Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 35559020)

Tribeca Film Festival® experience arrives in UK through Tribeca Film on demand.



http://mediacentre.virginmedia.com/S...mand-2464.aspx

Originally Posted by bamav (Post 35558958)

Wow - Surely we all want to move to Sky NOW!!

Not.

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 35558917)

BT Sports and Sky Sports on Virgin Media update.

Info thanks to Daily Mail online:



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/art...#ixzz2Py6NGymB

Originally Posted by howardmicks (Post 35559110)

Defo not me rung retentions to compain about some services i currently have that i aint happy with ie tivo to tivo mrs ,ipad streaming channels and the fact the the ipad app hasnt worked since friday morning and still aint.Got a 6 months half price deal on what i currently have and when its goes back up its £3 cheaper Thank U VM:D
Sky can stick there half price deal were the sun dont shine lol

---------- Post added at 18:33 ---------- Previous post was at 18:30 ----------



*******s happently sky are at war with bt anyway,Refusing to advertise there new sports channels.But expect bt to advertise there`s,Its about time something was done about sky they think they are the gods of tv and can do what they like

Originally Posted by colin25 (Post 35559174)

it does amuse me to see some of the rabid reactions :)

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35559180)

And it amuses me that even with Sky's bad behaviour which once again come to the fore this week is that the same old trusty stalwarts refuse to criticise this type of behaviour by them as it once again shows what type of bully they are and if someone stands up to them they resort to the usual thing and that is to throw the dummy out of the pram.:bigcry::bigcry::bigcry:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35559180)

And it amuses me that even with Sky's bad behaviour which once again come to the fore this week is that the same old trusty stalwarts refuse to criticise this type of behaviour by them as it once again shows what type of bully they are and if someone stands up to them they resort to the usual thing and that is to throw the dummy out of the pram.:bigcry::bigcry::bigcry:

Originally Posted by colin25 (Post 35559195)

At present, I'm watching "the following" - Mad Men - Game of Thrones - Vegas. Of those, first three are must see :)

Originally Posted by colin25 (Post 35559195)

But back to thread, for me to choose virgin, I'd want to see sky atlantic coming very soon. At present, I'm watching "the following" - Mad Men - Game of Thrones - Vegas. Of those, first three are must see :)

Originally Posted by howardmicks (Post 35559205)

Agree bud,let's hope there antics this time backfires and make bt and vm come to a understanding to obtain theses channels on a deal that sky fear :)

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35559207)

There is no question that the lack of Atlantic is a big weak spot for VM (well, for discerning viewers that is, such as ourselves ;):D).

Fortunately, for me, it is the only weak spot, and VM's other advantages more than compensate for it.

I do hope that Sky add Atlantic to Now TV soon, and at a price that I think is reasonable; I'm missing too many good shows.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35559210)

I've got the Fox Channel.Why would I want Atlantic?

:)

Originally Posted by colin25 (Post 35559217)

I watch Fox too. (NCIS reruns is keeping me busy)

Channels I watch (or record and watch) are (with a mention of programmes)

Fox (NCIS, Dexter), Atlantic (GoT, mad men, Vegas), sky living (Elementary, Chicago fire, crim Minds), channel 5 (CSI, mentalist, Person of Interest), BBC four (Arne dahl, parks and recreation), 5USA (Sons of ararchy) E4 (big bang Theory), watch (being human, Grimm), More4 (Boss), Sky 1 (futurama, middle, mod family, revolution), Dave (suits), Sky arts (Corleone), History (men who built america), Sky arts (playhouse)

But atlantic shows are my favourites...that said..I am thinking tv has controlled my life :D, I still need to fit football in

Originally Posted by harry_hitch (Post 35559254)

So it looks like VM are only missing three/four shows? Wow!!! Surely you watch more on the all-singing, all-dancing Sky Atlantic than 3/4 shows (excluding repeats)? This is why I am glad VM do not (allegedly) wish to pay over the top for this rubbish (IMO). Although, people should be given the option to pay a subscription fee for it.

Originally Posted by harry_hitch (Post 35559254)

PB, It will be interesting to know when/if S.A is coming to Now T.V. but, for me, more interestingly will be the price. I think it will be expensive, possibly £3-£4 per episode (£60-£80ish per season). I simply do not see them giving it away cheaply or reasonably. If it's reasonable for Now T.V., why not for anyone else?

Originally Posted by Aguero9320 (Post 35559243)

Hi, anything interesting?
I was speaking to a Virgin technician yesterday in my local chippy. He said we are due to launch relatively basic (in other words, dross we will never watch:o:), but he also said we are due to launch the remainder of the basic Sky SD and HD channels, and we are due to launch Food Network and Travel Channel soon, too!! HIP HIP HOORAY:D:D:D!!!

Originally Posted by harry_hitch (Post 35559254)

So it looks like VM are only missing three/four shows? Wow!!! Surely you watch more on the all-singing, all-dancing Sky Atlantic than 3/4 shows (excluding repeats)? This is why I am glad VM do not (allegedly) wish to pay over the top for this rubbish (IMO). Although, people should be given the option to pay a subscription fee for it.

PB, It will be interesting to know when/if S.A is coming to Now T.V. but, for me, more interestingly will be the price. I think it will be expensive, possibly £3-£4 per episode (£60-£80ish per season). I simply do not see them giving it away cheaply or reasonably. If it's reasonable for Now T.V., why not for anyone else?

Originally Posted by coulsontom (Post 35559329)

Not sure I get the negativity towards Sky.

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35559335)

It's this: they won't let us have Sky Atlantic. They do this in a sneaky way by pretending they want to give access but pricing it so high that no other provider has got it.

They refuse to let sports fans has SS3 & 4, and F1 in HD.

Originally Posted by coulsontom (Post 35559344)

If they got those, it'd be more expensive.

At the moment, we have: VIP package at £113 100mb bb XL TV Phone, Sports&Movies + ESPN, multiroom and TiVo.

With Sky, we can get Sky World, BB, Phone for £108.

Plus with Sky you get all sports in HD, F1 plus atlantic. But not ESPN but that's going anyway and BT won't put it on virgin for free.

If the sky channels get added to virgin, I don't see how they cant make it more expensive than sky.

The only benefit to Virgin over sky is the 3 tuners, the fact that the multiroom box is also a v+hd box (recordable, 3 tuners but not really used), and that it doesn't go off in heavy rain.

Originally Posted by harry_hitch (Post 35559254)

PB, It will be interesting to know when/if S.A is coming to Now T.V. but, for me, more interestingly will be the price. I think it will be expensive, possibly £3-£4 per episode (£60-£80ish per season). I simply do not see them giving it away cheaply or reasonably. If it's reasonable for Now T.V., why not for anyone else?

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35559355)

Which is better between Sky and VM purely depends on an individual's requirements. So there is no best.

I was just answering your question on the negativity people feel towards Sky.

And there is one other that I didn't list. Because Sky have so much money, they can buy whatever TV show they want. So on several occasions, they have come along and 'pinched' successful US dramas that terrestrial channels have taken a chance on for the first couple of seasons and deprived a big chunk of the British TV audience of seeing the following seasons. That is abuse of monetary power in my view.

---------- Post added at 12:16 ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 ----------



It's a guess, but I think it could be too expensive. The main thing we don't know, is how they will package it.

Will they offer a full entertainment package including SA, which would make it unattractive for VM users as we already have most of the channels.

Will SA as a whole channel be a separate option, and what is a fair price for that?

Or will it be just individual show seasons or individual episodes that are available.

Only time will tell...

Originally Posted by borrissey (Post 35559363)

I'd pay an extra £1 or 2 on top of HD charge if they got sky sports 3&4 HD and sky news HD.

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35559355)

Sky have so much money, they can buy whatever TV show they want. So on several occasions, they have come along and 'pinched' successful US dramas that terrestrial channels have taken a chance on for the first couple of seasons and deprived a big chunk of the British TV audience of seeing the following seasons. That is abuse of monetary power in my view.

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35559378)

Is that really SKY's fault?

You’d have thought the people running the various terrestrial TV channels would have learned their lesson by now. Why they let their broadcast deals expire, for their most popular imported shows, seems crazy to me. Terrestrial channels can easily stave off SKY by agreeing longer broadcast deals for shows at the outset or proposing an extended deal way in advance of their current deal expiring. They could at the very least ask for a first refusal clause to be added to their initial deal. If they take ownership of the problem they needn’t worry about SKY.

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35559378)

Is that really SKY's fault?

You’d have thought the people running the various terrestrial TV channels would have learned their lesson by now. Why they let their broadcast deals expire, for their most popular imported shows, seems crazy to me. Terrestrial channels can easily stave off SKY by agreeing longer broadcast deals for shows at the outset or proposing an extended deal way in advance of their current deal expiring. They could at the very least ask for a first refusal clause to be added to their initial deal. If they take ownership of the problem they needn’t worry about SKY.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35559365)

+Sky Atlantic as well.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35559380)

Yes, of course it is Sky's fault - they don't have to behave like this.

And it is not easy for the terrestrial channels, who do not have Sky's deep pockets. You just can't compete against that and Sky are taking every advantage they can from the situation, ignoring the needs of the general public. I think they are behaving unacceptably.

Originally Posted by coulsontom (Post 35559358)

That is annoying. I don't watch much American TV myself, but they took Mad Men which we watch.

I'm counting down the days until Homeland is nicked onto Atlantic.

Fortunately we have the basic sky subscription at holiday home so can series link anything on atlantic and watch it when we go.

Originally Posted by coulsontom (Post 35559391)

If BBC didn't waste millions on Alan Hansen and Gary Lineker, they'd have more money to spend holding onto TV rights

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35559384)

As usual its the same old loyal subjects who come to Sky's defence.:D;)

Originally Posted by Wicked_and_Crazy (Post 35559393)

Millions??? Source of info?

Originally Posted by Wicked_and_Crazy (Post 35559393)

Therefore you could watch it on sky go

---------- Post added at 13:15 ---------- Previous post was at 13:14 ----------



Millions??? Source of info?

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35559396)

I made this very same point previously on the forum, as a Virgin customer, when SKY snapped up Mad Men and Glee.

I'm amazed how often terrestrial TV drop the ball in terms of TV rights, knowing that SKY are always lingering to pick up the fumble.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35559384)

As usual its the same old loyal subjects who come to Sky's defence.:D;)

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35559396)

I made this very same point previously on the forum, as a Virgin customer, when SKY snapped up Mad Men and Glee.

I'm amazed how often terrestrial TV drop the ball in terms of TV rights, knowing that SKY are always lingering to pick up the fumble.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35559402)

But you are forgetting that one Sky has a bottomless pit of money

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35559402)

and two the rights holders of these series know that in order to make these shows popular they have to go on Terrestial TV first

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35559442)

Really !!!! I'm sure many first run US series are on channels like Alibi , Watch , Fox , Comedy Central all of which are behind a paywall so to me it seems the money is more the deciding factor for the studios.

Originally Posted by Jameseh (Post 35559449)

He does have a point though, 24, Lost and House (Glee?) all started on terrestrial and ended up with larger audiences than fellow Sky1 shows. Though I think Channel 5 must have started doing better deals because I fail to see why The Mentalist hasn't been snatched up by Sky or Universal.

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35559400)

it all comes down to money Chad mate and terrestrial channels cant compete with sky it that simple and sky know they will always outbid them so it not them dropping the ball it the money

---------- Post added at 13:29 ---------- Previous post was at 13:24 ----------



are you surprised Den sky will never ever do anything wrong in there eyes

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35559459)

That is a bit of a sweeping dismissive statement.

Does that mean my views may be dismissed by some on here purely because of who I get my TV service from? If I post anything negative about Virgin it’ll be put down to having SKY. If I post anything positive about SKY it’ll be because I’m a fanboy. If I don’t agree with others views on SKY I’m seen to be leaping to their defence.

What is the point of trying to engage in debate, or offer an alternative point of view, if people judge you on your profile information ahead of your post?

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35559459)

What is the point of trying to engage in debate, or offer an alternative point of view, if people judge you on your profile information ahead of your post?

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35559459)

That is a bit of a sweeping dismissive statement.

Does that mean my views may be dismissed by some on here purely because of who I get my TV service from? If I post anything negative about Virgin it’ll be put down to having SKY. If I post anything positive about SKY it’ll be because I’m a fanboy. If I don’t agree with others views on SKY I’m seen to be leaping to their defence.

What is the point of trying to engage in debate, or offer an alternative point of view, if people judge you on your profile information ahead of your post?

Originally Posted by colin25 (Post 35559465)

lol..that is because you are arguing with virgin fanboys...they would never allow bad words about virgin..and think sky are trying to steal theirs :)

Originally Posted by colin25 (Post 35559465)

lol..that is because you are arguing with virgin fanboys...they would never allow bad words about virgin..

Originally Posted by johnasimmons (Post 35559470)

I thought this was the Coming Soon to Virgin TV thread, not 'lets slag off VM/Sky'...

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35559459)

That is a bit of a sweeping dismissive statement.

Does that mean my views may be dismissed by some on here purely because of who I get my TV service from? If I post anything negative about Virgin it’ll be put down to having SKY. If I post anything positive about SKY it’ll be because I’m a fanboy. If I don’t agree with others views on SKY I’m seen to be leaping to their defence.

What is the point of trying to engage in debate, or offer an alternative point of view, if people judge you on your profile information ahead of your post?

Originally Posted by ocav (Post 35559280)

I doubt that, considering.BlinkBox rent them at £1.99 per episode.

Plus Now TV is a subscription service, not a rental service, so you'll probably pay £5-£10 a month to watch Atlantic, Sky1, Sky Living, and Sky Arts, which is bad considering for an extra fiver you can get a Sky Go Pass and watch UKTV channels, National Geographic, History, the Channel 4 channels and some kids channels with On Demand

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35559509)

im just saying it not the terrestrial channels dropping the ball it because they not got the money to compete against sky so sky will always win on content they want it not because your with sky you got right to chose whatever platform you want like everyone else mate was only saying sky will win because of the money that's all and I have criticized VM before and will do again when the need arises

Originally Posted by colin25 (Post 35559294)

My point was that I watch other channels, but atlantic has the ones I want the most.

But immaterial..Virgin fan boys will only ever want Virgin..sky fans want sky.

I want the provider who gives me want I want, at the price I want..Sky at the moment ticks that box (as i have had virgin broadband, and it isn't worth the money). But up to each to choose

Originally Posted by howardmicks (Post 35559542)

Can't see why tv can not be run like gas company's they all get from same source and customers choose who provides them,fairer and everybody would be a winner.this channel or series exclusive to 1 provider is very unfair and is constantly abused

Originally Posted by harry_hitch (Post 35559537)

Fair enough, my point was if SA is so good why are there only 3/4 shows you recommend, when many other channels offer a similar amount of shows and are readily available on most providers? (not just VM:rolleyes:)

How was I being a "fan boy?" I was simply pointing out I am glad VM are not putting my prices up for this channel alone. Am happy to pay extra for all the recent arrivals that others may watch more than me, but if I had to pay £1, £2 or £3 extra just for Atlantic, I would not be happy. I did also say I agree that people should be to pay a subscription for Atlantic, if they want it, something VM have failed to offer it's customers. So I refer you back to my original question - How was I being a "fan boy?":confused::confused:

I sense from a few of your posts you are trying to be a bit of a wind up merchant.

You are correct abut the provider though. VM offer the better option for me.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35559471)

Yes indeed and one wonders when MB will give us some more good news as to when some of these HD channels will arrive.

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35559473)

Have a [few] bad words on me :D

The selection of channels on MRS stinks![COLOR="Silver"]

Originally Posted by Aguero9320 (Post 35559611)

One question. WHAT THE HECK IS MRS!!!!!!!!!!!!!:(

Originally Posted by harry_hitch (Post 35559537)

Fair enough, my point was if SA is so good why are there only 3/4 shows you recommend, when many other channels offer a similar amount of shows and are readily available on most providers? (not just VM:rolleyes:)

How was I being a "fan boy?" I was simply pointing out I am glad VM are not putting my prices up for this channel alone. Am happy to pay extra for all the recent arrivals that others may watch more than me, but if I had to pay £1, £2 or £3 extra just for Atlantic, I would not be happy. I did also say I agree that people should be to pay a subscription for Atlantic, if they want it, something VM have failed to offer it's customers. So I refer you back to my original question - How was I being a "fan boy?":confused::confused:

I sense from a few of your posts you are trying to be a bit of a wind up merchant.

You are correct abut the provider though. VM offer the better option for me.

Originally Posted by vincerooney (Post 35559689)

Here's a question for you all and i may be really stupid asking it:

Why are people with sky television coming onto a website entitled "cableform" and making bitter and nonsencial posts about sky tv being better? I've come onto this thread to see what's coming new and just see nasty and childish attacks by people with sky television???

Do we really have nothing better to do but go on the "rivals" forum and post how my tv is better than yours? It's really childish. I don't go onto digitalspy forums as it's open to such attacks but this is THE CABLE FORUM forum and i know people are free to do whatever they want on the internet but really, really do sky customers not have anything better to do in their lives than post long attacks to VM customers? It's laughable it really is.

In terms of coming soon i see nothing of note due to laughable sky tv customers rant....

Maybe sky tv customers you could go on the sky forum or if you want to stay on this forum as you're bored or made friends on here perhaps we can talk about CABLE TV rather than this back and forth bore.

i have cable tv. i will not change to sky. i do not want sky. whatever you say and shout at me as you frantically bash on your keyboard will not make me change.

Do we have any idea on those Sky basic HD channels or no further info?

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35559471)

Yes indeed and one wonders when MB will give us some more good news as to when some of these HD channels will arrive.

Originally Posted by ocav (Post 35559641)

I've just seen on the VM Facebook many posts regarding Premier Sports, now surely this rings alarm bells in 'content acquisitions' head saying "we are more likely to get Premier Sports over Sky Atlantic so lets stop playing hardball with them and understand the wants of our customers"

Some of the posters on here would do a better job of running the 'content acquisitions' department *facepalm*

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 35559703)

When I can I will.

No updates from insiders on new channels set to launch only seen the channel rumours on the web.

Here they are in full:

COMING SOON TO VIRGIN MEDIA (LAUNCH DATES NOT CONFIRMED):

-The Active Channel
-Animal Planet HD
-Create & Craft
-E! HD
-Universal Channel HD

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 35559703)

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 35559719)

You forgot to add the words "Rumoured to be".

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 35559719)

You forgot to add the words "Rumoured to be".

Originally Posted by MarkC1984 (Post 35559736)

You would be prepared to pay more Arthur for Atlantic, but what about those who don't want Atlantic? Should we have to pay more for a channel we don't want?

Assuming you are talking about Atlantic anyway.

Originally Posted by MarkC1984 (Post 35559740)

In that case, fine. Add it as a premium channel, so those who want it pay for it and those who don't want it don't pay for it.

Originally Posted by johnasimmons (Post 35559738)

I feel we should be given the option of having Sky Atlantic - those that want it pay more a la Sky Sports & Movies, BoxNation etc

Originally Posted by johnasimmons (Post 35559738)

I feel we should be given the option of having Sky Atlantic - those that want it pay more a la Sky Sports & Movies, BoxNation etc

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35559743)

how many times sky wont let anyone else have it what can VM do about it nothing it not VM stopping access to it it sky FACT

Originally Posted by johnasimmons (Post 35559744)

Actually, if you get your facts right you will find that Sky offered VM Atlantic but Virgin would not pay the price

http://www.cable.co.uk/news/virgin-m...tic-800413623/

Originally Posted by johnasimmons (Post 35559744)

Actually, if you get your facts right you will find that Sky offered VM Atlantic but Virgin would not pay the price

http://www.cable.co.uk/news/virgin-m...tic-800413623/

Originally Posted by johnasimmons (Post 35559744)

Actually, if you get your facts right you will find that Sky offered VM Atlantic but Virgin would not pay the price

http://www.cable.co.uk/news/virgin-m...tic-800413623/

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35559746)

so you would pay over the odds for a crap channel I surely wouldn't sky set price high knowing any sensible company wouldnt

Originally Posted by colin25 (Post 35559745)

Nicely put

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35559747)

Actually the problem is John is that Sky were asking for a astronomical carriage fee which no sane company would pay unless they are idiots.

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35559750)

spot on

Originally Posted by johnasimmons (Post 35559744)

Actually, if you get your facts right you will find that Sky offered VM Atlantic but Virgin would not pay the price

http://www.cable.co.uk/news/virgin-m...tic-800413623/

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35559752)

Funny how no other service provider has taken up Sky Atlantic at the price Sky wanted to charge for it.

Wonder why? Well, I don't think you need Sherlock Holmes to answer that little mystery.

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35559752)

Funny how no other service provider has taken up Sky Atlantic at the price Sky wanted to charge for it.

Wonder why? Well, I don't think you need Sherlock Holmes to answer that little mystery.

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35559752)

Funny how no other service provider has taken up Sky Atlantic at the price Sky wanted to charge for it.

Wonder why? Well, I don't think you need Sherlock Holmes to answer that little mystery.

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 35559719)

You forgot to add the words "Rumoured to be".