Virgin to be sold?

[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

When they insisted they had to charge me for a phone line in order to provide me with a DTV service, the excuse they used as a reason was that they make no money from the TV.

So just who is telling the porkies here then?
And if VM is making so much money how come they can't or won't keep their network and TV service up to scratch?

Lol. They can't keep their network up to scratch yet they constantly invest in new technologies like vod and iplayer. Along with signing deals with Setanta for premium sport included in their xl pack offering. What do you mean it is not up to scratch exactly? Because near enough everyone i know who has the service is happy with it.

Vm charge for tv so therefore make revenue from tv. Where is your proof they make no money from it?

[Mick Fisher]

Originally Posted by tvtimes

Lol. They can't keep their network up to scratch yet they constantly invest in new technologies like vod and iplayer. Along with signing deals with Setanta for premium sport included in their xl pack offering. What do you mean it is not up to scratch exactly? Because near enough everyone i know who has the service is happy with it.

Vm charge for tv so therefore make revenue from tv. Where is your proof they make no money from it?

Why should I have to prove something told to me by an Ntl sales person?

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

Why should I have to prove something told to me by an Ntl sales person?

You believe a sales person?!

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Chrys, the reply wasn't in relation to profitability, it was in relation to arthur's assertion that VM were continually losing customers month on month.

btw, I disagree - reasons do matter; if you can't do something because someone else won't allow you to, it's a bit harsh to blame you for the problem (imho).

I didnt say I blame VM I just said its irrelevant, it doesnt matter whos fault it is what does matter is if it works or not. Its just tough luck to VM life isnt fair. Of course VM can in a market that was force opened, buy their own football rights and then refuse to give sky interactive on it so then the tables would be even. But VM have chosen not to do this. Noone is putting a gun to VM's head and saying you must buy your football of sky instead of getting it yourself direct.

VM/ntl can only offer me a analogue tv service, its possible the reason they not upgraded my area is that they cannot get permission to dig up the roads. But sorry I am not a charity case I simply go to a competitor that offers what I want.

---------- Post added at 11:19 ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 ----------

Originally Posted by tvtimes

Lol. They can't keep their network up to scratch yet they constantly invest in new technologies like vod and iplayer. Along with signing deals with Setanta for premium sport included in their xl pack offering. What do you mean it is not up to scratch exactly? Because near enough everyone i know who has the service is happy with it.

Vm charge for tv so therefore make revenue from tv. Where is your proof they make no money from it?

Very arrogant, say that to people in southampton and leicester who pay full whack for a aging analogue service whilst VM ignores their areas and keeps reinvesting in the same areas again and again. If VM are making money on it how can you explain their decision to concentrate on broadband and not tv?

[Chris T]

Crumbs you lot, will somebody actually read the OP instead of indulging in wild speculation?

Originally Posted by jamsh

This is from The Telegraph -

Virgin Media, the New York-listed but British-based group, has instructed Goldman Sachs to conduct a review of its content business and a sale is seen by analysts as the most likely option.

Its content business. I've emboldened it just so it stands out. The content business is the TV channels it owns though Flextech. They have been trying, on and off, to get shut of them for some time, so this is nothing new.

Any and all discussion of the sale of Virgin Media itself is just naked speculation. I mean, speculate away by all means, but not on the back of this report in the Telegraph because that is not what is being reported.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Crumbs you lot, will somebody actually read the OP instead of indulging in wild speculation?

Its content business. I've emboldened it just so it stands out. The content business is the TV channels it owns though Flextech. They have been trying, on and off, to get shut of them for some time, so this is nothing new.

Any and all discussion of the sale of Virgin Media itself is just naked speculation. I mean, speculate away by all means, but not on the back of this report in the Telegraph because that is not what is being reported.

Originally Posted by SMHarman

This valuation / sale is all about
http://www.virginmediatv.co.uk/
not
http://www.virginmedia.com/
http://www.virginmedia.com/about/
http://investors.virginmedia.com/pho...485&p=irol-faq
Virgin Media Inc. is a Delaware corporation and is publicly-traded in the US on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol "VMED".

Virgin Media owns two content businesses - Virgin Media Television (VMTV) and sit-up. VMTV owns seven entertainment channels - LIVINGtv, LIVINGtv 2, Bravo, Bravo 2, Challenge, Trouble and Ftn - and is a 50% partner in UKTV which consists of ten channels including UKTV Gold and UKTV History. sit-up runs retail TV channels bid tv, price-drop tv and speed auctiontv.

Chris, I think you will find you are urinating is a strong scottish breeze with this lot...

[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

Why should I have to prove something told to me by an Ntl sales person?

Yeah and we all know their staff aren't privvy to such information. You can not take anything they say as gospel. Plus you say it was NTL staff. It's not NTL anymore, things have changed drastically since then.

---------- Post added at 17:26 ---------- Previous post was at 17:10 ----------

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I didnt say I blame VM I just said its irrelevant, it doesnt matter whos fault it is what does matter is if it works or not. Its just tough luck to VM life isnt fair. Of course VM can in a market that was force opened, buy their own football rights and then refuse to give sky interactive on it so then the tables would be even. But VM have chosen not to do this. Noone is putting a gun to VM's head and saying you must buy your football of sky instead of getting it yourself direct.

VM/ntl can only offer me a analogue tv service, its possible the reason they not upgraded my area is that they cannot get permission to dig up the roads. But sorry I am not a charity case I simply go to a competitor that offers what I want.

---------- Post added at 11:19 ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 ----------


Very arrogant, say that to people in southampton and leicester who pay full whack for a aging analogue service whilst VM ignores their areas and keeps reinvesting in the same areas again and again. If VM are making money on it how can you explain their decision to concentrate on broadband and not tv?

How on earth is my post arrogant? If anyone's post is arrogants it's yours.
Do you have some inside knowledge that VM do not make any money on their tv service? Where is your proof? VM do not make much money on their analogue side of stuff granted but you didn't say that! You said VM make no money from their tv! VM infact does make money from their tv service and subscriptions are up every quarter.
Just because they are concentrating on BB does not mean they don't make money on tv FFS! BB is their strong point, tv is Sky's strong point but that doesn't mean VM does not make money in their tv side of the business! Plus they didn't just state they are concentrating on BB they said they are concentrating on VOD aswell. Their tv service is going from strength to strength VOD is actively used by the millions more and more every quarter. You are talking absoloute rubbish and basing all your opinions on their analogue service which isn't a good comparison to VM's actual tv service at all. If VM made no money in their tv side why are they developing a new box which will allow VM extra reach to an extra 4m customers. Plus, VM's tv service has better up take than Sky in the areas they cable!

---------- Post added at 17:28 ---------- Previous post was at 17:26 ----------

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Chris, I think you will find you are urinating is a strong scottish breeze with this lot...

I agree! They are making wild accusations in order to stick the knife in VM yet again. Talking a load of BS asual.

[Chrysalis]

you dont think laughing at not keeping a network up to scratch isnt arrogant then? You defending VM very hard and trying to make them seem something that they are not.

[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

you dont think laughing at not keeping a network up to scratch isnt arrogant then? You defending VM very hard and trying to make them seem something that they are not.

How are they not keeping their network up to scratch?! Where's your proof? It just seems yet again your opinion! I am not defending VM about anything, i am challenging your comments because they seem unjust and everytime i ask you for hard proof you can't give any!
Vm have several field teams to fix their infrastructure. Networks being one of them.

In this thread you say they are not keeping their network up to scratch yet in another one you suggest that they are indeed cabling leeds! Which one is it exactly?

[Mick Fisher]

When a network practically runs out of bandwidth to the extent that they have no room for a SD footie channel or any more HD channels then I would say that network was not up to scratch.
And that is not even mentioning the many areas that were left for up to 12 months with inferior BB after the 20meg downgrade and the areas apparently still not fixed.

[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

When a network practically runs out of bandwidth to the extent that they have no room for a SD footie channel or any more HD channels then I would say that network was not up to scratch.
And that is not even mentioning the many areas that were left for up to 12 months with inferior BB after the 20meg downgrade and the areas apparently still not fixed.

So you have moved onto say that VM's network has always not been up to scratch then? Not that they are not keeping it up to scratch If anything i think you mean that it's capcity restricted.
Vm have never come out and said they are bandwith strapped. Even if they are they will be moving to docsis 3.0 soon to allow more bandwith, yet again means they are sorting out their network. They have no room for a SD footie channel? They added it didn't they? It took awhile, Arsenal may have commented it was due capacity but VM never. It could have be contractual issues there is no proof they could not add it. They added it without the removal of another channel which to me says there was no capacity issue.

They will have room for more HD channels once they remove analogue tv. But what is the point in letting channels that call themselves HD when it is mostly infact upscaled content onto the network to take up capacity, when they could have much more SD channels as SD channels take up less capacity and you could have more of them? Channel 4 currently shows one hr a day of HD shows! Why would VM want that? They are better of for the time being leaving HD to VOD until this new IPTV services comes about and they can broadcast VOOM. All you are doing is basing what you think are facts on speculation.

Oh you mean the FREE 20meg upgrade? What exactly do you want for FREE? They rolled it out gradually to iron out any creases they may have had. 20meg is widely sorted now hence the move on to 50meg bb. VM is considered the most reliable and most loved ISP, it's also the biggest. No wonder their subscription numbers keep on growing hey? If people are unhappy as you are surely they would leave? So which areas do not have fixed 20meg upgrades then? Cable broadband has a far more happy customer base with their bb than Sky, Tiscali and co who have exchange issues.

[Central]

Originally Posted by tvtimes

So you have moved onto say that VM's network has always not been up to scratch then? Not that they are not keeping it up to scratch If anything i think you mean that it's capcity restricted.
Vm have never come out and said they are bandwith strapped. Even if they are they will be moving to docsis 3.0 soon to allow more bandwith, yet again means they are sorting out their network. They have no room for a SD footie channel? They added it didn't they? It took awhile, Arsenal may have commented it was due capacity but VM never. It could have be contractual issues there is no proof they could not add it. They added it without the removal of another channel which to me says there was no capacity issue.

They will have room for more HD channels once they remove analogue tv. But what is the point in letting channels that call themselves HD when it is mostly infact upscaled content onto the network to take up capacity, when they could have much more SD channels as SD channels take up less capacity and you could have more of them? Channel 4 currently shows one hr a day of HD shows! Why would VM want that? They are better of for the time being leaving HD to VOD until this new IPTV services comes about and they can broadcast VOOM. All you are doing is basing what you think are facts on speculation.

Oh you mean the FREE 20meg upgrade? What exactly do you want for FREE? They rolled it out gradually to iron out any creases they may have had. 20meg is widely sorted now hence the move on to 50meg bb. VM is considered the most reliable and most loved ISP, it's also the biggest. No wonder their subscription numbers keep on growing hey? If people are unhappy as you are surely they would leave? So which areas do not have fixed 20meg upgrades then? Cable broadband has a far more happy customer base with their bb than Sky, Tiscali and co who have exchange issues.

Have you got proof for this?

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by tvtimes

How are they not keeping their network up to scratch?! Where's your proof? It just seems yet again your opinion! I am not defending VM about anything, i am challenging your comments because they seem unjust and everytime i ask you for hard proof you can't give any!
Vm have several field teams to fix their infrastructure. Networks being one of them.

In this thread you say they are not keeping their network up to scratch yet in another one you suggest that they are indeed cabling leeds! Which one is it exactly?

you getting so bad its almost funny.

you asking for proof that southampton and leics networks are out of date right?

cabling leeds is going to a new network it does not equate keeping a network up to scratch. I am trying so hard to not be rude to you.

---------- Post added at 15:36 ---------- Previous post was at 15:35 ----------

Originally Posted by Be*

Have you got proof for this?

Given his posts I expect hes an employee.

[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

you getting so bad its almost funny.

you asking for proof that southampton and leics networks are out of date right?

No! FFSAnalogue is being switched off! That is not the issue, digi enabled areas are the issue! It is obvious the analogue areas network is not up to scratch it's in the dark ages and will stay there. I am talking about digital enables areas. Once again you are basing all your opinion on the analogue service that will ceast to exsist soon!

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

cabling leeds is going to a new network it does not equate keeping a network up to scratch. I am trying so hard to not be rude to you.

You said they are not keeping their network up to scratch yet they are seen to be upgrading one of their areas! I'm sorry i don't understand your logic. Be rude all you like my friend i couldn't care less if it makes you feel better and clever then please do carry on I've already had be* be rude to me, he's on ignore so do as you please....
---------- Post added at 15:36 ---------- Previous post was at 15:35 ----------

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Given his posts I expect hes an employee.

Yeah i must be an employee because i don't agree with what you are saying. That must make you a Sky employee FFS. Some people are so immature it's unreal

[Central]

I see the proof I asked for is still not here. And he completely ignored the question