MSE News: Ofcom investigates Virgin Media over exit fees

So we all want free installation and a free superdooper TV box where free obviously means paid of as part of the monthly fee during the minimum contract period and then we also want to be able to leave with no notice. Simple economics means this can't happen - if they ban minimum contract lengths then the install and tv box will have to be paid for upfront.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

michaels wrote: »

So we all want free installation and a free superdooper TV box where free obviously means paid of as part of the monthly fee during the minimum contract period and then we also want to be able to leave with no notice. Simple economics means this can't happen - if they ban minimum contract lengths then the install and tv box will have to be paid for upfront.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

Tend to agree with this, and although may seem harsh, signing up to a minimum term , then before the end of that term, moving to another address, is not the service provider changing the terms of the contract, but the consumer.
If Ofcom decide that ETC's are not good for the consumer and insist they are removed, no doubt the 'law of unintended consequences', will kick in, like when they decided BT offering 2 directory enquired searches for £0.40p was anti consumer , so introduced 118 numbers, that went well didn't it ?
Providers will just move the costs to the front end instead of spreading the installation and equipment charges over the period of the minimum term, so get ready for £100+ installation charges , even when there is service already at the property, £75+'equipment rental' charges' and disconnection charges of £30+ when there are nothing but 30 day notice periods to quit,but don't expect the couple of hundred extra ££'s that you effectively pay now over the 12/18/24 months as part of the monthly fee to be given up by the provider either, the larger than it needs to be cost, to cover the currently free install/equipment charge ,will stay the same, it's just the punter will pay twice, once up front and also via larger than they need to be monthly charges.

What people writing here don't understand that Virgin Media is not owned by Richard Branson any more apart for 5% stake to kerp the name.

It's now owned by an American company called Liberty. You may know them as they just brought F1.

All that company is interested in now is squeezing as much money as they can from the customer base.. Why do you think they had 3 price rises in a year. Charging customers over the top to leave doesn't surprise me.

It was a good company once until Branson sold out.

Recently, after being with them for 7 years as a customer, I couldn't get a better deal for my loyalty. So I left them. I doubt I will ever go back.

mije1983 wrote: »

As far as I'm aware, Branson has never owned Virgin Media outright at any point so it's not really down to Liberty taking over 4 years ago.

That's by the by though. People want competition, but then complain when they have to pay for it. It's not cheap creating your own network as Virgin have found out.

How do they pay for it? By holding people to the contracts they willingly agreed to. Not sure there is much wrong with that. Pay TV is a luxury not a neccessity.

If the ETCs are judged unfair, then all it will do is push prices up for everyone including those who abide by their agreements as Virgin will need to keep up their profits.

I agree there should be 'some' leeway in exceptional circumstances, but it's ensuring that this isn't abused by people after a free get out clause that will be the challenge.

Branson at one time did hold enough to control the direction though.

Plus if your theory holds true why doesn't Sky run in the same way?

At least they will try and give you a better deal.

Plus none of Virgins competitors have this large exit fee.

As for knowledge about Virgin system it has been in my road since the days of Ntl / cable & wireless when our town was one of the first areas to have it because they wanted to connect the business area but also had to supply so many domestic properties at the same time. That was about 24 years ago.

robin58 wrote: »

Plus if your theory holds true why doesn't Sky run in the same way?

What theory?

Just because one company does something, it doesn't mean that everyone has to follow suit. It also doesn't mean that what another company is doing is wrong, unfair or illegal.

For example, some retailers price match, other retailers don't. It doesn't mean other retailers are wrong. It is just the way they choose to do business and people can pick and choose who they deal with. Is it unfair? No.

robin58 wrote: »

Plus none of Virgins competitors have this large exit fee.

Because Virgin are the only ones who have invested billions into their own network that they have 100% responsibility for. And in the bluntest way they need to recoup that cost, plus still make profit.

I also believe Virgin cap their ETC at about £200ish no matter if you owe them more than this.


Also, let's not try and make out that Richard Branson was a consumer champion who was in it for his customers happiness and now a big bad corporate have taken over and are making people pay. I have nothing against him but he is a businessman first and foremost who's aim is to make money, and he is very good at that.