TV Choice to be exclusive to XL customers only

Originally Posted by BenMcr

M+ has Sky 1

Oh dear. I'm not well up on VM packages. It's a long time since I had anything other than xl tv. Seems like VM have a better selection of packages for the not so well off than sky. Providing of course you are willing to take out their phone line.

Originally Posted by Henkesghost

Agree, am on XL and pay roughly £90 per month for all services. Too much IMO but that is the going rate. Very rarely use on demand would rather they got rid of it if it meant addition of HD channels etc

Oh that's OK then..the rest of us on XL TV who do use it regularly can just do without so you get your HD channels.

[Rivva]

It states on the VM website that TV XL is £23. Is that the price everyone pays who takes it. Or does the price vary depending what package/bundle you have. The reason I ask is because I'm paying £24.50.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by Rivva

It states on the VM website that TV XL is £23. Is that the price everyone pays who takes it. Or does the price vary depending what package/bundle you have. The reason I ask is because I'm paying £24.50.

£23 (with a phone line at £11.99) as far as I am aware. Do you have a bundle of services.

Edit:- Actually I have just checked my bill and mine also says £24.50 for XL, I called CS who says 'that is just the way it is shown on your bill but we apply a discount'.

The bills are quite complicated, but BT's were just as bad.

[Rivva]

Originally Posted by mersey70

£23 (with a phone line at £11.99) as far as I am aware. Do you have a bundle of services.

Actually I have just checked my bill and mine also says £24.50 for XL?

Yes I do have a bundle and it's very similar to yours, and if you're paying £24.50 it looks like the XL TV price does vary depending on what bundle's taken...

Thanks for clearing that one up..

Also, thanks for the swift reply.

Edit:- Just noticed your edit, cheers for the extra info!

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by Rivva

Yes I do have a bundle and it's very similar to yours, and if you're paying £24.50 it looks like the XL TV price does vary depending on what bundle's taken...

Thanks for clearing that one up..

Also, thanks for the swift reply.

You don't actually pay more than £23, it's just the billing and the way discounts are applied, at least that's what I think they mean.

Originally Posted by mersey70

£20 (2 packs) would cover all of Sky's entertainment and lifestyle channels but more importantly the attached on demand content plus a lot more FTA content like CBS. Anyway I agree we are off topic and I doubt we will ever agree which is fine, it's just my opinion and it will not change. For the lower tier packages I think Sky offers far more than VM which I guess is what I am saying.

I've take the liberty of moving this to a more appropriate thread Mersey.

Sky don't really have lower tier packages like VM whose packages start at £6.50. The two packages you mention would cost £20, three times as much, but for £4.50 more than Sky's two packages you get ESPN and more HD plus a lot of channels much more popular than CBS. As for on demand they would lose catch up tv, and tv choice from the four most popular channels. Even though you say you don't want ESPN you still find the xl package to be sufficient value for money so it is not difficult to see why many people would find it to be much better vfm than the Sky two packs you suggested.

[Ben B]

Yay, XL is increasing in value, I like

[Rivva]

Originally Posted by mersey70

You don't actually pay more than £23, it's just the billing and the way discounts are applied, at least that's what I think they mean.

Yes I know I've just been looking at my latest/recent eBill and everything seems to tally up. I must say they do complicate matters where the billing is concerned sometimes.

Originally Posted by Rivva

Yes I know I've just been looking at my latest/recent eBill and everything seems to tally up. I must say they do complicate matters where the billing is concerned sometimes.

Sometimes?

I feel like there should be a special degree in deciphering VM billing and packages and bundles..I put them on a par with rail ticket pricing and rules on off peak rail travelling.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by ahardie

I've take the liberty of moving this to a more appropriate thread Mersey.

Sky don't really have lower tier packages like VM whose packages start at £6.50. The two packages you mention would cost £20, three times as much, but for £4.50 more than Sky's two packages you get ESPN and more HD plus a lot of channels much more popular than CBS. As for on demand they would lose catch up tv, and tv choice from the four most popular channels. Even though you say you don't want ESPN you still find the xl package to be sufficient value for money so it is not difficult to see why many people would find it to be much better vfm than the Sky two packs you suggested.

I think you should be clearer that you are quoting prices that must include a phone line at £11.99, XL without a phone line is £29.50. What I am saying is a lower tier customer might be better paying £20 for 2 Sky packs for a wider choice of entertainment and on demand and they would still get the non XL HD channels, less Film 4. I am not comparing XL as these customers are obviously not on XL for one reason or another and will now lose the option of TV Choice. You also seem to be forgetting that non XL customers have to stump up a further £5 a month just for recording facilities. I don't see what is now unique about a non XL package, catch up is widely available anyway so it seems a terrible waste of technology.

For the record the stand alone prices are £12.50 (M+) £17.50 (L) and you would have to add £5 for V+ for both these packages or £29.50 (XL). I personally think for a lower tier customer on Sky's cheapest £19 Variety Pack (which offers far more pay channels and FTA that M+) with a Sky+ HD box with on demand content from Sky1 and Living offers a lot more choice than M+ with V+ (£17.50) and would maybe provide some and possibly more of the on demand content they will lose, but that's just my opinion. I am looking at it from the point of view of who provides the most content for the lower tier subscriber.

I am on record as saying XL is good value but that isn't the point, these customers with the TVC option now have to upgrade to XL just to receive the services they currently have, surely if they wanted XL they would have it anyway.

There would be uproar if Sky pulled a trick like this, let's have some balance.

Originally Posted by mersey70

I think you should be clearer that you are quoting prices that must include a phone line at £11.99, XL without a phone line is £29.50. What I am saying is a lower tier customer might be better paying £20 for 2 Sky packs for a wider choice of entertainment and on demand and they would still get the non XL HD channels, less Film 4. I am not comparing XL as these customers are obviously not on XL for one reason or another and will now lose the option of TV Choice. You also seem to be forgetting that non XL customers have to stump up a further £5 a month just for recording facilities. I don't see what is now unique about a non XL package, catch up is widely available anyway so it seems a terrible waste of technology.

For the record the stand alone prices are £12.50 (M+) £17.50 (L) and you would have to add £5 for V+ for both these packages or £29.50 (XL). I personally think for a lower tier customer on Sky's cheapest £19 Variety Pack (which offers far more pay channels and FTA that M+) with a Sky+ HD box with on demand content from Sky1 and Living offers a lot more choice than M+ with V+ (£17.50) and would maybe provide some and possibly more of the on demand content they will lose, but that's just my opinion. I am looking at it from the point of view of who provides the most content for the lower tier subscriber.

I am on record as saying XL is good value but that isn't the point, these customers with the TVC option now have to upgrade to XL just to receive the services they currently have, surely if they wanted XL they would have it anyway.

There would be uproar if Sky pulled a trick like this, let's have some balance.

We have already established in this thread what the price is without phone but it is immaterial anyway. I am using prices with phone just the same as the guy who started the thread in the VM community forum did. He said he was paying £13.50 for M+ and ondemand together. I think it's fair to say that most people who were on M+ or L and paying the £7 for ondemand were paying the lower amount. These are the people we are talking about.
Personally I wish that they wouldn't remove this option for the lower tiers but I am in agreement with Zantarous that there may be other more complex reasons for doing this other than they wanted to force people on to xl tv. Mainly because I think the take up of the £7 option would have been very limited anyway. So VM have got little to gain anyway.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by ahardie

We have already established in this thread what the price is without phone but it is immaterial anyway. I am using prices with phone just the same as the guy who started the thread in the VM community forum did. He said he was paying £13.50 for M+ and ondemand together. I think it's fair to say that most people who were on M+ or L and paying the £7 for ondemand were paying the lower amount. These are the people we are talking about.
Personally I wish that they wouldn't remove this option for the lower tiers but I am in agreement with Zantarous that there may be other more complex reasons for doing this other than they wanted to force people on to xl tv. Mainly because I think the take up of the £7 option would have been very limited anyway. So VM have got little to gain anyway.

To be honest there is very little in the costs between the two, but there is quite a big difference in what content a lower tier subscriber gets access to with Sky and I think that is the point I am making. I object to VM almost forcing people onto the highest tier if they want to merely keep their current services. Sky (and to a lesser degree BT and Talk Talk) all seem to align their on demand content to your subscription so I see no reason why VM cannot do this too, why would VM be singled out by content providers?, I don't buy it.

If anyone thinks this is a fairer way of doing things then that's their prerogative, I just don't happen to think it is and I can't think of anything more to say, we shall disagree!

The take up for this at £7 would be so small I wonder if it is worth all the fuss. If vod is worth £7 to those on a tight budget it just shows how good value xl is. That's £7 for vod, £9 minimum for ESPN lets say£3 for HD as we get a lot of the more popular HD channels. Your already up to the minimum package price for Sky. I'm not arguing this because I think VM are wonderful. I just have no illusions about Sky either. I don't see them offering people who are less well off a package for £6.50, with or without telephone. And given that it seemed to be common knowledge at the time of the Sky 1 dispute that one of the sticking points was that Sky didn't want the channel on the M package I wouldn't rule out them having a hand in this. Unlikely yes, impossible no.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by ahardie

The take up for this at £7 would be so small I wonder if it is worth all the fuss. If vod is worth £7 to those on a tight budget it just shows how good value xl is. That's £7 for vod, £9 minimum for ESPN lets say£3 for HD as we get a lot of the more popular HD channels. Your already up to the minimum package price for Sky. I'm not arguing this because I think VM are wonderful. I just have no illusions about Sky either. I don't see them offering people who are less well off a package for £6.50, with or without telephone. And given that it seemed to be common knowledge at the time of the Sky 1 dispute that one of the sticking points was that Sky didn't want the channel on the M package I wouldn't rule out them having a hand in this. Unlikely yes, impossible no.

Well first I do not know the take up of TVC at £7, what exactly are the numbers? My main gripe is that there is no flexibility, if you want TVC you have to have XL, if you want HD you have to have XL (less the FTA channels, same as Sky with any pack, you don't need to pay the £10) and if you're like me you end up whole genre's of channels you don't watch. You have to pay £5 for V+ if not on XL too, there are no such restrictions on a lower tier Sky subscriber although your OD content will of course be aligned to the sub. XL is great value, but only if you can afford it. One thing we do agree on is Sky's unlikely involvement in this decision, sometimes one might be forgiven for thinking VM are owned by a charitable organisation, not a load of predominantly american financial institutions who we know can be rather greedy. They are no different to Sky.

Also our price comparisons were (sort of) out of date anyway, I got a leaflet today with the post VAT increase tariff so they are closer again to Sky's, who already included the VAT increase.