TiVo : Should Virgin Media and Cable & Wireless Worldwide merge?

[Itshim]

Do you suggest that VM should rename itself?[/QUOTE]

And waste money on re-branding again!

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Itshim

Do you suggest that VM should rename itself?

And waste money on re-branding again![/QUOTE]

To save money on paying Virgin to licence their name!

[m419]

[QUOTE=Alan Fry;35386689]They should have merged to form one company in the late-80s, not in 2006. Then it would have competed better than Sky/BSB/BSkyB/BT. The UK just was not big enough to sustain serveral cable companies!

---------- Post added at 08:44 ---------- Previous post was at 08:42 ----------


Actually, that would have been impossible as it is very expensive to build a cable network and for one company to cable the whole country at once would have been impossible for them.

Furthermore, it was actually better to have many rather than 1 cable company, it was actually harder for Sky to compete. That is why when the two companies merged and formed Virgin Media, Sky thought they would remove the Sky basic channels, the merger made it easier for Sky to compete against as it is now competing against one company rather than 2.

[Alan Fry]

Going to the subject about the BT Cable assets (in Milton Keynes and Wesmister), was it not the case that BT was banned from running a TV service on their own network from 1984 (when it was privatised) to 2001, then why was it allowed to own a cable network?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1354686.stm

[m419]

Originally Posted by Itshim

Do you suggest that VM should rename itself?

And waste money on re-branding again![/QUOTE]

No, it should stay the same now, it shouldn't have happened in the first place although I wouldn't be surprised if a rebrand or some kind of big buyout will happen in the near future.

Every few years the cable industry has seen that happen:

Mid 1990s: United Artists rebrand as Telewest Communications
1997: Videtron,BellCable Media and Nynex rebrand as Cable & Wireless
1997: Aberdeen Cable rebrands as Atlantic
1997: Yorkshire Cable,General Cable& Cable Corp rebrand as Telewest
1998: Comcast,Comtel,Diamond and Cable Tel rebrand as NTL
2000: Cable&Wireless,BT New Town and Westminster rebrands as NTL
2001: Cable London and Eurobell rebrand as Telewest Broadband
2005: Telewest undergos a slight rebrand dropping the broadband
2007: NTL Telewest rebrand as Virgin Media
2007: Wight Cable North rebrands as Smallworld

It's just a matter of time before another rebrand or takeover happens.

However, the brand must have proven to be some use as they adopted the Virgin brand for NTL Telewest Business.

People just want good service,value for money and decent TV, they are not that bothered about the branding, a brand name doesn't fix all a companies problems alone, the people behind the brand and company are the ones that can do that.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by m419

And waste money on re-branding again!

No, it should stay the same now, it shouldn't have happened in the first place although I wouldn't be surprised if a rebrand or some kind of big buyout will happen in the near future.

Every few years the cable industry has seen that happen:

Mid 1990s: United Artists rebrand as Telewest Communications
1997: Videtron,BellCable Media and Nynex rebrand as Cable & Wireless
1997: Aberdeen Cable rebrands as Atlantic
1997: Yorkshire Cable,General Cable& Cable Corp rebrand as Telewest
1998: Comcast,Comtel,Diamond and Cable Tel rebrand as NTL
2000: Cable&Wireless,BT New Town and Westminster rebrands as NTL
2001: Cable London and Eurobell rebrand as Telewest Broadband
2005: Telewest undergos a slight rebrand dropping the broadband
2007: NTL Telewest rebrand as Virgin Media
2007: Wight Cable North rebrands as Smallworld

It's just a matter of time before another rebrand or takeover happens.

However, the brand must have proven to be some use as they adopted the Virgin brand for NTL Telewest Business.

People just want good service,value for money and decent TV, they are not that bothered about the branding, a brand name doesn't fix all a companies problems alone, the people behind the brand and company are the ones that can do that.

I agree that a rebranding is unlikely, but if it happened (like a takeover/merger of C&W Worldwide by VM), I think a good name would be "British Cable" or even Telewest!

[m419]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

I agree that a rebranding is unlikely, but if it happened (like a takeover/merger of C&W Worldwide by VM), I think a good name would be "British Cable" or even Telewest!

Why would they go back to an old name or something so basic

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by m419

Why would they go back to an old name or something so basic

If you were asked to rename VM, what would you call it?

[m419]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

Going to the subject about the BT Cable assets (in Milton Keynes and Wesmister), was it not the case that BT was banned from running a TV service on their own network from 1984 (when it was privatised) to 2001, then why was it allowed to own a cable network?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1354686.stm

They were?

BT were allowed to operate those services as it was a special cable service to provide residents with TV reception. It later started offering pay tv services. BT owned a few other franchises but sold them off to american cable businesses which were swallowed up by NTL in the late 90s

However in 1999 the European government forced BT to sell them off as BT had shares in BSkyB at the time which is not really allowed with the European Governments competition policies. However, BT no longer have shares in BskyB.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

If you were asked to rename VM, what would you call it?

Please keep it on topic

[m419]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Please keep it on topic

This post is about Cable&Wireless Worldwide being taken over.

If you look on the website you will see they have mentioned about Vodafone's proposal.

If it goes ahead, you will see Vodafone become a strong competitor of Everything Everywhere and BT.

Vodafone will soon jump into the residential sector and start offering home phone and broadband again of course using the LLU network that it will acquire as part of the deal to take over Cable and Wireless Worldwide. And of course Vodafone already own part of Verizon who also operate a business telecoms service in the UK.

[Kymmy]

As you say it's about whether VM & CW should merge and nothing to do with VM changing their name. So back on topic everyone

Last couple of posts deleted

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by m419

They were?

BT were allowed to operate those services as it was a special cable service to provide residents with TV reception. It later started offering pay tv services. BT owned a few other franchises but sold them off to american cable businesses which were swallowed up by NTL in the late 90s

However in 1999 the European government forced BT to sell them off as BT had shares in BSkyB at the time which is not really allowed with the European Governments competition policies. However, BT no longer have shares in BskyB.

They did not "sell" their cable operations in Milton Keynes and Wesmister, but "leased" them to NTL (now Virgin Media)

Otherwise the BT/VM dispute over the Milton Keynes network would not bne taking place!

---------- Post added at 15:23 ---------- Previous post was at 15:21 ----------

Originally Posted by m419

This post is about Cable&Wireless Worldwide being taken over.

If you look on the website you will see they have mentioned about Vodafone's proposal.

If it goes ahead, you will see Vodafone become a strong competitor of Everything Everywhere and BT.

Vodafone will soon jump into the residential sector and start offering home phone and broadband again of course using the LLU network that it will acquire as part of the deal to take over Cable and Wireless Worldwide. And of course Vodafone already own part of Verizon who also operate a business telecoms service in the UK.

Vodaphone already proivde home phone and broadband services in Germany, could VM afford a £700-800 million takeover bid of C&W Worldwide?

[Itshim]

For cause the should the more mergers the merrier.

[m419]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

They did not "sell" their cable operations in Milton Keynes and Wesmister, but "leased" them to NTL (now Virgin Media)

Otherwise the BT/VM dispute over the Milton Keynes network would not bne taking place!

---------- Post added at 15:23 ---------- Previous post was at 15:21 ----------



Vodaphone already proivde home phone and broadband services in Germany, could VM afford a £700-800 million takeover bid of C&W Worldwide?

Actually NTL did acquire the franchises, the customer bases and it was agreed that BT would continue ownership of the ducts and cabling and NTL would lease that network.

Waste of money and a complete waste of time.

Telewest,Cable and Wireless and even Microsoft were among NTL to bid for these franchises.

Virgin Media could afford £700 to £800 Million to takeover Cable and Wireless Worldwide, but that will set them back on investments on its existing business and competition may start to slide if it doesn't carry on investing well.

Vodafone also did home phone and broadband re-selling BT's service, it was called Vodafone at Home