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

[Mobes]

Originally Posted by Henkesghost

I'm sure that if Virgin stepped up to the plate Denphone would give them the credit. For nearly a year they haven't so what else can he/she post?

HD is the present, to have so little by comparison to Sky is pathetic, especially in nature programme field which HD really sets off. Add CBS channels missing movie channels and still some HD movies, Atlantic etc the list goes on. With Virgin's response being as ever sub standard

Virgin has gone through Ofcom in order to be able to force Sky to hand over a LOT of their owned HD channels. And they did that because they knew those were the channels the customers wanted the most. If Sky won't and can't be forced to hand over HD channels they own, part own or have secured as exclusive what are VM able to do?

Indeed, VM took an AGE to get the non-exclusive and FTA HD channels but they did so after we *******ed them about it. They listened, learned and responded.

It makes perfect buisness sense to choose the most valuable HD channel and the ones WE wanted the most...and i repeat, VM XL (etc) customers get a lot of HD channels a little or no extra charge. I want to see all those complaining about the lack of CBS and ITV2 HD not utter a word if VM feel forced into supplying them and then have to raise prices as a result.

---------- Post added at 17:30 ---------- Previous post was at 17:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

In your and denphone's opinion, to which you are entitled.

I think it may be the style of the message delivered, rather than the content - the constant negative repetitive whining (imho).

No... it's both

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mobes

Denphone in moaning about anyting to do with Virgin media shock...

Nice to hear your opinion Mobes.

---------- Post added at 17:33 ---------- Previous post was at 17:31 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

In your and denphone's opinion, to which you are entitled.

I think it may be the style of the message delivered, rather than the content - the constant negative repetitive whining (imho).

l look at things from a independent point of view, there has never been any bias on my part in the views that l write.

[muppetman11]

Why should Sky have to hand over their channels their not a charity , in fact they do hand channels over when prices are met Sky Arts HD channels are proof of that.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by alwaysabear

You mean we are still in negotiations.

For the next 2 years me thinks.

---------- Post added at 17:35 ---------- Previous post was at 17:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Mobes

Virgin has gone through Ofcom in order to be able to force Sky to hand over a LOT of their owned HD channels. And they did that because they knew those were the channels the customers wanted the most. If Sky won't and can't be forced to hand over HD channels they own, part own or have secured as exclusive what are VM able to do?

Indeed, VM took an AGE to get the non-exclusive and FTA HD channels but they did so after we *******ed them about it. They listened, learned and responded.

It makes perfect buisness sense to choose the most valuable HD channel and the ones WE wanted the most...and i repeat, VM XL (etc) customers get a lot of HD channels a little or no extra charge. I want to see all those complaining about the lack of CBS and ITV2 HD not utter a word if VM feel forced into supplying them and then have to raise prices as a result.

---------- Post added at 17:30 ---------- Previous post was at 17:29 ----------



No... it's both

They have already raised prices twice in the last 6 months.

[Henkesghost]

Originally Posted by Hugh

In your and denphone's opinion, to which you are entitled.

I think it may be the style of the message delivered, rather than the content - the constant negative repetitive whining (imho).

So if someone continues to perform poorly for 8 months you should praise them or just ignore it? Is that what you're saying? Or do you prefer to not push for better and continue happy clapping?

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Why should Sky have to hand over their channels their not a charity , in fact they do hand channels over when prices are met Sky Arts HD channels are proof of that.

Errrm, Sky only allowed access to their HD channels as part of the deal where VM agreed to seel their tv channels to them. Which kind of proves the opposite of what you are saying it does. If VM hadn't sold them those channels they wouldn't have allowed access at any reasonable price.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by ahardie

Errrm, Sky only allowed access to their HD channels as part of the deal where VM agreed to seel their tv channels to them. Which kind of proves the opposite of what you are saying it does. If VM hadn't sold them those channels they wouldn't have allowed access at any reasonable price.

How do you know VM hadn't been trying to get them on the cheap before the deal ?

[devilincarnate]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

How do you know VM hadn't been trying to get them on the cheap before the deal ?

VM try to get the best deal for the customers and not like SKY which seem to be get them and then charge for them

Originally Posted by muppetman11

How do you know VM hadn't been trying to get them on the cheap before the deal ?

Well we know the price VM are paying for the premium HD channels is based on the what Ofcom said was a reasonable price and the only way they have got those now is because of the channel sale. It tends to suggest Sky don't want to sell them on at a reasonable price doesn't it and that VM will pay a reasonable price if given the opportunity.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by ahardie

Errrm, Sky only allowed access to their HD channels as part of the deal where VM agreed to seel their tv channels to them. Which kind of proves the opposite of what you are saying it does. If VM hadn't sold them those channels they wouldn't have allowed access at any reasonable price.

Originally Posted by ahardie

Well we know the price VM are paying for the premium HD channels is based on the what Ofcom said was a reasonable price and the only way they have got those now is because of the channel sale. It tends to suggest Sky don't want to sell them on at a reasonable price doesn't it.

Just because that's the price OFCOM has set doesn't neccesarily mean that's the price VM wanted to pay.

---------- Post added at 18:02 ---------- Previous post was at 18:01 ----------

Originally Posted by devilincarnate

VM try to get the best deal for the customers and not like SKY which seem to be get them and then charge for them

[devilincarnate]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Why are you confused as it seems to be de-facto.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by devilincarnate

Why are you confused as it seems to be de-facto.

Sky charge for them hence why they have more than VM , so how are Sky doing wrong ? VM charge a new customer a HD Activation charge of around 50.00 so HD is hardly free with them in year 1.

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Just because that's the price OFCOM has set doesn't neccesarily mean that's the price VM wanted to pay.

But the did pay that price which suggests that was a reasonable price to them whereas Sky only agreed to sell them on as part of deal whereby VM sold them their channels.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by devilincarnate

Why are you confused as it seems to be de-facto.

Originally Posted by ahardie

But the did pay that price which suggests that was a reasonable price to them whereas Sky only agreed to sell them on as part of deal whereby VM sold them their channels.

How do you know VM weren't offering Sky £5.00 a month for Premium HD and Sky wanted £10.00 a month and OFCOM intervened at £7.00 a month , like I say a lot of money is invested in Sky premium channels so no wonder they didnt want to give it away , we will never know.

[devilincarnate]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

How do you know VM weren't offering Sky £5.00 a month for Premium HD and Sky wanted £10.00 a month and OFCOM intervened at £7.00 a month , like I say a lot of money is invested in Sky premium channels so no wonder they didnt want to give it away , we will never know.

Yes but when the Competition Commission says that they made the early outlay and now are reaping the benefits of this so why are they still charging this? Or are the Competition Commission looking in to this for other reasons?