Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone
But losing 36,000 customers in the last quarter suggest to me that their HD TV channel strategy is not working.
|
Agreed. It's very simple, if HD is the priority, Sky offer more of it.
Yes, vm have done a reasonable job with tivo, but tivo is a means to an ends. It's only there to navigate and record content, it's not the content in itself what's important despite whatever apps may launch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetman11
The problem is were does the money come from for these extra HD channels as VM offer HD for free on XL were Sky charges 10.25 a month giving them more scope to launch new content.
|
If just looking at the tv package on its own, this is true in a way, although vm don't offer anything for "free", it's just packaged differently.
Most people take a bundle from vm now and the last time I looked, vm charge £13.90 line rental just to have a bit of old copper wire connected to your house. Even Berkett calls it a connectivity fee. Pure profit.
So, I don't think we should be looking at HD pricing, one dimensionally, if I can put it that way. VM has its own network, it has more costs than Sky, but no rental fees. I think VM has far more flexibility in pricing than it lets on.
And don't forget the six billion debt vm is still in... That's the problem. To make money, you have to spend it first. VM has to be selective about what channels it chooses to launch, and even if there weren't any debts, it would still be selective over channel launches as it's a closed network, unlike Sky's.
To answer the OP's question, I don't think there should be an additional HD charge, cable tv costs enough as it is!