at the thought of going into Virgin shares. Still what ever rocks your boat I guess is good.

---------- Post added at 16:11 ---------- Previous post was at 16:09 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

It is for me, and anyone else in the VM share save scheme that matures on 1st November.

Now that I can relate to. Bet you started at a really low price. The Tax man cometh