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

[RichardCoulter]

That's a lot less than I imagined.

With the switch from analogue to satellite they first used the carrot (subsidised equipment with more channels for the same price as analogue) and then the stick (gradually removing analogue channels.)

It may be that they are now using the stick first (the removal of SD channels.) The carrot may be the removal of the HD charge (just for non premium channels to start with for to those who take the highest pack??) to encourage more customers to migrate. This would also negate the competitive edge that VM have over them by offering free HD.

I think it likely that more SD closures will follow.

Does anybody know if the SD channel closures already announced will affect VM?

[Alan Fry]

what will replace sky living loves?

[Media Boy UK]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Does anybody know if the SD channel closures already announced will affect VM?

All will happen will be that Sky Living Loves will close on Virgin Channel 159.

That all we know that time of posting.

---------- Post added at 11:12 ---------- Previous post was at 11:10 ----------

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

what will replace sky living loves?

BSkyB are moving Sky Arts channels up on the Sky EPG.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Does anybody know if the SD channel closures already announced will affect VM?

If a channel stops broadcasting completely then yes it will affect VM

[Felim_Doyle]

Not everyone on VM has a HD capable box or a HD TV to enjoy it with. So, many VM customers would still either require a HD box that seemlessly downscales to SD or for VM to downscale the HD feeds from BSkyB before retransmission to SD boxes. That sounds like a lot of capital outlay for VM.

---------- Post added at 11:36 ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

no, the bbc trust,

this is the only bbc can surrvive with fading into obserity

I see you have a Norman Collier keyboard there Alan.

I don't see how you can suggest that the BBC be allowed to set the amount the public is charged for the TV licence. The BBC can put forward a business plan and a request for funding but should in no way set the licence fee themselves. In recent years some of the licence revenue has been used for DSO and some is to be used in the future for broadband rollout. As a public service broadcaster, Channel 4 and its regional variants also receive funding either directly or indirectly (via BBC subsidies) from the licence fee. So the BBC are not the only ones who are supported by what is, for legal purposes, public taxation and, even if they were, they should not be deciding the amount.

Don't forget that the BBC has other revenue streams through its Worldwide (formerly Enterprises) and other business interests. Given that they do not rely on commercial advertising, the BBC should be far less affected by the economic downturn than other broadcasters. Personally, I feel thet they should be able to make any necessary savings without degrading the quality of the service and without an increase to their licence fee subsidy.

New costs have been introduced in recent years such as upgrading to HD recording and transmission of programmes but technology has also made for great savings with, for example, the vast libraries of programming now being held digitally on disk rather than on video tape and film leading to savings in storage costs and instant access to the archives.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Felim_Doyle

Not everyone on VM has a HD capable box or a HD TV to enjoy it with. So, many VM customers would still either require a HD box that seemlessly downscales to SD or for VM to downscale the HD feeds from BSkyB before retransmission to SD boxes. That sounds like a lot of capital outlay for VM.

---------- Post added at 11:36 ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 ----------

I see you have a Norman Collier keyboard there Alan.

I don't see how you can suggest that the BBC be allowed to set the amount the public is charged for the TV licence. The BBC can put forward a business plan and a request for funding but should in no way set the licence fee themselves. In recent years some of the licence revenue has been used for DSO and some is to be used in the future for broadband rollout. As a public service broadcaster, Channel 4 and its regional variants also receive funding either directly or indirectly (via BBC subsidies) from the licence fee. So the BBC are not the only ones who are supported by what is, for legal purposes, public taxation and, even if they were, they should not be deciding the amount.

Don't forget that the BBC has other revenue streams through its Worldwide (formerly Enterprises) and other business interests. Given that they do not rely on commercial advertising, the BBC should be far less affected by the economic downturn than other broadcasters. Personally, I feel thet they should be able to make any necessary savings without degrading the quality of the service and without an increase to their licence fee subsidy.

New costs have been introduced in recent years such as upgrading to HD recording and transmission of programmes but technology has also made for great savings with, for example, the vast libraries of programming now being held digitally on disk rather than on video tape and film leading to savings in storage costs and instant access to the archives.

they can't do much in terms of its worldwide division, apart from selling the rights to doctor who, top gear, remainig sports rights eic

they cannot make saving without degrading the quality of service, they have been doing the for the past few years already

if sky can set their subscription fees then the bbc (or bbc trust) should set the liesence fee

otherwise there will be nothing but rubbish on tv, itv has gone to the dogs since the 1990s, don't let it happen to the bbc.

[ozsat]

If the BBC set the licence fee and I was the BBC - I'd charge you £29.99 per month - would you pay?

If you chose not to pay you wouldf be breaking the law - even if you only watch other channels that you paid a fee for.

The licence fee goes to the BBC - but the licence is to view all channel - not just the BBC.

With Sky to choose to pay - with the BBC you have to pay.

If you have to pay then a limit has to be set by somebody.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

they cannot make saving without degrading the quality of service, they have been doing the for the past few years already

Please explain how? They've launched iPlayer and two HD channels, what have they took away to make the service 'degraded'?

[Media Boy UK]

Originally Posted by ozsat

If the BBC set the licence fee and I was the BBC - I'd charge you £29.99 per month - would you pay?

If you chose not to pay you wouldf be breaking the law - even if you only watch other channels that you paid a fee for.

The licence fee goes to the BBC - but the licence is to view all channel - not just the BBC.

With Sky to choose to pay - with the BBC you have to pay.

If you have to pay then a limit has to be set by somebody.

or pay the BBC via Virgin Media £12.99 per month to watch all the BBC Channels (My phone says we pay the BBC £12.12.5 per month right now).

Or I love to see the BBC having an night on BBC One every year called ''BBC in Need''.

[devilincarnate]

Originally Posted by Media Boy

Or I love to see the BBC having an night on BBC One every year called ''BBC in Need''.

The way things are going we may see it soon

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by ozsat

If the BBC set the licence fee and I was the BBC - I'd charge you £29.99 per month - would you pay?

If you chose not to pay you wouldf be breaking the law - even if you only watch other channels that you paid a fee for.

The licence fee goes to the BBC - but the licence is to view all channel - not just the BBC.

With Sky to choose to pay - with the BBC you have to pay.

If you have to pay then a limit has to be set by somebody.

yes i would pay!

got any better ideas for the bbc to be well funded

---------- Post added at 14:53 ---------- Previous post was at 14:51 ----------

Originally Posted by Jameseh

Please explain how? They've launched iPlayer and two HD channels, what have they took away to make the service 'degraded'?

they have lost many sports, film ,foregin tv rights and they are laggding behind in terms of hd channels (compaired to sky, itv and channel 4)

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

and they are laggding behind in terms of hd channels (compaired to sky, itv and channel 4)

Just because Sky, ITV and Channel 4 have more HD channels doesn't mean the BBC are lagging behind

All of the ITV HD channels, both C4 HD and E4 HD as well and the Sky HD channels (excluding the Movies) are all simulcast channels which means most of their content probably isn't HD

I'd much prefer fewer HD channels with more HD content on them rather than more with less

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Just because Sky, ITV and Channel 4 have more HD channels doesn't mean the BBC are lagging behind

All of the ITV HD channels, both C4 HD and E4 HD as well and the Sky HD channels (excluding the Movies) are all simulcast channels which means most of their content probably isn't HD

I'd much prefer fewer HD channels with more HD content on them rather than more with less

bbc 1 hd and bbc hd (also bbc 2 hd) are simulcast channels anyway like the c4, itv, and sky hd channels

and anyway, even if the prpgramme is not hd it will still look better

so they are lagging behind in terms of hd channels

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Just because Sky, ITV and Channel 4 have more HD channels doesn't mean the BBC are lagging behind

All of the ITV HD channels, both C4 HD and E4 HD as well and the Sky HD channels (excluding the Movies) are all simulcast channels which means most of their content probably isn't HD

I'd much prefer fewer HD channels with more HD content on them rather than more with less

I would argue Sky One HD shows more HD content a day than BBC One HD.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

bbc 1 hd and bbc hd (also bbc 2 hd) are simulcast channels anyway like the c4, itv, and sky hd channels

and anyway, even if the prpgramme is not hd it will still look better

so they are lagging behind in terms of hd channels

Because Channel 4 and ITV can afford to run more HD channels because they're behind a paywall, BBC must make them available to every platform for free and pay for them to broadcast there.

Sky own the satellite and have more money than jesus so they're not particularly comparable.