Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick Fisher
Cor! If it was that good why did I ever move away?
Oh yeah! I just remembered and wishing to rain on your parade ........
1. It's been ages since the launch and two prestige wide screen offerings have been castrated into an unatural 14.9:1 in a 4.3 frame aspect because Virgins high profile Sky1 replacement is STILL a DEDICATED 4.3 CHANNEL.
2. I see lots of complaints about aspect and PQ issues regarding Setanta on VM. Can't say it's any better on Sky as I don't subscribe but I don't recall seeing complaints about it on the Sky Forums.
3. Not a sporty person so couldn't give a monkeys. Sorry.
4. Could very rarely access it. Series and Eps seemed to disappear and reappear without any logical pattern. Many series were incomplete. Catchup TV was mostly unavailable or unpopulated.
5. Over contended in many areas, STM, off shored support, Phorm, lack of network maintenace and upgrades.
6. Not a sporty person, hate football, so couldn't give a monkeys. Sorry.
7. Was always unavailable, not that I tried too hard.  |
1. My word! change the record will you? Big deal it broadcasts in 4:3 and not widescreen, that's all you ever say and it's the only argument you have!
There is a lot more new content on V1 since the launch than there has been on Sky1! Sky2 was a repeat of Sky1 so no loss and Sky three was a repeats of Sky1 and too!
V1 is showing three of the top American imports to come out this year all bar one has been giving a second season! Chuck renewed, Riches renewed, SCC tbc but looks likely. What did Sky1 have? Journey man? Oh yeah that got canned because it was rubbish.
2. Picture quality can't be expected to be the same as Sky because it is a hell of a lot cheaper than Sky! Plus not everyone has HD, the majority of joe public still have standard non widescreen sets never mind HD compatible.
Picture quality is only an issue if you are used to HD broadcasts from Sky but like i said there is an £8 difference! Plus vm customers get it for jak.
3. You're not a sporty person? Good for you, there is much bigger market for Sport than there is Sky 1. Sport is the biggest thing in England and VM xl customers get it for no additional cost. I was not asking you of your personal experience, i was telling you and the other poster that we have infact seen lots since the removal of Sky basics.
4. I can access VOD and find my easily accessible and reliable as can a lot of other people. Infact the recent quarter results from VM show VOD is being used more and more and recieves millions upon millions of hits and views every quarter. Catch up tv is a great addition as i do not have a pvr. There are only select series without the full series showing and that is down the distriubutors not VM because showing full series affects DVD sales. We have seen quite a few HD series added to OD since the removal of Sky basics too which includes Sopranos, Lost Ghost whisperer etc.
5.Off shored support? Last time i looked Sky used offshored centres too!
6.Phorm is not an issue because you have the option to opt out of it problem solved!
---------- Post added at 13:33 ---------- Previous post was at 13:20 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
Not really, if skys income for content dropped then the investment into future content would also drop alongside it, in addition the lower profits would mean they subsidise their broadband less meaning something would have to give on their broadband which is actually very good quality (no noticeable contention and no traffic shaping).
If sky was broken up skys customers would likely be ringing a sky reseller to get problems fixed instead of sky directly, sky would also likely cost more as the resellers would need to add their profit margins on top of the costs.
|
Sky will have exactly the same income if they were broken up. They are not about to lose their subscribers, only the amount of influence they have over the market because they won't be able to use things like Sky basics as bargaining tools to destroy competition. You obviously do not understand the sort of negative influence it has on the market and has competition is so stiffled so i will leave it there, it's far too long winded.
Sky BB may well be good for you but it has certain restrictions due to exchange locations. I am glad you get a good bb service but an extremely large percentage does not. VM may have stm but it is only affecting heavy users. I use torrents and am not affected. They say you need to be downloading something like 9gb a night which is the equivalent to three movie files. With Sky you have a certain allowance per month for download limits after that you are screwed in my opinion that's much worse than being traffics shaped.
My question remains tho instead of changing to sky why are you instead staying with VM and calling for changes to be made to make sky worse? are you on a retention deal?[/QUOTE]
No i am not on a retention deal, i am happy with my service and i get what i pay for and since VM lost Sky basics i receive an overall much more attractive package than i ever did when basics was available. I had Sky years ago and chose Telewest because they were cheaper. Not only are they still cheaper than Sky but i now feel i get an overall better service than Sky.
I'm not saying i want to make Sky worse you are twisting my words i said i feel sky should be regulated and make the market fairer because that improves competition and prices for everyone.