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

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by howardmicks

soz mate totally disagree if you are getting movies and sports in HD you are already paying £7.00 extra for HD and if you get tivo there is another £3.00 charge making it £10.00 for a extra 25p you get over 50 HD channels,You could argue that you after pay another £9.00 for ESPN and its free with vm on xl.But lets face it this season if you are a premership fan you are only getting a quarter of the matches.VM finally admitted HD Channels was the future and that was only after constant badgering from customers and people leaving for sky,In there last quarter results the tv showed a massive increase.That was due to the excellent work that vm did in getting a large amount of HD Channels and even admitted that themselves and promised more,For the past nine months all we have seen is channels close and channels to be taken off just to be replaced by others.Constant promises and coming soons is now starting to wear thin and now wit this great product (tivo) its needs support from new channels especially HD,If you read recent reviews it makes reference to how many less HD channels vm have compared to sky.

Don't apologise mate your correct and entitled to your say. That's a valid point TIVO 3.00 and Sky premium 7.00 , also don't forget Sky sports is 20.25 as opposed to 22.50 on VM but as you say ESPN is 9.00 on Sky.

[Henkesghost]

Originally Posted by howardmicks

soz mate totally disagree if you are getting movies and sports in HD you are already paying £7.00 extra for HD and if you get tivo there is another £3.00 charge making it £10.00 for a extra 25p you get over 50 HD channels,You could argue that you after pay another £9.00 for ESPN and its free with vm on xl.But lets face it this season if you are a premership fan you are only getting a quarter of the matches.VM finally admitted HD Channels was the future and that was only after constant badgering from customers and people leaving for sky,In there last quarter results the tv showed a massive increase.That was due to the excellent work that vm did in getting a large amount of HD Channels and even admitted that themselves and promised more,For the past nine months all we have seen is channels close and channels to be taken off just to be replaced by others.Constant promises and coming soons is now starting to wear thin and now wit this great product (tivo) its needs support from new channels especially HD,If you read recent reviews it makes reference to how many less HD channels vm have compared to sky.

Superb post!

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Henkesghost

Jesus wept!!

Originally Posted by howardmicks

soz mate totally disagree if you are getting movies and sports in HD you are already paying £7.00 extra for HD and if you get tivo there is another £3.00 charge making it £10.00 for a extra 25p you get over 50 HD channels,You could argue that you after pay another £9.00 for ESPN and its free with vm on xl.But lets face it this season if you are a premership fan you are only getting a quarter of the matches.VM finally admitted HD Channels was the future and that was only after constant badgering from customers and people leaving for sky,In there last quarter results the tv showed a massive increase.That was due to the excellent work that vm did in getting a large amount of HD Channels and even admitted that themselves and promised more,For the past nine months all we have seen is channels close and channels to be taken off just to be replaced by others.Constant promises and coming soons is now starting to wear thin and now wit this great product (tivo) its needs support from new channels especially HD,If you read recent reviews it makes reference to how many less HD channels vm have compared to sky.

You're missing the poiny of my post. I wasn't saying VM don't need more channels. I agree they do.

I was saying that, in my view, to say, as jonandmarkuk did, that Tivo is 'pointless' with the current VM channel content is wrong..

[howardmicks]

Originally Posted by passingbat

You're missing the poiny of my post. I wasn't saying VM don't need more channels. I agree they do.

I was saying that, in my view, to say, as jonandmarkuk did, that Tivo is 'pointless' with the current VM channel content is wrong..

Got yer matey,Hope i haven`t offended.Just think i have wrote what most people are thinking,I aint calling VM.I compliment them for all the hard work they have done and certainly applaud them for listening to customers and doing something about it,But they now need to listen to us again tivo is not going to bring massive amounts of customers alone it need support form new channels.Take muppetman11,He didnt want to leave just wanted new channels like us all in the end he got sick of waiting and i know plenty more who have done the same.
Do agree that tivo is pointless is a tad harse

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by howardmicks

Got yer matey,Hope i haven`t offended.

Definitely not.

Originally Posted by howardmicks

Just think i have wrote what most people are thinking,I aint calling VM.I compliment them for all the hard work they have done and certainly applaud them for listening to customers and doing something about it,But they now need to listen to us again tivo is not going to bring massive amounts of customers alone it need support form new channels.Take muppetman11,He didnt want to leave just wanted new channels like us all in the end he got sick of waiting and i know plenty more who have done the same.

I agree with that. And re Tivo, I think it will be interesting to see if it attracts any Sky customers.

Some people want to add HD channels even if it means an HD charge similar to Sky's £10.25 a month charge. I personally am not in favour of that and prefer HD channels free, even if it means VM have to wait a little longer to get them at a decent price.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by passingbat

Definitely not.




I agree with that. And re Tivo, I think it will be interesting to see if it attracts any Sky customers.

Some people want to add HD channels even if it means an HD charge similar to Sky's £10.25 a month charge. I personally am not in favour of that and prefer HD channels free, even if it means VM have to wait a little longer to get them at a decent price.

But those with sky premiums and TiVo are paying a tenner anyway for far less HD channels.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

But those with sky premiums and TiVo are paying a tenner anyway for far less HD channels.

As always, which provider is best for you depends on the content you want.

For those who don't take Movies or sports, but want HD on other channels, VM's system is good because you get a lot of HD free of charge.

It would be interesting to know of the total VM HD subscribers, what percentage take Sky movies or sports.

I don't and because of having two HD boxes, Sky pricing sucks compared to VMs. Also, from my personal perspective, Tivo functionality is worth more to me than a few extra HD channels (channels that I can see the content anyway, though only in SD; Sky atlantic excluded, which I would like.)

[howardmicks]

Originally Posted by passingbat

Definitely not.




I agree with that. And re Tivo, I think it will be interesting to see if it attracts any Sky customers.

Some people want to add HD channels even if it means an HD charge similar to Sky's £10.25 a month charge. I personally am not in favour of that and prefer HD channels free, even if it means VM have to wait a little longer to get them at a decent price.

The waits not the problem,but nine months is a bit of a joke.Vm defo have the right approach,Sky just chuck money at channels just to get them.Dont want vm to start doing that,But really thought vm would have had some new channels to back tivo at the launch party.As i stated in a earlier post breaks my heart to give sky any of my money im pro vm all the way

---------- Post added at 21:12 ---------- Previous post was at 21:10 ----------

DF as been quiet today,Hope he has gone looking for some HD Channels lol

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by howardmicks

The waits not the problem,but nine months is a bit of a joke.Vm defo have the right approach,Sky just chuck money at channels just to get them.Dont want vm to start doing that,But really thought vm would have had some new channels to back tivo at the launch party.As i stated in a earlier post breaks my heart to give sky any of my money im pro vm all the way

---------- Post added at 21:12 ---------- Previous post was at 21:10 ----------

DF as been quiet today,Hope he has gone looking for some HD Channels lol

I agree Sky probably do chuck money around to get HD channels but their customers pay for the priviledge, it's the £300 million+ a year they reap in HD subs they are chucking around.

That's the path they have chosen and over 3 million punters (me included) seem OK with that. VM have followed a different path so it's upto the customer which they prefer.

What I do know is when you don't pay extra for basic HD you simply cannot have it both ways. I sometimes take the mickey but to get 12 pay HD channels included in XL isn't bad you know, not at all but it isn't for me.

Choose accordingly.

[Chad]

Originally Posted by mersey70

I agree Sky probably do chuck money around to get HD channels but their customers pay for the priviledge, it's the £300 million+ a year they reap in HD subs they are chucking around.

That's the path they have chosen and over 3 million punters (me included) seem OK with that. VM have followed a different path so it's upto the customer which they prefer.

What I do know is when you don't pay extra for basic HD you simply cannot have it both ways. I sometimes take the mickey but to get 12 pay HD channels included in XL isn't bad you know, not at all but it isn't for me.

Choose accordingly.

Well said mate. If people do have the option to choose between SKY or Virgin, I can't understand why they post on this forum that they are unhappy with the channels and content that Virgin provide. If you have the option to do so, then go to SKY it really is that simple. If you continue to stay with Virgin paying them your hard earned money for a service your not happy with then when it boils right down to it your a mug.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Chad

Well said mate. If people do have the option to choose between SKY or Virgin, I can't understand why they post on this forum that they are unhappy with the channels and content that Virgin provide. If you have the option to do so, then go to SKY it really is that simple. If you continue to stay with Virgin paying them your hard earned money for a service your not happy with then when it boils right down to it your a mug.

Yep its that easy mate

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Chad

Well said mate. If people do have the option to choose between SKY or Virgin, I can't understand why they post on this forum that they are unhappy with the channels and content that Virgin provide. If you have the option to do so, then go to SKY it really is that simple. If you continue to stay with Virgin paying them your hard earned money for a service your not happy with then when it boils right down to it your a mug.

Some households cannot have Sky.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by denphone

Some households cannot have Sky.

Indeed, in that circumstance I suppose customers need to accept VM for what it is or consider leaving.

Perhaps they will introduce additional tiers of service in future but there's no indication that will happen. It's also worth remembering there seems to be lot's of people who are happy with their pricing policy, some people simply dont want or need 50 odd HD channels and prefer a smaller selection at no extra charge, similarly some people like me have not a jot of interest in a STB like Tivo and not because of the cost either. I prefer the widest choice of linear channels and a 'standard' PVR but that's just me.

Horses for courses.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by denphone

Some households cannot have Sky.

Well there what is known as up the river without a paddle I still bet half who winge on here can

[Chad]

Originally Posted by denphone

Some households cannot have Sky.

They should be delighted that Virgin is available in their area. If they couldn't get SKY or Virgin then they'd have to make do with Freeview, Freesat or BT. They should stop comparing Virgin to SKY as SKY is something they'll never get. They need to accept their lot in life and move on

Anyway my original post was really aimed at those who do have the choice, and can switch to SKY.