Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

I take your point but the way I see it 2 HD channels is 100% more than VM and Freesat is free, VM isn't so I don't think it is an entirely unfair comparison.

I've seen Sky HD as well and I agree that is where you really see a difference, especially as that is comparing pay tv with pay tv!

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

So would the users who are so anxious to have more HD be willing to pay an additional price for the HD?

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

Yeah i would! NOT for Chnl4HD or ITV HD - i don't that should be allowed or justafiable.

But for Sky Movies/Sports and Eurosport HD, yeah i would. Maybe a another few quid a month.

Oh and i think "anxious" is an emotive word to use - it seems to imply that HD "wanters" are asking for something "unbelieveable" and we're really not.

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

anxious alspo means cant wait

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

Yes

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

I know but i'm guessing that wasn't the inference here...

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

I certainly would, not as mentioned above for C4-HD or ITV-HD, but £2-3 would be reasonable for four HD channels, I'm just going on what Sky charge for their thirty plus HD channels, which I believe is £9.50pm, having said that I seem to recall reading somewhere that Sky were considering dropping this charge.

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

and sky charge £10 a month for there few channels i think 6 at the begining so some could say it not unreasonable to think virign could charge it, however i to think it should be cheaper for a few hd channels but for virign to try take the bit out of sky make it cheaper

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

I do agree that if they are to compete with Sky, they need to have more linear HD channels. On demand is good (I use it regularly), but the cliff hangers used as the end of certain TV Series lose a little of their impact if you can just watch the next episode immediately because there is no time to build up anticipation.

As for Sky, well, they have two advantages over VM. One of which VM could go some way to removing, but won't for various reasons.

1. VM have a lot more hardware to maintain. They have the super head ends, the regional head ends, thousands of miles of cable and the user's STBs to maintain. Sky have a lot of hardware, but they do not maintain thousands of miles of cable, and are not responsible for the maintenance of the user's STB. Beyond the warranty and what the user is willing to pay for. As such, Sky can broadcast to most of the country relatively cheaply,
2. Sky have the financial backing of what is arguably one of the largest companies of any kind in the world. A company that has repeatedly shown it is willing to invest a lot of money in new media even where it is taking very heavy losses. Thus, Sky do not have to turn a profit.
   
   

Now, VM can remove some of their costs for the 1st problem, simply by offering users the chance to *buy* STBs and offering a warranty rather than free repairs for life. The same thing Sky do. They could also offer different models of box. For instance, with the V+, they could offer a basic V+ with no Hi Def and an 80Gig hard drive, then one with the same spec and a 160 Gig Drive, then one with HD and a 320 or 500 Gig drive.

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

Good points Stuart, though i for one hope they don;t chnage and become like Sky and make you buy your boxes and insurance - it's a massive tick in VM box that they do not.

HOWEVER i fully appreciate that if they need revenew (spl?) for products like HD this would be a good place to get some extra cash.

Though they'd have to be careful to offset that cash boost against losing customers over it - the loss would probably be neglibable though.

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

A difference is that Sky's home equipment isn't connected to their network. If it goes funny it's not going to damage any other Sky equipment and unless it goes really nuclear isn't going to affect other Sky customers. With our service you are connected to our network and if the box starts sending crud back upstream it can affect others. Hence we really need to keep tighter control on what gets attached.

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

Ive got a lovely HD telly, and I am unlucky enough to have bad sight.. so to be honest, HD content will never interest me, im just glad to have a nice picture in widescreen without a flicker ;)

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

i agree,good points.VM's set tops are seen as an asset,i.e. part of the companies worth,i think for this reason they will not change the supply/maintainance aspect of the set tops ;)

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

I shall explain, why l have a gripe and am very angry about the whole situation, an why l feel conned by VM.

When l found out that VM were going to get HD channels, l went and bought the V+ box and then spent another £800 on a HD TV, ready for it, then what happens, NOTHING, we get all this crap from VM saying we are going to get it, it is all a con, l could quite easily, go over to Sky and get there 32 channels, but l want to stay loyal, BUT not for much longer.

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

Oh so you lied about already having sky then arthur? ie the sjky channels keeping makign things into your way and not saying the whoile truth? jsut like you are odign with HD? if you are going ot be critially at least be honest and both critise and appaulaude things