Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu
We as the customer, should NOT have to out up with the crap that VM gives us. They put the cost up, when they like. And it effects the pockets.
What VM should be giving us is exactly what channels Sky have. Some properties ie flats cannot get Sky, so therefore have to have Cable.
My mother in law has a VM/Sky connection and therefore can choose. But the engineer that installed it. Said the quality would not be good.
When l was unemployed several years ago. I went out with a VM in the hope that l could get a job. I was exactly shown by this engineer what goes on. And it was not good.
VM should provide the customer with a good service. As in the coming months, VM will price itself out of the market. And customers will simply go to Sky, where every channel that come out. It goes onto to Sky
|
For a start SKY invest in content VM have only just started doing that, secondly SKY is a open platform VM isn't. I will still maintain what i have always said VM should never of sold their own channels aka living,bravo i think there was a few more too.
---------- Post added at 10:39 ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu
I just wish there were MORE Cable companies out there as competition for VM.
When l was in America several years ago. There was 15 Cable Companies where l was. That's what Competition for you.
There was a brilliant Channel similar to Gold. Great oldies like The Rifleman, Beverley Hillbillies etc. Great stuff.
It would make me laugh IF, Sky created a Cable Company to take on VM
|
I don't think the UK is big enough really for more than 1 cable company, same with paid sattelite too.