General : Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2013) Vol. 1.

[robson689]

Originally Posted by jj20x

Yes, but I'll take that with a pinch of salt as any survey on a forum isn't a random sample of the population and would be statistically inaccurate.

It gives you an idea though.

Originally Posted by robson689

It gives you an idea though.

Forums such as this attract a membership more likely to express dissatisfaction than average subscribers, so it doesn't give a very good idea.

That said, 26% say they either will take, or will consider taking BT Sports, depending on the price. That is 26% of the 142 people who have voted so far, not even of the board as a whole.

I don't know the percentage of VM subscribers currently paying for Sky Sports, but that's what it needs to be compared with. Yeah, even on a forum where members generally express dissatisfaction there are 26% saying they may actually dig deeper into their pockets. Interesting....

If Sky Sports flat rate on Sky is £21.00 (plus £5.25 for HD come April) why are we paying £25.75 (plus £7 HD)?

Is the £6.50 for the privilege of having 4 channels only in SD and the red button not being recordable?

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Jameseh

If Sky Sports flat rate on Sky is £21.00 (plus £5.25 for HD come April) why are we paying £25.75 (plus £7 HD)?

Is the £6.50 for the privilege of having 4 channels only in SD and the red button not being recordable?

To have Sky Sports in HD on Sky still costs £10.25 , as you must take an entertainment package , Entertainment Extra + costs £5.00 extra for HD adding Sky Sports/Movies in HD is a further £5.25.

So you can't take Sky Sports HD without everything else HD (in april)?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jj20x

This is partly true to but be honest but consider this possibility..

BT offer the sports package to VM at a rate of £16 per subscriber as an add on premium package. VM then asks for a discounted rate to make the package available to all XL customers. BT respond with, sure you can make the channel available to all XL customers but the rate of £16 per subscriber is not negotiable.

What BT charge VM is one thing, but I would not have thought they would be dictating to VM how they include BT Sports in VM's package.

VM may well decide to provide BT Sports on the same basis as ESPN and reallocate the remaining costs within the business.

I believe the recent price hike does have something to do with the increased cost of football rights and that they would have anticipated having to pay rather more as a result (even if ESPN had retained these rights). Whilst they may not have known exactly what the content provider would be charging when they set the price increase, they would have had a pretty good idea.

Why else would they have put prices up by this amount?

Unless it's for Sky Atlantic, of course...

---------- Post added at 12:42 ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 ----------

Originally Posted by JustaBloke

Ahh I get it. Those of us that don't want a TiVo have to pay for those who do. There may be various ways that VM could make it a viable proposition, but that isn't one of them.

Fair point, JustaBloke. However, I suspect that VM will drop the additional charge for the TIVO box in due course as the V+ is phased out.

The added facilities on the TIVO box could be used to encourage other subscribers over. Although non TIVO box subscribers with the V and V-HD boxes would be at a disadvantage if an ESPN type deal were not to be forthcoming with BT Sports, and Netflix replaced it, we all need to bear in mind that there is no guarantee anything will replace ESPN or indeed that we will get a price reduction.

I am sure there must be a cost to VM to provide apps such as You Tube, which will be part and parcel of the pricing structure, but all TV subscribers will be contributing to that, not just TIVO users. The Netflix arrangement I have described would follow the same principle.

---------- Post added at 12:45 ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 ----------

Originally Posted by passingbat

With any pay TV service, we all pay for things we don't want or watch. That's the nature of a pay TV service.

I don't watch sport, so don't care about ESPN being part of XL and I could theoretically object to the money that VM are paying ESPN. But that would be a short sighted view. ESPN is free as part of the XL package to attract customers and the resulting increased revenue. It is the same with apps and features on Tivo; it is there to attract more people to Tivo and VM. So just as I accept VM paying for a service I don't use in order to attract more customers and more revenue, you need to accept the same thing in regards to increased Tivo functionality.

I agree, Passingbat. I don't watch ESPN either yet I've been paying it ever since the deal was done as part of my package. It's just the way it works and in the end, it ensures that everyone has maximum choice at a price they can afford.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Someone has mentionsed on this thread that they get STVHD and will delighted if they could get ITVHD, l didn't think we could get STV in the first place am l right or wrong.

I would love to get STV on VM in London.

[gizuk]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Someone has mentionsed on this thread that they get STVHD and will delighted if they could get ITVHD, l didn't think we could get STV in the first place am l right or wrong.

I would love to get STV on VM in London.

Yes we certainly do get STVHD.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Fair point, JustaBloke. However, I suspect that VM will drop the additional charge for the TIVO box in due course as the V+ is phased out.

The added facilities on the TIVO box could be used to encourage other subscribers over. Although non TIVO box subscribers with the V and V-HD boxes would be at a disadvantage if an ESPN type deal were not to be forthcoming with BT Sports, and Netflix replaced it, we all need to bear in mind that there is no guarantee anything will replace ESPN or indeed that we will get a price reduction.

I am sure there must be a cost to VM to provide apps such as You Tube, which will be part and parcel of the pricing structure, but all TV subscribers will be contributing to that, not just TIVO users. The Netflix arrangement I have described would follow the same principle.

There's no prospect of the TiVo payment ending.

The removal of ESPN from XL is an entirely separate matter. We will all decide on how we want to spend our money on TV packages when we know the facts at the time.

VM don't develop Netflix apps, Netflix do. Netflix receives a subscription, YouTube makes money from advertising and is introducing PPV. They will be paying VM for access to all those TiVo owners.

The reality is that either Netflix has decided it doesn't want to sell it's content on TiVo or the time isn't right yet. Either way, throwing other people's money at them, won't help.

But I say again, not that your scheme has any basis in reality, but if it did, the ONLY fair way to fund the development of an app that was only of any use to TiVo users is by adding to the monthly TiVo charge.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by JustaBloke

There's no prospect of the TiVo payment ending.

You don't know that. Once enough people have the TIVO, I can't see why they would need to charge extra for it. They are not charging extra for the V+, so why would the TIVO charge remain once VM's set up costs have been met?

---------- Post added at 13:41 ---------- Previous post was at 13:39 ----------

Originally Posted by JustaBloke

The removal of ESPN from XL is an entirely separate matter. We will all decide on how we want to spend our money on TV packages when we know the facts at the time.

No, it's not a separate matter actually, although I accept you may want to look at it this way. Cross subsidisation is not a new concept.

---------- Post added at 13:47 ---------- Previous post was at 13:41 ----------

Originally Posted by JustaBloke

VM don't develop Netflix apps, Netflix do. Netflix receives a subscription, YouTube makes money from advertising and is introducing PPV. They will be paying VM for access to all those TiVo owners.

The reality is that either Netflix has decided it doesn't want to sell it's content on TiVo or the time isn't right yet. Either way, throwing other people's money at them, won't help.

But I say again, not that your scheme has any basis in reality, but if it did, the ONLY fair way to fund the development of an app that was only of any use to TiVo users is by adding to the monthly TiVo charge.

I don't know who pays whom for access. I thought that VM would have to pay the supplier, charge the customer on behalf of Netflix and take its cut from the subscription discount through the wholesale price.

In my view, the strategy for VM should be to make as much content available to its customers as possible, which would be a good unique selling point against Sky.

I understand the point you make about the charges for the TIVO applications being made only to TIVO customers, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. As for fairness - life isn't fair, I'm afraid.

[alwaysabear]

IMO I do not think you will see Netflix or Love film on the Virgin Network as they are in direct competition with VM products. If people really want it there are so many other ways to get them that it should not be a problem.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Media Boy, hpw do we get STV HD in London ?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You don't know that. Once enough people have the TIVO, I can't see why they would need to charge extra for it. They are not charging extra for the V+, so why would the TIVO charge remain once VM's set up costs have been met?

---------- Post added at 13:41 ---------- Previous post was at 13:39 ----------

No, it's not a separate matter actually, although I accept you may want to look at it this way. Cross subsidisation is not a new concept.

---------- Post added at 13:47 ---------- Previous post was at 13:41 ----------

I don't know who pays whom for access. I thought that VM would have to pay the supplier, charge the customer on behalf of Netflix and take its cut from the subscription discount through the wholesale price.

In my view, the strategy for VM should be to make as much content available to its customers as possible, which would be a good unique selling point against Sky.

I understand the point you make about the charges for the TIVO applications being made only to TIVO customers, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. As for fairness - life isn't fair, I'm afraid.

The TiVo charge is the money you pay TiVo inc (via VM) for all that added functionality that you want. It is the basis of TiVo inc. business model all over the world with partners in each territory. It is not something that VM can stop charging even if it wants to, or your box will get turned off.

It is an entirely separate matter. Cross subsidisation is fine in terms of channel bouquets, but forcing people to subsidise products that they have chosen not to subscribe to is not. Let me put it to you another way. You said you're not interested in sport, so I assume you don't subscribe to Sky Sports. Assuming you don't, when sky put the price of SS up by (say) £3 in the future, wouldn't it be fairest if all TV customers were charged an extra 50p each instead? Of course it wouldn't, the people who have chosen not to take SS would be up in arms. TiVo is just another premium product like SS or Sky Movies. It has it's own charge for it's own customers.

---------- Post added at 14:16 ---------- Previous post was at 14:13 ----------

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Media Boy, hpw do we get STV HD in London ?

You'd need to be on a Scottish headend. So you cant, sadly.

[passingbat]

In my view, the sooner that VM get rid of legacy boxes, such as the V+, the better. The Tivo fee will become part of the overall pricing in the same way that the HD cost is built into the overall pricing. VM have started to do this with the new Collections they launched a while ago.

VM have said that they want to move everyone over to Tivo. They can then move to Mpeg4 which will give us increased recording capacity. For people who don't want a PVR, I believe that the V HD box can handle Mpeg4.

[Media Boy UK]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Media Boy, hpw do we get STV HD in London ?

No only Scottish channels that broadcast in London are BBC One Scotland, BBC Alba and BBC Radio Scotland.

STV do not even broadcast outside Scotland on other networks.