Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

I was on the ntl site ahh i actually just typed ntl i mean virgin media site yesterday and they had a compare chart comparing Sky to Virgin Media, even there own compare chart, Sky looks more tempting to go for, its cheaper...

Why is Virgin Media so expensive? and isn't Sky going to make Sky+ services free soon i read?

Compare chart: http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/dtv/vplus/how.html

since i already have the Sky+ box and all, it works out cheaper for me, the packages from Sky are cheaper and you get more channels for your money

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

Looking at the compare chart, I fail to see your point?

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

I'm a little confused too

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

Looking at the chart, I think the Virgin Media looks cheaper...?

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

So with SKy you can get 6 mixes, basicly all the most watched TV channels (139 channels), Phone, plus 8Mbps broadband (where as im able to get 7Mbps according to BT) for £26 + £11 BT line rental (which i already pay) is £37 per month.
With Virgin, you get XL package (with 160 channels) Landline & 4Mbps broadband for £62 per month, including line rental.
Sky's phone has no contract either.
So basicly putting it, you get more with Sky for cheaper...

Sky: £37
Virgin: £62

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

But picking one pack out and saying Sky is cheaper is hardly a fair comparison?

Also, BTs speeds of what you are going to get isn't accurate, a friend of mine thought he could get 7 too, turns out he gets about 2 in the evenings and about 4 most other times.

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

At least compare like with like. The v+ Offers HD, so you should compare it with the Sky+ HD box, which adds an extra £10 a month.

Not forgetting the fact that if you don't have a Sky + HD box, then that's £300 up front..

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

Agree with your on most things if you look at list prices but for a full picture

You need to stay with your chosen Sky Broadband product for a minimum of 12 months. As long as you have Sky Broadband, you will also need to be with Sky TV.

If you dont already have a BT line you will need to install one (c100) and I beleive keep it for a minimum of twelve months

You can , based on other threads either

upgrade the broadband and TV to XL for about £19 but in all honesty if you say you are leaving or a new customer VM would almost certainly price match sky offer. I know they did for me!

You are lucky in terms of BT with the 7mb. I suspect that most individuals will get nowhere near that and certainly not 24/7 as I have had with cable

I dont beleive it is clear who offers the best service and I think that the next 12 months will probably be the most important for both companies

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

ADSL2+ is better then BT's ADSL

Sky:

- 139 TV channels
- 16Mbps Broadband (Unlimited usage)
- Free evening, Daytime, Weekend & International calls
- No contract with Landline
- £36 per month
- No one-off charge

Virgin Media:

- 160 TV channels
- 10Mbps Broadband (Unlimited usage)
- Free evening, weekend & daytime calls
- £25 one-off cost
- £80.50 per month

Also, who needs HD anyway?
I agree with many, cable is far better then ADSL, but Virgin Media need to start getting alittle more competitive. They also need to start introducing faster speeds.

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

Apart from

Sky+ HD box £299
Record 2 things at once - to do this you would need a 2nd box from Sky.
Not sure of Sky's BB is there a download limit.

I know you have a sky+ box already so i'm not sure what point you are trying to make. All this depends on the actual mix of things you want. I want to record 2 things at once and have an additional box. So this would cost more from sky.

So ignoring the HD it costs me £20 month more overall but i have to pay £350 upfront? So after 1 1/2 years i break even. :td:

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

LOL I bet you won't be saying that in a couple of years when HD becomes standard. :D

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

Lol @ Nikesh, yes thats true, but for now HD isn't needed to most people.
@ JamieFrost, Sky Broadband 16Mbps has unlimited usage and the compare chart i have had 6 different mixes on SKY TV.
As for recording 2 things at once and watching another, who really needs to do that, irarly need to even record 1 thing while watching another, im sure thats the same with most people, but im sure there will be some smart people here who will say they need to record 2 things while watching another...

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

If you rarely need to record anything is Sky+ worth it?

As for recording 2 things as once happens all the time in our house 2 adults 2 children... guess I'm just smart

Apart from getting into another like for like argument, you can't make any judgment on an exsisting install. Prices for new customers are comaparable.

PS the 16mb BB costs £10
JJ

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

No they are not!

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

I can't even get that package you are talking about, so i don't really see the point.

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

Are all the threads in here as misinformed as this one?

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

There is me, im 18 - i pay for the broadband and TV, theres my 2 brothers, my mum, dad and my mums a childminder so there are about 6 more kids in the house watching TV aswell. No one really needs to record 2 channels while watching another, record 1 while watching 1 is enough.
Sky+ services are going to be free if rumour has it?

Sky+ is more then worth it as the packages are cheaper.

Which package?

Whats misinformed about this thread? VM packages are more expensive then Sky

Don't get me wrong, ntl & Telewest were always cheaper then Sky, but now it just seems they are more expensive now after rebranding.

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

I can get:

Sky:
Landline £11
Talk Unlimited £5
Broadband (up to 8 gives me 4) £17
TV £21
= £53

But I have the VIP pack, which I’ve worked out to be cheaper than Sky's.

Sky:
Broadband: £17.00 at only 4mb (if I took an accurate costing compared to 10mb I would have to times £17*2.5 = £42.50)
£40 one off activation fee for Broadband
BT Landline: £11
Talk Unlimited: £5
Full TV inc. Sky Sport + Movies: £43.50
Multiroom subscription: £10
HD Subscription: £10
Purchase of HD Box: £300
£96.50
£340 one off costs. £10 online discount.
If I take into consideration the broadband cost it makes Virgin look even more attractive.
All costs are taken from the website on a package I only just built.

Virgin:
VIP Pack £85
No extra charges. £10 online discount.

Sky is horrendous in comparison. When is Sky going to offer cheaper packages in comparison to Virgin? Sky is more expensive.

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

The prices you've quoted in this thread for Virgin Media services are incorrect, misleading and I'm sure confusing to anyone who doesn't have an understanding of how the services are priced.

The SKY information you've posted is misleading too. I don't know where you picked up that price of £36.00 from, I've never heard of SKY running a £36.00 package. Are you failing to add in the price of a BT line?

Like for like, VM's new packaging and pricing compares favourably with SKY right across the board.

---------- Post added at 14:58 ---------- Previous post was at 14:56 ----------

BTW, that last message I posted was for Zee, not you Downloads. ;)

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

Blackie, if you've read my posts you'll see that i entered the prices for Linerental.

See Sky.com for prices of this package.

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

I work with Sky's pricing every day and I do not recognise the deal you're quoting. If you're going to post this stuff you should at least back it up if asked.

You said:

Sky:

- 139 TV channels
- 16Mbps Broadband (Unlimited usage)
- Free evening, Daytime, Weekend & International calls
- No contract with Landline
- £36 per month
- No one-off charge

That is rubbish. The price does NOT include BT's line rental and it says so in black and white on the SKY website. That's my point, your information is misleading and incorrect. The price for that package is £47.00 per month. (6 mixes, Talk Unlimited Phone, Max Broadband, Telephone line with BT)

Are you going to admit you've made a mistake and this thread is inaccurate?

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

2 for Deals

TV + Phone:
Virgin: Large TV + Medium phone = £20
Sky: 4 Mixes £18 + BT Landline £11 = £29 (phone package is better)

TV + Broadband:
Virgin: Large TV + Medium Phone. = £20
Sky: 4 Mixes £18 + Broadband up to 8 £17 = £35 (Broadband is much better but paying more)

Broadband + Phone: £20
Virgin: Medium Broadband + Medium Phone = £20
Sky: Do they offer a service without TV??

3 for Deal

Virgin: Large TV + Medium Phone + Medium Broadband = £30
Sky: See, Speak Surf: £15 + Landline £11 = £26 (talk package is better but TV only has 2 mixes and this offer only covers 50% of Nation, else you have to take the £26 pack + £11 line rental)

Feel free to flame me for my inaccuracies as there are bound to be a couple, but I have just taken the prices from their sites.

I still can’t find this £36 pack including line rental.

I think it’s easy to come on here, pick a pack out and spout that the company are better as a whole based on this one thing you saw. I think if you look in reality at all the packages on offer then Virgin is at least equal overall. In my opinion, better overall.

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

We even do Sky Sports cheaper than Sky now!

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

Blackie, you're correct.

The price i said for the 2nd package which was £36 is infact £47 WITH BT Linerental.
The 1st package i said i DID include the BT linerental with the price.

This is BT linerental, not Sky linerental, the money goes to BT.

I agree that you're having to pay that extra £11, but for most of the country( including me) who already have a BT landline DO NOT have to pay the extra £11 because they already pay it, so it isn't an extra cost.

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

No but if you took Virgin you wouldn't keep 2 landlines would you? Therefore you would have an £11 saving to take into consideration if you went with Virgin when weighing up the packages.

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

And that's how to make a fair comparison!

:gpoint:

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

Why would you need 2 landlines? Theres no need for 2 landlines...

... you only need 1 landline for broadband, you just need filters in the line to use broadband and phone at the same time, so therefore that extra £11 doesn't come into it.

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

And now
Talk Weekends
TV pack M
$ky sports 1,2,3 & extra

only £26 per month
http://pressoffice.virginmedia.com/p...707&highlight=

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

I'm sorry if you refuse to understand i can't keep explaining it.

You have a BT line rental already.
If you chose to go with a Virgin package you can drop the £11 BT line rental as it's built into all packages except the 2 for £20 deal for Broadband and TV.

If you look at Sky packs all prices have to have the £11 BT line rental to make a fair comparison. Sky even add the fact you need BT line rental to their package descriptions to make sure people arn't mislead.

End of rant.

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

You don't need a landline at all with VM Broadband:D

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?

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

Spot on.

TV listing are slightly different, broadband speeds can't be guaranteed, makes it very difficult to draw a direct comparison.

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

Thank you, i think we all agree o nsomething now, i'll end my rant with the above quote :)

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

:tu: exactly!! It's what works out best for you and your situation. For me I think the new deals are great, and I HATE having a satellite on my house. I actually do - it's a 15yo one that was already attached when we bought it and I have to get it removed as I hate it with a passion, so I prefer cable if I'm in a cabled area.

Definitely - at the end of the day it's not necessarily about which is cheaper - it's about which has a package/price combination that works best for each individual.

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

Relax Sav, you haven't got a satellite on your house..what you have is a receiver antennae with dish-like tendencies...

I know it looks a bit council, but they are not uncommon...just tell passers by it's next doors, who are inbred Sun readers.

As an aside,when I reverted to sky for tv stuff, I noticed the picture was loads better.. was that just me , or is this a known phenomenon?

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

lostandconfused - well said. You've just missed your opportunity for the Secretary-General job at the United Nations ;)

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

Whenever I visit with someone with Sky+ I usually notice the opposite! Must be my red+black tinted glasses! ;)

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

I was told at the time "you'll notice the picture is clearer than an ntl stb", and it was..this was a few years ago, have things changed?

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

Wouldn't the argument be that paying for cheaper service has its downside?...as in, VM has poor credibility and cable has always been less reliable for service.

I would never go as far as to state 'Virgin Media is the BEST!', and what an overstatement!

At least with Sky the service is equal to what you're paying for.

---------- Post added at 09:22 ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 ----------

And a small black satellite is hardly an eyesore...in my own opinion.

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

What are you all ranting about on this thread? If you have a package which you are happy with then there is nothing to complain about. I you have a satellite dish stuck on your house so what? I have one and if I ever sell my house then whoever buys it will have the choice of Sky or VM. I use VM and have decided to upgrade to the standard VIP package and I am happy with it. I use VM because I want a good BB service which I could never have with a BT line because I live too far from the exchange (possibly 2-3 mb, according to BT, instead of the advertised 8mb). I could have switched and did consider doing so during the past couple of weeks but I have decided to stick with VM and I am happy. My wife, my daughter and myself all have very different TV preferences and I will be able to record things while my wife watches her soaps and my my daughter will also be able to record her favourite programmes without going into a huff. I am happy. Go for the company that you want to use and pick a package that suits you and then sit back and relax.

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

The way I see it is this.

IF you do not want a land type phone line & "simple" TV

Cheapest is freeview

Some extra channels again Freeview

If you want Just " Sat" type TV then I guess Sky

If you want A land line/tv/ Broadband Then Virgin

However you cut the "cake" your telephone line is a cost which needs to be to be added. In or out of the package its a cost

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

dont sky charge you for repairs unless you take out some sort of cover plan if i remember correctly.

Re: Virgin Media more expensive than Sky
 

Yes, but they can be persuaded differently.