MSE News: Virgin Media's £240 exit fees are too high, says Ofcom

VisionMan wrote: »

what isn't included in the list above is if a customer moves house into an area which isn't cabled by Virgin, is that the customers fault?

By the same token how is it it somehow Virgin's fault that a customer moves to an area not cabled?

Virgin Media does not purport to cover the whole of the UK. They cover roughly 50%.

The company's predecessors mostly went bankrupt attempting to provide cable services to the areas they did manage to provide infrastructure for.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree Virgin should be penalised because they don't cover the entire country.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

Other smaller suppliers such as iDNET, Zen, AAISP can so why not Virgin.

Those companies are low-cost suppliers who simply piggy back from the unbundled existing BT network.

Virgin has it's own network and infrastructure to maintain and so short term contracts are not ever likely to be available or economically viable.

Note that OFCOM have decided the exit fees charged by Virgin are too high, not that exit fees shouldn't be charged at all.

phillw wrote: »

It's unfair if they charge £240 if you left a month earlier than you had agreed to, if you left after only being with them for a month then it's not so bad.

The amount is charged pro rata. No one is charged £240 if they only have a month left on their minimum term since clearly it would be cheaper to simply pay the final month's subscription.

Only those in the very early months of the minimum term are currently charged a £240 exit fee..