FTTC to FTTP

[Powerplay27]

For anyone who moved from a Sky/ BT FTTC connection to Virgin Media FTTP.

Do you notice a massive improvement when playing video games, I know at times there could be lag/latency, but when things are as good as can be is there a massive difference? 

[Harvey_H]

If they do "option 1 as they are penalizing broadband users" they'd then be penalizing DTV users. I think if Virgin Media O2 went to that fully, they'd lose too many customers while also giving Sky the Monopoly on the market.

What could then be possible with customers who have above a defined speed they can get wireless DTV casting live TV over the internet in its fullest and not just on demand services. But it would just be too expensive to adapt to that within a few years while still losing a lot of customers including any who don't have VMO2 BBI who only have a old TiVo 500. It is something that will take some time.....

With all that said......... look forward to the near future as something may just be coming out soon that might spark your interest on where we will go in the future

[nodrogd]

---

@Gavdaddy wrote:

I would vote for option 1 as they are penalizing broadband users. 
From what you say if they even consider option 2 we should abandon them in favour of Openreach who do not have this issue at least until 2028?

---

So you would rather penalize the 6 million+ TV customers VM has? These customers pay for the TV service because they want it. They will simply up sticks & move to Sky, which will then have a monopoly on Broadcast TV. VM are not going to shoot themselves in the foot just to get a bit more upload speed.

[Gavdaddy]

Fair point, VM can’t decide if it is a cable TV provided or a broadband utility company. Result is both are compromised!

[nodrogd]

---

@Gavdaddy wrote:

Fair point, VM can’t decide if it is a cable TV provided or a broadband utility company. Result is both are compromised!

---

They own OFCOM cable operator franchises. These are for Broadband AND TV services. They therefore have a duty to provide by whatever means the technology allows.

[Gavdaddy]

I understand that but unfortunately the needs of the users of the two licenses can conflict as they do in this case so they should not be granted to the same company

[nodrogd]

---

@Gavdaddy wrote:

I understand that but unfortunately the needs of the users of the two licenses can conflict as they do in this case so they should not be granted to the same company

---

Cable Franchises are area based, not “service” based, & are exclusive to one company. So any new company in an area would have to provide both TV & Broadband using the same system. If you were a customer in that area you would therefore have no choice but to accept the new company’s service or move to non cable.

[Gavdaddy]

Better to split the content and infrastructure providers

[nodrogd]

---

@Gavdaddy wrote:

Better to split the content and infrastructure providers

---

Would never work as a business model. Many content providers do not own channels, they just re-sell. The money is made by grouping channels together into packages, something that has worked & is currently profitable for the channel owners but is hated by the consumer side. Linear channels are on the wain now, as has been seen with Disney & Warner removing channels. But there is still a significant number of subscribers out there to keep the model going for a couple more decades. Having said that, who is likely to invest big bucks into something with such a finite life.

OFCOM are not going to ask for all the laws changed on cable franchising (which haven’t changed since their inception in the late 1980s) when they know the business model won’t make them money.