Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

You can drop the BT 11 quid if your deal is on cable, but what about the other potential VM punters, or do virgin take over the phone connection as part of the pack?

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

Let me try to explain to you now...
... i have Virgin Media Broadband, i have TV with Sky and BT Landline, i don't want to go back to Landline with ntl/VM after a load of problems with it.

Don't you need to pay £11 linerental with Virgin Media?

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

No point comparing HD for HD if you don;t have a HDTV :)

---------- Post added at 17:10 ---------- Previous post was at 17:08 ----------

So upgrade then, why pay for it for two years when you don't need it?

---------- Post added at 17:11 ---------- Previous post was at 17:10 ----------

You can so that with Sky+ if you want to record two programs and watch one that's already been recorded :)

---------- Post added at 17:12 ---------- Previous post was at 17:11 ----------

That's not the whisper going around :)

---------- Post added at 17:15 ---------- Previous post was at 17:12 ----------

Then take a look here - Talk unlimited, Max BB, 6 mixes = £36

http://packages.sky.com/compare/

To be fair that's a pretty good link to give you an idea of who is cheapest :)

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

Fine.. So what about Hard drive space? How much does a Sky + with 160 Gig hard drive cost?

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

The standard is 160GB (PVR3) it's £99

80GB is reserved for use by Sky* the other 80GB is for customer use**.

To be fair I find 80GB more than enough and I use mine a huge amount but if you want the 160 AFAIK you'll need to take the HD. How many people really need to store 160 half hour programs?

*for a yet to be released on demand service. :)
**there is a whisper (and that's all it is at the moment) that once the OD service is launched you may be able to claw back that 160GB if you don;t want to use it :)

---------- Post added at 17:25 ---------- Previous post was at 17:23 ----------

Also - I like the way VM say there's no charge for HD content, AFAIK they hardly have any. :erm:

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

I agree, although you hire a V+ box if it goes wrong Virgin will replace free of charge. If a Sky+ box goes wrong outside of warranty then you will have to pay ££Ã ¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚£. Watchdog recently reported lots of problems with Sky+

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

If you choose to compare apples with pears yes.

When you look at Virgin packs they are better than Sky. It's because neither are comparing like to like.

You pick what suits you and go accordingly. The VIP pack can't be matched with Sky in my area? Apples with pears again. Sky's Broadband network only covers 50% of the Country.

Thanks though, i've just had a good chuckle at the 3 for £104 Virgin do, even though VIP is £85.

---------- Post added at 17:45 ---------- Previous post was at 17:44 ----------

That deffinitely would apply if the OP wasn't comparing Sky to Cabled areas.

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

I have to admit, I was comparing specs. Admittedly, that is like saying "My Ferrari does 200MPH, where as your BMW does 160" and ignoring the fact that neither speed is legally achievable unless you have enough private land.

But, the fact remains that with 160 Gig of usable space, you have around 80 hours of storage should you need it. Admittedly, that's more useful for (say) a family of four than it is for one or two people, but it's there.

In fairness though, they don't charge for BBCHD, so they are correct...

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

You ought to try reading the contributions to the thread before reposting something that's already been dismissed as rubbish.

That Sky package comes to a monthly total of £47.00 when the BT line rental of £11.00 is included. However, if you'd like to have the Sky services installed for £36.00, good luck with using the Talk Unlimited & Max BB features without a telephone line. :erm:

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

Apples with apples but you just don't have the tree in your back yard. :confused:

---------- Post added at 20:58 ---------- Previous post was at 20:51 ----------

Drop the attitude, there's no need for it here.:)

You said:

.....and I pointed to it. That's a SKY package for £36.00, is it not?

And how much is the equivalent with VM?

10 Mbit BB
Unlimited Phone
XL TV pack?

I can't actually see a package to match it on the Virgin site. Sky say it's £80.50 a month - is there a package that included the top TV, phone and BB?

AFAIK it's the VIP package that includes other things too for £85

---------- Post added at 21:00 ---------- Previous post was at 20:58 ----------

:tu: again it's like the HD box, no point paying for the extra if you'll never use it. Other than to say "I've got the latest/biggest/best" and if that's what someone into then price really isn't an issue.

True :)



I think they'd have a cheek charging for only one HD channel. :disturbd:

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

Downloads, yes Sky covers only 50% of the country, soon to be 70% of the country by July. Virgin Media cover only about or just under 50% of the country also, am i correct or incorrect?

Blackie, quit posting about the £11 linerental which goes to BT and not Sky, as i said before if you already have a BT line there is no need to pay the extra £11.

Virgin Media are doing good, their broadband is very good, but the TV packages need to be a bit more competitive and the broadband speeds need to be upgraded a little, other companies are moving forward such as Bulldog, UK Online, Be & Sky. I don't want Virgin Media to be left at the bottom, they need to act fast if they want to move ahead of Sky.

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

but VM do not cover 100% of the country either so surely thats a non issue?

currently i have broadband and 2 phone lines which totals probably 65-70 a month including calls, now discount the 1 phone line which i dont use now and call it 50-55 quid a month for arguements sake. tv comes via sky with all the packages, so if i was go to to sky broadband and BT for telephone, then its 10 for the broadband and 11 for line rental and 5 for unlimted evening and weekend calls 26 quid which is just over half of what im paying ntl

how much is it for all the channels on sky and how much is it for them on VM ?

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

Yes you are correct with your percentages, they are not disputed.

However, i think you should quit with the linerental. What Blackie and I are saying is that just because you already have line rental, doesn't mean you don't calculate it into the comparisons. End of. Just because you already have it doesn't mean you can look at a Sky package in isolation from it when comparing to Virgin packages. Thats all thats being said.

---------- Post added at 12:17 ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 ----------

Not a non issue. For the 50% of the Country without cable of course Sky is the best option. I'm not going to sit here and lie. For the 50% that do, Sky doesn't have all the best packages. They are competetive in areas where they have their own equipment in the exchanges, but less so where they rely on reselling.

Both Sky and NTLs packages can't be completely compared as they differ slightly. Like Shaun said the top packages come out at £80.50, in reality that customer would then take the VIP pack and get more included for almost the same price and suddenly making it more competetive.

Thats why i say apples with pears.

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

No, you can have the 2 for £20 broadband and TV package without phone line rental, i.e. you get the TV for only £2 per month.

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

TBH i dont think anyone is going to agree on this one, for some people depending on how many people they live with, what they like to watch, etc sky could well be cheaper, but then someone in a different situation wanting different things VM will be cheaper.

i dont think you can really compare packages as neither offer exactly the same packages, theres enough info on here and other sites that you can make your own mind up which is best for you rather than arguing that sky or VM is best/cheapest?