Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35958177)

I'm growing tired of your dramatic accusations in relation to your (claimed) perception my posts. I am entitled to my view of things, as are you.

As it stands, VM only have space for four more HD channels. This is a material fact.

Originally Posted by SonicMaster (Post 35958124)

It's odd that they haven't included logos for Paramount Network HD, Quest HD and Love Nature HD that have 'HD' on them, as viewers scrolling through the EPG can't immediately identify which are the SD and HD versions of those channels.

Originally Posted by ozsat (Post 35958201)

I beleive the logos are provided by the channels themselves so not down to VM.

Some of the existing HD logos are difficult to see the HD anyway - it is easy to see the HD in the channel name of the right in the guide.

Watching QuestHD - they don't use HD on screen either so I guess they don't want it.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35958177)

I'm growing tired of your dramatic accusations in relation to your (claimed) perception my posts. I am entitled to my view of things, as are you.

As it stands, VM only have space for four more HD channels. This is a material fact.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35958218)

Can someone demonstrate that Virgin only have space for four more HD channels? I consider it quite unlikely.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35958218)

Can someone demonstrate that Virgin only have space for four more HD channels? I consider it quite unlikely.

Anyone got a frequency plan?

Originally Posted by nialli (Post 35958233)

I second that. Richard C says it's a 'material fact' but I don't recall seeing anything to support his statement.
Years ago capacity on the VM network was an issue but that was before DOCSIS 3 and the major upgrades we've seen since, including the move to Mpeg 4 compression.
There are also some local 'capacity' issues where a street cabinet is oversubscribed.
If Spiderplant says there's no capacity constraint, there's no capacity constraint - he knows his stuff.
I don't think a 'Frequency Plan' would reveal much to us laymen.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35958182)

Wouldn't let the 'Old Giirl' get to you Richard ! She has a tendency to deliberately provoke ;)

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35958181)

Material fact with what proof?,

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35958243)

Den, you do know that you're in danger in agreeing with Old Boy on something? :D You might wish to wear a sun hat when venturing outside. ;)

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35958181)

Material fact with what proof?,

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35958182)

Wouldn't let the 'Old Giirl' get to you Richard ! She has a tendency to deliberately provoke ;)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35958237)

I agree. I think Richard is right to say that the existing set-up has limited space available, but he goes a little too far in claiming or hinting that this is a major problem for Virgin Media.

I don't think it is, and as spiderplant has said more than once now, if VM need more space, they will simply create it.

---------- Post added at 15:01 ---------- Previous post was at 14:54 ----------



Is that really you saying that. Mr K? :D Stones and glass houses are words that come to mind!

I have not deliberately provoked anyone on the forums, but I have challenged some of the things they say where I do not agree with their comments. I, too, am frequently challenged, but being a discussion forum, isn't that what it is all about?