Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I agree that each person's needs will determine how they rate the TiVo box's features. For example the issue of sports events running over is not a problem in our house as I am either at said event or will watch it Live (the Euro 2012 tournament being an exception as I recorded all of it as matches overlapped with the kid's bedtime routine).

However even though the box does not have a Dynamic EPG the pro active nature of the box means that it can automatically handle the more common problems faced by the average viewer. For example last year my wife set up a series link for Downton Abbey and it recorded the whole series on the Sunday. This year I had set 3 series links up that clashed with Downton Abbey. When the new series started not only did the box pick this up automatically it also chose to record the Staturday repeat and this week it will start recording on the Sunday again.

I have had at least 8 series links this year that have automatically been re-scheduled, loads more that have automatically re-started and one series we picked up as we have a wishlist for Kevin Mcloud. In our house this is more what we are after. For now this may mean that I miss the end of 1 live event each year (although if I really cared about it I'd watch it live) but this is vastly out weighed by the programmes that I won't miss :-)

ON TOPIC
As for the channels I think we have a really good selection and I feel I am only missing Game of Thrones from a content perspective. However it does sometimes seem as though VM have trouble agreeing deals, Premier Sports springs to mind. It may not always be their fault but the perception is that they seem to have trouble dealing with content providers.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

If you're in debt, if it costs you money to acquire new channels, and if what you already offer is growing your business, giving you your first ever profit and keeping your shareholders happy, then I can't see why you'd ever feel the need to spend more money on new channels.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Yep that it in a nut shell

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Quite correct. So if you require more channels above all else -walk.:erm:

If they could produce a "wireless" dish it would be another push towards Sky for me:cool:

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

After reading this thread I feel educated I've now been brought in line with the 'Real World'. :p:

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

What eloquent words from the one and only.:D;)

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

If ESPN pulls out of the UK in the summer Virgin will suddenly find themselves with a budget to play with. BT Sport into the XL package seems to be a no go, based on press releases from BT stating their future intentions for the channel. I’d like to see Virgin re-invest the money into securing as many HD channels as possible for the XL package. More HD channels without pushing up the subscription price would be nice. People wanting to access BT Sport can pay the £10.00 or so subscription each month, just like I do currently for Boxnation.

I've set up a poll to see what people would like Virgin to do if ESPN pulls out.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/11...o-if-espn.html

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

ESPN is free on xl because Virgin came under intense pressure to continue to offer free Premier League football on it's top tier when Setanta collapsed. If there is any money freed up by the future withdrawal from the UK by ESPN then it should be used as much as possible to lessen the impact on customers who value not having to pay extra for top quality sport. Virgin already have free hd as a usp, they risk losing another one and should be concentrating on keeping it, rather than shoring something up which doesn't need it. IMO.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

That's a bit of a myth though as you need to pay VM £7 a month if you want Sky movies and sports in HD

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

only because sky force it so not VM's doing

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

That is an option for those with Sports & Movies. For everyone else HD is free.its not a myth at all.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

But HD isn't really free, is it. For example if you subscribe to M+ you get channels Sky 1 and E4 but in order to get the HD versions you need to upgrade to XL. So just like Sky, you pay extra to get HD channels.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I do agree with most members, and especially with Dlc. But l think the directors of VM should have a good look at themselves over this, they were offered Atlantic several months ago but said it was too expensive.

This channel should have been in with the negotiation team, but there again the directors are so thick to understand there are channels out there to get but don't bother. Why on earth did they go after +1 channels is beyond me as we now have a 'recording' button on the boxes.

Even IF VM put the prices up say £1.00 per month on the XL, they could still cover the extra channels, Many members won't pay the extra fee, but there again you cannot have 'your cake and eat it'.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

How do you know that £1 per xl subscriber will pay for Atlantic?

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

He doesn't - as in most things, he's making it up as he goes along....:D

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

This is a point that is right on both sides of the coin but to me the package you have is a choice and there are varying numbers of HD channels that come "free" with that fee for that package.

They are free in one way but not in another. Doubt this one will ever be resolved as the full HD lineup will not be in all packages.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Hi Andy and Hugh, How amny customers does VM have, must be thousands, if each customer paid an increase of say £1.00 per month on top of there existing payment - l am not saying it would pay for Atlantic.

When Sky offered VM the channel, it was at a 'reasonable' offer, VM turned it down.

What l am saying is that surely if VM went for Atlantic with other channels, then l would not grumble. Remember what l have said before Sky is a business and not a charity.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I would NOT want to pay an extra penny for Atlantic or any other channel that is not part of my package ( XL). Of channels that are on satellite at the moment I want NONE of them. How ever I do find +1 great. I think its next Tuesday I have had to use it due to a wanting to try so many shows at around 9pm ! The BBC I player is so untrustworthy in my area that I would go for +1 & not use it unless there is no other way - then it would be via the Wii or Freeview both mean moving bits about.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I do not wish an increase to pay for more channels when I cannot watch all the ones I have now!

I seem to remember (but correct me if wrong), that when Atlantic started it was billed as carrying the best programs from the other side of the Atlantic (hence the name)

Last time I looked, there were several UK programs showing!

Also, if Virgin ever did carry it, I am sure Sky would just create a new channel, move the best programs over, and make it another sky exclusive,

Agree with itshim - +1 channels may not be to everyones taste, but they do prove useful at times

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

What does parapraph 2 say?

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

You don't know that either.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Sky Pedantic HD.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Whens that channel going to arrive James.;)

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Sky's definition of "reasonable" of course; I have it on good authority that Sky was looking to recover its considerable costs in acquiring the HBO content and the initial price was far higher than what most would consider "reasonable".
I don't know what price has recently been discussed between the two companies. For VM to return to the table, it must be lower than was first demanded by Sky.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

A pedant writes...

...I think its fair enough to challenge assertions based on little or no evidence, and by doing so you give somebody the chance to produce such evidence - it might, after all, be me thats in the wrong here, Arthur may well have a sound basis for his assertion that Sky offered Atlantic at a fair price.

Arthur, my opinion is that you have been poorly treated by Virgin. 6 engineer visits to set up their flagship TV product is really poor. I think as a result you have really valid points to make about the way in which some customers are treated by Virgin. I also think that you post a lot of unqualified statements which aren't true and as a result the important points that you do make are often written off as rantings. Which is a shame.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

What andy_m said....

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Nonsense, I know for a fact the offer was in no way reasonable.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

It doesn't sound to me like it was a 'reasonable' offer, Arthur. In any case, the value of something is the price people are prepared to pay for it. Sky are crazy to charge a price that no operator is prepared to pay and then carry the channel at a huge loss. But then, Sky's pockets are deep....

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Directors so thick??

You mean the directors who took a company from the brink of bankrupcy and turned it into a business that can compete head on with Sky and BT, two companies who have a national footprint and god knows how many billions to throw at any challenge that they are faced with.

Give them some respect man - its a cut throat world out there, its in the press how much Sky are struggling to attract new TV customers and thats with lots of HD, 3D, Sky Atlantic, Formula 1 etc etc.

http://advanced-television.com/2012/...nbeat-quarter/

The cost for Atlantic will be a a set fee per customer as are the majority of deals so if that is £1 thats 4 million per month or £48 million per year to VM - would they really get that amount of new custom to cover that amount??

But hey Ho Aurthur you clearly know best about whats the right way to run a business

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I agree with you on Sky Atlantic. There are shows on there that are exclusive to the channel and it would be good to have these available on the TIVO. But you probably know my views on that by now.

However, I would like to challenge the general notion that comes up time and time again, that VM have 'a poor choice of channels'. They don't actually, we have the best of what is going, with just a few notable exceptions.

I was looking at the recordings I have made and I am absolutely spoiled for choice. If I just take the dramas and nothing else, I have the following to choose from at the moment:

Accused (4 episodes); The Best of Men; The Bletchley Circle; Burn Notice (8); Clinton (4); The Closer (20); Continuum (6); Dallas (7); DCI Banks (4); Downton Abbey; Flashpoint (14); Fringe; Game of Thrones (2); A Gifted Man (12); The Glades (8); Good Cop (4); Hatfields & McCoys; Homefront (6); Homeland (4);Hunted; The Killing (13); King (7); Last Resort; The Last Weekend (3); Leaving (3); Life on Mars USA (15); Line of Duty (5); Luther (3); Mandela (5); The Mentalist; Monroe (5); Mrs Biggs; Murder: Joint Enterprise; The Paradise (2); Perception (4); Person of Interest (9); Prime Suspect (14); Prisoners of War(10); The Reckoning (2); Revenge (12); The River (4); Room at the Top (2); Ruth Rendall's Thirteen Steps Down (2); Scandal (2); The Scapegoat; The Sculptress (2); Strike Back - Vengence (9); Unforgettable (4); Vera (3); White Collar (3).

These are all dramas that my wife and I (some of them my wife only!) really want to watch, so to us, this is quality viewing.

That is not to mention some films like Warhorse that I have recorded, documentaries, science programmes, general entertainment, etc, etc.

When you consider all the On Demand content, now with Sky Anytime added, there is a bewildering amount of stuff available to watch. This really doesn't sit well with the argument that we have a poor choice of channels. We may have fewer channels than Sky, but we have more viewable content available plus loads of music.

When people talk about the channels they don't have, channels like CBS Drama are quoted, and though it would be an OK channel to have, the bulk of its programming consists of things that have been on other channels in the past and no doubt will be again. Examples include CSI, Judge Judy (!); Judging Amy; JAG; Boston Legal; Cheers; and Dallas.

So if instead of being channels obsessed and we concentrate on content, which after all is important, you will see that VM is really quite well positioned to be able to brag about its jolly good TV service.

The deficiency is really quite small and it has resulted in my not being able to watch just two programmes that I really wanted to see - Boardwalk Empire and Mad Men. And that is down to Sky rather than Virgin Media, with their continuing campaign against people who subscribe to Sky but not via their satellite service. What a way for an organisation to treat its subscribers!

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

only missing sky channels I want is the sports HD channels as for SA I say again it much overhyped channel ever only thing worth having of there is game of thrones not all the other crap it show as proved by viewing figures less than 10% of sky customers watch it

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Yes l agree Dave but rest assured there will always be those wonderful defenders of the faith who believe in better.:)

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Well, I have some sympathy with that, but I wouldn't judge the quality of the channel by the number of people watching it. Sadly, the majority of the public sit watching lifestyle and low quality programming for a worrying amount of time, which I find alarming.

Game of Thrones, now being shown on Sky 1, is very good quality, as is Mad Men. I am not in a position to judge the other shows on Atlantic because I haven't seen them but there are one or two others I would have recorded had I been able to access the channel.

It also has its fair share of programmes I would never watch, but then again, so has Sky 1 and most of the other digital channels.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I think I pretty much agreed with you on that in my last two paragraphs. Also, I posted on another thread, that to move to Sky with the exact same package that I have with VM, would cost an extra £18 p/m.

HD is an issue for many people though, especially sports fans, and I understand why. I would love more HD, but because VM have made massive strides in HD channels, the few SD shows that I watch are not a big issue.

But Sky do excel in channels; there can be no disputing that, but the significance of that will vary for each individual VM customer.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I agree, passingbat. VM could do more with HD channels, but many of the channels Sky has that we don't are not worth a light.

Sky could offer 2,000 channels, but if none of them contain content worth watching, what's the point?

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I consider many of the HD channels Sky provide that VM don't worth while , channels like Sky Sports 3,4 HD , Sky Atlantic HD , Nat Geo Wild HD , ESPNA HD , Universal HD , ITV 4 HD , MGM HD , TCM HD , Eurosport 2 HD etc. You may very well be happy watching those channels in SD and thats the individuals choice however some of us aren't as ever it's down to the individuals specific requirements.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I did say that VM could do with more HD channels in that post, muppetman. I agree with you there.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Hugh - A moderator by definition is someone who presides over a conversation not one who offers opinion.

A forum however is a medium that offers open discussion so why is my opinion shot down just because you don't agree with it?

Mod's in my opinion should not offer comment but ensure that threads are neither offensive, libelous etc.

No doubt this will be deleted but as a member of a number of forums this one is by far the most regulated by mods who seem to be more interested in there own opinions and making sure that everyone complies with them.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Its also a forum that depends on Virgin Media existing, an exodus via lack of channels and/or price rise means Google Ads send them less money every month.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Erm, if if it is in bold, it is a moderating comment, if not, it isn't - or are you stating that Mods shouldn't be entitled to have, or air, opinions.

You may find this helpful - Moderation My comment was in line with what I would do if I was unhappy with the service I was receiving from a provider (be it Gas, Electricity, Broadband, TV, or whatever) - whilst I understand that some don't have the option to move, quite a lot do, but seem to just stay, receive what they regard as inappropriate/bad services, and moan a lot.

btw, every one is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts, and your comments on the moderating in this forum is an opinion, not a fact (evidenced by the fact that your comment is still visible, even when you stated your incorrect assumption).

btw2, thank you for commenting on a post from the 13th October and 9 pages ago.......:D

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Thanks Hugh for highlighting how long it's taken to reply to your original post, I have no idea of why you've highlighted it or added a smiley face. I personally found it patronising of someone of position on a forum but I'm sure you had your reasons.

You also imply I moan a lot about the services and service VM supply but again I'm not sure why this is this something that's wrong. Am I to assume that you only want people on this forum that have positive things to say about VM?

I also have no problem at all in any member of a forum taking issue with anything I say as that's the point of a forum, however my belief is that a moderator should moderate a conversation not influence it, whether its in bold or not?

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

So you do believe that forum moderators should not be allowed to post their own opinions and therefore be entirely silent and invisible except for when "doing their duty"?

Well I have to say that I don't in any way agree with you and that is the first time I have ever read of such an opinion in my ten years or so of posting to forums.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I would be inclined to agree but I have, on the odd occasion, seen discussions about the role of a moderator. Problem is that most moderators tend to be users who are interested in the forum topic and quite often have opinions on a lot of the subjects discussed in the forums they moderate.

Quite often these opinions are well informed and useful, sometimes they are emotive but I would rather have a moderator who was interested than some faceless "employee" who was not involved in the community and was just reading from a crib sheet when deciding how to moderate.

I would argue that short of preventing moderators from posting, due to human nature, it is impossible to have an interested moderator who doesn't feel the need to air their thoughts once in a while.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Stop picking on the mods. They do a sterling job.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Which, on this forum, aren't actually allowed :)

Which is why, on this forum at least, any comment by a Moderator that is not in bolded lettering is a personal comment on the topic and not a Moderator comment, which would not be on the subject of the thread but regarding the rules of the forum.

Of course, when they start putting both personal (non-bold) comments in the same post as bolded Moderator comments is where the problems start. (As I found out from personal experience!)

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Indeed. This is the same company that made a big thing of negotiating for the Sky Basics channels in good faith, then when VM lost them, Sky immediately mounted a huge advertising campaign (large enough that it would have taken weeks to organise, and they launched it in a matter of days) telling World + Dog that Sky 1 was the only channel where you could watch 24, Lost and a whole load of other American TV shows.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Correct. Notice how Sky basically lied in their advertising; saying that VM had "dropped" the channels!

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I think Hugh was trying to lighten the mood a little..
No, you are not correct. We encourage people to post regardless of their views on VM and what it should/shouldn't provide. In the case of pretty much every forum except those in the "Basement" (which is for general forums), we exist to try and help posters with their problems.

With that in mind, it is perhaps not surprising that a lot of members do register to complain about something, but we do still try and help.

Hugh's point is valid. If all else fails, there is nothing preventing you going to Sky if you are unhappy with the service provided by Virgin.

The thing is, we don't get paid for all the time we spend on the forum. We do it because we enjoy it. Part of that enjoyment is actively participating in threads. We do, as a rule, try and seperate moderating a thread and participating in it. This is why we had the idea of placing moderator comments in bold.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Thanks for making this point Carl. I must say it did strike me as a wrong view, if indeed that is what the view was....