General : Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2013) Vol. 1.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Jameseh

if Netflix had any intention of porting their US app they would have done so by now.

That may not be the case. Tivo launched a new version of the Netflix app last May, so if one was coming to VM's Tivo, then it would make sense to wait for the new app, (which is one of the best Netflix apps). I know May was 9 months ago, but it does take time to port them to the VM Tivo, which is why we are still waiting for the missing HD menus.

I'm not saying that Netflix is coming to Tivo, but if it is, the new version of the app could account for the delay

http://www.techofthehub.com/2012/05/...on-review.html

Originally Posted by spj20016

So because you don't want TiVo, VM should not do any deals for us that do have one. That sounds fair. I don't like sport but I don't say ESPN should not be in the XL pack because I don't want it.

That's not what I'm saying at all, course VM should do deals for those that have one. But TiVo apps should be funded either from the TiVo charge (which still exists even if VM try to hide it in their collections) or by the third party (in this case Netflix) who are going to benefit financially from it's creation.

My thoughts on the ESPN situation are that either it will be replaced by BT Sport and I'll keep taking XL, or It wont be, and I'll drop down to M+ and get BT Sport. But the thought of having to contribute to the creation of an app for a box that I don't ever want to own, that I already have built into my Blu ray, my TV and can be added to my PC (which is connected to my TV), my phone or my tablet yet I choose not to use, is ludicrous.

The fairest thing to do is add another £1 to the monthly TiVo charge for TiVo app development.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by JustaBloke

That's not what I'm saying at all, course VM should do deals for those that have one. But TiVo apps should be funded either from the TiVo charge (which still exists even if VM try to hide it in their collections) or by the third party (in this case Netflix) who are going to benefit financially from it's creation.

My thoughts on the ESPN situation are that either it will be replaced by BT Sport and I'll keep taking XL, or It wont be, and I'll drop down to M+ and get BT Sport. But the thought of having to contribute to the creation of an app for a box that I don't ever want to own, that I already have built into my Blu ray, my TV and can be added to my PC (which is connected to my TV), my phone or my tablet yet I choose not to use, is ludicrous.

The fairest thing to do is add another £1 to the monthly TiVo charge for TiVo app development.

With any pay TV service, we all pay for things we don't want or watch. That's the nature of a pay TV service.

I don't watch sport, so don't care about ESPN being part of XL and I could theoretically object to the money that VM are paying ESPN. But that would be a short sighted view. ESPN is free as part of the XL package to attract customers and the resulting increased revenue. It is the same with apps and features on Tivo; it is there to attract more people to Tivo and VM. So just as I accept VM paying for a service I don't use in order to attract more customers and more revenue, you need to accept the same thing in regards to increased Tivo functionality.

Originally Posted by passingbat

With any pay TV service, we all pay for things we don't want or watch. That's the nature of a pay TV service.

I don't watch sport, so don't care about ESPN being part of XL and I could theoretically object to the money that VM are paying ESPN. But that would be a short sighted view. ESPN is free as part of the XL package to attract customers and the resulting increased revenue. It is the same with apps and features on Tivo; it is there to attract more people to Tivo and VM. So just as I accept VM paying for a service I don't use in order to attract more customers and more revenue, you need to accept the same thing in regards to increased Tivo functionality.

I understand the concept of bundled channels and have no problem in paying for channels I never watch. But the TiVo issue is different. There is a separate charge for TiVo that many people like me, have chosen not to pay. To me, TiVo offers nothing I want to pay extra for over my V+.

For you, it does, I understand that too. You have decided to pay more for what TiVo offers. I haven't. I'll leave you to work out the rest, if you can't see that anything for TiVo users should be paid for in the TiVo charge I'm sorry for you.

Hey. If we got all the BB and phone only users to pay an extra £3 a month each, we TV customers could all have free Sky Movies. They'd be happy to stump up I'm sure.

[TAZMANUK]

I know virgin

media has been busy doing the harlem shake on youtube swansea sheffield social team and india i feel a competition in the air.

So heres mine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62YZy...A3im9A&index=1

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

As for 'selling' any price increase to VM customers, maybe that's what the latest price hike was all about!

Clearly not as it pre-dated the announcement that BT Group were buying ESPN's UK and Ireland channels. There is no way that the price hike could have been set at a level to cover the unquantified cost of renegotiated sports contracts. Unless the quality of the VM Crystal Ball has vastly improved.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by JustaBloke

I'll leave you to work out the rest,

It's not difficult. Tivo is adding new customers to VM because of its functionality; the V+ isn't.

You invest in the things that are bringing in more revenue.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

If VM want to provide the BT sports channels on their XL package, I have no doubt that this is what VM will do. BT will set the price, but surely it is up to VM how they package this for their viewers.

This is partly true to but be honest but consider this possibility..

BT offer the sports package to VM at a rate of £16 per subscriber as an add on premium package. VM then asks for a discounted rate to make the package available to all XL customers. BT respond with, sure you can make the channel available to all XL customers but the rate of £16 per subscriber is not negotiable.

Originally Posted by passingbat

It's not difficult. Tivo is adding new customers to VM because of its functionality; the V+ isn't.

It certainly is. TiVo will be subtracting customers from VM if people who don't want its functionality have to subsidise those that do.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by JustaBloke

It certainly is. TiVo will be subtracting customers from VM if people who don't want its functionality have to subsidise those that do.

Who said that was the case?

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by jj20x

This is partly true to but be honest but consider this possibility..

BT offer the sports package to VM at a rate of £16 per subscriber as an add on premium package. VM then asks for a discounted rate to make the package available to all XL customers. BT respond with, sure you can make the channel available to all XL customers but the rate of £16 per subscriber is not negotiable.

Personally, I think it will be a standalone package on VM and Sky and maybe included on BT to drive up BT's TV/Phone/BB packages takeup.

But as a potential counter to your argument, If BT insist on £16 and that price puts so many people off that hardly anyone subscribes, BT could be better off accepting a payment from VM of, say, £4 per XL customer. BT then have a guaranteed income from VM which could be more than a few people paying £16 per month, which will fluxuate monthly, assuming that it is a minimum 30 day contract like Sky Premium channels.

Haven't a clue what the real figures would be, just for example purposes.

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Who said that was the case?

An idea mooted in post #1985.

Originally Posted by passingbat

But as a potential counter to your argument, If BT insist on £16 and that price puts so many people off that hardly anyone subscribes, BT could be better off accepting a payment from VM of, say, £4 per XL customer. BT then have a guaranteed income from VM which could be more than a few people paying £16 per month, which will fluxuate monthly, assuming that it is a minimum 30 day contract like Sky Premium channels.

Haven't a clue what the real figures would be, just for example purposes.

Although the point of argument was to counter arguments such as the one you now suggest and we can run around in circles with this forever.

The £16 figure was just an example anyway. There's no doubt that by discounting the product that BT would then get a guaranteed income stream, there's nothing wrong with that argument. But if they see their Sports Channels as a premium product, convincing them to offer it at a discount may not be as easy as it seems.

You put forward an argument of what if hardly anyone subscribes? but it's equally likely that sports fans will reach deeper into their pockets and subscribe. Their fault, but that is what they usually do. Unless BT offer it as a premium channel they won't know how many people will subscribe.

Keeping it as a premium channel with special offers on their own platform could drive users to that platform. Obviously one of the things they would wish to do after such a large investment.

In reality there could well be a compromise and BT could well agree to a discounted rate per subscriber for carriage on the XL pack. They could offer it for, say, £15.99 per subscriber.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by jj20x

but it's equally likely that sports fans will reach deeper into their pockets and subscribe.

Not according to the poll on this thread, which is what prompted my original point.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/11...pay-extra.html

Originally Posted by passingbat

Not according to the poll on this thread, which is what prompted my original point.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/11...pay-extra.html

Yes, but I'll take that with a pinch of salt as any survey on a forum isn't a random sample of the population and would be statistically inaccurate.