V+ vs. Freesat?

[higgsfield]

The dish was the clincher for me too. And the Humax HD PVR is about 300 quid.

[Brettiex]

I don't know what bitrates Virgin use but one could assume they are similar. I wouldn't like to guess either way.

The bitrates for Freeview can be found on the following site:

http://dtt.me.uk/

Freesat for CH4 can be found at:

http://linowsat.de/0282/all/0282.shtml

I've also heard the ITV has better bitrates on Freeview so that may help. The one problem to all this is that bit rates aren't constant and are liable to change between networks - should be enough to give an idea though.

If someone can confirm the Virgin bitrates you should be able to make a comparison.

[Macman]

Yes, I also figured that getting a signal down a cable would always be better than getting one via satellite - short-term and long-term.

[higgsfield]

Not necessarily true.

Satellite can reliable transport many HD channels (as Sky does)...

[fixerman]

Originally Posted by Macman

Hi everyone,

I've just bought an HD-ready TV and want to press it into action. But I'm torn between going with the Virgin V+ system (I already have phone and broadband with them) and going the Freesat route. Sky is not an option for various reasons.

Here are my questions:

1. Is there a difference in quality in the Standard Definition and High Definition output between V+ and Freesat?

2. At the moment, Virgin only has one HD channel (BBC) but is promising more soon. Do you think they will increase the monthly rental fee as more HD channels come on stream? Or will it remain at the £5 level?

3. Is it worth waiting for the new Samsung V+ box to be guaranteed installed?

That's it. Any and all reflections welcome.

Many thanks!

Sorry for not replying earlier! I have both systems and I can say that when it comes to SD the V+ box has the edge. On HD there is not a lot between the two but the functionality of the V+ leaves the Humax PVR standing. Then of course you have VOD on Virgin which I find really useful.

"You pays your money and you takes your chances".

[Macman]

Better late then never - that fits in with what I've been hearing elsewhere. Thanks!

Originally Posted by higgsfield

The dish was the clincher for me too. And the Humax HD PVR is about 300 quid.

The cost difference isn't as big as you think - it's mainly just down to how you pay it. With Freesat the cost is upfront; with Sky the cost is spread over months as you're tied into a subscription, without which the box's '+' features won't work. Also, if you stop paying the subscription, you can no longer access any of the premium content you may still have stored on the PVR. Of course with VM you don't even own the box at all and when you stop paying the subscription it is as useful as a doorstop to you.

Unless you get value for money out of your monthly TV subscription (and in my experience many people don't), the best route is to buy your HD PVR and use it with Freesat.

[higgsfield]

Ahh, but my decision would be FreeSat Vs. VM. I wouldn't consider giving any money to that Murdoch (a vicious man, and a racist to boot).

Originally Posted by higgsfield

Ahh, but my decision would be FreeSat Vs. VM. I wouldn't consider giving any money to that Murdoch (a vicious man, and a racist to boot).

In which case your decision is even more clear-cut. If you expect to watch the subscription channels enough to justify what you pay for them, then great, get V+. But if you're getting it purely for the sake of having an HD PVR, it's not such great value. Especially considering you don't own the box, and cannot access any of the recordings on it, the moment you stop subscribing.

[higgsfield]

Why do I want to own the box? As it is I get free maintenance and repairs?

And if I ever decide to leave I can archive stuff to DVD if I want.

(And when my Humax dies I lose any the unarchived recordings too).

Again, the first consideration is whether you primarily want subscription TV or not. If you do, then paying an ongoing subscription is fine. If you don't, and you're purely wanting the HD and PVR functions, it makes no sense to pay an open-ended subscription that will, before long, end up costing you more than the up-front cost of a Freesat+HD box.

If you ever decide to leave, you can indeed archive your old stuff first, but once you have left, you have no equipment to show for your months or years of payments to VM, and no choice but to go and buy something to replace the HD and PVR functions you have just lost.

As for 'when' your Humax dies ... all equipment has a finite life, but we have no reason to expect it to die prematurely. It should give plenty of years service before that becomes an issue.

[higgsfield]

My point was that the V+ has indefinite life - as long as you pay your subs.

But those subs get you a lot more besides (e.g. all VOD stuff, free and premium).

You could argue that a V+ box is future-proof as well. Although it will always be behind the curve in terms of leading edge features, VM will presumably keep updating the box every few years. Won't they!?!?!? Heh heh.

Indeed it does. But then all this is is a re-hash of the old debate, to rent or to buy. Radio Rentals, Rumbelows, Martin Dawes ... all businesses that made their name renting TVs to people. Nowadays most people prefer to buy. Why? Because in real terms the equipment is cheaper, people earn more, and most important, it's a heck of a lot more reliable so the 'free repairs' argument isn't as persuasive as it used to be.

The same is true of the V+. It is very safe, you will get repairs and replacements, but I'm willing to bet you will pay more for that than you would by simply buying your own Freesat box and replacing it when it eventually wears out. That's why I've been prefacing my comments with the caveat about subscribing to get the TV channels rather than the PVR functions. If you actually want the TV channels, then you're probably getting value for money. If you're simply looking for a PVR rental service, you almost certainly aren't.