I live in North London and I keep getting marketing info from Virgin 
Media for TV & Broadband. My worry is that it's the old Teleworst gang 
under a different banner. Are they ok now ?

-- 
Edward Cowling   "Must Go - Eldrad Must Live !!"

Edward Cowling London UK wrote:

> I live in North London and I keep getting marketing info from Virgin
> Media for TV & Broadband. My worry is that it's the old Teleworst gang
> under a different banner. Are they ok now ?

NO. They're appalling. Avoid in the same way you'd avoid sexually
transmitted diseases.

Their billing department btw is the closest thing I have encountered in
real life to Alice in Wonderland.

Graham

In article , Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrel
ations@hotmail.com> writes
>> I live in North London and I keep getting marketing info from Virgin
>> Media for TV & Broadband. My worry is that it's the old Teleworst gang
>> under a different banner. Are they ok now ?
>
>NO. They're appalling. Avoid in the same way you'd avoid sexually 
>transmitted diseases.
>
>Their billing department btw is the closest thing I have encountered in 
>real life to Alice in Wonderland.

I read the Virgin newsgroups and I must say there are a lot of stories
of VM incompetence in there.

Personally I must have been lucky, I have a good bundle at a price I'm
happy with, for the moment.

I must admit to understand their bills you need a doctorate in
accountancy but the figure on the bottom line is all that matters to me.

Be aware that if you take the 20 meg B/B option and actually have the
temerity to use it fully you're likely to be STM'ed (cut to 5meg for a
period).

Mike

-- 
Michael Swift           We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.      
Kirkheaton              We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.    
Yorkshire                                       Halvard Lange

"Edward Cowling London UK"  wrote in message 
news:ORfWvqAyClSIFwao@genghis0.demon.co.uk...
>I live in North London and I keep getting marketing info from Virgin Media 
>for TV & Broadband. My worry is that it's the old Teleworst gang under a 
>different banner. Are they ok now ?
>
> -- 
> Edward Cowling   "Must Go - Eldrad Must Live !!"

And to answer your other question. Telewest were taken over by NTL, who then 
did a deal with Richard Branson and re-branded the whole shebang as Virgin 
Media.
Same old same old...

George

In message , Eeyore 
 writes
>
>
>Edward Cowling London UK wrote:
>
>> I live in North London and I keep getting marketing info from Virgin
>> Media for TV & Broadband. My worry is that it's the old Teleworst gang
>> under a different banner. Are they ok now ?
>
>NO. They're appalling. Avoid in the same way you'd avoid sexually
>transmitted diseases.
>
>Their billing department btw is the closest thing I have encountered in
>real life to Alice in Wonderland.
>
I have a real fear it's just the old gang from Teleworst under the 
virgin banner and I'd never deal with them again. The east european guys 
who put in my broadband managed to :

Wreck my cable TV
Turn off the firewall on my PC
Leave all my SCART leads loose

Never, ever again !!

-- 
Edward Cowling   "Must Go - Eldrad Must Live !!"

Eeyore wrote:
> 
> Edward Cowling London UK wrote:
> 
>> I live in North London and I keep getting marketing info from Virgin
>> Media for TV & Broadband. My worry is that it's the old Teleworst gang
>> under a different banner. Are they ok now ?
> 
> NO. They're appalling. Avoid in the same way you'd avoid sexually
> transmitted diseases.
> 

You mean we should give them a try at every opportunity, for immediate 
gratification even though we know the likely future complications?

In message , George Weston 
 writes
>
>"Edward Cowling London UK"  wrote in message
>news:ORfWvqAyClSIFwao@genghis0.demon.co.uk...
>>I live in North London and I keep getting marketing info from Virgin Media
>>for TV & Broadband. My worry is that it's the old Teleworst gang under a
>>different banner. Are they ok now ?
>>
>> --
>> Edward Cowling   "Must Go - Eldrad Must Live !!"
>
>And to answer your other question. Telewest were taken over by NTL, who then
>did a deal with Richard Branson and re-branded the whole shebang as Virgin
>Media.
>Same old same old...
>
Thanks you answered my main worry. I'll stick with Demon for Broadband 
and my Freeview box.

-- 
Edward Cowling   "Must Go - Eldrad Must Live !!"

Nick wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > Edward Cowling London UK wrote:
> >
> >> I live in North London and I keep getting marketing info from Virgin
> >> Media for TV & Broadband. My worry is that it's the old Teleworst gang
> >> under a different banner. Are they ok now ?
> >
> > NO. They're appalling. Avoid in the same way you'd avoid sexually
> > transmitted diseases.
> >
>
> You mean we should give them a try at every opportunity, for immediate
> gratification even though we know the likely future complications?

Something like that.

You know it'll HURT before long, no matter how wonderful the immediate
experience was.

My latest encounter with their billing and debt recovery people (why were
THEY even involved after settling a disputed bill - in my favour of course)
leads me to wonder how they can even continue to trade legally.

I reckon if enough people got together and swamped OFCOM with complaints,
they would be SO snowed under that the simplest thing would be to place VM in
administration. Maybe a large firm of City accountants could finally get
their accounting systems straight ? At present it's a lottery, you wouldn't
believe the nonsense they've told me.


Graham

George Weston wrote:

> "Edward Cowling London UK"  wrote
>
> >I live in North London and I keep getting marketing info from Virgin Media
> >for TV & Broadband. My worry is that it's the old Teleworst gang under a
> >different banner. Are they ok now ?
> >
> > Edward Cowling   "Must Go - Eldrad Must Live !!"
>
> And to answer your other question. Telewest were taken over by NTL, who then
> did a deal with Richard Branson and re-branded the whole shebang as Virgin
> Media.
> Same old same old...

It's not the same. It's WORSE !

Graham

Edward Cowling London UK wrote:

> I'll stick with Demon

Bad choice. Another company that's gone down the pan.

What do you pay, what are the terms ?

Graham

In message , Eeyore 
 writes
>
>
>Edward Cowling London UK wrote:
>
>> I'll stick with Demon
>
>Bad choice. Another company that's gone down the pan.
>
>What do you pay, what are the terms ?
>
It's never been a question of cost. Where are all the Free Internet 
providers now ? :-)

I've been with Demon since about 96/97 and despite trying a few other 
companies they've always been the best for service. I can remember my 
horror when I saw how the AOL software handled newsgroups.

All that said I must say I'm impressed with the free email service O2 
gave me with my mobile upgrade. Far better than Hotmail and the like and 
a nice backup service.

-- 
Edward Cowling   "Must Go - Eldrad Must Live !!"

In message , Eeyore 
 writes
>
>
>George Weston wrote:
>
>> "Edward Cowling London UK"  wrote
>>
>> >I live in North London and I keep getting marketing info from Virgin Media
>> >for TV & Broadband. My worry is that it's the old Teleworst gang under a
>> >different banner. Are they ok now ?
>> >
>> > Edward Cowling   "Must Go - Eldrad Must Live !!"
>>
>> And to answer your other question. Telewest were taken over by NTL, who then
>> did a deal with Richard Branson and re-branded the whole shebang as Virgin
>> Media.
>> Same old same old...
>
>It's not the same. It's WORSE !
>
I remember seeing Richard Branson coming down a building in a harness 
with his balls caught up in the webbing :-)

It didn't bode well. they've still got their bollocks in a knot by the 
sound of it.

-- 
Edward Cowling   "Must Go - Eldrad Must Live !!"

>>
>>NO. They're appalling. Avoid in the same way you'd avoid sexually
>>transmitted diseases.
>>
>>Their billing department btw is the closest thing I have encountered in
>>real life to Alice in Wonderland.

Here here!

>
> I read the Virgin newsgroups and I must say there are a lot of stories
> of VM incompetence in there.
>
> Personally I must have been lucky, I have a good bundle at a price I'm
> happy with, for the moment.

I agree I have a good deal, after you have been with them you can negotiate 
a little on the price...

> I must admit to understand their bills you need a doctorate in
> accountancy but the figure on the bottom line is all that matters to me.

Its nto that bad but there standard of eNgland in there lttrs is Truely. 
shoKing.

>
> Be aware that if you take the 20 meg B/B option and actually have the
> temerity to use it fully you're likely to be STM'ed (cut to 5meg for a
> period).


Never had a problem....


HTH

Tom

"Edward Cowling London UK"  wrote in message 
news:ORfWvqAyClSIFwao@genghis0.demon.co.uk...
>I live in North London and I keep getting marketing info from Virgin Media 
>for TV & Broadband. My worry is that it's the old Teleworst gang under a 
>different banner. Are they ok now ?
>

Its the smae gang. NTL bought Telewest. NTL tried to hide their old image by 
switching to the "Virgin" brand name and loosing access to Sky for their 
customers...

> -- 
> Edward Cowling   "Must Go - Eldrad Must Live !!"
>

"Edward Cowling London UK"  wrote in message 
news:WcZAMzAqcoSIFwJg@genghis0.demon.co.uk...
> In message , Eeyore 
>  writes
>>
>>
>>Edward Cowling London UK wrote:
>>
>>> I'll stick with Demon
>>
>>Bad choice. Another company that's gone down the pan.
>>
>>What do you pay, what are the terms ?
>>
> It's never been a question of cost. Where are all the Free Internet 
> providers now ? :-)
>

Its always been a matter of cost. If you offer crap support all those folks 
who need help just go elsewhere. You get all the low support cost users.

> I've been with Demon since about 96/97 and despite trying a few other 
> companies they've always been the best for service. I can remember my 
> horror when I saw how the AOL software handled newsgroups.
>

I think Demon is still No1. for newgroups.

> All that said I must say I'm impressed with the free email service O2 gave 
> me with my mobile upgrade. Far better than Hotmail and the like and a nice 
> backup service.
>

Well my expereinces with O2 support have never been brill.

> -- 
> Edward Cowling   "Must Go - Eldrad Must Live !!"
>

Edward Cowling London UK wrote:

> Where are all the Free Internet providers now ? :-)

There is no such thing as free internet anymore than free bread or butter or
beef.

Grahama

Dave Wade wrote:
> "Edward Cowling London UK"  wrote in
> message news:ORfWvqAyClSIFwao@genghis0.demon.co.uk...
>> I live in North London and I keep getting marketing info from Virgin
>> Media for TV & Broadband. My worry is that it's the old Teleworst
>> gang under a different banner. Are they ok now ?
>>
>
> Its the smae gang. NTL bought Telewest. NTL tried to hide their old
> image by switching to the "Virgin" brand name and loosing access to
> Sky for their customers...

Yes, 'cos Sky were /entirely/ blameless in that, weren't they? :-(

-- 
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Freeview (free): http://getdigiguide.com/?p=4&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 09:06:08 +0100, "Carl Waring"
 wrote:

>Dave Wade wrote:
>> "Edward Cowling London UK"  wrote in
>> message news:ORfWvqAyClSIFwao@genghis0.demon.co.uk...
>>> I live in North London and I keep getting marketing info from Virgin
>>> Media for TV & Broadband. My worry is that it's the old Teleworst
>>> gang under a different banner. Are they ok now ?
>>>
>>
>> Its the smae gang. NTL bought Telewest. NTL tried to hide their old
>> image by switching to the "Virgin" brand name and loosing access to
>> Sky for their customers...
>
>Yes, 'cos Sky were /entirely/ blameless in that, weren't they? :-(
Yes they where it was the fact that VM where penny pinching like they
are in all things that customers lost the sky channels but of course
your muddled brain will never accept the fact that VM and its staff
are a load of lying scum bags will it .

wrote in message 
news:9arp44108kqf0dtneu1ua6s56cts3ghqq9@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 09:06:08 +0100, "Carl Waring"
>  wrote:
>
>>Dave Wade wrote:
>>> "Edward Cowling London UK"  wrote in
>>> message news:ORfWvqAyClSIFwao@genghis0.demon.co.uk...
>>>> I live in North London and I keep getting marketing info from Virgin
>>>> Media for TV & Broadband. My worry is that it's the old Teleworst
>>>> gang under a different banner. Are they ok now ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Its the smae gang. NTL bought Telewest. NTL tried to hide their old
>>> image by switching to the "Virgin" brand name and loosing access to
>>> Sky for their customers...
>>
>>Yes, 'cos Sky were /entirely/ blameless in that, weren't they? :-(
>
> Yes they where it was the fact that VM where penny pinching like they
> are in all things that customers lost the sky channels but of course
> your muddled brain will never accept the fact that VM and its staff
> are a load of lying scum bags will it .

Only because it's actually common knowledge amongst the less VM-hating 
conspiracy-theorist idiots that, at the very most, it's a 50/50 split!


-- 
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Freeview (free): http://getdigiguide.com/?p=4&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

"Carl Waring"  wrote in message 
news:btc3k.101647$_c7.81996@newsfe16.ams2...
>  wrote in message 
> news:9arp44108kqf0dtneu1ua6s56cts3ghqq9@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 09:06:08 +0100, "Carl Waring"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>Dave Wade wrote:
>>>> "Edward Cowling London UK"  wrote in
>>>> message news:ORfWvqAyClSIFwao@genghis0.demon.co.uk...
>>>>> I live in North London and I keep getting marketing info from Virgin
>>>>> Media for TV & Broadband. My worry is that it's the old Teleworst
>>>>> gang under a different banner. Are they ok now ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Its the smae gang. NTL bought Telewest. NTL tried to hide their old
>>>> image by switching to the "Virgin" brand name and loosing access to
>>>> Sky for their customers...
>>>
>>>Yes, 'cos Sky were /entirely/ blameless in that, weren't they? :-(
>>
>> Yes they where it was the fact that VM where penny pinching like they
>> are in all things that customers lost the sky channels but of course
>> your muddled brain will never accept the fact that VM and its staff
>> are a load of lying scum bags will it .
>
> Only because it's actually common knowledge amongst the less VM-hating 
> conspiracy-theorist idiots that, at the very most, it's a 50/50 split!

Its entirely down to VM, sky made an offer to supply sky one,  VM declined.

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 19:35:12 +0100, "dennis@home"
 wrote:

>
>
>"Carl Waring"  wrote in message 
>news:btc3k.101647$_c7.81996@newsfe16.ams2...
>>  wrote in message 
>> news:9arp44108kqf0dtneu1ua6s56cts3ghqq9@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 09:06:08 +0100, "Carl Waring"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dave Wade wrote:
>>>>> "Edward Cowling London UK"  wrote in
>>>>> message news:ORfWvqAyClSIFwao@genghis0.demon.co.uk...
>>>>>> I live in North London and I keep getting marketing info from Virgin
>>>>>> Media for TV & Broadband. My worry is that it's the old Teleworst
>>>>>> gang under a different banner. Are they ok now ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Its the smae gang. NTL bought Telewest. NTL tried to hide their old
>>>>> image by switching to the "Virgin" brand name and loosing access to
>>>>> Sky for their customers...
>>>>
>>>>Yes, 'cos Sky were /entirely/ blameless in that, weren't they? :-(
>>>
>>> Yes they where it was the fact that VM where penny pinching like they
>>> are in all things that customers lost the sky channels but of course
>>> your muddled brain will never accept the fact that VM and its staff
>>> are a load of lying scum bags will it .
>>
>> Only because it's actually common knowledge amongst the less VM-hating 
>> conspiracy-theorist idiots that, at the very most, it's a 50/50 split!
>
>Its entirely down to VM, sky made an offer to supply sky one,  VM declined.
>
> 
The only channel I watch these days is the BBC news channel and the
very occasional repeat of some of the very decent worth watching
which BBC1 sometimes transmit such as "Allo Allo" and "Keeping up
appearances" the rest is just so much crap to me more so the constant
transmitting of blasted football .
VM staff annoy me more than the company itself with their lying to
customers especially Brown and Butler .

dennis@home wrote:
> 
> 
> "Carl Waring"  wrote in message 
>>
>> Only because it's actually common knowledge amongst the less VM-hating 
>> conspiracy-theorist idiots that, at the very most, it's a 50/50 split!
> 
> Its entirely down to VM, sky made an offer to supply sky one,  VM declined.

Suggest you read up on the facts. Sky demanded a significant increase in 
the cost of Sky channels as provided to VM's customers. VM then declined 
to stiff their customers to enrich Sky's pockets.

Indeed it was claimed that the increased cost would have made VM's 
packages higher priced than Sky's - ie it was anticompetitive and an 
attempt to drive out a rival. ISTR its still rumbling through the courts 
on that basis.

"Mark McIntyre"  wrote in message 
news:Irf3k.29212$c47.9158@en-nntp-06.am2.easynews.com...
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Carl Waring"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> Only because it's actually common knowledge amongst the less VM-hating 
>>> conspiracy-theorist idiots that, at the very most, it's a 50/50 split!
>>
>> Its entirely down to VM, sky made an offer to supply sky one,  VM 
>> declined.
>
> Suggest you read up on the facts. Sky demanded a significant increase in 
> the cost of Sky channels as provided to VM's customers. VM then declined 
> to stiff their customers to enrich Sky's pockets.

That is what *I* said.
I suggest your read up on the facts.

>
> Indeed it was claimed that the increased cost would have made VM's 
> packages higher priced than Sky's - ie it was anticompetitive and an 
> attempt to drive out a rival. ISTR its still rumbling through the courts 
> on that basis.

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:24:22 +0100, Mark McIntyre
 wrote:


>Suggest you read up on the facts. Sky demanded a significant increase in 
>the cost of Sky channels as provided to VM's customers. VM then declined 
>to stiff their customers to enrich Sky's pockets.
Why shouldn't sky put up their charges Vm do the same another way they
charge customers for certain BB speed then proceed to cut that speed
by 75% if a customer dares to use the allotted speed for more than
five minutes .
>Indeed it was claimed that the increased cost would have made VM's 
>packages higher priced than Sky's - ie it was anticompetitive and an 
>attempt to drive out a rival. 
Pity they didn't ! .

dennis@home wrote:
> "Mark McIntyre"  wrote in message
> news:Irf3k.29212$c47.9158@en-nntp-06.am2.easynews.com...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Carl Waring"  wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> Only because it's actually common knowledge amongst the less
>>>> VM-hating conspiracy-theorist idiots that, at the very most, it's
>>>> a 50/50 split!
>>>
>>> Its entirely down to VM, sky made an offer to supply sky one,  VM
>>> declined.
>>
>> Suggest you read up on the facts. Sky demanded a significant
>> increase in the cost of Sky channels as provided to VM's customers.
>> VM then declined to stiff their customers to enrich Sky's pockets.
>
> That is what *I* said.
> I suggest your read up on the facts.

There was a *big* difference between the way /you/ phrased it and the way 
that Mark put it.

Yours, obviously, made it look like it was entirely VM's fault while Mark 
gave some more background in explaining that the /significantly increased/ 
payment that Sky requested made carrying the channels an un-viable 
proposition; which Mark explained in this bit you forgot to snip ;-)

>> Indeed it was claimed that the increased cost would have made VM's
>> packages higher priced than Sky's - ie it was anticompetitive and an
>> attempt to drive out a rival. ISTR its still rumbling through the
>> courts on that basis.

While I am quite happy to believe that both parties are somewhat to blame, 
you simply want to put /all/ the blame on the company you hate.

-- 
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Freeview (free): http://getdigiguide.com/?p=4&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

"Carl Waring"  wrote in message 
news:tqh3k.104055$_c7.73702@newsfe16.ams2...
> dennis@home wrote:
>> "Mark McIntyre"  wrote in message
>> news:Irf3k.29212$c47.9158@en-nntp-06.am2.easynews.com...
>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Carl Waring"  wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> Only because it's actually common knowledge amongst the less
>>>>> VM-hating conspiracy-theorist idiots that, at the very most, it's
>>>>> a 50/50 split!
>>>>
>>>> Its entirely down to VM, sky made an offer to supply sky one,  VM
>>>> declined.
>>>
>>> Suggest you read up on the facts. Sky demanded a significant
>>> increase in the cost of Sky channels as provided to VM's customers.
>>> VM then declined to stiff their customers to enrich Sky's pockets.
>>
>> That is what *I* said.
>> I suggest your read up on the facts.
>
> There was a *big* difference between the way /you/ phrased it and the way 
> that Mark put it.

Yes, mine was closer to the truth.
Sky wanted cash, VM didn't want to pay, its simple.

>
> Yours, obviously, made it look like it was entirely VM's fault while Mark 
> gave some more background in explaining that the /significantly increased/ 
> payment that Sky requested made carrying the channels an un-viable 
> proposition; which Mark explained in this bit you forgot to snip ;-)

The amount was never announced so anyone claiming it was un-viable either 
has inside inf or doesn't know.
The only thing said was by Sky who said it was a few pence a week.

>
>>> Indeed it was claimed that the increased cost would have made VM's
>>> packages higher priced than Sky's - ie it was anticompetitive and an
>>> attempt to drive out a rival. ISTR its still rumbling through the
>>> courts on that basis.
>
> While I am quite happy to believe that both parties are somewhat to blame, 
> you simply want to put /all/ the blame on the company you hate.

I nhate no company, why do you love one?

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 23:54:55 +0100, "dennis@home"
 wrote:


>I nhate no company, why do you love one? 
What a good question Dennis he doesn't love VM he absolutely
adores them even if they pulled the plug on his account he would still
say they where wonderful ! .

dennis@home wrote:
> 
> 
> "Mark McIntyre"  wrote in message 
> news:Irf3k.29212$c47.9158@en-nntp-06.am2.easynews.com...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>> Its entirely down to VM, sky made an offer to supply sky one,  VM 
>>> declined.
>>
>> Suggest you read up on the facts. Sky demanded a significant increase 
>> in the cost of Sky channels as provided to VM's customers. VM then 
>> declined to stiff their customers to enrich Sky's pockets.
> 
> That is what *I* said.

No, *you* said it was entirely VM's fault. How is it their fault that 
sky hiked the price so much that VM would have been uncompetitively priced?

> I suggest your read up on the facts.

No comment.

dennis@home wrote:
> 
> 
> "Carl Waring"  wrote in message 

>> There was a *big* difference between the way /you/ phrased it and the 
>> way that Mark put it.
> 
> Yes, mine was closer to the truth.

Which truth? The one you want to believe ie that it was all VM's fault, 
or the actual truth, ie that it was a commercial negotiation in which 
one party asked too high a price and the other declined to overpay?

> Sky wanted cash, VM didn't want to pay, its simple.

Actually the public information suggests that they wanted cash AND 
additional access to VM's network. In effect saying "yes we'll supply 
you - but only if you give us a copy of your customer list so we can 
supply them direct".

>> While I am quite happy to believe that both parties are somewhat to
>> blame, you simply want to put /all/ the blame on the company you hate.
> 
> I nhate no company, 

If that's true you might want to do a better job of not appearing to be 
so anti-VM....

"Mark McIntyre"  wrote in message 
news:OGq3k.29213$c47.19972@en-nntp-06.am2.easynews.com...
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Carl Waring"  wrote in message
>
>>> There was a *big* difference between the way /you/ phrased it and the 
>>> way that Mark put it.
>>
>> Yes, mine was closer to the truth.
>
> Which truth? The one you want to believe ie that it was all VM's fault, or 
> the actual truth, ie that it was a commercial negotiation in which one 
> party asked too high a price and the other declined to overpay?
>
>> Sky wanted cash, VM didn't want to pay, its simple.
>
> Actually the public information suggests that they wanted cash AND 
> additional access to VM's network. In effect saying "yes we'll supply 
> you - but only if you give us a copy of your customer list so we can 
> supply them direct".
>
>>> While I am quite happy to believe that both parties are somewhat to
>>> blame, you simply want to put /all/ the blame on the company you hate.
>>
>> I nhate no company,
>
> If that's true you might want to do a better job of not appearing to be so 
> anti-VM....

Lets see..

here I am a VM customer watching Sky one..
Sky come along and say they want a few pence a week more..
do VM ask me if I want to pay a few pence a week more to watch sky?
Like hell they do.
It is entirely VM's fault.
You can try and argue around it all you like but the facts are there.

Mark McIntyre wrote:

> Which truth?

Crikey ! Now you're asking !

The one according to VM's accounting (as they laughably call it) dept, the
'churn' dept or the 'retentions' dept ?

You wouldn't believe how truth cam be so flexible. Or then again maybe you
can ?


Graham

"dennis@home" wrote:

> here I am a VM customer watching Sky one..
> Sky come along and say they want a few pence a week more..

It was rather more than few pence more.

IIRC it was a doubling of the fee. I'm sure the legal oddbods will do well from
it.

Graham

"Eeyore"  wrote in message 
news:484E3D7F.DF8CC4E4@hotmail.com...
>
>
> "dennis@home" wrote:
>
>> here I am a VM customer watching Sky one..
>> Sky come along and say they want a few pence a week more..
>
> It was rather more than few pence more.
>
> IIRC it was a doubling of the fee. I'm sure the legal oddbods will do well 
> from
> it.

Doubled from what to what?
A few pence a week is the correct answer unless you want to prove otherwise.

Anyone who *PAYS* a premium rate to watch commercial television is a few 
spanners short of a set. The general idea being the advertising and 
sponsorship funds the channel AFAIR. Before Sky Digital came along, Sky 
One was free to air - so it seems that Sky has taken its customers to be 
a bunch of c***s. VM being the only people to make a stand and f**k em 
off out of it.

If you are happy to fork out anything, including a 'few extra pence' for 
re-run, second hand commercial television then you have my pity.

dennis@home wrote:
> 
> 
> "Mark McIntyre"  wrote in message 
> news:OGq3k.29213$c47.19972@en-nntp-06.am2.easynews.com...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Carl Waring"  wrote in message
>>
>>>> There was a *big* difference between the way /you/ phrased it and 
>>>> the way that Mark put it.
>>>
>>> Yes, mine was closer to the truth.
>>
>> Which truth? The one you want to believe ie that it was all VM's 
>> fault, or the actual truth, ie that it was a commercial negotiation in 
>> which one party asked too high a price and the other declined to overpay?
>>
>>> Sky wanted cash, VM didn't want to pay, its simple.
>>
>> Actually the public information suggests that they wanted cash AND 
>> additional access to VM's network. In effect saying "yes we'll supply 
>> you - but only if you give us a copy of your customer list so we can 
>> supply them direct".
>>
>>>> While I am quite happy to believe that both parties are somewhat to
>>>> blame, you simply want to put /all/ the blame on the company you hate.
>>>
>>> I nhate no company,
>>
>> If that's true you might want to do a better job of not appearing to 
>> be so anti-VM....
> 
> Lets see..
> 
> here I am a VM customer watching Sky one..
> Sky come along and say they want a few pence a week more..
> do VM ask me if I want to pay a few pence a week more to watch sky?
> Like hell they do.
> It is entirely VM's fault.

I think your would be correct is saying it was entirely VM's choice to stop 
paying Sky.  It was hardly their fault.

By your warped perspective a better view is that it is VMs customers own 
fault for not receiving the Sky channel as they are the people who can make 
a choice as to which provider to use.  If they did not want to cancel one 
subscription and take up a different one then that is their choice.

cheers

David

c

"DM"  wrote in message 
news:g2lt6t$5kl$1@registered.motzarella.org...


> I think your would be correct is saying it was entirely VM's choice to 
> stop paying Sky.  It was hardly their fault.
>
> By your warped perspective a better view is that it is VMs customers own 
> fault for not receiving the Sky channel as they are the people who can 
> make a choice as to which provider to use.  If they did not want to cancel 
> one subscription and take up a different one then that is their choice.

I did, sky broadband is better than I got with VM too, just to bring it a 
bit on topic.
VM claim to be able to deliver better broadband but fail to do so at a 
reasonable cost.

"Klunk"  wrote in message 
news:484e535e$0$26079$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Anyone who *PAYS* a premium rate to watch commercial television is a few
> spanners short of a set. The general idea being the advertising and
> sponsorship funds the channel AFAIR. Before Sky Digital came along, Sky
> One was free to air - so it seems that Sky has taken its customers to be
> a bunch of c***s. VM being the only people to make a stand and f**k em
> off out of it.
>
> If you are happy to fork out anything, including a 'few extra pence' for
> re-run, second hand commercial television then you have my pity.

Exactly.
I could understand paying a subscription for TV if:
(a) It had substantially better content than terrestrial/freeview/freesat.
(b) It didn't have any commercials
As neither of the above apply, could someone please tell me why I should 
take up a subscription to Sky or Virgin TV?
Oh - and before you ask, I'm not into sport or movies.

George

"George Weston"  wrote in message 
news:6b7ncoF3a6j0jU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Klunk"  wrote in message 
> news:484e535e$0$26079$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> Anyone who *PAYS* a premium rate to watch commercial television is a few
>> spanners short of a set. The general idea being the advertising and
>> sponsorship funds the channel AFAIR. Before Sky Digital came along, Sky
>> One was free to air - so it seems that Sky has taken its customers to be
>> a bunch of c***s. VM being the only people to make a stand and f**k em
>> off out of it.
>>
>> If you are happy to fork out anything, including a 'few extra pence' for
>> re-run, second hand commercial television then you have my pity.
>
> Exactly.
> I could understand paying a subscription for TV if:
> (a) It had substantially better content than terrestrial/freeview/freesat.
> (b) It didn't have any commercials
> As neither of the above apply, could someone please tell me why I should 
> take up a subscription to Sky or Virgin TV?
> Oh - and before you ask, I'm not into sport or movies.
>
> George
>

Its your choice.
If you don't watch the stuff that is on subscription then don't pay.
Don't expect everyone to be the same.

On Jun 7, 10:42 am, Eeyore 
wrote:
>
> Their billing department btw is the closest thing I have encountered in
> real life to Alice in Wonderland.
>
> Graham

Hmmm, I wrote to them (by Recorded Delivery) requesting that they
"downsize" my broadband package from XL to L.

They ignored it and then even denied having received the letter even
though it had been signed for.

Mind you, the Virgin Holidays brand is a joke as well so I guess it's
something in the name...............

On Jun 7, 1:26 pm, Eeyore 
wrote:
>
> I reckon if enough people got together and swamped OFCOM with complaints,
> they would be SO snowed under that the simplest thing would be to place VM in
> administration.

You're assuming that brown envelopes with large quantities of used
Bank Of England currency notes haven't formed part of the equation.

Klunk wrote:
>  Before Sky Digital came along, Sky One was free to air...

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_One
"On 1 September 1993 Sky One was encrypted as part of the Sky Multichannels 
subscription package, and could no longer be viewed outside the UK and 
Ireland without exporting a box, or receiving it over cable."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_Digital_%28UK_%26_Ireland%29
"Sky Digital was officially launched on 1 October 1998..."

So there you go.

Although I am quite willing to accept that Wikipedia cannot be relied upon 
for 100% accuracy at all times, I think we can accept that most of the 
information is mostly accurate :-)

-- 
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Freeview (free): http://getdigiguide.com/?p=4&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

dennis@home wrote:
> "Eeyore"  wrote in message
> news:484E3D7F.DF8CC4E4@hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>> "dennis@home" wrote:
>>
>>> here I am a VM customer watching Sky one..
>>> Sky come along and say they want a few pence a week more..
>>
>> It was rather more than few pence more.
>>
>> IIRC it was a doubling of the fee. I'm sure the legal oddbods will
>> do well from
>> it.
>
> Doubled from what to what?
> A few pence a week is the correct answer unless you want to prove
> otherwise.

Well, maybe. However....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Media#Virgin_Media_vs._BSkyB
"... but Virgin said that a minimum payment-guarantee included in the 
contract meant that the actual amount due would exceed twice the current 
payment."

Like I said, I am perfectly willing to accept that VM aren't entirely 
blameless; unlike certain VM-hating posters in here.

-- 
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Freeview (free): http://getdigiguide.com/?p=4&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

"Juan Kerr"  wrote in message 
news:a9b7fd88-81f7-4a0f-ae42-54ea37cb1295@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 7, 10:42 am, Eeyore 
wrote:
>
> Their billing department btw is the closest thing I have encountered in
> real life to Alice in Wonderland.
>
> Graham

Hmmm, I wrote to them (by Recorded Delivery) requesting that they
"downsize" my broadband package from XL to L.

They ignored it and then even denied having received the letter even
though it had been signed for.

Mind you, the Virgin Holidays brand is a joke as well so I guess it's
something in the name...............

And that's all it is really - a name, bought from Mr Branson by firms who 
would like to improve their image with the unthinking masses, in the hope of 
signing up more plebs.
NTL is still NTL, despite the logo.

George

Juan Kerr wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > Their billing department btw is the closest thing I have encountered in
> > real life to Alice in Wonderland.
>
>
> Hmmm, I wrote to them (by Recorded Delivery) requesting that they
> "downsize" my broadband package from XL to L.
>
> They ignored it and then even denied having received the letter even
> though it had been signed for.
>
> Mind you, the Virgin Holidays brand is a joke as well so I guess it's
> something in the name...............

Were it not for the fact that my VM POTS telephone number is important to me,
I would dump them like a dose of salts.

I have yet to examine the latest fiction from their billing dept. I got a
call from their 'debt recovery' company - having settled all (disputed)
outstanding bills some weeks before and told then where to get off quite
frankly. I haven't heard from them since, but in case I do, I treat it as a
kind of silly 'mind game'.

You know the one about the Marketing Dept of the Sirius Cybernetics
Corporation ? Clearly Douglas Adams had an unwitting view into the near
future but failed to realise its significance.

Graham

Juan Kerr wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > I reckon if enough people got together and swamped OFCOM with complaints,
> > they would be SO snowed under that the simplest thing would be to place VM in
> > administration.
>
> You're assuming that brown envelopes with large quantities of used
> Bank Of England currency notes haven't formed part of the equation.

But you could BURN those. Done well, no evidence either.

Graham

George Weston wrote:

> Hmmm, I wrote to them (by Recorded Delivery) requesting that they
> "downsize" my broadband package from XL to L.
>
> They ignored it and then even denied having received the letter even
> though it had been signed for.

Ok, who's up for stringing beardy from a high pole ?

Graham

Eeyore wrote:
> George Weston wrote:
>
>> Hmmm, I wrote to them (by Recorded Delivery) requesting that they
>> "downsize" my broadband package from XL to L.
>>
>> They ignored it and then even denied having received the letter even
>> though it had been signed for.
>
> Ok, who's up for stringing beardy from a high pole ?

Given that Mr Branson has no say in the day-to-day running of the company, 
I'd say that was a rather stupid idea.

So can't say I'm surprised you suggested it, to be honest :-D

-- 
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Freeview (free): http://getdigiguide.com/?p=4&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

George Weston wrote:
> "Juan Kerr"  wrote in message
> news:a9b7fd88-81f7-4a0f-ae42-54ea37cb1295@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 7, 10:42 am, Eeyore 
> wrote:
>>
>> Their billing department btw is the closest thing I have encountered
>> in real life to Alice in Wonderland.
>>
>> Graham
>
> Hmmm, I wrote to them (by Recorded Delivery) requesting that they
> "downsize" my broadband package from XL to L.
>
> They ignored it and then even denied having received the letter even
> though it had been signed for.
>
> Mind you, the Virgin Holidays brand is a joke as well so I guess it's
> something in the name...............
>
> And that's all it is really - a name, bought from Mr Branson by firms
> who would like to improve their image with the unthinking masses, in
> the hope of signing up more plebs.
> NTL is still NTL, despite the logo.

IME the service is now worse since re-branding.

Carl Waring wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > George Weston wrote:
> >
> >> Hmmm, I wrote to them (by Recorded Delivery) requesting that they
> >> "downsize" my broadband package from XL to L.
> >>
> >> They ignored it and then even denied having received the letter even
> >> though it had been signed for.
> >
> > Ok, who's up for stringing beardy from a high pole ?
>
> Given that Mr Branson has no say in the day-to-day running of the company,
> I'd say that was a rather stupid idea.

But think of the free publicity !

Graham

dennis@home wrote:
> 
> 
> "DM"  wrote in message 
> news:g2lt6t$5kl$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> 
> 
>> I think your would be correct is saying it was entirely VM's choice to 
>> stop paying Sky.  It was hardly their fault.
>>
>> By your warped perspective a better view is that it is VMs customers 
>> own fault for not receiving the Sky channel as they are the people who 
>> can make a choice as to which provider to use.  If they did not want 
>> to cancel one subscription and take up a different one then that is 
>> their choice.
> 
> I did, sky broadband is better than I got with VM too, just to bring it 
> a bit on topic.
> VM claim to be able to deliver better broadband but fail to do so at a 
> reasonable cost.

I think you can probably make the same statement about most ISP's -for some 
people they work well while others have problems depending on many factors. 
  I'm sure others make the exact same claim against Sky.  I've no personal 
experience of either, and plan to keep it that way.

cheers

David

dennis@home wrote:
> 
> here I am a VM customer watching Sky one..
> Sky come along and say they want a few pence a week more..

It wasn't a few pence, and it wasn't /just/ extra cash they wanted.

> It is entirely VM's fault.

Again, its VM's fault that sky hiked their prices to a level that is 
alleged to be anticompetitive?

> You can try and argue around it all you like but the facts are there.

Indeed they are. Try not to read all your 'facts' from Sky's marketing 
blurb tho.

-- 
Mark McIntyre

CLC FAQ <http://c-faq.com/>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

dennis@home wrote:
> 
> Doubled from what to what?
> A few pence a week is the correct answer unless you want to prove 
> otherwise.

The correct answer _according to a Sky Spokesman_ is that it would led 
to an increase in VM subs by a quid a month. In effect Sky were asking 
for around an extra £35M per year.

Personally I consider a 10% price hike just to get one  channel I hardly 
watched anyway would have been extortionate. I gather Sky weren't 
prepared to make it a subs-only channel either.

And lets not forget this wasn't about the cash - this was about  forcing 
a competitor to give you access to their customerbase - with the great 
fallback that if all else failed your competitors customers would have 
to buy your service....
-- 
Mark McIntyre

"Mark McIntyre"  wrote in message 
news:OlY3k.38102$ZM7.14512@en-nntp-08.am2.easynews.com...
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>> here I am a VM customer watching Sky one..
>> Sky come along and say they want a few pence a week more..
>
> It wasn't a few pence, and it wasn't /just/ extra cash they wanted.
>
>> It is entirely VM's fault.
>
> Again, its VM's fault that sky hiked their prices to a level that is 
> alleged to be anticompetitive?

*alleged* by VM

>
>> You can try and argue around it all you like but the facts are there.
>
> Indeed they are. Try not to read all your 'facts' from Sky's marketing 
> blurb tho.

.

dennis@home wrote:
> 
> 
> "Mark McIntyre"  wrote in message 
> news:OlY3k.38102$ZM7.14512@en-nntp-08.am2.easynews.com...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>> here I am a VM customer watching Sky one..
>>> Sky come along and say they want a few pence a week more..
>>
>> It wasn't a few pence, and it wasn't /just/ extra cash they wanted.
>>
>>> It is entirely VM's fault.
>>
>> Again, its VM's fault that sky hiked their prices to a level that is 
>> alleged to be anticompetitive?
> 
> *alleged* by VM

Just as it is *alleged* by Sky that it was only a few pence etc.

Lets be clear - neither side is innocent in this, but then its business 
not church.