General Discussion
  >> Local Loop Unbundling & Regulation Issues


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.


  Print Thread
Standard User lightbody
(newbie) Wed 23-Aug-17 19:56:13
Print Post

Virgin Media, Unhappy, but No Choice


[link to this post]
 
Hi,

The area where I live has had Cable TV (originally Cable-Tel) since the early 1990s. For that reason, Openreach never upgraded their equipment. So my choice is expensive Virgin internet (up to 200) or Openreach with just 5mb on offer.

There's no competition at all, everyone's stuck with Virgin, even when they provide an awful service (frequently). This is a "well to do" suburb a few miles outside a major city.

I had Openreach FTTC before I moved here, and was very happy with it. I'd absolutely love a choice, but I don't think I'll ever get one.

I think Virgin should be forced to share their cable with other companies, the way Openreach is.

- Rob Lightbody
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Thu 24-Aug-17 08:17:13
Print Post

Re: Virgin Media, Unhappy, but No Choice


[re: lightbody] [link to this post]
 
If the worry is the expense there are cheaper cable services at 50 Mbps

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User sheephouse
(learned) Thu 24-Aug-17 13:12:48
Print Post

Re: Virgin Media, Unhappy, but No Choice


[re: lightbody] [link to this post]
 
At least you do have a choice, and fast broadband is available to you. Some of us have no choice at all, and are stuck with slow broadband.


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.

Standard User nemeth782
(committed) Thu 24-Aug-17 14:35:34
Print Post

Re: Virgin Media, Unhappy, but No Choice


[re: lightbody] [link to this post]
 
There are lots of valid criticisms of Virgin, but I don't really agree this is one of them.

It's not their fault BT have not deployed to you, and this criticism could be levelled anywhere VM exist.

For me, I have a choice between 350mbit from VM and ~50mbit from anyone else - so it's also a no brainer, even if my peak time single threaded downloads are "only" 85mbit or so.

The way the cable is segmented doesn't really lend itself to resellers in the same way as BT. This is a technical factor of DOCSIS.

For example, there might be 20 properties on your cable segment, and in your imagined future, 20 different ISPs in those properties, and when you got slow speeds each ISP would say it's down to the 19 other customers they can't impact using too much.
Standard User kebabselector
(member) Thu 24-Aug-17 16:22:15
Print Post

Re: Virgin Media, Unhappy, but No Choice


[re: lightbody] [link to this post]
 
I'm the same position as your area, although slight difference is with my area moving 200metres away will get me on an Openreach upgraded cabinet. Virgin is everywhere here, but over utiliised so not sure if being forced to add other companies to the aging cable will help.

Community funded cabs are an option, but it's not cheap - assuming you can get the everyone to pay. In my area as we have Virgin it's not an easy thing to ask people to pay for.

ISP's:
Zen: Around 6mb down - .8mb up
JohnLewis BB: Around 6mb down - .6mb up
Stechford (CMSTE) Cab 50 - Virgin rates variable so not bothering with them.....

Edited by kebabselector (Thu 24-Aug-17 16:25:00)

Standard User lightbody
(newbie) Fri 25-Aug-17 08:35:51
Print Post

Re: Virgin Media, Unhappy, but No Choice


[re: kebabselector] [link to this post]
 
I'm not blaming virgin for having a monopoly in many areas, but I am blaming the authorities. The Openreach connection is the thing that brings competitiveness.

I'd love to know how many people across Britain are in the same position as me, I'm assuming it's millions.
Standard User nemeth782
(committed) Fri 25-Aug-17 09:28:58
Print Post

Re: Virgin Media, Unhappy, but No Choice


[re: lightbody] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by lightbody:
I'm not blaming virgin for having a monopoly in many areas, but I am blaming the authorities. The Openreach connection is the thing that brings competitiveness.

I'd love to know how many people across Britain are in the same position as me, I'm assuming it's millions.


"The Authorities" don't decide where Openreach can viably afford to install. Given that VM is in your area, it's reasonable to assume that they would get a much lower RoI than a non VM area where they are the only option.

Your complaint seems to be against BT Openreach, not Virgin.

I'm not sure I really agree that FTTC brings competitiveness. It brings the same tail end service with 1000 different labels stuck on it. But whoever you go with, you still have the same issues with repairs, expensive SFI visits, no way to reset an overenthusiastic DLM system, etc etc.

And all for a similar price to a lot more speed from VM.

Enforced competition on VM's network would do nothing for pricing (if anything probably increase it as there would be more people trying to profit from it, and Ofcom may set minimum pricing levels for VM direct) and do nothing for congestion (as that's on the local cable segment more than the backbone, so would be the same whoever you bought it from)

But I guess you could have various different labels on your superhub!
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Fri 25-Aug-17 11:00:51
Print Post

Re: Virgin Media, Unhappy, but No Choice


[re: lightbody] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by lightbody:
Hi,

The area where I live has had Cable TV (originally Cable-Tel) since the early 1990s. For that reason, Openreach never upgraded their equipment. So my choice is expensive Virgin internet (up to 200) or Openreach with just 5mb on offer.


To be honest Openreach are more inclined to upgrade when Virgin Media are around.

There would likely be very little difference between the quality of operators on Virgin Media's network if it were wholesaled which just leaves cost.

I'm afraid that, as we all rely more and more on broadband Internet for more of our content and, indeed, lives, the costs of running it rise and, necessarily, the cost of providing it must rise.

Operators that are too cheap to be true usually are exactly that or are cross-subsidising heavily from somewhere else, in the case of Sky from TV revenues.
  Print Thread

Jump to