# Virgin access.



## Maclynn (Oct 6, 2000)

Just a thought, I wonder if TiVo in the US are actually aware that the Virgin service is unavailable to most UK customers. If they are,why did they give them exclusive access.


----------



## Trinitron (Jan 20, 2003)

Tivo inc won't care so much about geographical coverage, they will be looking at subscriber numbers. Their financial results show that they are looking at partnerships with cablecos as the way forward - Virgin could potentially give them more boxes in the UK than in the whole of their current US market! 

The exclusive deal was probably Virgin's idea, to keep the likes of Sky from spoiling their publicity (not that they would be that bothered IMHO).


----------



## Maclynn (Oct 6, 2000)

That is interesting, I assumed U.S .use would make ours look insignificant.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Maclynn said:


> That is interesting, I assumed U.S .use would make ours look insignificant.


All the US cable companies are relatively small and there are a lot of them. Virgin is an absolutely massive cable company with a presence across the UK even though only in areas with the highest population densities such as town centres and new build housing estates.

Tivo only works as a product if each users pays a modest monthly subscription. Therefore it really only has the option of going with Sky or Virgin. It tried and failed before with Sky (who stabbed it in the back) so now it is trying with Virgin and has presumably signed a much more watertight exclusivity contract on this occasion that would stop Virgin suddenly using a different operating firmware for its PVR.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Maclynn said:


> Just a thought, I wonder if TiVo in the US are actually aware that the Virgin service is unavailable to most UK customers


Actually, VM is officialy available to "50% of the UK". Just saying


----------



## speedyrite (May 18, 2002)

cwaring said:


> Actually, VM is officialy available to "50% of the UK". Just saying


Presumably 50% of the UK population, due to VM's service concentration in big urban areas, rather than 50% of UK households?


----------



## Mimizuku no Lew (Jan 3, 2011)

Pete77 said:


> It tried and failed before with Sky (who stabbed it in the back) so now it is trying with Virgin and has presumably signed a much more watertight exclusivity contract on this occasion that would stop Virgin suddenly using a different operating firmware for its PVR.


It probably helps that Sky ditched TiVo in favour of their own PVR whereas VM are doing the opposite.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

speedyrite said:


> Presumably 50% of the UK population, due to VM's service concentration in big urban areas, rather than 50% of UK households?


From my contact at VM: "Our network coverage is now 12.7m homes, representing 51% of the UK's homes".

So it's 'homes' not 'people'.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Not really other options for TiVo, partnerwise. Sky were never goin to ditch Sky+, and Freeview is hampered by that " free" thing!


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Indeed; and 50&#37; of a market is better than none


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

TiVo don't care about &#37;s of the population, they care about the royalty cheque.


----------



## mikerr (Jun 2, 2005)

Plus VM aren't just taking on a single TiVo model, but (eventually) rolling out TiVo software to its WHOLE userbase. 
"exclusive interface for both Virgin's next-generation DVR and non-DVR set-top boxes."

I.e. 4 million boxes

Compare that to *TiVo's total worldwide * userbase is currently only 12.5 million:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/206957-tivo-f1q11-qtr-end-04-30-2010-earnings-call-transcript


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> From my contact at VM: "Our network coverage is now 12.7m homes, representing 51% of the UK's homes".
> 
> So it's 'homes' not 'people'.


So that clearly means they probably only actually have a 35% potential population reach as the average number of people per dwelling in a city is far less with all those small flats and young single people compared to the 5 bed home dog walking types out in a lot of non Virgin cable land in the deep countryside (eg TCM2007 and his wife, kids, dogs etc, etc in his house buried behind a large hill).

That's pretty shocking really compared to Sky's 90 to 95% potential reach around the UK with only the odd home behind a hill like TCM2007's behind a large physical obstruction to the satellite or flats that do not yet have a communal system and have a covenant or planning restriction forbidding individual dishes not able to get Sky if they want it.

That is why Virgin do definitely need to deliver their product over ADSL or as well on a BT Vision + Freeview and/or Freesat type basis if they are to ever increase their market penetration. OK its a different product from the full offering but its still pay television being sold by Virgin in to homes that otherwise wouldn't take it.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

You only buy one subscription per home, so the homes measure is the better one. 5 person households pay the same to Virgin as bachelor pads.

Virgin don't "need" to do any such thing. It's about ARPU and profit, not &#37; reach.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> You only buy one subscription per home, so the homes measure is the better one. 5 person households pay the same to Virgin as bachelor pads.


Really!

Can you please explain to me then why Sky have a product known as Multi Room and Virgin have an equivalent product (see http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/TV/Virgin-TV-Multi-Room/m-p/1861) on which you pay further subscriptions to extend your channel package to a second or subsequent satellite or cable box in your home?

Presumably if 5 a person households always paid the same to Virgin as a one person household as you contend then customers would not be willing to pay extra so a second or subsequent box can also receive the subscribed range of Virgin channels.

However Virgin is clearly likely to have a lot less multi room installations than Sky since they will miss many of the very largest palatial mansions in the countryside with teenage kids or grown up kids living at home where these set ups would tend to be most common place out in Sky land.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> So that clearly means...


You do like making a lot of assumptions, don't you Pete 



Pete77 said:


> Can you please explain to me then why Sky have a product known as Multi Room and Virgin have an equivalent product....


Because it's stil the same one, single subscription/account. You cannot normally (as far as I know) have two accounts/subscriptions at the same address. Well, with VM anyway. I have no experience with Sky so they may be different.
See what I mean about your always making assumptions


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

As Carl said "multi-room" and similar are still only one subscription, it's just an extra service like HD or Sports.

If were're trying to guess whether rural homes have a higher ARPU than urban ones then we're just doing that - guessing.

Sky's overall ARPU is actually slightly lower than VMs.



> However Virgin is clearly likely to have a lot less multi room installations than Sky since they will miss many of the very largest palatial mansions in the countryside with teenage kids or grown up kids living at home where these set ups would tend to be most common place out in Sky land.


I would think that by far the most common use of multi-room would be for a bedroom set, which would apply whatever the size of the household. So that's not "clearly likely" at all.

Anyway, you're just making guesses now to try to cover your error in forgetting that subscriptions are per household, not per person.


----------



## Automan (Oct 29, 2000)

Perhaps Virgin should launch its own satellite based system, perhaps in the same orbital position of the old Marco Polo ones.

They could then offer services to the reset of the UK.

Automan.


----------



## BrianHughes (Jan 21, 2001)

Automan said:


> Perhaps Virgin should launch its own satellite based system, perhaps in the same orbital position of the old Marco Polo ones.
> 
> They could then offer services to the reset of the UK.
> 
> Automan.


Yes, when Virgin Galactic gets going they could drop off the satellite while they're up there. Anyone know what the baggage weight limit is?


----------



## speedyrite (May 18, 2002)

cwaring said:


> From my contact at VM: "Our network coverage is now 12.7m homes, representing 51% of the UK's homes".
> 
> So it's 'homes' not 'people'.


Thanks for the clarification!


----------



## Automan (Oct 29, 2000)

BrianHughes said:


> Yes, when Virgin Galactic gets going they could drop off the satellite while they're up there. Anyone know what the baggage weight limit is?


Alas, like the NASA Shuttle it can't achieve the correct orbital altitude for a geostationary satellite. 

Automan.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Automan said:


> Alas, like the NASA Shuttle it can't achieve the correct orbital altitude for a geostationary satellite.


Such an on the ball comment suggests you are beginning to feel a lot better Automan. I hope the wounds from your surgery are nearly healed up by now?


----------



## Trinitron (Jan 20, 2003)

Pete77 said:


> All the US cable companies are relatively small and there are a lot of them.


Never one for sweeping statements, are you?

Comcast = 23 million subscribers
Time Warner = 12.5 million 
Virgin = 3.7 million


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Trinitron said:


> Never one for sweeping statements, are you?
> 
> Comcast = 23 million subscribers
> Time Warner = 12.5 million
> Virgin = 3.7 million


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Trinitron said:


> Virgin = 3.7 million


Actually it's now 4.7m  (Q3 2010 Results, App. C1)


----------



## Automan (Oct 29, 2000)

Pete77 said:


> Such an on the ball comment suggests you are beginning to feel a lot better Automan. I hope the wounds from your surgery are nearly healed up by now?


Other than indigestion issues - back to doc's this Friday.

And as already mentioned, I have retired my Tivo again but may turn it back on again to see the wonderful off from Virgin that will be of no use to me.

A bit like when BSB folded and Sky gave me a free year of Sky Sports.

I never watch sports on TV.

Automan.


----------

