View Single Post
Old 15-08-2011, 21:37   #15
Sirius
Grumpy Fecker
 
Sirius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Warrington
Age: 65
Services: Every Weekend
Posts: 17,032
Sirius has a lot of silver blingSirius has a lot of silver blingSirius has a lot of silver blingSirius has a lot of silver blingSirius has a lot of silver blingSirius has a lot of silver blingSirius has a lot of silver blingSirius has a lot of silver bling
Sirius has a lot of silver blingSirius has a lot of silver blingSirius has a lot of silver blingSirius has a lot of silver blingSirius has a lot of silver blingSirius has a lot of silver blingSirius has a lot of silver blingSirius has a lot of silver blingSirius has a lot of silver blingSirius has a lot of silver blingSirius has a lot of silver blingSirius has a lot of silver blingSirius has a lot of silver blingSirius has a lot of silver bling
Re: Should VM have charged for basic HD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu View Post
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.
So if VM are so bad why do you stay
__________________
The UK is now the regime of Kim Jong Starmer the UK's dictator
Sirius is offline   Reply With Quote