General : Coming Soon to Virgin Media TV (2016) Vol 2

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Here we have a so called major company, with thousands of customers. Yet, they always come out with this rubbish about 'bringing the BEST entertainment and a variety of channels for the price'.

What VM should be doing is, getting the channels on the system that will compete with all the other companies - BT, Sky, but they wont. Yet they put the prices up constantly.

And expect the customer to pay it. BUT, my wife has had enough.

Customers are leaving VM, to either go to Freesat or Sky, or even Now TV.

VM took over the Network on the Isle of Wight. And yet we don't have those channels - yet the system belongs to VM.

As l have previously on this forum. The Directors of VM should stop treating its customers as though they have bottomless pits where they have money.

We have a problem between BT and VM over a Mobile network usage now. I wonder who win that

[Horizon]

..... I agree that you cannot choose what you want to watch if that choice is not even available to you in the first place. Some may call all those missing channels dross, while for others they could be useful additions.

Personally, I wish there were a universal IPTV system organised along the lines of Freeview where I can choose what equipment to use and choose what channels/packages I wish to subscribe to.

[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

Originally Posted by Horizon

..... I agree that you cannot choose what you want to watch if that choice is not even available to you in the first place. Some may call all those missing channels dross, while for others they could be useful additions.

Some of them are dross and sponsored/pseudo-shopping channels. Although the following would appeal to some. I doubt that they would have sufficient audience levels to justify investment in additional transport streams:

Home & Leisure TV
Property TV
Wellbeing Network
Horse & Country
Holiday & Cruise
Fashion One

And the full bouquet of Sony channels and associated timeshifts? How many times do people need to watch endless repeats of The Waltons / Little House on the Prairie / Highway to Heaven / MASH / Touched by an Angel etc? If someone misses the start of a 40 odd year old movie, do they really need to watch it on the timeshift when it will be repeated in a few weeks anyway? If they haven't seen it in 40 odd years, what's another few weeks?

If VM invest in additional transport streams, we all end up paying the extra cost. Is that really justifiable for channels that will attract single figure audience levels? We've just seen threats of mass exodus from VM as a result of the announced price increase.

Also, space is at a premium. The channel bonding requirements of newer versions of DOCSIS is forcing new frequency assignments. Forcing the TV transport streams onto higher frequency UHF channels as DOCSIS moves onto the VHF channels. VM is made up of several different hybrid cable setups, not all are made equal and some are less responsive at higher frequencies than others. So, some regions will struggle to fit in multiple additional transport streams at these frequencies.

Sure, MPEG4 will help, when VM finally get around to converting broadcast streams to MPEG4. DVB-C2 would help more but would involve totally new infrastructure and STBs. It's not just a case of having limitless capacity to add channels nobody will watch.

Personally, I wish there were a universal IPTV system organised along the lines of Freeview where I can choose what equipment to use and choose what channels/packages I wish to subscribe to.

The foreign language Worldbox apps seem to indicate that VM is moving in this direction. If these are a success, that could encourage them to widen the scope.

[Horizon]

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've said for decades that cable tech is and should be the best, but that competition is limited.

When the cable industry was being created, I lobbied the politicians very hard and told them that the way they were setting up the cable industry was wrong as all it did was create a cable monopoly in each area and there was no competition. They of course completely ignored me. Well, they did respond but their focus was on telephone competition against BT rather than cable tv.

Before Freeview came about, I lobbied the politicians again (I never learn...) to try and get them to implement a national fibre-to-the-home network with everyone getting a basic free tv service and very basic internet service via fibre. I pointed out to them that a aerial delivered service will always be limiting. Again, they ignored me.

I don't have a problem with there being just one cableco now, I have a problem that I cannot use the equipment I want and I cannot select from different providers using the cable as provided by VM.

As for America, they may have 15 or so cablecos at the moment, but it will shortly be dominated by just 2 or 3 cablecos, one of which I suspect will merge with VM/LG at some point in the near future.

---------- Post added at 23:05 ---------- Previous post was at 22:57 ----------

Originally Posted by jj20x

Some of them are dross and sponsored/pseudo-shopping channels. Although the following would appeal to some. I doubt that they would have sufficient audience levels to justify investment in additional transport streams:



And the full bouquet of Sony channels and associated timeshifts? How many times do people need to watch endless repeats of The Waltons / Little House on the Prairie / Highway to Heaven / MASH / Touched by an Angel etc? If someone misses the start of a 40 odd year old movie, do they really need to watch it on the timeshift when it will be repeated in a few weeks anyway? If they haven't seen it in 40 odd years, what's another few weeks?

If VM invest in additional transport streams, we all end up paying the extra cost. Is that really justifiable for channels that will attract single figure audience levels? We've just seen threats of mass exodus from VM as a result of the announced price increase.

Also, space is at a premium. The channel bonding requirements of newer versions of DOCSIS is forcing new frequency assignments. Forcing the TV transport streams onto higher frequency UHF channels as DOCSIS moves onto the VHF channels. VM is made up of several different hybrid cable setups, not all are made equal and some are less responsive at higher frequencies than others. So, some regions will struggle to fit in multiple additional transport streams at these frequencies.

Sure, MPEG4 will help, when VM finally get around to converting broadcast streams to MPEG4. DVB-C2 would help more but would involve totally new infrastructure and STBs. It's not just a case of having limitless capacity to add channels nobody will watch.



The foreign language Worldbox apps seem to indicate that VM is moving in this direction. If these are a success, that could encourage them to widen the scope.

The point is choice..... To choose whether you want to watch something or not. You cannot make that choice, if its not even available.

+1 channels are VERY handy, but perhaps with new technology, it could be done differently. Ie, the way iplayer can go back 2 hours on a live tv stream.

The Waltons and Highway to Heaven may be old shows to you and I, but to others they are "new" shows. And they are good, much better than the reality crap everywhere now.

ANd on your shortlist, I would quite like the choice of having Horse & Country available, probably Property tv too.

[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

Originally Posted by Horizon

The point is choice..... To choose whether you want to watch something or not. You cannot make that choice, if its not even available.

The point is cost. Adding extra infrastructure to add multiple low audience channels forces up prices for the end user. That may well make a handful of customers happy to receive a niche channel but if the price increase results in thousands of customers leaving, it's not a sensible move.

+1 channels are VERY handy, but perhaps with new technology, it could be done differently. Ie, the way iplayer can go back 2 hours on a live tv stream.

The BBC has funds to invest in that sort of technology, many of the smaller broadcasters do not.

The Waltons and Highway to Heaven may be old shows to you and I, but to others they are "new" shows. And they are good, much better than the reality crap everywhere now.

The age wasn't the issue, the fact that they are already repeated with content spread thinly across multiple channels in the Sony bouquet also dilutes the need for further repeats on a timeshift channel. But as these programmes are very dated, they probably have little appeal to the younger audience and are more likely to be viewed by an older audience recapturing their youth.

ANd on your shortlist, I would quite like the choice of having Horse & Country available, probably Property tv too.

But you don't see requests for most of those channels appearing on this thread, there is low demand. They are also low budget operations, unlikely to be able to meet the cost of any additional infrastructure required to carry multiple additional channels. They are far more suited to IPTV delivery. The simple reason that most of these channels aren't on VM is that the channels don't want or are unable to pay enough to cover VMs costs AND there is insufficient demand to pass the extra cost onto the viewer. Catch 22. (It wasn't actually my shortlist, just a group of channels I copied and pasted from your original post to use as an example).

[1andrew1]

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

With some minor exceptions,the cable companies in the US are nearly all local monopolies so they might as well be one company - they don't compete against one another.
Often a consumer in the US has a choice of a slow ADSL from a local phone company or expensive fast broadband from a cable company. And there's no unbundling of local exchanges as there is in the UK and EU which drives broadband competition.

---------- Post added at 01:20 ---------- Previous post was at 00:17 ----------

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Here we have a so called major company, with thousands of customers. Yet, they always come out with this rubbish about 'bringing the BEST entertainment and a variety of channels for the price'.

They are a major company and LGI is worth $29bn. VM has millions of customers - not thousands. [/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

VM took over the Network on the Isle of Wight. And yet we don't have those channels - yet the system belongs to VM.

Wight Fibre is still independent and does not offer a pay-TV service. http://www.wightfibre.com/ Did you mean the Republic of Ireland instead of the Isle of Wight. That business has channels that VM UK doesn't but VM UK has been catching up.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

We have a problem between BT and VM over a Mobile network usage now. I wonder who win that

I don't think we do. VM is launching its 4G service in October, a bit late to the 4G party but good news.

[denphone]

l wonder if Arthur grumps and groans as much to his wife as he does on here.

[OLD BOY]

Presumably, VM will have to do something on capacity to support the new 4K channels, when they arrive on the new Tivos.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Presumably, VM will have to do something on capacity to support the new 4K channels, when they arrive on the new Tivos.

What 4K channels ?

[nodrogd]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

VM took over the Network on the Isle of Wight. And yet we don't have those channels - yet the system belongs to VM.

Wrong. Wightcable (now WightFibre) is still in operation on the IOW, & is the only cable franchise not run by Virgin.

Wightcable North was sold off & became Smallworld, which was the bought by Virgin Media.

[theone2k10]

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 ----------

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.

[Mobes]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

What 4K channels ?

We are getting Sky Cinema 4K channel!

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nodrogd

Wrong. Wightcable (now WightFibre) is still in operation on the IOW, & is the only cable franchise not run by Virgin.

Wightcable North was sold off & became Smallworld, which was the bought by Virgin Media.

As I posted earlier, I think Arthur means the Republic of Ireland.