Where is the competition?

gropingmantis

gropingmantis

gropingmantis

Soldato
Joined
5 Dec 2010
Posts
3,397
Why is there no competition for Virgin Media on Cable Broadband services in the UK?

I mean Virgin are OK but really if you want superfast broadband then your ONLY option is VM. Surely this contravines some sort of monopoly laws or something?

Also why do we have to use their modems? Why is it not possible (legal?) to use a different cable modem?

Just wondering as I sit here looking at internet options for my new flat. I will probably end up with VM 50Mb as I hear good things about it but I was just interested to find out why the above is true?
 
Smallworld is only avaliable in Parts of Scotland and Northern England so they aren't really a competitor (apart from in those areas).

I'm not looking for alternatives I was just wondering why nobody else is using cable technology. I mean BT have to allow other ISPs to use their infrastructure so why don't other ISPs use Virgin's cables, or would that not be possible?
 
gropingmantis said:
Why is there no competition for Virgin Media on Cable Broadband services in the UK?
Click to expand...

Because no-one else wants to do it. ADSL is easy as ISPs simply pay BTW to use the infrastructure, or LLU providers case, the last leg. I heard noise that VM had to open up there ducting, and possibly allow access to their network, but not heard much more on that.

gropingmantis said:
I mean Virgin are OK but really if you want superfast broadband then your ONLY option is VM. Surely this contravines some sort of monopoly laws or something?
Click to expand...

Except BT Infinity which will cover more of the UK than VM as VM are not actively funding any expansion.

gropingmantis said:
Also why do we have to use their modems? Why is it not possible (legal?) to use a different cable modem?
Click to expand...

Part of the T&Cs as with all the variations of cable modulation, frequency ranges and such like you are not even guaranteed that any given cable modem will work. Plus you can't just buy a bargain £20 cable modem in the way you can buy a standardised ADSL router, you'd have to spend big bucks on a modem..... but as it's simply a modem (Superhub aside) why would you want to spend out cash on something you get for free?

gropingmantis said:
Just wondering as I sit here looking at internet options for my new flat. I will probably end up with VM 50Mb as I hear good things about it but I was just interested to find out why the above is true?
Click to expand...


Been on 50Mb since launch and and only had 2 days of daytime in all that time, get full speed 24/7 and have a fast ping when I game.

Ive just bought a new house with no VM coverage, no Infinity coverage even planned and I'm going back to a 4Mb ADSL line. I'm gutted.
 
Ahh ok thanks. So basically its too hard/expensive to do it.

Did you not check for internet coverage before buying your house :confused: :p

We want Gb broadband like Korea! Someone needs to go to war with us and bomb our existing infrastructure so it can be rebuilt with newer technology. Its the only way.
 
gropingmantis said:
Ahh ok thanks. So basically its too hard/expensive to do it.

Did you not check for internet coverage before buying your house :confused: :p

We want Gb broadband like Korea! Someone needs to go to war with us and bomb our existing infrastructure so it can be rebuilt with newer technology. Its the only way.
Click to expand...

The Govt could do this for around £20Bln, sounds a lot but it's a pittance compared to many infrastructure projects like "High Speed" rail. I'd much rather have Gigabit net I can use every day than shave half an hour off a train journey I take once in a blue moon. I'd also prefer they work on making train journeys cheaper rather than faster.
 
Last edited:
Nothing stops you getting a leased line. That's competition right there, granted it's not cheap by any stretch, but you wanted an alternative... there it is.
 
BT are competing with VM, they are just using a different technology. With BT deploying FTTC it will be quite similar though, with fibre going all the way to the cabinet (like cable has been all this time) and from there it will be the usual copper phone line cable to your house (where as cable uses coax).

At the end of the day you do have quite a bit of choice, maybe not among cable providers, but you do have a choice between cable and one of the many adsl providers.

As for faster speeds, we are advancing, for example 50 Mb is in a ton of areas now, with VM also offering 100 Mb, and BT offering 40 Mb with FTTC. We may not have the speeds/price of South Korea or Sweden, but we are progressing, and currently 50 Mb or 100 Mb connetions should be fine even for hardcore downloaders.
 
VM are financially not in a good way, if you look at their annual accounts it's difficult to see why you'd want to compete, especially from a standing start against massive incumbents. And nobody has access to VM in the same way as BT because BT were a nationalized industry and VM weren't, hence BTs infrastructure owes more than a bit to government spending from tax and VM's doesn't.
 
I would have thought that BT would be able to provide a faster service than 40Mb with FTTC as isn't VM 50Mb FTTC?

Also Cheltenham is not getting Infinity till December this year by which time I will be in the new flat :mad:
 
Last edited:
gropingmantis said:
Did you not check for internet coverage before buying your house :confused: :p
Click to expand...

Funnily enough I did but sadly crappy internet was the only downside to what can only be described as "It's a deal, it's a steal, it's the Sale of the ******* Century!"

Plus I'm sure BT Infinity will come my way soon enough.
 
Zefan said:
It was NTL and Telewest, NTL bought Telewest then Virgin bought NTL, as far as I can remember.
Click to expand...

NTL and Telewest merged to become NTL:Telewest (kudos for the great name).

NTL:Telewest then merged with Virgin Mobile and under that merger they agreed to take on the name Virgin Media.
 
bigredshark said:
VM are financially not in a good way, if you look at their annual accounts it's difficult to see why you'd want to compete, especially from a standing start against massive incumbents. And nobody has access to VM in the same way as BT because BT were a nationalized industry and VM weren't, hence BTs infrastructure owes more than a bit to government spending from tax and VM's doesn't.
Click to expand...

Since most ISPs make most of their profit from their business customers (at least this is how it is to my knowledge), do you happen to know how VM are in terms of services provided to business customers compared to companies like BT?

gropingmantis said:
I would have thought that BT would be able to provide a faster service than 40Mb with FTTC as isn't VM 50Mb FTTC?
Click to expand...

You have to remember that BT is new to this whole FTTC thing, and may just be waiting for more of the country to be FTTC capable before rolling out the higher speed services. Also it may be a matter of what hardware they give out, as dont all BT ADSL customers get a home hub unless they use their own modem? perhaps the home hub is a bottleneck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom