General : Virgin TV (2024)

[epsilon]

Originally Posted by vincerooney

if youve only used it at your sisters surely you'll admit you're not used to the software yet so can't make a judgment on it?

its absolutely fine and does exactly the same as the v6 in my eyes but this time its quicker and has more apps.

Oh, I've had more than enough time with it to know it is not for me.

---------- Post added at 15:35 ---------- Previous post was at 15:31 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

No, epsilon, I am just giving my point of view. Nothing anyone has said changes my basic presumption that the V6 will not be around for that much longer and that everything will be broadcast on demand or by live stream via IPTV by 2035 unless the government intervenes.

I could not fail to notice that some contributors vehemently disagree, and that’s fine. But if they misunderstand or misrepresent what I’ve said, I will respond.

I hope that clears things up.

As I said, with you it's either "my way of the highway".

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You mean I take the trouble to respond again and again to people who seem to have taken from my posts things I was not even saying, or getting the wrong end of the stick? Guilty as charged.

I just have to add a link to support something I say and the usual suspects fall on me like a ton of bricks. This is not normal behaviour.

---------- Post added at 10:41 ---------- Previous post was at 10:11 ----------



Oh, I get that people will have different views on this, and I completely accept that. But have you not seen previous posts in response to mine on this subject? The people who accuse me of being absolutely adamant that my 2035 ‘prediction’ is correct are just as adamant that their view that IPTV will not happen soon and conventional channels will not disappear is correct. My ‘prediction’ is not a guaranteed outcome, of course I know that - I am simply giving my view. I am happy to accept the views of others will differ from mine, but the attitude that what I am saying could never happen is a failure to accept that things can change.


I am not ignoring the opinions of others, and I have been diligent in addressing their points of view in my responses.

What you are saying here about people who may leave Virgin if viewers only have a choice of the V6 in the future is correct. The point I’m making is simply that if Virgin so decide, there is nowhere else to go to keep those features that some are saying they can’t do without.
Agreed.

I agree with all that, except your last sentence. I simply said that the features the V6 has that the 360 has not are minor features. I get it that some people think they are important to them.



No, epsilon, I am just giving my point of view. Nothing anyone has said changes my basic presumption that the V6 will not be around for that much longer and that everything will be broadcast on demand or by live stream via IPTV by 2035 unless the government intervenes.

I could not fail to notice that some contributors vehemently disagree, and that’s fine. But if they misunderstand or misrepresent what I’ve said, I will respond.

I hope that clears things up.

So because you don't use them, they are described as 'minor features'.

I wouldn't call not having an EPG for and the ability to record radio 'minor'.

Just as Sky introduce this, Virgin decide to scrap theirs.

You never did answer my question as to which V6 features are effectively available on the 360. I shall assume that you spoke before looking into it properly and found that you were talking nonsense.

[cheekyangus]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, I get that, but the criticism is constantly about the clear conclusions I have reached based on what appears obvious to me. The only reason I keep repeating myself is because I keep getting responses (repeated responses) which appear to miss the point completely. None of the usual suspects are prepared even to consider that what I say might be true, but no-one, absolutely no-one has come up with a serious reason why that should not happen.

Significant reasons include simply that the telecommunications infrastructure isn’t close to being resilient enough and on a consistent and near universal basis, and it won’t be for a quite some time if those delivering the content persist on using the capacity so inefficiently, and continue to make technical choices that fail to change this. If they keep with the current approach even those in the better areas will suffer a subpar experience and there will be far too many who just won’t get a service at all and could be 2nd class citizens as there isn’t the will to do what it takes to maintain a service to them, new tech or old, because the companies are looking at this in too simplified, an unhuman, a way. I don’t want anyone being left out of society because some companies decided the data/numbers don’t work. We could end up with a sizeable minority effectively cut off with some of the strategies some organisations are adopting.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I acknowledge that my assessment of the future may not be 100% correct, obviously. I have pointed out before that I’m not Nostradamus! But surely nobody can disregard the growing acceptance of streaming at the expense of linear TV. I am just stating the obvious (ie that linear channels are losing advertising revenue and new originals to streamers, which will ultimately have consequences).

Linear TV delivered using the internet is streamed. The future will be live content and on-demand, mostly the latter. Though I think virtually everyone agrees on this these days. Sorry for being so pedantic, that’s just me.

[seedybob]

Originally Posted by cheekyangus

Debating isn’t repeating the same thing for years on end with no taking on board of responses and hoping everyone else falls into line with a World view.

Things in life rarely turn out the way you want or expect, it’s pretty much always a mix of both sides (if there are two, sometimes there are quite a few), including the personally unpalatable.

Some people keep quiet simply because they know it will set someone off and it’s not worth it, it doesn’t mean you are in the majority because you are a vocal lone voice.

Personally I feel the World is full of decent people and it would be a much better place if everyone just accepted that no one person thinks the way everyone else does on every topic and most things you will differ on (in some way, not necessarily entirely), and that you should treat others as you would like to be treated yourself and try to be kind. If you can’t say something productive, new (to you) or it’s going to make someone kick off, then it’s better (mostly) to not respond.

My postings would be much more numerous if I simply responded immediately or responded to everything. Instead I accept the difference of opinion and or eye-roll silently and move on.

Also, it’s the Internet, you don’t know any of us, even the people in your life you are around all the time there will be things you don’t know. You can never really know everything about someone, even if you live with them your entire life, the brain is an individual’s own private domain.

Dear Internet,

Please post this in every thread on every discussion board or at least as a sticky at the top of each board.

In fact I am tempted to ask if it is an AI response, and if not maybe AI could learn something from Cheeky.

Terrific stuff.

[epsilon]

Originally Posted by cheekyangus

Significant reasons include simply that the telecommunications infrastructure isn’t close to being resilient enough and on a consistent and near universal basis, and it won’t be for a quite some time if those delivering the content persist on using the capacity so inefficiently, and continue to make technical choices that fail to change this. If they keep with the current approach even those in the better areas will suffer a subpar experience and there will be far too many who just won’t get a service at all and could be 2nd class citizens as there isn’t the will to do what it takes to maintain a service to them, new tech or old, because the companies are looking at this in too simplified, an unhuman, a way. I don’t want anyone being left out of society because some companies decided the data/numbers don’t work. We could end up with a sizeable minority effectively cut off with some of the strategies some organisations are adopting.

You may have noticed that I sidestep his attempts to steer the discussion to the 2035 fantasy. Replying just gives him further opportunities to go back into repeat mode.

---------- Post added at 17:48 ---------- Previous post was at 17:35 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

So because you don't use them, they are described as 'minor features'.

I think Virgin should take his minor streaming feature away and force him to watch linear broadcast content.
Seriously though, this is why I say he is preaching. This is his gospel. He has a vision for the futures and what anyone else wants doesn't matter to him, he'll just keep on trying to persuade everyone that there is only one way forward. His way!

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by epsilon

Oh, I've had more than enough time with it to know it is not for me.

---------- Post added at 15:35 ---------- Previous post was at 15:31 ----------


As I said, with you it's either "my way of the highway".

All I’m saying is it’s my opinion and nothing anyone has said on here changes my mind because they’ve not come up with anything that convinces me otherwise. My opinion is for me to express for all the reasons I have given over the years and doesn’t actually affect anyone else.

But I would ask you to consider the fact that although your opinion is one I don’t agree with, and unlike many other naysayers on here, I am happy to accept that. So whose highway is it?

---------- Post added at 21:03 ---------- Previous post was at 20:30 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

So because you don't use them, they are described as 'minor features'.

I wouldn't call not having an EPG for and the ability to record radio 'minor'.

Just as Sky introduce this, Virgin decide to scrap theirs.

You never did answer my question as to which V6 features are effectively available on the 360. I shall assume that you spoke before looking into it properly and found that you were talking nonsense.

No, Richard.

I accept that the features that are missing from the 360 compared with the V6 appear to be important to some, but they are, in fact, minor features. Why does anyone want to ‘manage’ their series links, for example? If I want to delete a series link on my 360, for example, I simply delete it. I don’t see the problem. And if you delete a recording by mistake, which surely is a relatively rare event, just bookmark it instead.

The biggest difference which is truly detrimental is the absence of a recording facility for radio stations, although I don’t think many people would want to do that (I accept that you do).

I rarely used any of these functions when I had the V6/and I have never missed them. As for not answering your question, Inreferred you to earlier debates on this. The main features I like, and which I actually do use on a regular basis, are voice controls, personalised profiles, the startover feature and the additional streamers such as Apple TV+ and Paramount+. I also like the more straight forward, modern and uncluttered UI. I don’t get the regular buffering problems that I used to get with the V6 software (I am still using the 360 software on my V6 box, by the way.

Another thing - I can select favourite channels by profile, so I can list my favourite channels on my EPG to reflect dramas, film channels and documentary channels, whereas my wife on her profile can have her fav channels, which might be reality and film channels only.

You can use the ‘skip’ button to skip the introduction to a programme or to skip the recap that you get on many programmes now. A prompt pops up towards the end of a programme that you can click on to automatically jump to the next programme in a series. Towards the end of a recorded programme, a prompt comes up to remind you to delete it if you don’t want to see it again. Just click on it to delete it.

These are all really useful additional features that more than compensate for the TiVo ones that you would lose.

---------- Post added at 21:05 ---------- Previous post was at 21:03 ----------

Originally Posted by epsilon

Seriously though, this is why I say he is preaching. This is his gospel. He has a vision for the futures and what anyone else wants doesn't matter to him, he'll just keep on trying to persuade everyone that there is only one way forward. His way!

I only repeat things if people keep asking the same questions or make inaccurate references to my posts. Nothing wrong with that.

[vincerooney]

totally agree with you oldboy! i feel exactly the same as you in regards to the pros of virgin 360

[cheekyangus]

Originally Posted by seedybob

Dear Internet,

Please post this in every thread on every discussion board or at least as a sticky at the top of each board.

In fact I am tempted to ask if it is an AI response, and if not maybe AI could learn something from Cheeky.

Terrific stuff.

Dad, if you want tech support just ask…

Kidding. Thanks.

I am not the thing the Terminator movies were warning about, though they seem imminent and arriving by making everyone unemployed and therefore rendering us extinct via joblessness and laziness all in the search for magical “free” art, answer questions, voice controls and a general unwillingness to make an effort and pay folk for services.

And don’t forget the ridiculous energy needs of these computer processing centres, the environment of the planet is going to pot not just through overuse of the available natural resources but because of the ridiculous energy demands of people that want to make a bizarre artwork based on a simple instruction or doesn’t want to do their school homework.

So, I’m not HAL. Just someone that’s trying to make the World a little better, that’s partially why the regulars on here haven’t seen me around in a while. It’s more fulfilling and productive, and I’m enjoying it a lot. Better get back to it…

Thanks though. Appreciated.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by cheekyangus

Significant reasons include simply that the telecommunications infrastructure isn’t close to being resilient enough and on a consistent and near universal basis, and it won’t be for a quite some time if those delivering the content persist on using the capacity so inefficiently, and continue to make technical choices that fail to change this. If they keep with the current approach even those in the better areas will suffer a subpar experience and there will be far too many who just won’t get a service at all and could be 2nd class citizens as there isn’t the will to do what it takes to maintain a service to them, new tech or old, because the companies are looking at this in too simplified, an unhuman, a way. I don’t want anyone being left out of society because some companies decided the data/numbers don’t work. We could end up with a sizeable minority effectively cut off with some of the strategies some organisations are adopting.


Linear TV delivered using the internet is streamed. The future will be live content and on-demand, mostly the latter. Though I think virtually everyone agrees on this these days. Sorry for being so pedantic, that’s just me.

That sounds a bit like that old 'not enough electricity to power too many people using streamers' argument, which is patently untrue (the electricity grid is constantly being powered up to keep up with demand). I don't think you are taking account either of the increasing pressure to use the bandwidth currently used for broadcasts to be utilised for mobile signals. We already know that Sky is moving its satellite customers over to IPTV, and existing satellite transponder contracts expire in 2030. Although Sky may still decide to extend these contracts up to another five years, this appears unlikely, but I certainly don't discount it.

In the future, I believe that the main entertainment, film and documentary channels people watch now will be on demand, live broadcasts such as sport will be live streamed and the only other live streamed channels will be the FAST channels once the broadcast signal becomes unavailable.

Having said that, I recognise that you think otherwise, so we shall see.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

We already know that Sky is moving its satellite customers over to IPTV...

Are you sure this is happening?

[epsilon]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

All I’m saying is it’s my opinion and nothing anyone has said on here changes my mind because they’ve not come up with anything that convinces me otherwise. My opinion is for me to express for all the reasons I have given over the years and doesn’t actually affect anyone else.

But I would ask you to consider the fact that although your opinion is one I don’t agree with, and unlike many other naysayers on here, I am happy to accept that. So whose highway is it?

Ok, in your opinion, some V6 features are minor. Here's the thing.. your opinion doesn't matter, it won't have any impact on individuals deciding to ditch Virgin if the V6 is withdrawn and the features are no longer available. They won't come to you for a consultation, they won't ask how their departure ties in with your 2035 fantasy. What you think simply isn't relevant.

I only repeat things if people keep asking the same questions or make inaccurate references to my posts. Nothing wrong with that.

I'm not sure there are any actual questions being asked. You just feel the need to inject your opinion into the discussion when it is neither here nor there and won't have any impact on what these people decide to do.

[Itshim]

Due to using only recording( and them pixelating) to watch,have started to use" see other "on recordings which I guess is a stream, starting to get use to it, clearly for me some channels are better than others to use, but I am starting to see the appeal

[cheekyangus]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

That sounds a bit like that old 'not enough electricity to power too many people using streamers' argument, which is patently untrue (the electricity grid is constantly being powered up to keep up with demand). I don't think you are taking account either of the increasing pressure to use the bandwidth currently used for broadcasts to be utilised for mobile signals. We already know that Sky is moving its satellite customers over to IPTV, and existing satellite transponder contracts expire in 2030. Although Sky may still decide to extend these contracts up to another five years, this appears unlikely, but I certainly don't discount it.

In the future, I believe that the main entertainment, film and documentary channels people watch now will be on demand, live broadcasts such as sport will be live streamed and the only other live streamed channels will be the FAST channels once the broadcast signal becomes unavailable.

Having said that, I recognise that you think otherwise, so we shall see.

I don’t recall ever having read the electricity reason in relation to streaming services, not from the “getting enough” standpoint anyway, from a “cost of delivery” angle I’ve read it occasionally, because the more simultaneous streams needed the higher the cost. The streams are inefficient for live content, but obviously necessary for on-demand non-live content.

I have taken account of the mobile industry’s desire/need for their services to take current TV transmission bandwidth, that’s why I think “5G Broadcast” makes sense for the live (particularly PSB) services that remain when the rest inevitably shut down. It would mean everyone with a device (be that TV, tablet or phone) would utilise the same emission in the mast coverage range, which is much more efficient than a large number of streams for delivery to each individual.

That the UK broadcasters seem to be going down the standard tech route of delivering a large number of streams for live content, rather than the 5G Broadcast route many other countries are planning for, seems daft to me.

OB you seem to think we differ on how the end point will look in the general scheme of things, but we don’t, I just think it’s further down the line and will need to be done differently in order to be achieved, and to be achieved for everyone. That’s why I wrote this at the end of the post you quoted, maybe I wrote so much you didn’t notice.
—> “The future will be live content and on-demand, mostly the latter.”

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by epsilon

Ok, in your opinion, some V6 features are minor. Here's the thing.. your opinion doesn't matter, it won't have any impact on individuals deciding to ditch Virgin if the V6 is withdrawn and the features are no longer available. They won't come to you for a consultation, they won't ask how their departure ties in with your 2035 fantasy. What you think simply isn't relevant.

I'm not sure there are any actual questions being asked. You just feel the need to inject your opinion into the discussion when it is neither here nor there and won't have any impact on what these people decide to do.

Absolutely, my opinions don’t matter at the end of the day, and neither do yours.

I think you just don’t like opinions that are different from your own. OK….

---------- Post added at 18:45 ---------- Previous post was at 18:30 ----------

Originally Posted by cheekyangus

I don’t recall ever having read the electricity reason in relation to streaming services, not from the “getting enough” standpoint anyway, from a “cost of delivery” angle I’ve read it occasionally, because the more simultaneous streams needed the higher the cost. The streams are inefficient for live content, but obviously necessary for on-demand non-live content.

It’s just a comment Chris made some years back. I’ve not read that anywhere else.

Originally Posted by cheekyangus

I have taken account of the mobile industry’s desire/need for their services to take current TV transmission bandwidth, that’s why I think “5G Broadcast” makes sense for the live (particularly PSB) services that remain when the rest inevitably shut down. It would mean everyone with a device (be that TV, tablet or phone) would utilise the same emission in the mast coverage range, which is much more efficient than a large number of streams for delivery to each individual.

That the UK broadcasters seem to be going down the standard tech route of delivering a large number of streams for live content, rather than the 5G Broadcast route many other countries are planning for, seems daft to me.

I think you are right there, cheeky, but I see no sign at present of our broadcasters going down that route. If they do so decide, it will be a relief for some.

Originally Posted by cheekyangus

OB you seem to think we differ on how the end point will look in the general scheme of things, but we don’t, I just think it’s further down the line and will need to be done differently in order to be achieved, and to be achieved for everyone. That’s why I wrote this at the end of the post you quoted, maybe I wrote so much you didn’t notice.
—> “The future will be live content and on-demand, mostly the latter.”

I know, and I’m conscious of that comment. But I think when Sky go over wholly to IPTV, the rest will soon follow. Sky is promoting Sky Stream quite heavily now and it appears that the Sky Q box will be phased out in the near future.

Both the BBC and ITV promote their streamers all the time and want people to watch their programmes on them as much as possible. That’s why they make their regular channels appear as a less attractive alternative option than their players. For example, both allow their TV series to be loaded with all episodes available straight away, whereas on scheduled TV you have to plod through week by week. ITVX now even lets you watch its originals months before they screen on their channels.

I think there’s a reason for that - they want to shut down their channels sooner rather than later.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Are you sure this is happening?

Its not, at least not directly.

What they are doing is making it more difficult to get Sky Q now, and also adding more IPTV stuff to it.

They are not moving people as such, but encouraging them to choose streaming.