VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

VM finally come clean about the lack of HD channels :mad:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitalt...d-channel.html

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Been saying that for months now but no one listened ;)

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

What the?!?! Has he not realised how much people pay for HDTVs for HD channels? People will end up going to $ky... What an idiot.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

So no HD = First mistake.

Phorm Spyware system = Second mistake.

STM for most of the day to save money on upgrades = Third mistake

Excellent first few months in the job would you not say. :rolleyes:

Will now wait for the retraction and the statement that he was taken out of context by the big bad press :rolleyes:

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

They normally say one thing and do another...I hope this is the case with HD :(

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

VM have missed the boat on HD and this is Berketts way of saving face.:td:

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Never the Same Colour is hardly never the same colour in this day and age of televisions powered by ICs not Valves. Good quality SD is not as good here as it is in the UK 480lines vs 525 lines but it is not that far off.
It is a stance that will have to change once ITV/4/5HDs all come on stream but for now he has a point.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Let the exodus begin...

I wonder whether he literally said either of the headlines at any point. It just seems a very arrogant and in your face thing to say to people crying out for any more linear HD channels.

I really like VOD, it's great (although I don't think it's improved that much since launch a couple or so years back) but a few VOD offerings are needed ontop of a few HD channels. Soon Sky will have 15 proper hd channels (not counting luxe or box office). Having 4 or 5 HD channels on VM + vod would placate quite a few people but just 1 will lose customers.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

After all many companies just sell the same TVs in America that they do in Europe (which is why most modern TVs handle PAL and NTSC).

As for the CEO? While I agree that HD probably isn't the selling point that the industry appears to think it is (a lot of my friends aren't that bothered about quality of reproduction as long as the content is interesting, and I suspect this pattern is repeated nationwide), the CEO does appear to be sticking his head in the sand, and may well find that Virgin is left behind if HD does become a major selling point.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Does this chap even listen to customers? Ya know that one's that pay his wages and buy is service!

The VOD is brilliant, no doubt about it. However people want HD channels.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

It will not be long before he has to leave for family matters as most of the CEOs do :)

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

I think it's time VM found a new CEO

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

I am not trying to be controversial, but I couldn't find where, in the article, either of them said "We only need one HD channel" - in fact, the article states "The cable operator is currently running a major marketing campaign focusing on VoD and claims to be expanding content rapidly, including in HD"

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

That's a fair comment, but what the article IS saying is that they don't feel they need more HD channels. As they only have 1 now, that's essentially the same as saying they only need 1 HD channel.

Another article here. At the risk of asking a stupid question, can someone clarify what they're referring to by "sweetheart deals"?

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Howard Watson said: "I don’t think we’re losing customers because we don’t have the HD lineup that Sky has. It’s not causing us a churn problem..."

He has totally misread the situation. First of all, if he read the various forums on this subject he will realise that a lot of people are eagerly awaiting more HD channels from VM and when they hear this news, he may find egg on his face very swiftly.

Secondly, if VM are to get a fair share of the customers who have yet to switch to digital, who does he think they will turn to with their new HD ready TVs with an attitude like that?

I have said it before, but I'll say it again just in case Mr Watson wants to take a peek at the reaction. VM needs a minimum of the four terrestrial HD channels that will be broadcasting by the end of the year. If they do that and massively increase their HD choice on VOD, they might just get away with attracting customers from Sky by advertising their HD services as free.

If they continue to ignore what their customers and potential customers want, VM will never be able to compete with the likes of Sky.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

There's actually no evidence this is the case. A small group of consumers do want HD, but the vast majority of people who buy HD and HD-ready sets don't have a clue what they're buying. and think that anything widescreen is HD. The retailers' own cluelessness and dishonesty are partly to blame for this.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Couldn't agree more Old Boy, if you are a analogue viewer looking at where to move to before the switch off, you have gone out brought a new HD-TV and looked at whats on offer, VMs HD line up is hardly going to encourage you to sign up with them, even more so now Berketts added his latest offering.:td:

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

He's the ass that dropped the ntl developed H.264 HD box, in favour of the backwards MPEG2 HD Telewest box developed under his reign as Telewest CTO. Absolute plank. Oops, I received an infraction for calling a plank a plank here once, but he is! Spank me again mods!

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Obviously you have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the British public!

The point is, with the digital switchover and the growing number of people with HD sets, curiosity about what HD actually is will grow, and advertising this will also help.

Personally, I think if VM don't go for this now they will lose a lot of viewers.

And as for the 'no evidence that this is the case' proposition - have you actually seen any surveys on this subject? Nor have I, but I've seen a lot of posts on this and other forums.

The thing is, a successful operator will create the demand anyway. Look at Sky! VM just aren't trying.

Definitately, could do better. :mad:

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

I may be wrong but doesn`t the v+box upscale all of the existing channels to 720 or 1080 hd quality anyway,if this is the case why not spend the money on more VOD rather than investing in extra hd channels.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

On this particular subject, yes.

That's certainly a possibility, but a hypothetical future demand and/or curiosity will not lose Virgin customers at this stage.

I wish you were right, but you're not. Not for a long while, anyway.

Yes, I have. I have also seen surveys highlighting the utter and profound cluelessness about HD in this country, as well as the potentially deliberate misinformation campaign employed by retailers in order to convince gullible consumers that an HD set is exactly what they need for Freeview. The reality is that most people buy plasmas and TFTs for prestige and aesthetics, not for HD.

You're getting a skewed perspective from reading forums like this, which obviously attracts more informed consumers... or somewhat more informed, at least. ;)

Sky's HD customer base is still relatively small, and I'm sorry to say, you could probably switch at least half of those people's picture to SD, and they wouldn't notice the difference. They'd still go on about how it's like "looking out of a window".

I agree. If you're interested in HD, you're kind of screwed with Virgin.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

So let me get this straight...

Virgin want to go out of business, right?

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

I bought a HDTV specifically for gaming/Blu-ray, but I was rather hoping that there would be more HD TV content available by now.

If they only need one channel, and that is BBC HD Preview, people are - surely - going to watch that and think, "Ooh, nice! I want more HD content!" And then where are they going to go to get that? Yup... Sky!

Methinks there are 3 extraneous letters at the end of Mr. Berkett's name...

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

My god i think he got it :LOL:

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Why, because its future should be tied up in HD?

Get this man on the board of directors, quick!

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

He does highlight the very valid point that VM can provide a great deal of non linear HD programming.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

I think it's funny - like someone said earlier, first Phorm, then the added STM, and now this?

I wouldn't buy a HDTV only to be stuck with one HD channel on Virgin. I'd do something about it - like join Sky instead.

Phorm, STM and my newly-horrible internet speeds are seriously making me consider Be*. Plus, my parents are both on Virgin Mobile, and they've been told their prices may be changing.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

There are alot of people out there who DO NOT have a clue about HD,DIGITAL ect, believe me, i visit customers houses, they have freeview, Analogue TV/LCD TV's bought a few years back that aren't capable of 720 let alone anything else, as already pointed out the British public isn't any where near knowing what is what. The older generation think that they'll have to spend thousands on new TV's because of the Analogue-Digital switch on terrestrial, when all they need is a £20 ish freeview STB, They are a sales mans dream.

Watching films on DVD/BLUE RAY yes i like, sport on HD well a good Analogue TV gives a very good picture for that.

We've all seen it, the LCD/Plasma in Currys ect and the picture is rubbish for analogue TV, HD on freview? no where to be seen. So yes Sky has HD on a few channels that you have to pay extra for bigf deal.

So at first i thought nooo, but maybe there is some sense in it for now.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Upscaling isn't the same as getting proper HD.

Upscaling is electronic trickery to try and make an inferior image look better. The electronics tries to guess what should have been there if the image had been a higher content. But that is all it is, a guess.

True HD content, was recorded and transmitted at the high resolution. Thus nothing is degraded, there are no missing bits to fill in.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

hes nuts. hes brainwashed himself, VM CANT provide more HD channels, its not that there is no need! Hes just spinning a poor situation to make it out like its not a big deal at all.

They messed up hugely with mpeg2 boxes and now try and shrug it off. I suppose i wouldn't expect any less, but its such an arrogant standpoint. If people didnt want HD, sky HD wouldn't be up to the 400,000 mark and even thats with high box pricing and monthly sub...

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Shame all you V+ HD fanboys all lashed out thousands on HD Telly's that at anything more than 8 feet look EXACTLY the same as an SD one.

Tivo wins again.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

That's less than 5% of their subscriber base, and there's no evidence that they have taken the HD service purely for HD, or that they would indeed consider the lack of such a thing a deal breaker. Some surely would, myself included, but we're in a minority.

There's no question that Virgin are providing an inferior, if not outright crappy service, but the reality is that Virgin do have HD content on their VOD service, and the issue here is about whether or not they need more linear HD content. Seriously, how many customers do you think they're going to lose over this, if they didn't even lose a significant amount of customers over the basic Sky channels issue? Furthermore, with an increased popularity in time-shifted TV habits, you might even wonder if Virgin need more linear channels at all, or if VOD could be the future for them, as they currently have a considerable advantage over Sky in this area.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

yes there is, they pay an extra 10 quid a month for the HD service, as well as the outlay for the box. Why would they pay if they didnt want HD :confused:

this is with a massive outlay for an HD box AND the extra subscription charges.

My point was there is a demand for it, even with the extra cost it incurs for the privilege.

Sure VOD HD is fine, but I would think its sports, movies and upto date entertainment shows which people mostly would be interested in HD, not something VM seems to be about.

anyway, the point i was making is that hes fitting his view around the inability to be able to provide the service, nothing more.

---------- Post added at 02:24 ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 ----------

my HD telly cost me 399 quid :confused:

why say something that's clearly not true, for your own sake, try and be honest with yourself. there is nothing worse than deluding yourself, how can i take on your opinion when your happy to say things im sure you know aren't true :(

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

I'm not saying people don't want it, I'm saying its absence is not a deal breaker for most people, and like I said, the people who have taken up HD with Sky is very much a minority. In terms of numbers, it's probably slightly higher than the number of people who actually know anything about HD.

Which most consumers aren't prepared to pay for.

In terms of linear channels, that's correct. Clearly they expect most people's HD needs will be met by VOD, which sounds plausible.

That's probably true to a degree at the moment, but if the numbers made sense, capacity for HD services could be improved. Again, with VOD becoming increasingly popular, why waste so much bandwidth on linear channels?

Either you got a bargain, or it's merely "HD ready". ;)

It's actually a very common view, and not at all dishonest or delusional. Certainly no more so than the comments from HD owners, particularly "HD Ready" owners, who claim HD is like "looking out the window". Broadcast HD really isn't all that great, particularly on most low-end and mid-range sets. Video games and Bluray is a different matter, though.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

There is an awful lot of people replying to this thread stating that others do not want HD.

I think it's apparent by all the replies that people DO want HD. I think if Sky was to reduce the cost of their HD box people would leave in their droves.

LTG

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Thats what i hate about VM i had a offer to move to sky but i said no :(

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Until terrestrial TV moves over to HD in a significant way this will just be an extra service you will have to pay for with limited content (regardless of carrier) for some time yet and I for one will not bother upgrading my (still fairly new) TV until such time as there is more content that I want to watch available.

HD TV is still really at the film/gamer/must have the latest thing stage and the general switch to digital needs to be completed before HD will really take off in a worthwhile way.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

HD is a new thing but sky are using it as a big selling point. VM's VOD is great but I do think they need to invest on more HD content :)

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Keep in mind, you're in a forum that attracts a particular type of consumer. It's like saying activity in the official Darius Danesh forum is evidence that he would have an instant no.1, if he were to release another single. Stoopid music labels just won't give the poor guy a chance, right? It's like they don't want to make money. See? ;)

I guarantee you that you're wrong.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

I said this on AVF - in my book VM have until the end of the year to have all of the HD channels Freesat have, otherwise I'll defect. I'll keep the broadband (unless we actually get Phorm).

And HD VOD != Liner VOD. The quality is significantly higher on BBC HD.

And if the gaffer is saying this publicly, would he please tell his minions to stop lying to people - out and out lying when people ring up and say 'I can't get Discovery/Sky Movies/Sky Sports HD' and they're told it'll be available 'soon'. This, more than anything else gets right up my nose.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Sky have allready dropped the price of the HD box for New customers, so don't have to worry about that price gap also unlike Virgin they have deals on the High St to get those New customers. When you buy a HDTV the HD BOX is reduced even more.
SKY also have done deals in the past with TV makers to give away the HD BOX for free with the those £900+ HDTVs, Have you seen Virgin do the same deals, I must have missed them. Did you think the install costs for the V+ Box dropped to £75 buy chance.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

i was commenting on his claim we all spent thousands on our HD sets :) yes mine is only a 720p set and i agree, HD isnt as great as people make out and i certainly wouldn't pay more for it. still would watch the HD version of a show if its being broadcast though.

all i was suggesting in the rest of my post is that VM are trying to fit their opinion around the fact that they cant provide it anyway! we all know they dont have the room for more HD channels, especially after the mpeg2 choice.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

At which point HD becomes part of the service. My 40 channels of HD are just part of the service. No additional cost. I can have a standard SA box that looks exactly the same as the SD box but has an HDMI port on the back as well or I can may $10 a month for the DVR box (and they provide SD and HD DVR boxes).
MP2 HD is not the constraint you guys all seem to think it is, yes it is not as efficient but my cable connection has up to 30MB BB (soon to be 50MB) 40Channels of HD and however many of SD and they run their telephone services over VOIP so that is more bandwidth use on the cable.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

I Wish VM would get Sky Sports HD

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Exactly. This underlines my point that HD isn't something a majority of people would be willing to pay a premium for, but if it's there anyway, and they have the equipment to take advantage of it, of course they're going to do so.

Sure, but that's something that could easily be remedied, if HD were indeed as big a selling point as some people claim. It all comes down to whether or not the numbers make sense in the end, and Virgin are obviously betting that they have enough VOD HD content to satisfy their customers.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Thankyou brundles. I was considering moving to Sky when my HD subscription expires next month. Now I know I will move since Virgin have seen fit to ignore the 'few' HD customers. Any advice for the changeover would be appreciated since I have TV, phone and broadband from Virgin.

Regards to all.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

What you on about, 7 feet away, BBC HD looks superb, watched Heroes season 2, recorded the HD version and the BBC 2 version....nothing wrong with my eyes HD is superior.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Is this the same Neil Berkett who said net neutrality was '*******s' and is implementing phorm?

I don't think there has ever been a CEO as arrogant, ill informed, incompetent, and frankly stupid as this guy. He seems to be trying everything imaginable to alienate his customers. Putting it simply, the guy is an **** hole.

VM need to remove this nut case before he does any more damage.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

I don't have an HD TV - yet.

Reason? (other than the fact that I don't have the money just now)

because it would only be for me.

There's a slight problem with my setup at home at the moment. I have both the RF and Scart inputs into the back of the TV. There's some sort of conflict on the RF (maybe channel 5, maybe just mains hum) which leads to an annoying herringbone effect when virgin is viewed via RF rather than by Scart.

I've explained time and again to my family that the picture's better if they select the AV channel rather than RF. It gets me nowhere - I actually get told they can't see the problem!

Now if an annoying problem like that is irrelevent to a (possibly significant) part of the population, what are they going to think about HD?

I honestly suspect that (although there'll always be those who appreciate clear crisp pictures) a fair chunk of people are not going to give a fig whether a channel is HD or SD so long as the latest episode of X factor or emmerdale can be seen.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I wouldn't lay a bet on it.</p>

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

You either need a better TV, or better eyes. Maybe both.

The difference between SD and HD is night and day on my TV (50" 1080p Pioneer plasma). In fact I find many SD channels simply unwatchable, such is the level of blur and blockyness.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Well thats the straw that broke the camels back, Im offsky.

Yes Sky is going cost me more but I for one bought my TV and got V+ box for HD content. Ive hung about for 2 years believing it was only a matter of time.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Add to the better eyes and TV, a more mature attitude, this isn't a children's forum:D

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

The Digital Spy spin on this story is pretty appalling - no-one says that "one HD channel is enough", they said they're concentrating on marketing Virgin's VoD and Broadband services. Nowhere is there a direct quote that justifies the headline. What they actually say is that they're not currently losing a significant number of customers due to lack of HD channels, and they're in a better position to judge that than us no matter what we personally feel.

If someone has recently bought Virgin thinking they're getting HD on a par with Sky's service, they haven't done their homework. Similarly, if someone's bought Sky expecting a decent On Demand service, they're going to be disappointed too. Quite simple really: if you want more HD and it's your main criteria for selecting a supplier, go Sky. Sad but true.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

I signed up for VM after being told by a customer service person that Virgin would be adding more HD channels this year. If it turns out that was a lie, then I have been sold a product on false pretences and I want out.

I've nothing against VOD, it could be a wonderful service but the fact is after all this time the amount of HD content on VOD is absolutely laughable. Sky broadcast vastly more HD content every single day, so for Virgin to use VOD as an argument not to add HD channels is truly pathetic.

I'm going to speak to Virgin and get out of my contract if I can and go to Sky. I'd much sooner not, as I find Murdoch repugnant, but the truth of the matter is that Virgin's service is far inferior to Sky's offering and is showing no signs of improving. And frankly Virgin Media's CEO isn't far behind Murdoch in the offensive stakes now anyway. They guy is one of the most obnoxious figures ever to run a large corporation.

---------- Post added at 21:19 ---------- Previous post was at 21:18 ----------

You've completely lost me there with that snide remark. HD is a vast improvement over HD, and if someone can't see that then the only explanations are either that their viewing hardware is inadequate, or they simply lack good enough eye sight to appreciate the difference.

Neither of which is at all uncommon.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Nothing new there. DS has over the last few years become a detestable, online gossip rag.

Yes, if they didn't lose significant numbers when the basic Sky channels went, they're certainly not going to take much of a hit over HD.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

I was agreeing with you moroboshi, my remark was, as was yours, towards Hokkers999:)

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Oh okay, sorry about that, I thought you were having a dig at me!

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

No mate,:angel::Peaceman:


I was having a dig at Hokkers999.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Yes and that is on a 50" TV which you will most certainly see the benefit unfortunately most people dont have one. The standard TV at the moment has crept upto about the 32" mark
from what I have seen. In an average front room you would be looking at a viewing distance of what 7 - 8 feet minimum. At that range on a 32" screen the difference between HD & SD is barely discernable. This has already been discussed several times on here.

Anyway back on topic, no matter the real benefit, HD is still a selling point especially for those that dont understand it. I understand the technical difficulties but without at least 2 or 3 channels VM are going to be left behind. VoD is a bonus for most people not the main feature which is Linear TV.

Berkett is living upto his name with his stupid comments recently and I can see him being out on his ear soon. To be honest I think this has not been well reported but still to leave yourself open to this is stupid.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Sky could simply give HD boxes away for free, £5 extra per month sub (even free if they dared maybe 18 month contract?) and crush virgin media TV like a paper cup.

Taking that hit now could destroy virgin... and if they gain the TV customers, they're likely to gain the phone & bb as they are likely to move at the same time

VMs head in the sand attitude may well hold now, but its not going to last.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

I see lot mis information here 72op is defenately better than standard thats for sure. Those who dont might not be calibrated properly. Tv's out the shop will never look right in your home and need tweaking you can lose definition in the black levels.

http://www.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lcdt...libration.html

I find HD much cleaner looking and sharper image. Broadcast HD not as good as blu ray but you should see a difference from standard or upscalled signals.

1080i/p is even better still. Yes even 1080i signals as long as the source is 1080 and not upscalled 720.

some might want to read up why so here the link

http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoff...061080iv1080p/

Shop around do your homework you can get damn good set for £600. also consider this is the tv getting hd resolution you are especting.

http://hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/0506halfrez/

may as well put this up for some to look at about the signals and differences from standard to HD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDTV

VM got to consider this go out look for tv now.

its hard to find lcd plasma's without being HDready or 1080 full. You might find a few but the industry is in full swing to get people to HD. CRT's getting scarce most manufacturers such as sony pulling the plug.

That means the likelyhood is greater that people will be getting HD whether by deliberate or by default. VM do need to make sure that this decision dont blow up in there face such as the decision to go for the gimped V+ box.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Maybe? Maybe not?

Since VM have always claimed they make nothing from their TV Service it becomes clear why they do not invest in it.

Landlines seem to becoming a dead dog too.

It's not surprising that VM have stated that they only want to concentrate on their BroadBand Service.

If only they would do as they state because it seems the BroadBand Service is in danger of descending to the standard set by their dreadful TV service.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Well said Mick, if BB is indeed now VMs flagship product, Berkett for unknown reasons seems to be steering it towards the rocks. I cant believe Mr Branson is satisfied with the "publicity" this company is bringing to the Virgin brand.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

But theres money to be made in this market, just because virgin aren't making any doesnt mean its not there.

The point of my post was to highlight that Virgin may well focus on other areas but neglecting the demands of consumers on the TV side moves them to Sky for TV as theres pretty much nobody else.

When theres so much to be saved having multiple services from one provider - if virgins phone and TV aren't attractive the pull of VM broadband may not be enough to counter the savings of getting all 3 from sky.

By neglecting their TV, they face losing customers for any of their other services due to the pull of combined discounts (ie Sky free BB) from other providers.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

VM seem to be incapable of making a profit!

For reasons of their own VM seem to be letting standards drop across the board.

It's been suggested the reasonis because the CEO is a fool but I don't think so. Fools don't get to a position like that in a Company.

I would suggest it is because they are broke and on the verge of folding (again).

Or

Because the churn after the 20meg upgrade fiasco and the loss of the Sky basics was lower than expected, VM are actively seeing just how far they can extract the urine from their customer base before a positive churn becomes a negative churn. While at the same time saving oodles of cash on not upgrading the network and making staff redundent.

The problem with this is maybe they are on a plateau with this at the moment but they could encounter a cliff like the digital signal cutoff point when a weak signal completely loses the picture. If this was to occur they could find themselves in an impossible to recover situation.

As to their stance on HD, when the 5 major channels launch HD their position will be increasingly untenable. I would expect mass defections to Freesat.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

I wonder what Berketts reaction to that will be, something along the lines, "VM doesn't need the thousands who have left for Freesat, even though they have five HD channels its not what our customers want"

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

To me it seems like he made a list of all of the things people really thought valuable and worthwhile when he became CEO - net neutrality, privacy when browsing, HD channels, no throttling/downoad limits etc. Since then he has attacked each one, perhaps to assert himself, make a name for himself, or perhaps just because he really is an idiot.

He's succeeded certainly, but as a CEO of a company he's a spectacular failure. I really can't think of any CEO aside from Murdoch who is so completely obnoxious and counter to everything sane people think important. He is surely a terrible embarrassment to the rest of the company who must dread his next venom filled attack on some other sacred cow. He's also totally counter to the 'nice guy' image Branson likes to put forward. I wonder if Branson even knows what this clown is up to, or is he too busy off building a moon rocket or some such.

I'd say he'll be gone within 6 months, or VM will have sold up or gone bankrupt. You can only beat up your customers so much before they leave, and I think for many he's already well past that point.

---------- Post added at 10:11 ---------- Previous post was at 09:21 ----------

Another issue which Virgin's moronic CEO conveniently fails to mention when he's waxing lyrical over how wonderful upscaled PAL is, is that PAL broadcasts with 2 channel sound. The new HD channels come with Dolby Digital 5.1, which while a far cry from the sound on a blu-ray (Dolby True HD, DTS Master HD), is still a huge leap over 2 channel sound.

But then again, if he's happy with crusty old SD PAL, then he probably doesn't even see the need for stereo sound, let alone surround.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

I think we all know now why Virgin are so bad, their CEO is obviously a muppet.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

very good point freesat is now not just a danger to sky but now VM. However for those who for many reason cannot have a dish freeview for HD as it goes live in your area looks the only option.

Ofcom announced freeview will later this year get DVB-t2.

Will be introducing HD on freeview although only the main 5 from 2009 as each region goes digital only they will get ITV HD, BBC HD, c4 HD, 5 HD.

You can see freeview also hurting VM.

I hope his comments been taken out of context he was talking about the immediate period to early 2009. He does have a point during this stage of HD. But from mid 2009 there is definate need to start looking at HD as standard.

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

looks like he may have fell victim to the 3strikes rule that virgin were trying to implement!

---------- Post added at 12:50 ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 ----------

OMFG its TRUE!!! Neil Berkett was hired by sky to infiltrate Virgin Media and finish the company off....

Neil Berkett is...... THE INFILTRATOR!!!

showing on sky1 and sky1 HD this tuesday 8:00pm

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Yes they do Mick, with sickening regularity.

It's called "failing upwards"..

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Nicely put. :)

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

Sorry to be pickey, but I think you mean the main 4! ;)

Re: VM CEO: We don't need HD channels
 

I disagree on that one, the cost to alot of customers in purchasing HD LCD/PLASMA is far to great aleap. Just to get a few sports movies in HD isn't enough. It will be a few years until the vast majority ot mainstream programming will be HD and then the need for HD tv's will be there. At the moment the demand and cost is to much. With Sky you have top pay for the STB, The TV set ups ranging from £700-£1800, for the stand surround ect included, just to recieve a few channels isn't really worth at the moment.

Talking about destrying VM just as you say is shortsighted, ADSL in my view is less of a product than cable broadband,and not knowing much about BT Vision and it's performance, i can only assume with the poor performance of ADSL this is no better.

But i agree VM shouldn't and most likely won't, sit back for the next few years with there, "head in the sand" as you say.