Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
I disagree. Cable's major selling point has always been the broader range of services the platform can deliver (and in many cases the desire not to have a dish on the side of the house).
Virgin Media has an active TV subscriber in about 30% of all the serviceable households in the UK. Sky's penetration is about 40% (it has a lot more actual customers, but then it is accessible to all UK homes, not just the ones where they can lay a cable). If 'most' people were interested in channels, then we could reasonably expect Sky to be far further ahead of VM than it actually is.
In fact, 'most' people in the UK aren't interested in quantity at all. They don't have any kind of subscription TV and have upgraded to Freeview or Freesat because there's no longer any choice to stay with the basic analogue five.
|
Sky is not accessable to all uk homes as stated, i live in a flat and 80% of the flats have so chance of a dish not because the landlord refueses permission our housing association gave us that,but we have no sight of line for a dish.Must be many more in that situation countrywide.
Cable apart from freeview,is our only realistic TV choice the same as for the many who cannot get cable (in most cases having the sky/freeview solution) BT vision will not work in our area either and BT will not supply it, as ADSL only delivers 1.5 MB maximum where i live.
Personally though i agree with you on the quantity issue i would rather have fewer channels with better quality,in fact as far as tv goes the only thing i am really looking forward to is Red Button on sky sports.