Virgin Media costs balloon by MEEELLIONS in wake of Brexit

I had a letter the other week about that price increase. The first thing I noticed about it is that it doesn't break it down - which elements are increasing - telephone line rental, tv subs, broadband? One? Any combination of the two? All three?

I remarked about it on Twitter, and their social media peeps said it can't be broken down because I'm on a package - so I pointed out that it can be broken down, because although the initial bill I get is for the "package"*, I also get a VAT invoice shortly after it's paid, which I need for, er, VAT purposes, and which does indeed break it down.

* I pay a small amount each month for call barring, which is outwith the "package" but isn't itemised on the initial bill, whereas the telephone line rental *is* part of the package, and that's shown separately on the bill.

Re: They are a media company

4k STB which has probably just become 10% more expensive.

No it hasn't. The price from Taiwan has dropped by nearly 14%. The things cost almost nothing, and they're charging their customers £££ for them - they could go up by 200% and they'd still see a profit! All ISP services here in the UK are profiteering scams.

Re: They are a media company

Licensing costs for use of the 'Virgin' name? Oh, the possibilities.

Re: They are a media company ( import costs )

Yet you have to pay £2.50 for paper billing...

Re: They are a media company ( import costs )

Or, for added bonus points, posting regular sales guff to houses that can't actually receive the services because they stopped the cable 15 yards short of the end of the road!!

Re: They are a media company

So you didn't notice the £ dropping against the € as well as the $?

You should go check what currency hedging is, why VM not having it is important. Might reduce the shock when other gb businesses currency protection runs out next year and prices start rising for everything. For a country with ~75% food self sufficiency (if we stop exporting food) that's bad news the voters won't like.

Re: Another Illustration of the Fact...

I am divided by this point.

Think about it if you worked for a company that would be adversely affected by a political policy promising to make their activity illegal. In that case it would be sensible to advise you that you might be directly impacted by the vote, as your job would exist any more.

Note in the carefully crafted example that would not be a threat, but a statement of fact.

In the VM case the 'costs' of Brexit appear marginal and within the range of business variables that a well run company should normally be expected to handle.

Re: Another Illustration of the Fact...

> Why the hell is any employer trying to tell its employees how to vote?

If a company feels Option A is best for its survival and therefore its staffs continued employment, it seems reasonable to recommend employees vote for Option A in their own best interests. OTOH, if it's purely for the shareholders/execs/customers benefit, they run the risk of pushing their peons into voting the other way ;-)

Re: Another Illustration of the Fact...

So you should ask yourself, "Is this good for the company?"

Re: Another Illustration of the Fact...

Why the hell is any employer trying to tell its employees how to vote?

Depends on the nature of business.

Example 1 - your business is European Patent law (as my SWMBO) and the company will close doors within a year of the execution of a hard Brexit due to key functions moving to Munich. No need to recommend the employees how to vote - just state the f*** fact (as the company she used to work for at the time actually did - they are one of the very few I know who were honest about it).

Example 2 - your business is automotive production and falling back to WTO tariffs means that it just stopped being profitable so in the event of a hard Brexit you will close the factory and bugger off to Romania to build them there. Again, no need to recommend employees how to vote. Clearly stating the fact instead of manifesting proverbial Far Eastern politeness by lying in their face that "the company has a continuous commitment to its workforce and manufacturing base in the UK". Just to be followed by serving the reality cold and with a vengeance several months later to the PM.

Example 3 - any of the high tech companies with Eu HQs in UK. Telling the employees that in the event of a BrExit the local UK profit base is insufficient to sustain the HQ and the company will no longer be able to claim the UK HQ, Support and R&D functions as a vaild pre-tax business expense on Eu income. Again, no need to recommend the employees how to vote. Unfortunately, lying about commitment to the great local [Cisco | CA | Oracle | Microsoft | etc ] workforce was preferred. All of this while at the same time sharpening the HR long knives (and some of it already being executed).

That, however, is different from telling them how to vote. It is telling them what the real effect would be and being honest about it. In the case of Virgin media there is no excuse for what they did.