She tells it like it is. - Page 10

**Stuart C** · 04-06-2007, 23:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

2 - examples of BT been broken up making things worse.

(a) an example on this forum where the installation cost for a BT line is now £150 and engineer vist costs have also gone up, this is a direct result of BT been broken up and BT now can no longer absorb so many costs as everything they do is now accounteable to ofcom.

Possibly true, although BT do take the mickey with some of their prices. For instance, I had to have my master socket replaced (no other work needed doing). Are you seriously suggesting that it cost them £120 (what they charged me) for an engineer to come and spend 15 minutes installing a new phone socket?

Quote:

(b) personal experience, when I needed to report a fault on my adsl I cannot goto BT directly and the engineers pretend they dont work for bt but for a company called openreach

They do work for Openreach, although Openreach is part of BT..

Quote:

(c) lack of investment and technology progression, the single biggest thing stopping a FTTH/P rollout right now is the fact BT is broken up and forced to unbundle its infrastructure to allow competitors to be in the market. This is an example of breaking up a natural monopoly been bad for the consumer as it has a social impact.

Actually, what is apparently stopping FTTH is that BT don't feel that we need the extra speed. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06...eed_wars_over/

Quote:

3 - cable dont have good coverage, not rocket science, if your coverage is limited then your potential customer base is limited and they have never really addressed instead choosing to spend money on other things such as buying out companies. To add to this they have left areas with analogue only services and then blame the ex analogue customers flocking to sky on sky themselves, SKY CANNOT BE BLAMED FOR VM's FAILURES.

Breaking up sky would likely be worse for the consumer it would only benefit competitors, and why are you so keen on VMs welfare, as a consumer if you think VM needs to improve change provider if you happy with VM why are you concerned for them just leave things be.

The over regulation in this country is getting too far fetched, VM have failed for a decade to make a profit whilst been babysitted by the regulators please tell me now why this would change if they got further help? they have failed because of bad management and strategies not because of sky.

You do realised that without the regulation in this country, we would probably have limited or no access to broadband (BT haven't exactly been co-operative when it comes to installing ADSL equipment). We would also have the highest phone charges in the world, and would possibly not have all the extra services BT offer (Caller ID, Voicemail, Call waiting etc). We wouldn't have any of that, as it is unlikely that the cable companies (or any competitors) would have survived.

Also, without the legal requirement to provide a phone service to every house, do you really think that BT wouldn't just close non-profitable areas of the network?

thronesofstone · 05-06-2007, 08:35

Phew!!! Im glad i got the boot with a hefty redundancy!

The company is and will always be rotten to the core

Escapee · 05-06-2007, 09:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by thronesofstone

Phew!!! Im glad i got the boot with a hefty redundancy!

The company is and will always be rotten to the core

Exactly, I walked at a time when I thought things were at their lowest point. How wrong I was, that was back in 2001 and things have increasingly got worse. I dont tend to speak to many of my ex-collegues that often these days, (always refused to call the associates) but when I do its always doom and gloom about the latest method the company has come up with shafting them.

The origins of the company were with cableTel, they were a rotton company to start off with and that method of treating employees has carried on through all the aquisitions and name changes. in the early days CableTel they would bend over backwards to please customers way beyond the level they should of, after realising they were making no money by giving service away to anyone who had a grumble valid or not they started to wake up a bit.

The awful customer services and lack of skills has been with the company from day one, there are good people in the company and it could be said there were a lot more. many of the employees I knew have either been made redundant (often asking for it), got up and left for another job, or are still there grumbling about the way they are being treated.

Lets face it, no matter what the company calls themselves they have little chance of turning things around now things have gone this far, I saw someone post here saying they should sack all their incompetent staff!!!

What would that achieve, they could go out and find some more staff that are probably not as good as the ones they have got. the only things in favour of a complete new workforce would be their enthusiasm, but how long would the company take to beat that out of them and be back to square one.

Chrysalis · 05-06-2007, 18:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Possibly true, although BT do take the mickey with some of their prices. For instance, I had to have my master socket replaced (no other work needed doing). Are you seriously suggesting that it cost them £120 (what they charged me) for an engineer to come and spend 15 minutes installing a new phone socket?

They do work for Openreach, although Openreach is part of BT..

Actually, what is apparently stopping FTTH is that BT don't feel that we need the extra speed. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06...eed_wars_over/

You do realised that without the regulation in this country, we would probably have limited or no access to broadband (BT haven't exactly been co-operative when it comes to installing ADSL equipment). We would also have the highest phone charges in the world, and would possibly not have all the extra services BT offer (Caller ID, Voicemail, Call waiting etc). We wouldn't have any of that, as it is unlikely that the cable companies (or any competitors) would have survived.

Also, without the legal requirement to provide a phone service to every house, do you really think that BT wouldn't just close non-profitable areas of the network?

There needs to be some regulation but not to the extenct we have now, requiring BT to provide voice service everywhere was good, breaking them up was bad and one reason why your charges were so high for the master socket.

I am more reffering to the regulation that is designed to make LLU viable and create artifical competition. We have a regulation in place now that perhaps benefits those in digital cable areas and those who want cheap LLU but has brought the quality of the BT products down greatly.

I see that story on the reg today BT will say that to justify what they doing, if they were to say oh we think they need speed then they know the next step would be a change of copper to fiber which they dont want to do or cant do due to ofcom pushing them.

Regulation has lowered prices but quality has come down with it, some will say its worth it I think it isnt.

Incomplete · 05-06-2007, 20:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I see that story on the reg today BT will say that to justify what they doing, if they were to say oh we think they need speed then they know the next step would be a change of copper to fiber which they dont want to do or cant do due to ofcom pushing them.

Regulation has lowered prices but quality has come down with it, some will say its worth it I think it isnt.

Scarily I have to agree to an extent. The regulation provides a huge disincentive to BT to invest as they know that any investment they make they will be forced to offer to other providers at a charge level set by Ofcom under terms set by Ofcom.

SMHarman · 05-06-2007, 22:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incomplete

Scarily I have to agree to an extent. The regulation provides a huge disincentive to BT to invest as they know that any investment they make they will be forced to offer to other providers at a charge level set by Ofcom under terms set by Ofcom.

Yet crazily this also makes the investment risk free as they need to earn a return on the capital invested.

Incomplete · 05-06-2007, 23:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Yet crazily this also makes the investment risk free as they need to earn a return on the capital invested.

Indeed though whether this is enough to satisfy the shareholders is a different matter!

popper · 08-06-2007, 16:41

is this mobile test offering, always on wireless IP (WiMax)broadband, or mearly slow pay per-meg mobile phone narrow/broadband ?.

http://www.totaltele.com/View.aspx?ID=92830&t=2
"
ntl:Telewest Business to take on Virgin name... eventually
By Anne Morris, Total Telecom
08 June 2007
Business services provider starts piloting mobile offering in service bundles to a small number of corporate users.

U.K.-based ntl:Telewest rebranded itself under the Virgin Media name with much fanfare earlier this year, but the group's less high-profile Business division decided to retain the ntl:Telewest brand given Virgin's previous association with consumer-only services.

"It's a fantastic brand in consumer," said Andrew McGrath, director, marketing and strategy at ntl:Telewest Business. "But they don't really have any B2B services."

However, McGrath made it clear that ntl:Telewest Business will likely take on the Virgin brand – when it feels ready to do so.

"We needed more time," he said.

He also pointed out that the message of the business division - the third-largest provider of services to corporate customers in the U.K. after BT and Cable & Wireless - would have got lost in Virgin Media's massive consumer launch, a campaign that has also been extremely expensive. "
more...

"Ntl:Telewest Business is now starting to test the water with mobile services for corporate users. McGrath said the company is piloting bundles of mobile, fixed and broadband services to a few hundred smaller customers to gauge overall interest in a mobile offering. He added that the business group will also benefit from Virgin Media's recent deal to extend its network through unbundled DSL lines from Cable & Wireless.

Before joining with Virgin, ntl:Telewest had already carved out its place as the U.K.'s largest cable operator and second-largest fixed network provider with 5 million consumer broadband customers and revenue of around £4 billion.

Ntl:Telewest Business generates annual revenue of around £650 million and serves some 70,000 customers, although McGrath said the 3,000 largest customers generate 90% of its revenue.

The company's network covers 85% of U.K. businesses, and comes within 30 metres of half of them, he added. "
more....

popper · 11-06-2007, 09:01

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/broadc...StoryID=169397
"
Virgin One launch planned
Susan Thompson
8:00am

Virgin Media TV is planning to launch a general entertainment channel on Freeview, in what is the cable group's latest attempt to take on its arch rival BSkyB.

Talk of the offering, which Broadcast understands will be called Virgin One and be available on cable and Freeview, has been gaining momentum following frenzied bidding by the cable group for US shows from the LA Screenings.

According to sources Virgin Media is attempting to do deals with most studios.

One source said: "Virgin Media seems to be trying to buy everything [from the LA Screenings]. The word from the US is it is because they are launching a new channel to take on Sky One."

Virgin Media has also begun commissioning shows from UK indies for the new channel, which will be positioned between its female skewing offering Living and the male skewing Bravo.

It is also likely to replace Virgin Media's Freeview channel FTN.
Managing director for Virgin Media TV Johnny Webb is spearheading the initiative. ...."

**Stuart C** · 11-06-2007, 09:52

Discussion of Virgin One (assuming it actually happens, and is called that) is off topic in this thread. It already has it's own thread here. Please use that.

popper · 11-06-2007, 17:08

ohh 30 minutes to late (20 if you count the other small comment elsewere)

still this thread has become a news scratch pad (as per the OP)as its better to have it all in one place for others to pull off and post again perhaps.

**Stuart C** · 11-06-2007, 18:36

No. It is not. Threads have a topic for a reason. Stick to it.