Poor choice of Channels
 

In an effort not to get banned from going off topic in Media Boys thread about what's coming soon to VM I thought I'd start a specific thread about the poor choice of channels, and also what tripe is alleged to be coming.

Channel 5+1 - A poor channel to start with now delayed by an hour
The Africa Channel - Don't know what to say about this so I won't
ITV HD channels - supposed to be coming soon but really if a company has to haggle to get these then it's not really trying is it
A decent 3D channel would be nice - if you look at VM's advertising you would and most probably will be fooled into thinking they have one
A very poor choice of HD channels

I now know why it's cheaper than Sky because it's a very poor second best to it

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Move to Sky, then....

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Most honest Virgin customers will concede that when it comes to linear channels, SKY are the best in the UK. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply deluded. I wouldn't say what Virgin offer is poor, they carry something like 99 of Britain's top 100 popular channels according to Barb. That's excellent compared to Freeview, Freesat, Talk Talk and BT Vision

As long as Virgin TV customers aren't leaving in huge numbers, what incentive is there for Virgin to pay big money to add more channels? Virgin are very happy up selling to their current TV customers, and getting them onto TiVo and mobile contracts etc...

At the end of the day we are all free to chose our own TV providers. If your current provider doesn't meet your needs go somewhere else. It really is that simple. Why stay with a TV provider who doesn't provide what you want? I'd say that's bordering on madness. Sure some people can't get SKY because of poor reception, or their landlord won't let them have a dish on the property. These people should be grateful that Virgin offer such a competitive alternative service. These people would be screwed for top quality TV without Virgin.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

IIRC the OP moved from Sky to VM. Perhaps he is now regretting leaving and believes he should have stayed with them

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Probably. That's what can happen if you don't do your research before changing provider. The grass isn't always greener on the otherside.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Even when (if) we get additional ITV HD channels they probably won't have Dolby sound. Better picture quality with 2 channel audio. Hardly a huge leap. One of the reasons that most HD channels are worth having is the 5.1 soundtrack. Not so for ITV1 currently, so rather disappointing IMHO.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I visit a home with Sky fairly regularly and I really cannot agree with the description of VM's channels as "poor"; way ott in my view.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I suggest we all go back to the 50s, black & white 4/5hrs a day. Nothing to moan about there.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Somehow take a recording machine with us and save all those wonderful shows that got lost!

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Or lets go back to the 1850's. No TV, 16 hour working days and about 1 days holiday a year spent at the local seaside. Plenty to moan about there:D

Oh almost forgot instead of a PVR in the 1850's you had TB.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I don't think it is that simple. If TV channels was my only consideration, then, yes, Sky would win hands down and it would be a simple choice.

But there is more than one aspect to consider when choosing a service provider, especially when you factor in that you are usually buying triple play services of phone, TV and Broadband.

For me, VM are far better than Sky on everything apart from TV channels. The three recordable tuners and Whishlists are that Tivo offers have become a 'must have' feature for me and to downgrade to the limited functionality of a Sky box would be unacceptable.

But I also want Sky atlantic, and would prefer to have more channels in HD, which means going to Sky.

Because VM have vastly increased their HD channels, I don't see HD as a significant problem now, as a very big proportion of the shows I record are in HD anyway.

That just leaves channel content. The only channel that I really want is Atlantic; I don't really care about the other channels that Sky have that VM haven't.

So I stay with VM. But when both services have things that you want that aren't available on the other, you do have to make a decision. But if you have to compromise your requirements, it isn't a simple one

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I never watch 70% of the channels VM offers, and about the same of Freeview channels. Too much dross, or good programmes spread thinly over too many other channels.

I have neighbour who will apparently watch anything if it's in HD, but wouldn't if it was in SD. :confused:

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I agree Taf. I am all for quality content over quantity of content, alas how does anyone know what defines "quality" content. For me x-factor, soaps, all other reality shows should not be allowed to be made. Other people adore these shows and will say documentaries, history, nature shows are dross.

I think some people just feel they are missing out on something special by not having the missing channels they are liable never to watch (excluding HD variations).

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

When you consider that Virgin is responsible for every piece of hardware between the satellite or wired feed from the broadcaster & the customer, they do a pretty good job for what they charge us. Sky's got it easy. No cables & the satellites are someone else's problem.

Don't have the choice of Sky where I live as I have no line of sight, but even if I did I wouldn't change.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Those were the days - loads of tb. My TiVo is apparently state of the art, but only has 1tb,which feels like a real backwards step.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Oh to agree with a geordie, what has this forum brought me to :)

Totally regret it and will have to take my medicine, and yes I should have done more research but that's another story for another day. However my point is VM are not exactly doing it's best to keep customers with the new offerings that other platforms already have. Yes I might not watch 70% of them as TAF suggested but it's the 30% that I do that I want the most choice of. One person's poor channel is the next person much watch and I totally respect that. However unless I'm mistaken the ITV 2, 3 and 4 HD channels are not owned by Sky so if nothing else these should be a given on the VM platform.

And Hugh - if I had the option of going back to Sky tomorrow I would but whilst I'm with VM I think I'm entitled to my opinion

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I would not hold my breath on that.;)

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

lol

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I highly doubt that we will see Atlanic on VM anytime soon.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Do you have inside knowledge of that Stephen?.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I might do.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

l will take that as a yes.;)

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

At least the poster is telling the truth, and it had to Hugh to tell him to go back to Sky, Hugh must have shares in VM.

Since l have been with VM, the customer has said what it wants, but VM won't get them, look how long it took VM to get the basic channels back, look at the HD channels they have compared to Sky.

VM are cheaper, but they give us channels that some customers don't want, they are 'always in talks'.

And why waste money getting +1 channels, they would do better by getting good quality channels before them.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Future Sky channels (such as Atlantic) should have been covered in the negotiations when VM sold all their channels to Sky. The VM negotiating team failed to see or did see, but didn't cover, what most other people knew was likely to happen.

How could they have been so short sighted?

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Or giving Sky what essentially amounted to just one channel which was worth their while continuing to run wasn't worth quite as much as some people seem to think?

JAT

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

to say VM's channel choice is poor is a bit harsh really , they carry most. channels. The fact is though it is not as good as Sky's choice. That's a fact even the most ardent VM fan cannot argue with.

Sky is a channel provider whereas VM is not and this is why Sky hold the upper hand.

What is frustrating is the lack of channel additions over the last 12 months or so (not counting the +1 channels which lets face it have limited value). Now ok Sky Atlantic Sky, Sports News HD, Sky Sports 3 & 4 HD they are at the mercy of Sky - if Sky dont want them to have it or only at a ridiclous rate then VM wont get it- that's Sky not really VM's fault.

But what about the ITV HD channels, ESPN America HD, Universal HD and the like- they're not dealing with Sky for those but all we get is 'may possibly launch' or 'in negotiation'. And all this comes courtesy of Media Boy ( and we appreciate what you do Media Boy) - nothing from Virgin themselves to satisfy existing customers or entice new ones. it would be nice if VM kept customers updated themselves.

Tivo and the superior 'on demand' where tools to add growth to Vm's customer base but i do feel they're maybe resting on their laurels. Well guess what Sky are fighting back: 2TB HD+ boxes, constantly improving catch up and on demand services- suddenly VM's offerings dont look so compelling...and crucially channel content- here Sky wins hands down, more channels, more HD etc.

I would suggest VM need to act or risk losing more and more customers to SKy or even BT.

I am not a big fan of Sky or Rupert Murdoch but ultimately you look at what value you get for what youre paying.

as i have posted before it's really VM's BB that keeps me with them for now. Where i live on the outskirts of Scunthorpe there's really no competition - i am on premiere collection- at present Sky or BT could only offer me 2-3MB.

But if/when BT or Sky can offer me superfast BB- ie 30MB plus then i would seriously look at my options again and i doubt i would be alone.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

How can they cover for the future? Atlantic was launched after the sale no one could forsee what Sky did. They are masters at getting one up on VM.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

What do people think living, livingit and challenge are actually worth? Its amazing what Virgin would have been able to get for these three channels had they only had decent negotiators! Seriously, they overachieved as it is.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I must say I have seen a marked improvement on the UK TV channels since VM sold out to Scripts. Scripts seem to be prepard to invest in more in original content,

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Many people anticipated that Sky would launch a new channel after the sale. Such potential channels should have been covered in the sale agreement.

---------- Post added at 22:32 ---------- Previous post was at 22:17 ----------

VM were handing over more than just the content of the channels. They were giving Sky the chance to be the only service provider with content. Sky's only competitor that was both a service and content provider would be gone. That was worth a lot.

I think VM made a mistake by selling the channels; they should have kept them and built up the content. VM's plan was to rely on fast fibre BB, which was fine when they were the only ones providing it. But they didn't look ahead to when other providers would also have fast fibre BB and to the time now, where content is king.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

totally disagree with bold bit we have even less channels if VM didn't sell the channels to sky no sky HD at all and no red button there be lot more people would moaning and lots people would have moved to sky from VM for the sky HD if we never got it and please remember VM billons of debt they cant compete with sky for content sky would always win on that so did right thing selling

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

It's not about being short sighted. Sky are sneaky.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Summed up perfectly as we all know Sky's track record on a good many things and even those old diehards at times can't defend a lot of Sky's tactics.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Virgin knew full will that infinity was coming when it sold off the living group of channels. As has already been said, Virgin are in debt, and those channels have certainly been improved by new and wealthier ownership, and in addition we actually got quite a lot for them. Getting rid of something that costs money when you haven't got any and being able to present yourself as serious about hd and interactive services at the same time? Thats pretty good work afaic.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Fancy , a firm not letting its main competitor in on its future plans. :)

What is the world coming to , they'll be telling us their trying to improve profits next. :monkey:

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Clearly you have never had to deal with Sky. Why do you think Ofcom have to be involved so much?

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

So why the change of tune?

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

And thy loyal servant will go to the end of the world to support thy master.:)

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Sorry Den this is o so true. Anyone would think that you and others believe that Sky are in business to help other companies take away their customers.

Sky are in it to get as much for their shareholders as they can,not to help Virgin ,B.T or any other company. Certainly not to help them increase their customer base . Den wake up and smell the coffee :p:. So the only time Virgin will get anything from Sky is when it increases the bottom line overall. We have to live with the crumbs from the table -or pull up a chair & join the feast :shocked: not something I actively plan to do but never say never:cool:

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

That's cos MM's master treats him well Den, feeding him the freshest finest cuts, whereas ours is a neglectful mean master who tosses us a bit of scrag end once every blue moon:mad:

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Oh Itshim its so nice to hear such fine eloquent words this morning from you this morning but in the case of Sky please tell me what they have actually got which is actually better then what Virgin have got and apart from having a few more itsy bitsy channels thats about it frankly as Virgin stand shoulders above them on a good many other things and as the old cat advert goes 9 out of 10 cats prefer only the best and in this case and many others thats certainly not Sky.:)

---------- Post added at 09:15 ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 ----------

l prefer fillet rather then rump my dear chap.:)

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

:shocked: Dirty boy!

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Can you remind me where and when I posted that SP. I think at one time I did hold that view, but at the same time I also had an uneasy feeling about the channel sale. I now think the uneasy feeling was correct, and the sale was a mistake. It's easy to be seduced and elated by a short term gain, which the content we got from Sky was, but forget or misunderstand the long term consequences of the action.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Sky have the content for now, however the world changes very quickly in this space and the future may be a world where content providers choose to sell direct to customers via the internet, Tivo is perfect to deliver content in this way. Sky are concerned search BSKYB on the net and click news, they are talking about the threat from BT, if they lose the premiere league and movies they have nothing as they don't own any infrastructure. Virgin do and thats a massive assett.

Who knows what will happen, however from a share price perspective Sky where at £7.60 in Nov last year and are now £7.50, whereas VM were at £13 and are now nearly £20, so clearly the speculators sniff that something is brewing

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I am not in the content division and don't have known contact with any negotiating team members but I can imagine that future Sky changes were considered but may have been too costly to include. Can you really image any company allowing a clause that they have to provide anything new they think of in the original price.

On the non-Sky owned content, maybe the providers are locked in to Sky (or partially so) and at some future date the extra content will become available to other providers.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Personally Sky offer nothing to me that I can not get via a combination of Virgin & Freeview. However it has to be said that they will not want to "help" another supplier unless it increases the bottom line.
Other people want offerings only on Sky and hence they complain that Virgin do not have this that or the other . If it is such a problem - then vote with your feet.
I like porterhouse these days if I cant get T Bone that is:dunce:

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Are you Stuart Hall?

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

No l always prefered hearing Eddie myself.;)

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

The reason they are worried about BT is because BT have realised what it takes to counter Sky; they bought content.


That is an interesting point you raise there.

I agree, but I think that will take quite a while. People like us, who visit forums such as this, are keen to see such developments, but the vast majority of the public want to stick with content delivery via traditional means. They are resistant to change; just read these forums and see the number of people who, even though they have a very feature rich PVR in Tivo, still watch TV in the traditional way, i.e., live and thus tied to TV broadcasters shedules.

If VM were to have both the infrastructure for the future, which as you say, they already have, and content, which is the prime driver for now (and a good few years ahead), then they would be in an outstanding position, covering both now and the future.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Click the blue arrow next to your name in the quote and it'll take you to the post.

The important point is it was after the VMTV sale announcement but before the Sky Atlantic one. I was testing your claim "Many people anticipated that Sky would launch a new channel after the sale" and can find no evidence to support that.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

[QUOTE=passingbat;35485581]The reason they are worried about BT is because BT have realised what it takes to counter Sky; they bought content.

yes because BT not billions in debt like VM sad but true and sky will always withhold content too nothing VM can sadly do about that swears under breath at sky again like i said they did right thing selling channels to sky to get the HD content and red button even thought it not full red button if VM didn't have the debt then they could compete for the content sadly they cant

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

[QUOTE=Dave42;35485590]I 'll say it again VM need a cash rich partner or a takeover to compete now.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

[QUOTE=alwaysabear;35485591]yes totally agree there

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

[QUOTE=Dave42;35485592]Agree too. Falling too far behind with no sign of any fightback. :(

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

[QUOTE=Henkesghost;35485594]Falling behind in what respect? Their results are out on the 24th Oct may be best to wait until then before making comments that they are falling behind?

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I think the discussions were after the announcment of Atlantic and people saying they were sure Atlantic wouldn't come to VM and they had expected such a move by Sky.

My thoughts then, and I may or may not have posted them, were, hold on, don't be so hasty to assume that Atlantic won't come to VM; surely VM will have included future Sky channel launches in the VM channel sale deal. But as we know, they hadn't, and I still remain perplexed as to why they didn't.

---------- Post added at 12:36 ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 ----------

[QUOTE=alwaysabear;35485591]
I have wondered the same myself as I've previously posted. One part of me thinks it is necessary and the other has reservations.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

It seems the doomsayers are in their full element today it seems.:)

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Funny how no-one mentioned it before :)

Do we know that?

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

We (the public) can only go on the evidence that Sky Atlantic has not appeared on VM so far, and an earlier post by Stephen, suggests that it won't be anytime soon.

Are you suggesting that it was included in the deal but 'other factors' have prevented it from coming to VM? ;)

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

It will be based on value for money. VM have attrtacted more customers to thir tv service than sky have to theirs in the last 2 qtrs wven though they only cover 50 percent of the country and do not have atlantic.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

The only thing they are falling behind on is channels but that has always been the case. But I do agree something needs to be done. On all the other relevant things, in my view, VM are leading Sky.

VM have far better BB, and a far better set top box. Multiroom streaming will be here soon, a feature that sky have no equivalent of at the moment.

The ipad app will be out soon, which will be as good or better than the Sky version.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

yes VM much better than sky on all things but number of channels only ones I really want from sky is the other sports HD ones but know sky never allow that grrrrrrrrrrrr at sky I for one would never ever go to sky

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Two points

1. If content providers decide to sell content direct to the customers over the Internet why would anyone need a pay TV STB :confused: surely a cheap Roku , Boxee , PS3 , XBOX would do the same job and free from a monthly charge and accessible with whichever ISP you choose.

2. HBO in the US will not sell their content direct to the customer as they make far too much money from the cable/satellite companies.

That's not strictly true is it , Sky has its own network and has its own equipment in the BT exchanges , BT are however responsible for everything from the exchange I believe.
http://corporate.sky.com/investors/p...dc_for_easynet

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

But your statement was that content providers will start to deliver their content direct to the customer over the Internet , if that's true why will any of us need a pay TV STB a simple subscription free Roku will do the job. How many Netflix subscribers access their content on a pay TV STB ? A very small percentage if any , they also use the service across a multitude of ISP's.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

My quote was maybe not will. Its a thought not a this will happen comment. All I am saying is that the world could change an as vm have the infrastructure. One thig I don't get with vm is why they don't puSh the fact that they are the only provider who can deliver tv and bb without the need for a phone line.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

So this is the tv thread. I say virgin are falling farther and farther behind in this department. So what is more relevant? I agree many other areas of Virgin's service is excellent, but tv for me is failing.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I'm in agreement with you that looking forward content delivered over the Internet will vastly increase , this is evident in numerous recent stories , BT Youview , Sky's investment in Roku and launch of NowTV , VM's launch of TIVO however I still feel that content is equally as important hence why BT are snapping it up left right and centre and Sky are upping their investment in homegrown content with a view to selling worldwide a point proved with its recent purchase of Parthenon , BSkyB and Parthenon Media Group have now confirmed their new distribution company will be named Sky Vision.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Now if they were to sell at the same cost as charged with a phone line ( minus that cost) :D

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Exactly.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Snapping up content left, right and centre? Or shooting the moon with a couple of high profile sports packages for a hell of a lot more money than Virgin have?

Lets be clear, this isn't about Virgin sitting on piles of cash, they simply aren't in a position to pay the sort of money that Bt have on sports rights or Sky have on producing new comedy and drama, and Living, Livingit and Challenge would never be enough leverage for Sky hd, red button services, Atlantic and billions of pounds worth of sports rights, plus futureproofing against new channel launches. They wouldn't be worth that now, let alone when Virgin owned them, and they're better now than they ever were then.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

That's the point, they are struggling to attract new tv customers so are jumping on the net solution, however if bt keep snapping at their heels for sport and win the next bid (and they did bid for all of the premier league rights so that shows their intent) Sky will not have a lot to offer so the whole model will have to change as they will wholesale sports from bt and make a pittance as VM do now.

Lots to think about I reckon, strange thing is VM seem to have no trouble attracting TV customers even though posters say they are falling behind, all rather strange

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Sky can keep that as far as I'm concerned. Maybe Sky could put all their own productions on Atlantic, and move all the US drama back from Atlantic to Sky One and Sky living. Then I wouldn't care two hoots that VM don't have Atlantic. Sounds like a plan to me. :)

---------- Post added at 18:27 ---------- Previous post was at 18:21 ----------

The power of Tivo? The adds are working?

Much as I moan about the lack of Atlantic, I'd rather have Tivo without Atlantic, than Atlantic with the Bronze age ;) Sky box.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Care to post us these figures

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

l think you know by looking at all the related Virgin blogs that Virgin on the TiVo alone have attracted over a million new users and that just by itself tell you quite clearly where the momentum is on winning new TV subscribers.:)

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

They're not all new users though, den. I have a TiVo, and am one of the million, but I was already a Virgin TV subscriber when I got it.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Yes you are right but they are still attracting more TV subscribers then Sky and that tells you when it comes to a full all round bundle package Virgin quite clearly have the advantage.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Now TV was a very good move by Sky and adding it to the Youview platform was an even better move; hardly a 'jumping on' move.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

yes VM better on all things apart from number of channels Den mate only ones i really want from sky is the missing sports HD ones but know sky never gonna let that happen grrrrrrrrrrrr@sky

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Its on the net look at each companies invstor relations pages where you will see a link to their results. Its also on cf somewhere. Each companies latest results are out in a couple of weeks or simply search bskyb and click news where there is already speculation that their latest tv adds will be poor.

Sky make lots of cash but are struggling to attract new custom hence the push for triple play

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I've already looked Sky attracted 10,100 new TV subscribers from Jun 11 to Jun 12 in the same period VM TV numbers remained unchanged however they did take their TIVO userbase from 34,000 in Q2 11 to 939,000 which is a phenomenal achievement they also added 38,000 to a pay TV tier presumably from M TV again impressive , Sky upgraded 521,000 to HD and added another 152,00 multiroom subs. The VM presentation reported a net cable customer loss of 15,000 , Sky reported a total customer increase of 312,000 across all its product range.

Both companies TV results would suggest Pay TV subscriber numbers have reached a plateau , however both companies are producing good figures by enticing customers to upgrade to premium products.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Bloody hell you should get a job in the sky spin department. In the last qtr vm who cover half the country added 21k tv customers, sky, who cover all of the country added 20k customers.

There were posts saying vm are falling behind on the tv side the customer numbers say different.

Btw, Bank of America are speculating that sky will have their poorest tv performance for a decade, estimating growth of 14k.

Lets see how accurate they are?

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

We're happy with our choice of channels on VM. Had to subscribe to $ky Sports to get the F1 but it's worth the extra for darts, snooker etc. Don't need the movie channels as we don't watch many films. There's nothing on Atlantic that appeals to us, so all good :)

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Have read the figures if there is one person on here who is even handed its Muppetman.;)

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Just because people choose VM over Sky, does not prove VM are not falling behind on the TV side.

TV is only one part of the total services offered, and people will make a choice to put up with poorer TV because everything else on VM is better than Sky.

If VM have considerably fewer channels than Sky, and the gap is constantly growing, then VM are falling behind sky on the TV side. Whether people are prepared to put up with it for other VM benefits is another matter.

There wouldn't be complaints about missing channels if they weren't falling behind.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

well the sky missing channels is because they are being withheld by sky so what can VM do about that nothing sadly

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Looking at these numbers do you now think that VM should stop spending a massive amount of money of marketing and spend it on new channels. I alone get about three pieces of mail a week from them and as I work in the industry I can tell you this kind of thing doesn't come cheap. If they have increased subscribers to the extent you've stated then maybe it should now start looking after it's current customers? Just a thought.

Also what exactly is all the hype about the Tivo box that you don't get with the sky box, other than three tuners? I willing to learn here in-case I'm missing out on some wonders that I've not found.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

But are they?

http://corporate.sky.com/media/press..._upc_agreement

UPC managed to agree a deal which included Sky News HD and Sky Sports News HD.

Rob Webster, Director of Sky’s Commercial Group, comments: "As we continue to increase our investment in high-quality pay-TV content, we’re keen to distribute our channels as broadly as possible to widen our reach and enable more households to enjoy some of the great programming Sky has to offer.

"This agreement demonstrates how through successful negotiation we can create value for the companies involved in addition to real benefits for consumers."

I'm sure if Virgin offer the right price SKY would consider giving them access to pretty much any channel. However seeing Virgin still don't have deals in place for Animal Planet HD, Eurosport 2HD, Cartoon Network HD, Crime & Investigation Network HD, Disney Channel HD, Disney Cinemagic HD, Disney XD HD, E! HD, ESPN America HD, MTV HD, Nat Geo Wild HD, Nickelodeon HD, TCM HD, Universal Channel HD and various popular standard definition channels I think I know who is firmly to blame.....VIRGIN

There must good reasons why Virgin are so far behind SKY when it comes to HD. Either Virgin don't value the channels, or they aren't prepared to pay the asking price.

I'd be able to buy the whole SKY withholding argument if Virgin were snapping up channels from launch from other broadcasters, but they don't. Some of the above channels launched over 4 years ago, what on Earth is holding Virgin back?

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

tell me who got sky atlantic sky sports 3+4HD and F1HD oh yeah no one but sky so Rob Webster why is sky with holding channels then with what you said so to answer you Chad yes they are

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Dave their are other channels as Chad has listed which have nothing to do with Sky yet we still do not have them. So who else do we blame but Virgin for not having these channels.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Maybe nobody has met SKY's valuation of the channels yet, or maybe UPC's negotiation team are superb at their job when compared to Virgins. Remember SKY News HD and SKY Sports HD where also in the mythical "withheld list" until UPC agreed a deal for them 2 months ago.

BT clearly have cash burning a hole in their pockets. BT are the only TV provider at the moment who will be able to put Rob Websters statement to the test. If BT can't agree a deal for the likes of SKY Atlantic, Virgin will never be able too.

This is an interesting link regarding Talk Talks deal with SKY:

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/b...044727.article

According to the article the deal agreed took 2 years to negotiate. Seems like SKY are pretty ruthless and are prepared to hold out for what they want. Maybe TV providers like Virgin don't have the staying power to negotiate for 2 years to get access to the likes of SKY Atlantic, or for all we know they've been in active negotiations since the channels launch.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

For me, the 3 tuners make a massive difference; many of the new shows are in the 9-10pm slot and with 2 tuners, clashes are more likely.

Equal with 3 tuners are whishlists. All the forthcoming 2012-2013 new US shows that I am interested in are already set to automatically record via a whishlist, even though they are not on the EPG, and may not be for several months. I also have whishlists for my favourite actors, or films I'd like to see again, which will automatically record when they turn up on the EPG.

Tivo will automatically look for repeat showings in the event of recording clashes. The ability to set 'New only' in recording settings is usefull; saves you getting repeat showings of previous seasons that you've already seen.

There are other things like intelligent search, a list of all the upcoming showings of a specific episode, full season and episode listings of a show, cast details and other shows they have been in with an easy way to set up a whishlist. A direct link to youtube for a show found in a search or the 'explore this show' screen. Suggestions for similar shows to the ones you watch, which can be automatically recorded if you want.

That is just some of what tivo offers.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Exactly my point! The common denominator is Virgin, not SKY.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

yes know what your saying but chad asked but are they about the sky channels and i pointed out the one they withholding that my one complaint about sky and yes theys other none sky channel we not got it very frustrating at time and we know virgin will never tell us anything

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

The arrival of NOW TV will tell us everything we need to know about who is witholding what.

SKY are making NOW TV avaliable on PC, Mac, Android smartphones, iPhone, iPad, Xbox, PlayStation 3, Roku and to BT and Talk Talk customers via Youview.

As SKY state themselves in the press release for NOW TV:

"More great Sky content will also be added in the coming months, with Sky Sports due to launch on NOW TV before the end of the year. This will enable NOW TV customers to enjoy live action from the Barclays Premier League, UEFA Champions League, England Test cricket, Heineken Cup rugby, ATP tennis, the Masters from Augusta and much more. The introduction of Sky Sports will be followed on NOW TV by must-see shows from Sky 1, Sky Atlantic, Sky Arts and Sky Living, including home-grown drama, original comedy and US shows."

Virgin have the technology in place to allow their customers to subscribe to NOW TV via a TiVo app. I however have a very sneaky suspicion that NOW TV will never launch on TiVo. Not because SKY don't want to give us it, it's clear they want to launch NOW TV everywhere, but because Virgin will withhold it from us.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

I suppose it depends on what you want from your PVR and the items you listed clearly are of interest to you and I have absolutely no complaints about that. However do you not find it annoying that say if for instance a sports program runs over then the Tivo does not automatically record the extension to the program. I know it asks when you set the program if you want an hour adding on but I just want it to happen not have to guess. Never had this issue with Sky. Remember the Canadian GP that ran over by about 5 hours, sky box recorded the lot and never had to press a button. I set a program to record last week on the Tivo but as the program before had ran over it missed the first 30 minutes. This is what I want from a PVR, not some fancy way of programming 6 months in advance or selecting an actor and recording all his films. I want to be able to set a recording, go on holiday and know for sure that it will record the whole thing no matter when it started or if it overran.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

The only relevant part of Now TV for Tivo is Sky Atlantic; all other content is already available via VM already. Wheather Sky will produce a Sky Atlantic only app for Tivo, remains to be seen.

You've made some good points in your last few posts. I was suspicious of the Rob Webster statement when I read it a few months ago on DS. The lack of non Sky channel additions does bring into question VM's part in lack of new channels arriving on cable.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Absolutely.;)

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

The agreement with upc came hot on the heals of the last ofcom ruling. In my, admittedly cynical, opinion, it was a deal done to make it look as though they're a company who are ready to do deals, but with a company who won't cause them to many problems. And note - still no Atlantic.

Hd channels are a different issue, however - Sky customers pay extra and get more. Simple as that.

Re: Poor choice of Channels
 

Ok so what do you want. Sky have about 40% of their base taking HDTV, that brings them in 40 million pounds per month or 480 million per year.

Virgin have about 60% of their customers (as its free to the majority) bringing in virtually nothing. Btw the sky pay hd stuff makes them hardly anything.

So, the question is, do want to pay for HD and get more channels as they would be able to afford more, or stay as you are with a great selection without all the tat and Atlantic. But as said before they are gaining more subs than sky without Atlantic, so internally that must be a dillema.