General : Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2018)

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

You haven’t actually proven that this is the current position, nor is there a source for the speculation that there are “unusable” parts of the network- surely the solution would be to carry out maintenance in these areas? After all, they are extending the network it’s not as if they won’t have the people, expertise or equipment required to do so.

Where is spiderplant when you need him?

I agree, I think there are some good amateur sleuths out there trying to work out what Virgin Media is up to, and I take my hat off to them for the time and effort they are putting into their mission.

But in the end, it is guesswork and I think VM is ahead of them. I am happier to go by spiderplant's reassurance that there are no capacity issues. I would be very interested to know, however, what he makes of jj20x's comments about all this on DS (see the 'New Channels' thread).

---------- Post added at 15:00 ---------- Previous post was at 14:56 ----------

Originally Posted by MatthewEastaugh

What channels do you think are going to launch / exist but decide not to bother with Sky and their double-sized userbase, exactly?

I have a 4k television, but I'm not that worried about 4k channels. The difference for any size television that would actually fit in my lounge is minimal compared to HD, so I don't care. Nothing against those who do care, but HD is fine enough for me.

Take a look at the Amazon channels, for a start. Don't forget that we may be talking about new streaming services as well as Prime.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by jfman

Okay, and nowhere there does it say that every frequency is in use at maximum capacity at 256 QAM. Last time I saw a scan there were frequencies carrying as few as two HD channels and others six, and as few at six SD channels or as many as twelve.

The latest information that i'm aware of shows that every TSID in use is full, apart from three (which is where the four HD channel figure comes from) and the reserved capacity for UHD.

If you go back in the quoted thread, jj20x shows a complete analysis.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The latest information that i'm aware of shows that every TSID in use is full, apart from three (which is where the four HD channel figure comes from) and the reserved capacity for UHD.

If you go back in the quoted thread, jj20x shows a complete analysis.

There is no such analysis in that thread, it doesn't offer any evidence to suggest that every frequency is in use, or those that are in use couldn't squeeze more channels in. It is all speculation - ironically from someone who also takes a negative stance towards Virgin.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by jfman

There is no such analysis in that thread, it doesn't offer any evidence to suggest that every frequency is in use, or those that are in use couldn't squeeze more channels in. It is all speculation - ironically from someone who also takes a negative stance towards Virgin.

Yes, there is if you go back long enough.

As previously explained on more than one occasion, I have no particular positive or negative feelings towards VM. They are merely a service provider who I will continue to use so long as they meet my needs at a price i'm willing to pay. With this in mind, it is fair to say that I am reevaluating my options after the recent removal of certain channels.

AFAIK, the other person you refer to felt the same way and is now set to cancel his TV service with VM. Nothing detrimental has been said about the capacity issues facing VM.

You are correct in saying that more channels could be squeezed in, but this would be at the expense of picture quality. This is what Sky and Freeview have been doing for some time and I believe that, if need be, VM will do the same before going to the expense of creating extra capacity.

Hopefully, they will be able to avoid this by eventually switching off dual emissions of channels in SD once there are no more SD only boxes in circulation.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Yes, there is if you go back long enough.

As previously explained on more than one occasion, I have no particular positive or negative feelings towards VM. They are merely a service provider who I will continue to use so long as they meet my needs at a price i'm willing to pay. With this in mind, it is fair to say that I am reevaluating my options after the recent removal of certain channels.

AFAIK, the other person you refer to felt the same way and is now set to cancel his TV service with VM. Nothing detrimental has been said about the capacity issues facing VM.

You are correct in saying that more channels could be squeezed in, but this would be at the expense of picture quality. This is what Sky and Freeview have been doing for some time and I believe that, if need be, VM will do the same before going to the expense of creating extra capacity.

Hopefully, they will be able to avoid this by eventually switching off dual emissions of channels in SD once there are no more SD only boxes in circulation.

Can you find me the link to that analysis please? As your “facts” rely upon it I feel the onus really is upon you to present it.

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by jfman

Can you find me the link to that analysis please? As your “facts” rely upon it I feel the onus really is upon you to present it.

Hear hear - it is impossible to prove a negative so as they say 'put up or shut up'

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by jfman

Can you find me the link to that analysis please? As your “facts” rely upon it I feel the onus really is upon you to present it.

I have no intention of doing your donkey work for you. It's you that is disputing the results of the scan, so it's for you to make the neccessary enquiries to satisfy yourself as to it's legitimacy. It matters not to me either way.

[jfman]

I’m not asking you to do donkey work - I’m asking about your specific contention that there is only space for 4 HD channels on the entire network which you repeat often enough. I’m saying it’s blatantly untrue and asking you to provide a clear and direct source to back up the veracity of your claim.

If I’m wrong, it shouldn’t be too hard to prove it.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Where is spiderplant when you need him?

I think I've made the position perfectly clear.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got bigger problems to worry about. Such as what to have for tea.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I have no intention of doing your donkey work for you. It's you that is disputing the results of the scan, so it's for you to make the neccessary enquiries to satisfy yourself as to it's legitimacy. It matters not to me either way.

So that's a no then.So easy to win this discussion. Seems that you can't support your statement.l for one do not believe a word you post here or at another AND far better forum.where a dictatorship does not steamroller over people if they DARE to challenge the dictat of the small minded ######

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not asking you to do donkey work - I’m asking about your specific contention that there is only space for 4 HD channels on the entire network which you repeat often enough. I’m saying it’s blatantly untrue and asking you to provide a clear and direct source to back up the veracity of your claim.

If I’m wrong, it shouldn’t be too hard to prove it.

Then go and search it out- it is there.

---------- Post added at 20:07 ---------- Previous post was at 20:05 ----------

Originally Posted by spiderplant

I think I've made the position perfectly clear.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got bigger problems to worry about. Such as what to have for tea.

Exactly, I don't know why certain individuals are getting so concerned about this. It isn't as if it's something important either in life in general or with VM TV.

---------- Post added at 20:14 ---------- Previous post was at 20:07 ----------

Originally Posted by Itshim

So that's a no then.So easy to win this discussion. Seems that you can't support your statement.l for one do not believe a word you post here or at another AND far better forum.where a dictatorship does not steamroller over people if they DARE to challenge the dictat of the small minded ######

Anything I post is done in good faith. It is then a matter for others to accept it without question, make their own enquiries to ascertain the accuracy of the information or reject it outright.

It's disappointing to note that you view forum participation as a case of winning and losing; most people like to discuss matters as adults.

If you believe that I post inaccuracies, I suggest that you put me on ignore. You then won't be tempted to blurt out this sort of thing.

[jfman]

Richard you are the one who is making the claim - I'm asking you to back it up.

It's quite apparent you cannot find such evidence because it doesn't exist. It's a number plucked out the air so you, and others, can pretend Virgin Media are "bandwidth constrained" when in reality they are not.

If you are using the post on this page:

https://forums.digitalspy.com/discus...-channels/p142

To back up your claim then that isn't even close to what it says - "based on the current configuration" when Virgin can drop on/off frequencies that aren't in use or change their purpose (TS-ID 38-41 in this case).

It doesn't quantify the unused frequencies in the range, how many additional channels could squeeze in to the existing frequencies or the fact that (in my area) at 10 of those in use for TV are in 64QAM mode, when 256QAM would release 130 Mbit/s for new channels - more than 14 HD channels given they squeeze 6 into 51 Mbit/s.

[RichardCoulter]

The current configuration shows that there's only space left for 4 channels (if in HD), apart from space reserved for UHD, that are available across the whole network.

If people regard this as being bandwidth constrained, then I guess they are (although every platform could be said to be bandwidth constrained as it is not infinite!)

However, SP has stated that, if required, more bandwidth can be created. I'm under the impression that people thought that more TSID's would be brought into service, but this is not the only way (or the most cost effective way to do it). Several initiatives have been carried out and I dare say that there will be more to make better use of the existing bandwidth. So, whilst on paper they have nearly run out of space, there are things that they can do to make the existing capacity work more efficiently. In this sense, they have the potential to have more than the equivalent of 4 HD channels.

If someone ran out of kitchen cupboard space, they could simply buy another cupboard! A better way to do it would be to get rid of any useless or duplicated items and stack them in a better way. This way, they don't need to pay for a new cupboard and everything gets to fit into the existing space.

I don't actually think that there are now that many more channels that VM would want to add anyway.

[jfman]

The current network configuration demonstrates no such thing. It's an outright falsehood to claim that this is any kind of meaningful upper limit.

Your cupboard space analogy is even more ludicrous. Your claim would be the equivalent setting an arbitrary limit, or an imaginary line, within the cupboard and deliberately not using space beyond it.

[pengedragon]

All the threads at the top of this board seem to be full of the same person having different arguments with people
It's becoming very dull