View Single Post
Old 15-08-2011, 21:17   #12
Arthurgray50@blu
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,798
Arthurgray50@blu has a bronzed appealArthurgray50@blu has a bronzed appeal
Arthurgray50@blu has a bronzed appealArthurgray50@blu has a bronzed appealArthurgray50@blu has a bronzed appealArthurgray50@blu has a bronzed appealArthurgray50@blu has a bronzed appealArthurgray50@blu has a bronzed appealArthurgray50@blu has a bronzed appealArthurgray50@blu has a bronzed appealArthurgray50@blu has a bronzed appealArthurgray50@blu has a bronzed appealArthurgray50@blu has a bronzed appealArthurgray50@blu has a bronzed appealArthurgray50@blu has a bronzed appealArthurgray50@blu has a bronzed appealArthurgray50@blu has a bronzed appealArthurgray50@blu has a bronzed appealArthurgray50@blu has a bronzed appealArthurgray50@blu has a bronzed appealArthurgray50@blu has a bronzed appealArthurgray50@blu has a bronzed appeal
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.
Arthurgray50@blu is offline   Reply With Quote