Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2011) Vol. I.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by mentalis

The way I read that article the dark side have room, but the cost is 1.5 times that of the SD bandwidth - which still has to be paid for.

Odd no mention of cable..

VM take there feeds off satellite anyway don't they. Have to say I'm a little disappointed at a sub increase when we've lost a few channels all be it not VM fault.

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

VM take there feeds off satellite anyway don't they. Have to say I'm a little disappointed at a sub increase when we've lost a few channels all be it not VM fault.

Some of them. BBC HD channels are fed direct via fibre to VM in Langley.

[LexDiamond]

Originally Posted by Sammme

Virgins Business Plan.

- Higher Prices = Profit
- No New Channels = Profit

With no investment in their TV platform for new channels, they don't have to speand any additional money, and with more money coming in from these price hikes, they're making a few million extra a month.

Sounds like a perfect idea for them right?

Are you serious? Do you actually have VM tv? Because if you do you have probably missed all the additional channels added by VM over the last 12 months.

[The Yank]

Originally Posted by undertakereddie

Did'nt virgin media bosses have a meeting (Thursday 17th February 2011) this morning?.

O yeah - did that actually happen? Anything come out of it?

[Cozzy]

instead of always having new channels i would personally prefer the channel providers to improve the quality of content on the existing channels

quality over quantity everytime ( as the actress said to the bishop )

[Perfect Choice]

Access to quality content through any route will do me, expect to receive more news on on-demand/streaming via Tivo Internet on that issue IMHO.

But dealing with exclusivity of content, like Sky has on new films and the current situation with HBO on Sky Atlantic porgrammes, is the key issue to address before we have full flexibility of content access.

If that is resolved, then there will be less focus on new channels IMHO

[braysoj1]

MB will wwe Tough Enough be on sky sports when it starts

[mattboothers]

Originally Posted by braysoj1

MB will wwe Tough Enough be on sky sports when it starts

Im not Media Boy, But I had a friend who works for Sky Sports on facebook before he had to delete it due to spam reasons from Sky customers.

He said it will replace NXT's slot when that finishes.
He also said it should air before Raw over here just like the USA.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Cozzy

instead of always having new channels i would personally prefer the channel providers to improve the quality of content on the existing channels

quality over quantity everytime ( as the actress said to the bishop )

When were the last channels we had not for a long time, there are plenty of channels Virgin could have even without Skys channels.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

According to DS, VM wont be having Sky Atlantic very soon over price, l am a Sky sub also, so why should VM customers have the new channel on the cheap.

Niel Berkett is a fool and an idiot, get back into the real world, in the end it is us that end up paying the bill.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

so why should VM customers have the new channel on the cheap.

I'm a Virgin customer, so personally I prefer Virgin to get new channels as cheap as they possibly can

[oliver1948uk]

I for one am pleased that VM do not automatically take any channel whatever the price.

Some of us have to watch our expenditure. It is disapponting that there are some channels not on VM but there seems to me to be plenty to be getting on with, and at a lower price than if we had more.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

According to DS, VM wont be having Sky Atlantic very soon over price, l am a Sky sub also, so why should VM customers have the new channel on the cheap.

Niel Berkett is a fool and an idiot, get back into the real world, in the end it is us that end up paying the bill.

Are you a Sky shareholder, Arthur?

If not, why would you want to pay more (whoever your provider is)?

You appear to be stating that you would rather pay more to have Sky Atlantic on VM, even though you already have it on Sky - that leads me to wonder who is "a fool and an idiot"......

[denphone]

Virgin should offer the customers the choice so if they want certain channels they can pay a little extra and if they don,t want it then customers do not have to pay for it, personally there are still a lot of channels that Virgin should be having and have not got at the moment because they do not want to pay for them or for some other reason.

Originally Posted by denphone

Virgin should offer the customers the choice so if they want certain channels they can pay a little extra and if they don,t want it then customers do not have to pay for it, personally there are still a lot of channels that Virgin should be having and have not got at the moment because they do not want to pay for them or for some other reason.

As has been explained before, VM don't pay for channels by subscriber (solely) - most channels/packages have a minimum baseline payment, and then topped-up by numbers of subscribers; it would appear that you are asking VM (who would have to pass the charge on to all customers) to pay the basic (which can be quite high) amount, just in case some individual customers may take up that channel/package.

For instance, Sky may have a basic charge of £10 million* for Sky Atlantic, which would cover 500,000 subscribers (with a charge on top per subscriber), and then have escalating bands of charges depending on the numbers of subscribers - that is is how it used to work in the 90's.

*amounts/numbers for example purposes only.