NTL or SKY - Help please!

Personally I would go with sky for the channels, service, ease of use, for less crashing of the set top box (freeze needing a restart, if your old or infirm or just got a bad back!! AS IN MY CASE!!).

If you want a crap customer service, no replies to your email queries, repeats after repeats after repeats. We are talking Mind Boggling Repeats, like last nights film run three times in a week! or Police Camera Action that's 22 years old, the number of channels means naff all as they repeat programs across the channels so when you actually work out how many new programs you have viewed in a week it works out at about 3 or 4 compared with 40 on terrestrial.!! (family package)

Despair!, utter despair when you visit your broke mate who bought a £19.99 free-to-air box and gets most of the interesting channels for free anyway. Your left wondering why you pay em ANY money at all!! esspecially when you see just how long you have to wait for the adverts to finish as they BLAST the sound into your house waking your deaf grandma in her bedroom. You have no choice but to scramble to find the remote about every 15 mins, it litterally drives you mad!!!!!!!!, forget any sort of sly plans like the one I hatched once where by I worked out I could hop between two channels in a bid to avoid their once every fifteen minutes brainwashing. This fails as they try to schedual the programmes so the adverts all come on together. However I have had limited success in choice of program as if you include 1 BBC program then you can miss them altogether but I do worry about the whole effect this is having on me, lol. It is possible thou to watch two programs AND get most of the actual plots THAT IS HOW LONG THEY ARE!.

And if, IF! your not driven mad by their 'Catch Up Tv' a feature whereby they store 'SELECTION' of the best programmes from the previous week, now this is a real red herring trust me, I have very nearly come close to kicking in my screen relying on this pile of *****. Why I hear you ask, well you try finding out what THEY intend to record for example, like last weeks IMMIGRATION: The inconvienient truth for example, this was a three part documentary over three weeks! about the title so they put the first one, then the second and then not the third. An isolated incident, think again this has happened to me so often I really am setting myself up for it if I don't remember to ignore the feature, you have no choice if there are two programmes on, which one do you watch? It aint on the web buddy! oh no, unless they have since I last looked there is no listings anywhere making the whole thing USELESS! And how about the programs they don't want you to watch! Obviously the top best program of the week but insensitive to the government and that aint going on! (Despatches last week),

Having rattled on about all of that, personally I could not live with myself handing one penny to that Australian ******* Murdoch, so for now if I want anything extra I think free view will have to do, trust me unless you can put up with all of what I have wrote above I wouldn't touch Virgin with a sterilised barge pole!

As a POST SCRIPT to this I have just learnt VIRGIN is in talks over implementing some new spyware which tracks online privacy and well I think my relationship with VIRGIN has ended, I was truly happy when Mr Branson took over Telewest, you couldn't get any more arrogant than Telewest but now I can see many qualities in him that I so dislike about Murdoch, Virgin leaves a bad taste in your mouth!

---------- Post added at 01:49 ---------- Previous post was at 01:48 ----------

watch that get deleted

[the-cable-guy]

Sky defo iv had both & Sky is better. the only reason that i dont have a Sky subscription is cuz i dont & cant have a land lane.

Originally Posted by bugmenott

Personally I would go with sky for the channels, service, ease of use, for less crashing of the set top box (freeze needing a restart, if your old or infirm or just got a bad back!! AS IN MY CASE!!).

....snippety snip snip....-

watch that get deleted

"We'd better get back, 'cause it'll be dark soon, and they mostly come at night... mostly"

[Mick Fisher]

Originally Posted by bugmenot

Personally I would go with sky for the channels, service, ease of use, for less crashing of the set top box (freeze needing a restart, if your old or infirm or just got a bad back!! AS IN MY CASE!!).

....snippety snip snip....-

Freeview is the way to go but if you get crap reception and many areas do then, for the reasons nicely outlined by bugmenot, for the moment Sky is undoubtably the next best.

However don't forget about FreeSat. Hopefully this should give a better reception for most than Freeview. Both Sky and VM may suffer huge defections when this comes onstream

[rogerdraig]

i would say go for both

i have bb phone and free tv from virgin and sky +

kids and i like sky 12and3

the best way to decide really though is what do you and yours want to watch

if none of you like Simpson's etc that shy provides they why pay for it on the other hand as you are paying and you do like those things why limit your self to virgin

virgin really havnt got anything you cant get with sky and again on the other hand sky hasnt got that much more if you can live with out the Simpson's etc

so ask your self what do you want to watch

[TheBlueRaja]

I would say go with Virgin, you get so much more HD content, the price is cheaper, the customer service is better AND because its cable its far better than satellite could ever be, FACT, not to mention at least with virgin, because its cable you always get the broadband speed you pay for unlike Sky where you only get a small percentage of the speed because they're crap - HA (its true tho, my mate has it and he says it STINKS)!

Oh and did i mention 3, YES THREE, ariels. That means you can watch Virgin 1 on one channel (my favourite channel), while having BBC recording and well, eh, im sure you could find something else to record too given the cracking selection of channels.

To be fair though, Sky Anytime is a better product than Virgin VOD (videos over digital for those who dont know, dont you know - chortle!) only because it has all the latest programs from Sky One which Sky wouldnt give to Virgin because Murdoch hates everyone - its true.

[Cobbydaler]

Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja

I would say go with Virgin, you get so much more HD content, the price is cheaper, the customer service is better AND because its cable its far better than satellite could ever be, FACT, not to mention at least with virgin, because its cable you always get the broadband speed you pay for unlike Sky where you only get a small percentage of the speed because they're crap - HA (its true tho, my mate has it and he says it STINKS)!

Oh and did i mention 3, YES THREE, ariels. That means you can watch Virgin 1 on one channel (my favourite channel), while having BBC recording and well, eh, im sure you could find something else to record too given the cracking selection of channels.

To be fair though, Sky Anytime is a better product than Virgin VOD (videos over digital for those who dont know, dont you know - chortle!) only because it has all the latest programs from Sky One which Sky wouldnt give to Virgin because Murdoch hates everyone - its true.

Another truly perceptive post...

I appreciate the sarcasm... Oh, and it's not aerials, it's tuners...

[TheBlueRaja]

Originally Posted by Cobbydaler

Another truly perceptive post...

I appreciate the sarcasm... Oh, and it's not aerials, it's tuners...

Really!

I have been quite surprised at how good an upscaled picture a V+ box will provide using HDMI to an 'HD ready' TV

[Cobbydaler]

Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja

Really!

You're very easily conned aren't you...

TheBlueRaja, do you work for them?

How can you say their service is better? all they say when you call them is "you will need to upgrade your service", translated in to "give us more money".

I have never said the technology is not better, of cause it is. In theory you could set up your own TV station eventually, the only restriction is upload times but that will change and is something they should be working on but as I can see reading some of the posts THEY don't listen to anyone!

I have programmed computers from the age of 11 I'm 43 now and from a programming point of view Virgin is terrible, absolutely terrible. They have no idea how to utilise the technology to its maximum effect. Lets take the set-top software and program finder, its awful. he load up times are C*AP (depending on which box they give you) When you think that we are talking about THE only two way service out there, this really brings it in to perspective. Then look at the opposition, please don't raz if this is wrong but didn't Pace win awards for their software running the Sky system. A CHILD can tell you which one is faster, smoother and more reliable.

When I think of the possibilities with the cable system I cannot believe the clunky, slow and bug prone system we have to put up with now, it reminds me of the old analogue boxes, nay they were better!

To cap it off this reminds me of a situation whereby a Manager is in charge of purchasing not a technology specialist and the Manager ONLY looks at price so you always end up with cr*p and a frustrated software engineer who has to do the best with what he has got! Mirror that with Pace who had a FREE REIGN to design a system, THEN it was made to suit which is why it is far far superior.

As for ADSL, well what can you expect. It will never ever have the same potential as cable because the technology is dated from the start rather like Virgin set-top boxes that are purchased then designed rather than designed then purchased, ADSL is a spin off from the telephone industry, something they thought up afterwards, an add-on or a FUDGE!
ADSL has a physical limit of 256 upload period. There is ADSL2 but my gut instinct, fibre optics vs copper wire, well you decide I know where I sit from a technology point of view.

As per usual it's not the technology thats at fault, it's the people running that technology.

[Cobbydaler]

Originally Posted by bugmenott

TheBlueRaja, do you work for them?
<snip>

No, he just takes kickbacks...

[the-cable-guy]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

Freeview is the way to go but if you get crap reception and many areas do then, for the reasons nicely outlined by bugmenot, for the moment Sky is undoubtably the next best.

However don't forget about FreeSat. Hopefully this should give a better reception for most than Freeview. Both Sky and VM may suffer huge defections when this comes onstream

Freeview is shyte

[icestar2]

This is another case of what you want, what you wana pay and were you are. I have been with VM/NTL for almost 8 years now. I have had a brilliant service with no problems until NTL/Telewest rebranded to VM and since I have had no end of problems.

My farther is currently with SKY and has also had no end of problems. He was promised BB, TV, Phone for a price. Later after taking money from him they told him BB was not avalible anymore Due to no space on Exchange but if he paid £17 more a month they could fit him in !
Was also spoken rudley to by CS agents.

Its really luck of the draw with these companys.

[TheBlueRaja]

Originally Posted by bugmenott

TheBlueRaja, do you work for them?

How can you say their service is better? all they say when you call them is "you will need to upgrade your service", translated in to "give us more money".

I have never said the technology is not better, of cause it is. In theory you could set up your own TV station eventually, the only restriction is upload times but that will change and is something they should be working on but as I can see reading some of the posts THEY don't listen to anyone!

I have programmed computers from the age of 11 I'm 43 now and from a programming point of view Virgin is terrible, absolutely terrible. They have no idea how to utilise the technology to its maximum effect. Lets take the set-top software and program finder, its awful. he load up times are C*AP (depending on which box they give you) When you think that we are talking about THE only two way service out there, this really brings it in to perspective. Then look at the opposition, please don't raz if this is wrong but didn't Pace win awards for their software running the Sky system. A CHILD can tell you which one is faster, smoother and more reliable.

When I think of the possibilities with the cable system I cannot believe the clunky, slow and bug prone system we have to put up with now, it reminds me of the old analogue boxes, nay they were better!

To cap it off this reminds me of a situation whereby a Manager is in charge of purchasing not a technology specialist and the Manager ONLY looks at price so you always end up with cr*p and a frustrated software engineer who has to do the best with what he has got! Mirror that with Pace who had a FREE REIGN to design a system, THEN it was made to suit which is why it is far far superior.

As for ADSL, well what can you expect. It will never ever have the same potential as cable because the technology is dated from the start rather like Virgin set-top boxes that are purchased then designed rather than designed then purchased, ADSL is a spin off from the telephone industry, something they thought up afterwards, an add-on or a FUDGE!
ADSL has a physical limit of 256 upload period. There is ADSL2 but my gut instinct, fibre optics vs copper wire, well you decide I know where I sit from a technology point of view.

As per usual it's not the technology thats at fault, it's the people running that technology.

As Cobbydaler pointed out, i was being exceedingly sarcastic, its probably because your new to the forum (welcome by the way) and didnt know my previous on this but, i think, most people here know that i think Sky kicks Virgins buttocks and Virgin has a lot of catching up to do.

A lot of your points i've made in previous posts too.