She tells it like it is.

[Incomplete]

Good to see those senior managers delivering the goods and earning their huge bonuses, spending all the synergy savings from merger on retentions deals and not very effective advertising and getting the company downgraded by Morgan Stanley and S+P.

I so wish I'd been a fly on the wall at that board / investor meeting

Hopefully now they'll look into changing the fundamental identity and mindset of the company rather than spray painting it red and calling it Virgin Media. The vans do look damn nice though to be fair.

[NTLVictim]

Originally Posted by Incomplete

The vans do look damn nice though to be fair.

Never seen one, they probably don't want to be shot at.

[popper]

apparently they think searching the web and WAP on your VM mobile is werth spending a few quid.
[edit]
i looked a little harder and it seems its not so much 'Virgin Media chooses Infospace Inc' as in... http://whitepapers.techrepublic.com....px?docid=66399
"T-Mobile Selects Infospace's SMS Platform for the Delivery of Personalized Football News and Results"
and VM are going to use that that as its already available..... and cheap?.

not sure i'd call Infospace Inc, 'a leading developer of mobile technologies' though, 'rebol view' installed on all your mobile phones, innovation YES, Infospace leading!, perhaps they mean leading, as in it sells a lot...

http://voipforsmb.tmcnet.com/news/2007/06/02/148806.htm
"[June 02, 2007]

Virgin Mobile Chooses InfoSpace for World's Most Comprehensive Mobile Search


LONDON --(Business Wire)-- InfoSpace, Inc. (Nasdaq:INSP), a leading developer of mobile technologies, will today announce that it is supplying Virgin Mobile with its complete suite of mobile platform services, including the addition of a customized, integrated mobile search solution.

As a result, Virgin Mobile will be able to offer its subscribers the ability to search the web, WAP sites and Virgin Mobile's own portal and storefront providing access to ringtones, games and other premium content.

InfoSpace's next generation mobile search solution for Virgin Mobile will reflect the company's recent partnerships with FAST Search & Transfer, a leading developer of search technologies, and InfoGin, a leader in the field of Web-to-mobile content adaptation.

Virgin Mobile will benefit from FAST's superior search software, relevancy algorithms, crawling and indexing technologies and InfoGin's Web-to-mobile content adaptation technology to deliver the most comprehensive and commercially deployed mobile search solution.

InfoSpace's industry-leading metasearch technology seamlessly blends results from several sources including Storefronts, WAP and Web indexing, as well as Portal Search. With the InfoSpace's mobile search solution, operators can maintain visibility while providing users the advantages of a comprehensive mobile search experience that enables searching for any content or information, regardless of its origin or format, using a single search box.

Nick White, Head of Digital Services and NPD at Virgin Mobile, said: "If the impact of the internet on our daily lives, as well as the global economy, has taught the mobile world anything, it is that it's no longer about searching for the next killer application -- search itself is the killer application.

Virgin mobile is a firm believer that the there should be no limit to the content available for our users -- from the latest celeb gossip to searches for entertainment in the local area or even the most cryptic piece of trivia -- it must be available to everyone, everywhere. We are very pleased to extend our relationship with InfoSpace into this exciting new area."

and yes, according to that news post ,it is Virgin Media's UK Virgin mobile, not one of the other countrys franchise.
"About Virgin Mobile

Virgin Mobile is the UK's largest mobile virtual network operator and uses T-Mobile's network. Since its launch in November 1999, Virgin Mobile has attracted more than 4 million customers. Virgin Mobile is part of Virgin Media. The group is the first to be able to offer "quadruple play" to customers: mobile and fixed line telephony, broadband internet and television. "
more ...
---------- Post added at 01:59 ---------- Previous post was at 01:50 ----------

http://news.independent.co.uk/busine...cle2607307.ece
"3 June 2007 01:36

TV rivals join forces to press Ofcom to end Sky's dominance

By Andrew Murray-Watson

Published: 03 June 2007



Some of the biggest names in the British television industry have proposed that BSkyB, the satellite broadcaster, be broken up to boost competition.

The Independent on Sunday has learned that Virgin Media, BT Vision - the broadcast arm of BT - Setanta and Top Up TV have suggested the structural separation of BSkyB as a remedy to level the playing field in the pay-TV market.

The four companies made the proposal to Ofcom earlier this year in a joint submission and led the media regulator to open an investigation into the pay-TV sector.

It is believed that the media groups put forward a number of possible solutions to ending what they see as BSkyB's unhealthy dominance. The separation of its content and distribution businesses is among the proposals, which also include other structural and behavioural changes that could be imposed on BSkyB.

Analysts argued yesterday that the wholesale break-up of the satellite broadcaster would be "highly unlikely".

One said: "The notion BSkyB is going to get broken up is hardly credible. However, it is clear that Sky make have to make considerable concessions to its rivals to ensure that competition for content is maintained."

As well as their joint submission, Virgin Media, BT Vision, Setanta and Top Up TV made individual submissions to Ofcom that aired grievances about the competition landscape in the digital TV sector.

A spokesman for BSkyB said: "We're in the increasingly odd position of not having seen this submission. The reluctance of these four companies to put their case fully to us does not indicate the greatest conviction in their arguments.

"Sky has grown its business from scratch and has always operated in a highly competitive environment. Where others seek to gain advantage through regulation, our success has come from focusing on customers and investing in the products and service that they want."

Spokespeople for Virgin Media, BT Vision, Setanta and Top Up TV all declined to comment on the content of their submission to Ofcom.

A recent note by analysts at Merrill Lynch argued that the market had underestimated the potential impact on Sky of the media watchdog's investigation.

It said: "Ofcom will look at the structural remedies in the form of undertakings in lieu of a referral [to the Competition Commission]. For Sky this could mean changes to the way it wholesales sports and movies."

A banker with links to companies in the pay-TV arena added yesterday: "There have been so many investigations into Sky over the years, which have found the company blameless, that the general feeling is that this one is not going to be any different. I believe that perception to be misplaced."
"
more ...

[Incomplete]

The entrepeneurial UK. Don't take risks, go nearly bankrupt and succeed in your field otherwise the others who didn't take the risks or are incompetent or were late to the game will whinge that they can't compete.

At least there was the excuse with BT that the network was originally built with public funds.

Perhaps a structural remedy should be considered to end VM's domination of the UK cable sector

[Chrysalis]

"Sky has grown its business from scratch and has always operated in a highly competitive environment. Where others seek to gain advantage through regulation, our success has come from focusing on customers and investing in the products and service that they want."

says it all really. sky never had its customers handed to it, it made investments to gain customer share. Whilst others are expecting it to be handed on a plate.

I can see ofcom been stupid and breaking sky up, BT is now worse as a result of whats been done to it, a broken up sky will lead to problems such as consumers having to talk to a reseller of sky to get problems fixed and not sky directly and other problems as a result of sky not been a single operation.

Their is a few simple reasons sky is considered dominant.

They have the coverage, cable spending money on everything other then increasing its footprint and it cries about lack of customers, BT vision limited to good quality adsl lines and BT broadband customers (I think), and the other 2 are simply new to the market. I feel they need to work to gain customers and this is possible by offering a unique quality service but they dont want to, they want to have it easy get customers handed over to them without doing the proper investments and loss leading thats needed.

VM is just a huge failure when you consider they essentially have a pay tv monopoly on all properties that cant have a sat dish and that it has a technological advantage, I would expect if they expanded their cable footprint (costs billions but needed) and improved their quality of service and content they would end up been on par with sky or even surpass it due to superior broadband.

[on in an hour!]

Originally Posted by NTLVictim

Never seen one, they probably don't want to be shot at.

believe me you wouldnt wnt 1 on your nose as a wart...ive got 1 (a van that is,not a wart!!)

---------- Post added at 00:25 ---------- Previous post was at 00:12 ----------

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

"Sky has grown its business from scratch and has always operated in a highly competitive environment. Where others seek to gain advantage through regulation, our success has come from focusing on customers and investing in the products and service that they want."

says it all really. sky never had its customers handed to it, it made investments to gain customer share. Whilst others are expecting it to be handed on a plate.

I can see ofcom been stupid and breaking sky up, BT is now worse as a result of whats been done to it, a broken up sky will lead to problems such as consumers having to talk to a reseller of sky to get problems fixed and not sky directly and other problems as a result of sky not been a single operation.

Their is a few simple reasons sky is considered dominant.

They have the coverage, cable spending money on everything other then increasing its footprint and it cries about lack of customers, BT vision limited to good quality adsl lines and BT broadband customers (I think), and the other 2 are simply new to the market. I feel they need to work to gain customers and this is possible by offering a unique quality service but they dont want to, they want to have it easy get customers handed over to them without doing the proper investments and loss leading thats needed.

VM is just a huge failure when you consider they essentially have a pay tv monopoly on all properties that cant have a sat dish and that it has a technological advantage, I would expect if they expanded their cable footprint (costs billions but needed) and improved their quality of service and content they would end up been on par with sky or even surpass it due to superior broadband.

Mod edit (Gavin): Abusive comments removed

[Chrysalis]

I am thinking are you trying to tell me there is no instances where properties have to have cable because they cant have a sat dish?

Sorry to dissapoint you but it has been the case fo rme and at least 5 other people I know, my landlord puts cable in all his properties and forbids sat on his tenancy agreements (although I broken it )

Are you also suggesting the fact sky invested is dribble? are you saying they didnt start off with no customers? are you saying my talk abotu BT been broken up making things worse is dribble? if yes please back your claims up with reasoning rather then just coming out with a personal attack.

Seems you someone who gets offended when the company you buy services of is put down, I have no such loyalty.

to explain what I said.

1- sky didnt have customers given to it when it entered the uk market it had to do something to attract customers and didnt get success right away, buying premiership football rights which were not cheap provided the attraction to pay for sky tv. They also invested in movie rights as well.

what content have the competitors complaining invested in? has it been billions of pounds the same as sky?

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.
(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
(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.

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.

As for BT and co joining in well I can see the reasoning, BT were themselves broken up so probably sour grapes and they want a quick entry into the market and breaking up sky would certianly help them.

[Incomplete]

Not really Chrysalis he was a bit OTT but took exception to you saying this:

VM is just a huge failure when you consider they essentially have a pay tv monopoly on all properties that cant have a sat dish

Which obviously isn't the case.

[Wiggz]

Originally Posted by Incomplete

Not really Chrysalis he was a bit OTT but took exception to you saying this:



Which obviously isn't the case.

Is that not the case? Let's take Sky as an example. Love them or hate them, they have been doing one thing consistently since they 'arrived' on the scene which NTL/Virgin have failed to do to the same extent (I bow down to some of the exceptions...but the majority is in my favour I believe) which is consistently push their platform further without degrading current customer's service(s).

Virgin have just implemented their 20MB Internet Services which have caused uproar with customers who previously had 10MB speeds without an issue and are now suffering with 5MB "limits"! They also waged a war with BskyB, which lost a number of channels which is to the detriment of the consumer and their own customers.

I'd say they have a Monopoly on premium services in areas where Sat Dishes are not a viable solution.

[Incomplete]

Originally Posted by Wiggz

Is that not the case?

I'd say they have a Monopoly on premium services in areas where Sat Dishes are not a viable solution.

No. They only have a monopoly on premium services where satellite isn't available and they have network presence. That's what the guy was trying to say. Some people have no pay-tv option at all being forbidden a dish and in an area not covered by cable.

[foreverwar]

According to ONS there are 22 million households in the UK.
According to uSwitch Cable can reach 15 million of these.

[Incomplete]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

According to ONS there are 22 million households in the UK.
According to uSwitch Cable can reach 15 million of these.

Not true. Cable passes about 12.5 million homes, broadband availability is 94.5% in those 12.5 million homes. In 2004 there were 24.7 million households in the UK.

[VMNick]

I think that article is a little to early, like Virgin Media still has a lot of time to buck up.

Their is problems yes but then Sky has problems and so does BT.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

says it all really. sky never had its customers handed to it, it made investments to gain customer share. Whilst others are expecting it to be handed on a plate.

Sky I believe, I certainly percieve to have been available before cable. First to market advantage counts here.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I can see ofcom been stupid and breaking sky up, BT is now worse as a result of whats been done to it, a broken up sky will lead to problems such as consumers having to talk to a reseller of sky to get problems fixed and not sky directly and other problems as a result of sky not been a single operation.

This would not be how it would be broken up (well it could be this way, but...) Just like ITV, C4 C5 and BBC do not own a broadcast network, but rent space on Crown Castles transmitters. Sky television channels would spin off and sell their product to Sky, NTL and maybe even work out it is better to put them free on DTT to gain advertising revenue. They would be free of the decision making process of the Sky TV dish network delivery system.
Separation of the delivery system and the channels is the objective here. Similarly it should be counter argued by Sky that VM do the same with FlexTech.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

They have the coverage, cable spending money on everything other then increasing its footprint

Cable footprint iand the lack of expansion is crazy stoopid. A friend of mine has moved to new build not far from where he lived before. He is a lost customer to VM as he cannot get it as he is now off network, even though the network runs past the end of his street. VM while the roads were being built did not come in and cable. WHY.
Compare to where I live in the US. Cablevision came in and cabled the building and put a UBR in the basement (it is a big apartment block). Cablevision is the ONLY BB offering in the building. Sat or Cable for TV and Cable or Verizon for Phone.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Incomplete

No. They only have a monopoly on premium services where satellite isn't available and they have network presence. That's what the guy was trying to say. Some people have no pay-tv option at all being forbidden a dish and in an area not covered by cable.

The guy was trying to say everything I written was crap nothing more nothing less.

I can rephrase what I said to that VM have/had a pay tv monopoly on properties that cannot have a sattelite inside cabled areas.

Of course sky have/had a pay tv monopoly in areas with no cable coverage but the difference is sky are making money and have a better quality service so have something to show for it.