An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels - Page 7

Mobes · 16-04-2009, 09:14

errr yes actually. My family watches a lot of sport on Sky AND Eurosport - i would pay!

**Chris** · 16-04-2009, 09:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

Having said that I see that they do offer BBC HD and C4 HD free (C4 HD only with a viewing card though).

Don't see that as a positive benefit - they are not allowed to charge for these channels.

akki007 · 16-04-2009, 10:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

Why should you get one price? All of Sky's channels are bundled or packaged in one way or another. And no, SD and HD are not the same. The HD version of the channel requires more processing and more bandwidth from the satellite. The extra costs are real, not simply some imaginary figure pulled out of a hat to screw more money out of the subs. Granted they may use a single set of HD cameras at the venue and then downsample for the SD broadcast, but those cameras cost money - a lot of money - and Sky has opted to make those people who are able to benefit from the extra detail they capture, pay for it.

What's the relevance of this?

Would you pay more for ITV than Bravo because of the higher bitrate?

Charlie_Bubble · 16-04-2009, 10:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

I might have it wrong - it was only a quick advert I saw out the corner of my eye on television which said "Upgrade to Sky Sports HD for only Â£4.50 per week"
Now Â£4.50 per week is Â£18 per month - which I think is quite expensive.
On that basis, I am quite happy with my SD channels upscaled through the V+ box.

My point is basically that there are numerous posts on this site about the HD channels (indeed with some people it seems something of the Holy Grail). Whilst it's nice to have, I just wondered if people had to pay a premium for the additional HD channels - would they still clamour for it?

I think the answer is no.

I went home to my parents over Easter and they have Sky HD. You pay about Â£10 on top of your other charges for over 30 HD channels. It's not Â£4.50 a week. I would say it is worth it as well. Watching super league, the masters and the premier league on HD was amazing. I don't have virgin/ntl, I left them years ago due to their 'coming soon' crap. I don't have Sky either as I am in a flat and am not allowed a dish. If Virgin had the same HD channels as Sky, I would probably go back to them and yes, I would pay an extra Â£10 for the HD package, because the quality of the image on live sports is worth it, but they don't so I won't go back to them.

akki007 · 16-04-2009, 10:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It may be irrelevant to you - you are speaking only for yourself. If you are not bothered about HD, the increased price shouldn't worry you. So why are you worried?

I can see you are not a business man!

I have no response to this. Please feel free to make more sense next time.

Stuart · 16-04-2009, 11:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by akki007

I have no response to this. Please feel free to make more sense next time.

Made sense to me..

He is asking why, if you are not worried about HD, are you bothered that they charge extra for it? If you aren't worried, you wont pay it anyway so it won't affect you.

As for the other comment, well, if you don't think that Sky (or any DTV platform provider) won't pass on the increased costs of High definition creation and transit to the users, then you would certainly seem not to be a businessman.. Here's a clue: Businesses have to find a way of funding increased costs. If they don't, they go bankrupt. Usually the easiest way to fund those increased costs is to pass them along to the customer in some form.

Mobes · 16-04-2009, 13:41

Make of this what you will... i just saw it over at Digital Spy

"This is Virgin's reply to a complaint about the lack of HD channels:

Thank you for your e-mail dated 13 April 2009.

Unfortunately I have been unable to contact you. Please be assured we are aware that the amount of HD content currently available is limited.

We are trying to get more channels in HD as a priority. It is taking a lot longer then we would have hoped.

We have to negotiate the rights with the other providers to show the channels in HD. As our competitor Sky is one of those providers it is proving difficult to come to an agreement.

We can confirm that unlike Sky, when we have more HD content you will not be charged extra to have access to the channels.

There will be more channels available throughout the year. We do not want to give specific dates until we are 100% certain that we can transmit the channels.

Please look out for anything we may send through the post as you will be informed of any developments.

Customer Concern Team

Virgin Media"

OLD BOY · 16-04-2009, 17:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Made sense to me..

He is asking why, if you are not worried about HD, are you bothered that they charge extra for it? If you aren't worried, you wont pay it anyway so it won't affect you.

As for the other comment, well, if you don't think that Sky (or any DTV platform provider) won't pass on the increased costs of High definition creation and transit to the users, then you would certainly seem not to be a businessman.. Here's a clue: Businesses have to find a way of funding increased costs. If they don't, they go bankrupt. Usually the easiest way to fund those increased costs is to pass them along to the customer in some form.

Thanks, Stuart C, that's exactly what I meant!

alexcopeland · 16-04-2009, 18:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mobes

Make of this what you will... i just saw it over at Digital Spy

"This is Virgin's reply to a complaint about the lack of HD channels:

Thank you for your e-mail dated 13 April 2009.

Unfortunately I have been unable to contact you. Please be assured we are aware that the amount of HD content currently available is limited.

We are trying to get more channels in HD as a priority. It is taking a lot longer then we would have hoped.

We have to negotiate the rights with the other providers to show the channels in HD. As our competitor Sky is one of those providers it is proving difficult to come to an agreement.

We can confirm that unlike Sky, when we have more HD content you will not be charged extra to have access to the channels.

There will be more channels available throughout the year. We do not want to give specific dates until we are 100% certain that we can transmit the channels.

Please look out for anything we may send through the post as you will be informed of any developments.

Customer Concern Team

Virgin Media"

So I'm willing to bet we get ITV HD and Channel 4 HD. Not to fused really but I won't get a V+ box until I see the confirmed channel line up. I do get the itch to subscribe to Sky HD when I see what my brother gets.

gadge · 16-04-2009, 19:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie_Bubble

I went home to my parents over Easter and they have Sky HD. You pay about Â£10 on top of your other charges for over 30 HD channels. It's not Â£4.50 a week. I would say it is worth it as well. Watching super league, the masters and the premier league on HD was amazing. I don't have virgin/ntl, I left them years ago due to their 'coming soon' crap. I don't have Sky either as I am in a flat and am not allowed a dish. If Virgin had the same HD channels as Sky, I would probably go back to them and yes, I would pay an extra Â£10 for the HD package, because the quality of the image on live sports is worth it, but they don't so I won't go back to them.

Yes it is worth the Â£9.75 even if you dont sub to movies or sports you would get.
(Not counting free channels)

Sky 1 hd
Fx hd(Full hd)
Bio hd
Sci fi hd
Sky arts 1 hd
Sky arts 2 hd
Skyreal lives hd
Mtvn hd
Eurospot hd(great for the tour de france)
Rush hd(Full hd)
Discovery hd(Full hd)
Nat geo hd(Full hd)
Nat geo wild hd(Full hd)
History hd(Full hd)
Crime hd(Full hd)

so 15 channels so thats about 65p per channel.

Turkey Machine · 16-04-2009, 19:10

That Â£9.75 the same if you add Sky Sports and/or Sky Movies too? (i.e Sky Sports HD and Sky Movies HD channels included in the cost) It's the only thing I'm a bit confused over.

gadge · 16-04-2009, 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turkey Machine

That Â£9.75 the same if you add Sky Sports and/or Sky Movies too? (i.e Sky Sports HD and Sky Movies HD channels included in the cost) It's the only thing I'm a bit confused over.

Yes if you add sports or movies or even both the sub would go up of course but your hd sub stays the same Â£9.75.

LiamTG · 16-04-2009, 19:29

I am confused!

Are we getting HD or not?!

taugenichts · 16-04-2009, 19:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiamTG

I am confused!

Are we getting HD or not?!

No time "soon"!!! Watch this space! Don't hold your breath!!

akki007 · 16-04-2009, 19:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Made sense to me..

He is asking why, if you are not worried about HD, are you bothered that they charge extra for it? If you aren't worried, you wont pay it anyway so it won't affect you.

As for the other comment, well, if you don't think that Sky (or any DTV platform provider) won't pass on the increased costs of High definition creation and transit to the users, then you would certainly seem not to be a businessman.. Here's a clue: Businesses have to find a way of funding increased costs. If they don't, they go bankrupt. Usually the easiest way to fund those increased costs is to pass them along to the customer in some form.

Well, if the email above is anything to go by, it would appear that Virgin can and will in fact provide linear HD at no extra cost. But how can this be? For are they not a business? Perhaps the comments about being a "businessman" are far too sweeping and cannot be applied to all circumstances. But hey, what do I know.