Quote:
Originally Posted by vincerooney
Why are VM a broadband company first and tv second ? I know they have to maintain their own infrastructure for broadband etc but if it's universally known VM don't care as much about tv I wouldn't have signed up! If you offer tv, telephone and broadband services I expect you to treat every part the same.
Whoever's in charge of channel acquisitions must have the best job ever
"Fancy buying my channel?"
"Nahhhhhhh"
"Would you be interested in a HD version of ..."
"Nahhhhh"
"Do you actually want any channels?"
"Nahhhhhh"
As he sits with his feet on the desk wearing sunglasses drinking cocktails with love film and anyone else they can throw on TiVo boxes and it doesn't cost them a penny
|
Who says they don't care about TV? The only UK provider with TiVo, the only place to watch every major sport channel in a single subscription, hd at no extra cost (and the first in the UK to even have hd channels), access to ott apps on an award-winning platform, etc.
I'm sure Virgin are serious about TV.
But, with no evidential basis for this other than my own experience, I think on the whole people choose Virgin for their superior broadband product and then take TV with them because bundles make financial sense. The simple fact is that Virgin can't compete with Sky solely in terms of TV so why would they ruin themselves by going all out? At the same time, if they fall behind BT for the UK's fastest broadband then they're in trouble. If I was a shareholder that's the fight I'd want them to have.