Originally Posted by Turkey Machine (Post 34776877)

That £9.75 the same if you add Sky Sports and/or Sky Movies too? (i.e Sky Sports HD and Sky Movies HD channels included in the cost) It's the only thing I'm a bit confused over.

Originally Posted by LiamTG (Post 34776900)

I am confused!

Are we getting HD or not?!

Originally Posted by Stuart C (Post 34776596)

Made sense to me..

He is asking why, if you are not worried about HD, are you bothered that they charge extra for it? If you aren't worried, you wont pay it anyway so it won't affect you.

As for the other comment, well, if you don't think that Sky (or any DTV platform provider) won't pass on the increased costs of High definition creation and transit to the users, then you would certainly seem not to be a businessman.. Here's a clue: Businesses have to find a way of funding increased costs. If they don't, they go bankrupt. Usually the easiest way to fund those increased costs is to pass them along to the customer in some form.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 34776936)

I spoke to a VM engineer today, and was told apart from the HD channels we have now, there is none planned for the forseeable future.
But told me to get a V+ BOX, when l told him l had one, he said again, other than what we have, (which we don't) then what l said above still counts. And yes l do feel conned, we were PROMISED channels, and that is why l bought the damn thing.

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 34777450)

Well that engineer was incorrect.

Originally Posted by AndyCambs (Post 34777457)

Engineers are sometimes contractors and are not always known for their reliability of information.

Originally Posted by kkevin666 (Post 34777461)

Just like Virgin then. :monkey:

Originally Posted by LiamTG (Post 34776900)

I am confused!

Are we getting HD or not?!

Originally Posted by LiamTG (Post 34776900)

I am confused!

Are we getting HD or not?!

Originally Posted by AndyCambs (Post 34777457)

Engineers are sometimes contractors and are not always known for their reliability of information.

Originally Posted by akki007 (Post 34776912)

Well, if the email above is anything to go by, it would appear that Virgin can and will in fact provide linear HD at no extra cost. But how can this be? For are they not a business? Perhaps the comments about being a "businessman" are far too sweeping and cannot be applied to all circumstances. But hey, what do I know.

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher (Post 34777540)

It's simple, if HD is important to you then move to Sky. VM won't be filling your HD needs any time soon otherwise they would be shouting about it from the rooftops.

I am already with Sky but looking at just what content is available from the 30 odd existing HD channels I am reminded that HD crap is every bit as crap as the same crap shown in SD so for the present I will be sticking to my trusty standard Sky+.

Of course if I were a Sky Movies or Sports buff then possibly my feelings might be more positive but sadly I am not.

Originally Posted by Stuart C (Post 34777500)

Virgin already charge for Linear HD. Just not as much as Sky. Unless of course you know of a cut-price v+ box that doesn't do HD.

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 34777450)

Well that engineer was incorrect.

Originally Posted by harmitage (Post 34777730)

I'd be suprised if the vast majority of V+ boxes weren't purchased for their pvr functionality rather than HD.

Certainly when I purchased my TV drive, as was called then, there was hardly any mention of it's HD capability, but screeds about it's pvr ability.

Originally Posted by nialli (Post 34778100)

No, the smart money is on the words from the Cable Forum Team posting here. Read between the lines of their (informed) comments...

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 34778472)

Well lets put it this way, l would rather trust an engineer, than a CS from VM.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 34778472)

Well lets put it this way, l would rather trust an engineer, than a CS from VM.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 34778472)

Well lets put it this way, l would rather trust an engineer, than a CS from VM.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 34778472)

Well lets put it this way, l would rather trust an engineer, than a CS from VM.

Originally Posted by Herbert Schongle (Post 34783652)

If it wasn't for needing to have a BT phone line, i'd be away to Sky HD like a shot.

Originally Posted by Herbert Schongle (Post 34783658)

Does it need to be an active line though?

Originally Posted by Phil-ntl (Post 34783970)

well i guess this thread is as good as any for a first post.
Having read through all the hype regarding hd channels i decided to email Mr Berkett myself just out of curiosity and this is the cut and paste of the reply received:



I guess its a waiting game again although I for one wont be holding my breath

Phil :confused:

Originally Posted by Phil-ntl (Post 34783970)

well i guess this thread is as good as any for a first post.
Having read through all the hype regarding hd channels i decided to email Mr Berkett myself just out of curiosity and this is the cut and paste of the reply received:

Phil

We are finalising negotiations as we speak and intend to launch at least 6 channels in July.

Neil Berkett | Chief Executive Officer
Virgin Media
D: +44 1256 754***
I guess its a waiting game again although I for one wont be holding my breath

Phil :confused:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 34786177)

B u t
h e
s p e a k s
v e r y
s l o w l y

Originally Posted by akki007 (Post 34766739)

I sent this to Neil Berkett today at 15:52:

"Mr Berkett,

In early December 2008 you announced “To date our HD content is limited, we only have a couple of HD channels today and we will be launching four channels over the next three months.�

Please could you clarify whether or not you were in fact referring to 4 non-HD channels being launched in the three month period following this announcement. I assume this is what you were referring to as the three month period has now passed and to date the only HD linear channel available on the Virgin Media platform is BBC HD.

I look forward to your response coming soon.

Kind regards

Aaron Atkinson
Loyal and long standing Virgin Media customer."

At 16:35 I received this:

"No I was referring to HD channels which was absolutely our intention. We are negotiating as we speak and will be launching 6 or seven channels at once shortly

Neil Berkett | Chief Executive Officer
Virgin Media"

I did post this in another thread but it is mangled in with other info and I thought it deserved a thread of it's own for discussion.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35980524)

Seems an extraordinary move to me.

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 35980556)

SD is more popular than HD, yet HD costs a lot more to broadcast. So if you want to cut costs, drop the HD.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35980541)

Careful, you’ll be getting OB excited .... it’s starting to look like HD is becoming the preserve of on-demand streaming ... :D

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 35980556)

SD is more popular than HD, yet HD costs a lot more to broadcast. So if you want to cut costs, drop the HD.

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 35980654)

Is this because a lot of ppl cannot afford HD?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35980655)

I don't think it is as, even in households where a free HD variant is available, people tend to choose channels 1-5 in SD.

I think it's more a question of convenience and that (as has been done recently with BBC2 HD on VM, when/if the various platforms put the HD versions on channels 1-5, they will pick up more viewers.

Originally Posted by alwaysabear (Post 35980670)

Not quiet sure why people watch SD when HD is available, especially on bigger TV's. The difference in quality makes all the difference.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35980684)

It's akin to people in the sixties/seventies watching BBC1 & ITV on the 405 line service when they had a dual standard TV with the superior 625 line services available.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35980684)

I agree, but it's what people tend to do!

I can't fathom why they would pay all that money for an HD set and then watch an inferior quality channel when a better one is available. It's akin to people in the sixties/seventies watching BBC1 & ITV on the 405 line service when they had a dual standard TV with the superior 625 line services available.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 35980702)

Why is bbc1 SD on 101 and HD on 108 for instance?

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 35980702)

They wouldn't watch SD in preference to HD if the HD variant was more prominently placed in the EPG...

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 35980698)

It wasn't that simple. We had a dual standard TV*, but it only had a VHF tuner, and they put the 625 line channels on UHF. Dad wasn't happy at missing all the wildlife programmes on BBC2.

(*) I used to enjoy pushing the "625" button and watching the lines getting smaller. Happy days!

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 35980698)

It wasn't that simple. We had a dual standard TV*, but it only had a VHF tuner, and they put the 625 line channels on UHF. Dad wasn't happy at missing all the wildlife programmes on BBC2.

(*) I used to enjoy pushing the "625" button and watching the lines getting smaller. Happy days!

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35980799)

I asked someone about this and he said that, if your parents had of been on cable, you might have been able to get BBC2!

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35980799)

Also, my own research shows that some dual standard TV's were sold with a VHF tuner only with the idea being that a seperate UHF tuner could be purchased and added later on. You learn something new every day!

https://www.transdiffusion.org/2017/...to-625-line-tv (section 17).

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 35980863)

"HD Ready" was actually a good thing. It was a standard that guaranteed the interworking of equipment at a minimum of 720p.

https://web.archive.org/web/20090210....php?iddoc=242

It was TVs marked with things like "HDTV Ready" that you had to be wary of.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35980892)

I wonder if we'll face similar problems with UHD or 4K sets (apparently, there's a subtle difference between the two)?

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35980900)

The dilemma that faces all early adopters: Get the latest tech that might be lacking some vital feature or even become obsolete so you can willy wave or be patient and wait for the technology to settle on a common standard: VHS vs Betamax.

Originally Posted by BenMcr (Post 35980903)

It's already here. Some early UHD TVs only HDMI 1.4, so don't support higher framerates like 50/60Hz or HDR.

And then there still over variances in what TV supports what feature. It's why the BBC HLG trials for live broadcasts haven't been available on all 4k TVs, even when using the V6 box.

Originally Posted by cheekyangus (Post 35980962)

There are licensing fees that come with new technologies. The companies end up developing competing standards as they want to be the ones receiving the money, whether it is alone or part of a consortium. Blu-ray versus HD-DVD was two competing consortiums.

Just look at all the audio standards, and cable types that do pretty much the same thing.
And HLG is just one of several ways to do HDR.

Originally Posted by Derekb108 (Post 35981007)

How many TV's there out on the market with HLG?