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?