Ultimately. it all depends on who has the most money to throw at providing an improved service and what their track records are in committing financial resource.
BSkyB and its principal shareholder, News Corp have a long history of throwing money (provided by long term institutional investors and loyal bankers) at problems, as and when they arise. They rarely withdraw from potentially unpromising investments (e.g Fleet Street, at a time when the entire UK broadsheet industry was weeks away from collapse), once they have committed themselves to them and essentially, "jump in with both feet" into new ventures.
BSkyB and News Corp are also financially transparent - amyone can look at their Financial Reports to glean what resources they have available.
Virgin have always taken a far less capital intensive approach to new investments:
Virgin Airlines was founded on the back of two, to all intents and purposes "free" 747's leased to it on particularly frendly terms by a desperate manufacturer who was suffering from an empty order book at the time.
Virgin rail, its other money-spinner, was established off the back of huge government subsidies and its business model would still fail, in the absence of these (as you will have seen just this week, even today, you and I have to buy rail operators new rolling stock, that we then pay the operators to ride in!).
Most of Virgin's other investments (including VM) have comprised joint-ventures in which Virgin get to re-brand a company in exchange for a relatively small stake and working capital contribution. Virgin have subsequently unwound the majority of these JVs and turned off the working-capital taps, as soon as their business models failed (e.g. clothes, finance, cosmetics, weddings, colas etc...).
VM will be an interesting case: NTL/TW were perceived to be failing as a consequence of abysmal customer and service standards (just as most of the other industries Virgin decided to dabble in were, in the run-up to the investment).
Virgin spotted an opportunity to add value to the network, by dint of applying the popularist Virgin approach to customer services and to hopefuilly benefit from EU attempts to break up the lucrative sports broadcasting rights cartels.
Virgin does NOT expect to have to invest significantly more funds into VM and indeed, is looking to cut-costs (e.g. immediately closing call centres, re-negotiating engineering contracts and cancelling premium feed (e.g. Sky).
Virgin of course is financially opaque - as a private company, its financial resources are known only to very few insiders.
Will Virgin's "invest the brand but no more money" approach deliver the technological improvements that so many on this forum seem desperate for?
The jury remains out.

[knet2020]

I have to aree with some of this post, it is clear an well documented that VM curently have debts of over 5 billion. I have also seen a severe drop in service levels (ex TW customer) and feel that VM will try to generate income from adertising and ties in with 'popular' programs.

There have been rumors that VM were lookng at making a play for some sports rights as this is probably the most lucrative area in Media however it's also the most expensive. I have seen already that VM are looking at certain 'areas' as being cut to offer 'cost effectiveness' which is babble speak for making more 'profit'.

I would like to bet (and I am not a betting man) the Virgin Media brand will stay BUT the day to day running of the TV, Cable, Mobile and Phone service will be 'sold' in the ner future. RB is not daft he'll cut his losses and sell out as soon as it gets 'rocky'

Virgin's business model has little to do with it. They are but a 14% shareholder.

Cable has been crippled since day 1 with franchchising. The real question is whether the merging to one cable operator can in the long term yield profits and investment.

Originally Posted by Sirius

Virgin's business model has little to do with it. They are but a 14% shareholder.

Cable has been crippled since day 1 with franchchising. The real question is whether the merging to one cable operator can in the long term yield profits and investment.

Virgin's business model then has everything to do with it. If the profitability of a single operator is as great an uncertainty as you suggest, the likelihood of Virgin cutting and running are all the greater.

If the "white knight" rescuer/investor, of Virgin's repute cuts and runs from such a highly geared company, could the company continue trading? Who else would be interested in investing and if anyone was, where would they make the cost-savings, to justify such a gamble?




and then where would subscribers be left?

Originally Posted by nojo608

Virgin's business model then has everything to do with it. If the profitability of a single operator is as great an uncertainty as you suggest, the likelihood of Virgin cutting and running are all the greater.

If the "white knight" rescuer/investor, of Virgin's repute cuts and runs from such a highly geared company, could the company continue trading? Who else would be interested in investing and if anyone was, where would they make the cost-savings, to justify such a gamble?




and then where would subscribers be left?

Virgin Media is just a brand for a wider company, of which 86% is owned by entities other than Virgin Holdings (Richard Branson).

Richard Branson didn't rescue anything. He swapped a reasonably sized virtual mobile operator for a tiny shareholding. Whether he continues to own it or not is irrelevant, as his ongoing investment isn't linked to use of the brand (30 year rights I think).

[sjmcards2002]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Virgin's business model has little to do with it. They are but a 14% shareholder.

Cable has been crippled since day 1 with franchchising. The real question is whether the merging to one cable operator can in the long term yield profits and investment.

with one cable operator it is,
however it the debt which is hurting them
there limited to what they can do while in that much debt and i
bet the bank covenants attached to the debt is also very limiting for virgin

Originally Posted by Sirius

Virgin Media is just a brand for a wider company, of which 86% is owned by entities other than Virgin Holdings (Richard Branson).

Richard Branson didn't rescue anything. He swapped a reasonably sized virtual mobile operator for a tiny shareholding. Whether he continues to own it or not is irrelevant, as his ongoing investment isn't linked to use of the brand (30 year rights I think).

BUT how many analysts projected a healthy medium term future for NTL, prior to RB's reversal of Virgin Mobile into it?

Originally Posted by nojo608

BUT how many analysts projected a healthy medium term future for NTL, prior to RB's reversal of Virgin Mobile into it?

How many were predicting doom and gloom?

NTL's results were suggesting reasonable synergy savings from the merger with Telewest which suggested the two together were going to be on a better footing than the two apart.

Originally Posted by Sirius

How many were predicting doom and gloom?

NTL's results were suggesting reasonable synergy savings from the merger with Telewest which suggested the two together were going to be on a better footing than the two apart.

Notwithstanding the overiding concern at competition, debt-levels, customer satisfaction levels and contents and roll-out costs!

The NTL and Telewest merger was always regarded as a survival option, nothing more and nothing less.

And what aspect of Virgin's involvement has changed any of that?

Originally Posted by Sirius

And what aspect of Virgin's involvement has changed any of that?

NTL, who junk (sorry "high yield"!) bond analysts were in the run-up to the merger, regarding as a credit default play (i.e. when, not if, will it fail), now have the benefit of some slightly more reliable (mobile phone) cashflow and asset base to gear-up yet further off - which it will have to do, if it wishes to invest in sufficient content and technology to keep viewers.

What will be interesting, will be the post "March exit deal" churn rate. If these continue to down-trend, notwithstanding the re-branding, you can be pretty certain that VM won't be contributing much viewer choice for a while!

[Tod]

What are the improvements we desperately need?

[sjmcards2002]

i would say customer care/ services for an start

not saying virgin are the only ones to need it

[Tod]

Originally Posted by sjmcards2002

i would say customer care/ services for an start

not saying virgin are the only ones to need it

Well I would say that Virgin is the right company to provide those exact improvements.

Originally Posted by Tod

Well I would say that Virgin is the right company to provide those exact improvements.

Well, they've certainly made a start of it by REDUCING the number of customer service employees (in their call centre) by 150!

[tvtimes]

actually they have increased their cs employees by three hundred and people were seeing a marked improvement until sky pulled their channels.

Now you have to expect it to be busy

[NeutronIC]

Must admit I concur, prior to the Sky removal and just after it became VM I had been getting through to their customer services people within a couple of rings and right through to a real person who swiftly dealt with my question - a radical difference to my previous 15 minute hold times to talk to a dimwit.

Plus, and again this is PRIOR to the Sky removal, I didn't have to quibble about my payments - while I asked for V+ to be installed, she immediately double checked my account and applied and lower monthly payment of her own initiative.

In my books, things are looking up considerably.

What happens after the honey-moon period we'll have to see, but for right now at least i'm delighted.

Matt.

Originally Posted by NeutronIC

In my books, things are looking up considerably.
What happens after the honey-moon period we'll have to see, but for right now at least i'm delighted.
Matt.

I do so hope that for all our sakes, especially those of us with no alternative but VM, that you are correct.
I fear however that the omens are not good:
VM had sufficient warning of the Sky channels debacle to amend their TV Times offering accordingly, yet they appear to have been caught on their back-foot by customers' reactions to this.
Most companies in this situation would have foreseen that call volumes would increase following such an event and would have re-allocated staff and taken-on short-term contract staff, where necesarry.
VM clearly failed to do this.
In comparison, Sky prepared sufficiently in advance (with the same amount of warning) to handle the increased call volumes from all those enquiring about switching.
Indeed, VM had not even prepared a customer exit plan for those wanting to leave VM as a consequence of the Sky channels, until they were forced to by negative comment. VM's begrudging "quit by the end of March" offer may perhaps be challengeable anyway, with reference to the principal contained within the Telecommunications Act, that telecomms users are entitled to receive continuity of the services they have become used to (the same principal that makes it so difficult for landlords to remove mobile masts, once they have been erected). VM subscribers may well be able to refer to this principal to justify an extension of VM's one month "cancellation window", so as to provide sufficient time to install an alternate source of supply - or even perhaps, compensation for the costs of the switch or even, for the loss of the channels.
If that were to be substantiated, think what call volumes would then be like?

[orangeballoon]

no chance in hell.

branson is 99% froth. and it feeds on a public that remembers the headlines and forgets about all the things that quietly fail and branson ditches.

[jauh]

Originally Posted by orangeballoon

no chance in hell.

branson is 99% froth. and it feeds on a public that remembers the headlines and forgets about all the things that quietly fail and branson ditches.

Careful what you say here, or you might get branded a troll and a skyboy, as soon as you disagree with someone... Been there, done that, keep doing it...

Originally Posted by tvtimes

actually they have increased their cs employees by three hundred

But they made thousands of employees redundant only late last year!
Do you have a link or source proving that Virgin have taken on extra staff? This site is reporting that 150 people have been culled this week

Originally Posted by sskywatcher

This site is reporting that 150 people have been culled this week

Sorry, this site is reporting that 150 Teeside call centre jobs are in danger of redundancy. My error.

[richard1960]

Mr nojo608,i doubt very much you are a virgin customer!!!!!!!! and the answer is yes richard branson will deliver.

hi,i accept your point no i would not,but i think vm is trying its best to integrate staff without the need for redundancy,i also think richard branson is a person who cares about people,i am a socialist,but he is one capitalist who i respect.as i genuinely think he looks beyond the bean counters.

as for call centre redundancies,i think my posting on a different forum covers this.see the above.

[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by sskywatcher

Sorry, this site is reporting that 150 Teeside call centre jobs are in danger of redundancy. My error.

TEE SIDE IS NOT CSR IM SORRY ITS SERVICE OPERATIONS YOU ONLY NEED THE ONE CENTRE FOR THAT WHICH IS WHY ALL OPERATION HAVE MOVED TO THE CABLE PLAZA IN DUDLEY. oops sorry about caps guys

edit: plus my i add that they do not deal with customers only techincian routes and closures box swaps etc

[richard1960]

Originally Posted by tvtimes

TEE SIDE IS NOT CSR IM SORRY ITS SERVICE OPERATIONS YOU ONLY NEED THE ONE CENTRE FOR THAT WHICH IS WHY ALL OPERATION HAVE MOVED TO THE CABLE PLAZA IN DUDLEY. oops sorry about caps guys

edit: plus my i add that they do not deal with customers only techincian routes and closures box swaps etc

Thats ok easily done!!!!!!!!!