Re: 52,000
 

Well exactly mersey70 for 12 months i don't think virgin have done bad and the 38% we have may just tell virgin for more hd channels but even on sky if you had the packages you still have to pay £10 a month for hd and the figures are good for us i do think

Re: 52,000
 

I saw an advert while playing Fight Night Round 4 online :LOL:

Re: 52,000
 

Heh, more Virgin customers signed up for Sky Premium HD content than BT Vision customers signed up for Sky Sports!

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/bt-...da79363e3.html

Re: 52,000
 

10% of their install base though. That's no too bad going considering it's a **** service.

Re: 52,000
 

Research by Neilsen shows BT spent £6.3m on its Sky Sports campaign in the three months to the end of September, compared to BSkyB's £13.7m and Virgin Media's £700,000.

With contracts starting at just £6.99 a month, BT signed up around 50,000.

Sky refused to comment on the number of Sky Sports customers they added (or lost).

Virgin Media added over 100,000 Sky Sports and/or Sky Movies subscribers.

Re: 52,000
 

I had BTV before joining VM and thought it was excellent. The box was great, much nicer UI and far faster than the V+, the on demand content was refreshed more frequently too. Unfortunately it was too expensive when you factored in the phone and BT broadband connection which for me was excellent too. I personally think BTV has the edge on VM with their on demand content, however when you then also consider all the many more linear channels on cable then VM (XL anyway) offers better value overall, in my opinion.

I wouldn't hesitate to recommend both services.