Virgin Media to add more HD channels - Page 7

frogstamper · 04-04-2009, 20:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

Unfortunately it's not Virgin that decide the channel content, but the channel owners. Daytime tv chat shows will be just as horrendous in HD as in SD.

At least TV Catch up enables you to watch something more to your liking - when you want.

I don't disagree, but don't forget with HD will come HD programing on VOD, even better to watch the programs you want in HD.
As regards daytime chat shows in HD I wasn't aware there were any, what I'd like to see are channels like Nat-Geo-HD and Discovery-HD these are the sort of programs I'd be interested in seeing in HD.

Arthurgray50@blu · 04-04-2009, 22:23

VM have a duty to there customers, to bring the best in entertainment ie HD and catch up etc.
If VM cannot provide this, then they are failing the customer, it is no good them saying that we will not supply this, l didn't go in for VM HD box for nothing, and waste my money, on something, l am not going to get, that is false advertising.

**Hugh** · 04-04-2009, 23:46

Good luck

Turkey Machine · 05-04-2009, 00:17

The way I see it, companies are almost queueing up to broadcast exclusively in HD on Sky's platform. If Virgin then want those HD channels on cable, even though they've already got them in SD on cable, they have to go through Sky because of the "exclusive" clause in every one of those contracts the broadcasters signed with Sky. Virgin should be pushing for more HD capacity on their network, but until analogue is switched off and the HD programme transmission (or even all programme transmission) moved to H.264 (and related to this, the TV side of things moved to DOCSIS 2.0 or 3.0, they can't have a hope in the frozen wastelands of Beelzebub's homeworld to remotely match Sky's capacity for HD.

Ignitionnet · 05-04-2009, 00:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

More news on HD from Virgin Media (Exclusive from Digital Spy!)

Quote:

Up to four more linear high definition channels will launch on Virgin Media's digital cable service over the next few months, Digital Spy was told today.

In an exclusive update on the cable operator's plans for high definition, a spokesperson revealed that "advanced discussions" are underway with "a number of content providers... aiming to launch three to four linear HD channels over the next few months".

Source: DigitalSpy.co.uk

Click Me!

This looks familiar. Oh yeah.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34697213-post1.html

First post of this thread from 15-12-2008:

Quote:

Virgin Media chief executive Neil Berkett has confirmed that multiple linear high definition services will launch on the cable operator's television platform over the next few months.

Speaking at the launch of Virgin's 50Mbps broadband service, Berkett said that four linear high definition channels would join the digital cable lineup "over the next three months".

Between his repeated anti-net neutrality, pro-behavioural advertising ranting and somewhat premature announcement of HD Channels he is living up to his surname somewhat.

---------- Post added at 23:41 ---------- Previous post was at 23:38 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turkey Machine

The way I see it, companies are almost queueing up to broadcast exclusively in HD on Sky's platform. If Virgin then want those HD channels on cable, even though they've already got them in SD on cable, they have to go through Sky because of the "exclusive" clause in every one of those contracts the broadcasters signed with Sky. Virgin should be pushing for more HD capacity on their network, but until analogue is switched off and the HD programme transmission (or even all programme transmission) moved to H.264 (and related to this, the TV side of things moved to DOCSIS 2.0 or 3.0, they can't have a hope in the frozen wastelands of Beelzebub's homeworld to remotely match Sky's capacity for HD.

Without analogue Virgin can easily accomodate the required channels in most areas, no need to go H.264 or all-IPTV which is a bloody long way off anyway. In areas where they can't accomodate it all they might have to *shock horror* overbuild the in the field HFC.

Sorry to Virgin Media for my swearing there

Arthurgray50@blu · 05-04-2009, 17:38

To be honest, l am getting up with this whole business, It always seems that ' Sky ' have the paramount control over everything, WHY? Can't VM go in and get these channels from the companies themself.

I believe that VM do have the space for HD Channels, BUT several months ago, Niell Berkett, himself said that they are going to concentrate on VOD demand, then on HD, now if that doesn't say something, l don't know what does.

We have to have a company running the cable network, that won't lie to the customer, and l think VM are, I have read on this forum, where customers are going over to Sky, as they are fed up, with the constant stream coming from VM, that ' VM will have HD in several months'. Just to rub salt in the wounds, Discovery Wild is now HD on Sky.

OLD BOY · 05-04-2009, 19:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

Without analogue Virgin can easily accomodate the required channels

The worrying thing is, did you notice that the 'four linear high definition channels' Mr Burkett mentioned late last year has now become 'three or four linear HD channels'?

In another three months, do you think this might become 'two or three'....?

Maybe they will be changing their well known catch phrase to 'disappearing soon' as all the promises reduce to totally nothing.

one2escape · 05-04-2009, 20:04

for me atm prefer VOD to the HD channels. I have said it once Ive said it a million of times VOD is the way things are going and Sky are pooing themselves with it. When Virgin get there finger out of the hole regarding HD it will become very interesting. The problem with Virgins TV is that they are one generation behind in some aspects. When virgin / ntl rolled out the V+ box Sky where pushing HD boxes.

Arthurgray50@blu · 05-04-2009, 20:43

As l have said before, when a pink elephant flies past my house and is preparing to land, that is when l will believe VM will have HD channels on there network.

I for one feels conned by the fact, l bought one of there so called V+ boxes, with the impression, that HD channels were immenent, so we paid for a box, and we still waiting. The odd thing is Sky are now offering HD boxes at Â£49.99, l wish l had gone over.

Stuart · 05-04-2009, 23:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by one2escape

for me atm prefer VOD to the HD channels. I have said it once Ive said it a million of times VOD is the way things are going and Sky are pooing themselves with it. When Virgin get there finger out of the hole regarding HD it will become very interesting. The problem with Virgins TV is that they are one generation behind in some aspects. When virgin / ntl rolled out the V+ box Sky where pushing HD boxes.

Sky are not pooing themselves. Why do you think they bought that ISP? Because they wanted to provide broadband for customers? Well, partly. It would also main that they have a ready supply of potential viewers for On Demand. Which, having a broadband network that covers more of the UK than Virgin's cable network (Virgin do not offer VOD via ADSL), they could implement as easily as Virgin have. All they need is STBs with active Ethernet connections (such as Sky HD), the right software and head end servers (which they could buy like VM have done).

Ignitionnet · 06-04-2009, 00:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

All they need is STBs with active Ethernet connections (such as Sky HD), the right software and head end servers (which they could buy like VM have done).

-could +have.

kkevin666 · 07-04-2009, 00:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

-could +have.

33 HD channels HAVE

one2escape · 07-04-2009, 10:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Sky are not pooing themselves. Why do you think they bought that ISP? Because they wanted to provide broadband for customers? Well, partly. It would also main that they have a ready supply of potential viewers for On Demand. Which, having a broadband network that covers more of the UK than Virgin's cable network (Virgin do not offer VOD via ADSL), they could implement as easily as Virgin have. All they need is STBs with active Ethernet connections (such as Sky HD), the right software and head end servers (which they could buy like VM have done).

Thats the point that is why they bought an ISP. They cant offer it over there box but they can over the internet.

Stuart · 07-04-2009, 10:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by one2escape

Thats the point that is why they bought an ISP. They cant offer it over there box but they can over the internet.

They can put it on the boxes easily enough. I believe the SKY HD boxes have ethernet ports. All Sky need to do to offer a STB service is write the software to download the programmes through these.

---------- Post added at 09:26 ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by kkevin666

33 HD channels HAVE

I believe Broadbandings meant "Not could, have".

AndyCambs · 07-04-2009, 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

VM have a duty to there customers, to bring the best in entertainment ie HD and catch up etc.
If VM cannot provide this, then they are failing the customer, it is no good them saying that we will not supply this, l didn't go in for VM HD box for nothing, and waste my money, on something, l am not going to get, that is false advertising.

Actually it's the programme providers there which have the duty to provide the best entertainment demanded by the viewers.

Endless re-runs, and "another opportunity to see" is the same whether you're on HD or SD