Should VM have charged for basic HD.
 

OK The top VM tv package gives you all none premium HD and ESPN but still its seems to VM customers on this site its not enough.

As a Sky customer the same would cost me

All basic tv packs £24.40
HD £10.25
ESPN £12

But VM customers get this for £30 as a standalone package. So I ask in order to get all you get now plus a few extra HD channels would you agree to your subs rising by £16 a month?

Probably not eh, VM customers constantly moaning on this site need to understand what they actually do get and how much value VM are giving them.

So in order to get Sky atlantic would you agree to a price rise per month? Maybe only £2 or £3??? Virign can only keep absorbing the cost of new channels for so long.

Re: Should VM of charged for basic HD.
 

Another useless thread:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Re: Should VM of charged for basic HD.
 

Then don't post in it..:rolleyes:

Re: Should VM of charged for basic HD.
 

Dont feed the _ _ _ _ _ .;)

Re: Should VM have charged for basic HD.
 

No.

Re: Should VM have charged for basic HD.
 

Off course they should have. If you have HD you are obviously gonna pay the £7.50 for sports and movies. They should charge £10 or so for all HD content then maybe they may achieve something closer to parity with Sky instead of this eternal in talks, coming soon nonsense they have peddled for the last year.

Re: Should VM of charged for basic HD.
 

IF YOU BOTHER TO READ THE THREAD ....

You'll see its very positive in VM's favour showing how you get good value on TVXL.

My question was how much do you expect without a HD charge. Even when someone is positive about VM certain users still want to moan.

The question was mainly, for more basic HD channels would VM customers accept a £2 or £3 monthly increase?

Re: Should VM of charged for basic HD.
 

theres no guarantee if they did charge more sky or whoever would give them all the content so big no for me

Re: Should VM of charged for basic HD.
 

She was responding to denphone.....

Re: Should VM have charged for basic HD.
 

Sky Atlantic is just one of several channels Virgin do not, for some reason carry.

I dont want to pay more to get more channels - I'm happy with what I have, and in all honesty, cannot watch every channel I have anyway !

Re: Should VM have charged for basic HD.
 

The question I have got is there much a difference in cost to VM between a SD and it's HD equivalent channel?

Re: Should VM have charged for basic HD.
 

Hi New to cable. The answer from me to you is yes, l would pay more to get more channels on VM, trouble is some members want things for nothing.

I have said before on this forum, that l would not mind paying between £3 and £5.00 per month for new channels that come, provided they increased HD and lots more.

I am lucky to have the full Sky world package, and l don't mind paying the money, as l get a reasonable deal.

But with VM you don't, you get the 'promises' of more channels, but to me this is a red herring. And VM don't bother about the customers either and there CS is crap.

Re: Should VM have charged for basic HD.
 

More channels with more junk on them, no thanks

Re: Should VM have charged for basic HD.
 

No.

Re: Should VM have charged for basic HD.
 

So if VM are so bad why do you stay