TiVo : Poor choice of Channels

[Safcftm21]

Originally Posted by geordiechris

IIRC the OP moved from Sky to VM. Perhaps he is now regretting leaving and believes he should have stayed with them

Oh to agree with a geordie, what has this forum brought me to

Totally regret it and will have to take my medicine, and yes I should have done more research but that's another story for another day. However my point is VM are not exactly doing it's best to keep customers with the new offerings that other platforms already have. Yes I might not watch 70% of them as TAF suggested but it's the 30% that I do that I want the most choice of. One person's poor channel is the next person much watch and I totally respect that. However unless I'm mistaken the ITV 2, 3 and 4 HD channels are not owned by Sky so if nothing else these should be a given on the VM platform.

And Hugh - if I had the option of going back to Sky tomorrow I would but whilst I'm with VM I think I'm entitled to my opinion

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Safcftm21

whilst I'm with VM I think I'm entitled to my opinion

I would not hold my breath on that.

[toby53]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Move to Sky, then....

lol

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by passingbat

I don't think it is that simple. If TV channels was my only consideration, then, yes, Sky would win hands down and it would be a simple choice.

But there is more than one aspect to consider when choosing a service provider, especially when you factor in that you are usually buying triple play services of phone, TV and Broadband.

For me, VM are far better than Sky on everything apart from TV channels. The three recordable tuners and Whishlists are that Tivo offers have become a 'must have' feature for me and to downgrade to the limited functionality of a Sky box would be unacceptable.

But I also want Sky atlantic, and would prefer to have more channels in HD, which means going to Sky.

snip.....

I highly doubt that we will see Atlanic on VM anytime soon.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I highly doubt that we will see Atlanic on VM anytime soon.

Do you have inside knowledge of that Stephen?.

[Stephen]

I might do.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I might do.

l will take that as a yes.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

At least the poster is telling the truth, and it had to Hugh to tell him to go back to Sky, Hugh must have shares in VM.

Since l have been with VM, the customer has said what it wants, but VM won't get them, look how long it took VM to get the basic channels back, look at the HD channels they have compared to Sky.

VM are cheaper, but they give us channels that some customers don't want, they are 'always in talks'.

And why waste money getting +1 channels, they would do better by getting good quality channels before them.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I highly doubt that we will see Atlanic on VM anytime soon.

Originally Posted by denphone

Do you have inside knowledge of that Stephen?.

Originally Posted by Stephen

I might do.

Future Sky channels (such as Atlantic) should have been covered in the negotiations when VM sold all their channels to Sky. The VM negotiating team failed to see or did see, but didn't cover, what most other people knew was likely to happen.

How could they have been so short sighted?

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by passingbat

Future Sky channels (such as Atlantic) should have been covered in the negotiations when VM sold all their channels to Sky. The VM negotiating team failed to see or did see, but didn't cover, what most other people knew was likely to happen.

How could they have been so short sighted?

Or giving Sky what essentially amounted to just one channel which was worth their while continuing to run wasn't worth quite as much as some people seem to think?

JAT

[cityfan247]

to say VM's channel choice is poor is a bit harsh really , they carry most. channels. The fact is though it is not as good as Sky's choice. That's a fact even the most ardent VM fan cannot argue with.

Sky is a channel provider whereas VM is not and this is why Sky hold the upper hand.

What is frustrating is the lack of channel additions over the last 12 months or so (not counting the +1 channels which lets face it have limited value). Now ok Sky Atlantic Sky, Sports News HD, Sky Sports 3 & 4 HD they are at the mercy of Sky - if Sky dont want them to have it or only at a ridiclous rate then VM wont get it- that's Sky not really VM's fault.

But what about the ITV HD channels, ESPN America HD, Universal HD and the like- they're not dealing with Sky for those but all we get is 'may possibly launch' or 'in negotiation'. And all this comes courtesy of Media Boy ( and we appreciate what you do Media Boy) - nothing from Virgin themselves to satisfy existing customers or entice new ones. it would be nice if VM kept customers updated themselves.

Tivo and the superior 'on demand' where tools to add growth to Vm's customer base but i do feel they're maybe resting on their laurels. Well guess what Sky are fighting back: 2TB HD+ boxes, constantly improving catch up and on demand services- suddenly VM's offerings dont look so compelling...and crucially channel content- here Sky wins hands down, more channels, more HD etc.

I would suggest VM need to act or risk losing more and more customers to SKy or even BT.

I am not a big fan of Sky or Rupert Murdoch but ultimately you look at what value you get for what youre paying.

as i have posted before it's really VM's BB that keeps me with them for now. Where i live on the outskirts of Scunthorpe there's really no competition - i am on premiere collection- at present Sky or BT could only offer me 2-3MB.

But if/when BT or Sky can offer me superfast BB- ie 30MB plus then i would seriously look at my options again and i doubt i would be alone.

Originally Posted by passingbat

Future Sky channels (such as Atlantic) should have been covered in the negotiations when VM sold all their channels to Sky. The VM negotiating team failed to see or did see, but didn't cover, what most other people knew was likely to happen.

How could they have been so short sighted?

How can they cover for the future? Atlantic was launched after the sale no one could forsee what Sky did. They are masters at getting one up on VM.

[andy_m]

What do people think living, livingit and challenge are actually worth? Its amazing what Virgin would have been able to get for these three channels had they only had decent negotiators! Seriously, they overachieved as it is.

[alwaysabear]

I must say I have seen a marked improvement on the UK TV channels since VM sold out to Scripts. Scripts seem to be prepard to invest in more in original content,

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Top banana

How can they cover for the future? Atlantic was launched after the sale no one could forsee what Sky did. They are masters at getting one up on VM.

Many people anticipated that Sky would launch a new channel after the sale. Such potential channels should have been covered in the sale agreement.

---------- Post added at 22:32 ---------- Previous post was at 22:17 ----------

Originally Posted by andy_m

What do people think living, livingit and challenge are actually worth? Its amazing what Virgin would have been able to get for these three channels had they only had decent negotiators! Seriously, they overachieved as it is.

VM were handing over more than just the content of the channels. They were giving Sky the chance to be the only service provider with content. Sky's only competitor that was both a service and content provider would be gone. That was worth a lot.

I think VM made a mistake by selling the channels; they should have kept them and built up the content. VM's plan was to rely on fast fibre BB, which was fine when they were the only ones providing it. But they didn't look ahead to when other providers would also have fast fibre BB and to the time now, where content is king.