I have switched......

[akki007]

Originally Posted by joyrider1

Yawn........

---------- Post added at 21:39 ---------- Previous post was at 21:38 ----------

You really should look over the posts on this forum and actually see how many are about the lack of HD on VM. mabye you should wake up Fred Flintstone..lol

What was the very first thing I said earlier today? THE COMMENTS ON HERE ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE VM CUSTOMER BASE AS A WHOLE. Easy. Simple. Get back to Ross Kemp, it's a piece of cinematic genius

[joyrider1]

Moved on from Ross now, soooo much HD to choose from, what is a man to do......?

[akki007]

Originally Posted by joyrider1

Moved on from Ross now, soooo much HD to choose from, what is a man to do......?

How was your upscaled Ross Kemp? Any good?

[joyrider1]

Not great to be honest. Switched over to live Football in HD, that is where you can really tell the difference...

[gc10360]

Lets put it this way, I pay over £130 a year for a tv licence, and £47 a month for TV i payed £2000 for a TV, why shouldnt I want the best picture quality. if u go have a family portrait done or wedding photographs for example, would you pay for or settle for pixelated or slightly blurred photos, its the same with the TV, we pay money to watch TV so why shouldnt we be entitled to the best quality images we can get, the technology is there, so why settle for SD pixellated images or upscaled slightly blurred but better than SD images, when we can have HD high quality images, fine there is upscaled material broadcast on hd channel at the moment. but really if people cant tell the difference between Real HD material and Upscaled SD material, they have a serious problem, the difference is night and day. upscaled images could never come close to HD images and for the same money near HD or Real HD - ive voted with my cash!

[joyrider1]

Originally Posted by gc10360

Lets put it this way, I pay over £130 a year for a tv licence, and £47 a month for TV i payed £2000 for a TV, why shouldnt I want the best picture quality. if u go have a family portrait done or wedding photographs for example, would you pay for or settle for pixelated or slightly blurred photos, its the same with the TV, we pay money to watch TV so why shouldnt we be entitled to the best quality images we can get, the technology is there, so why settle for SD pixellated images or upscaled slightly blurred but better than SD images, when we can have HD high quality images, fine there is upscaled material broadcast on hd channel at the moment. but really if people cant tell the difference between Real HD material and Upscaled SD material, they have a serious problem, the difference is night and day. upscaled images could never come close to HD images and for the same money near HD or Real HD - ive voted with my cash!

Well said, there are those on this board who will not admit that HD is an emerging market that is ready to take off big time. VM are no positioning themselves early enough to capatalise on this.

---------- Post added at 08:18 ---------- Previous post was at 08:13 ----------

This is for Stuart, some new data for you to chew over

The best HDTV deals
By Charlie Ponsonby, SimplifyDigital
February 17 2009

Adverts for high definition TV (HDTV) are hard to escape, but is it any good and what are the cheapest deals for watching it?

Recent research commissioned by Sky and YouGov reveals 96% of people are now aware of HDTV and 74% are "interested" in watching their favourite programmes in HD quality.

With this in mind, Sky recently took the much anticipated decision to drop the price of their Sky+ HD digiboxes to £49 and push their HD service as their lead digital TV package.

At the same time Freesat, which also offers HD viewing, announced it has more than 200,000 customers.

---------- Post added at 08:24 ---------- Previous post was at 08:18 ----------

Time for VM to make plans to capture the new possible customer base. 74.....yes 74% of nearly all the population (96%) ar intrested in getting HD
So all those who say this will not be a mass market must feel your cheeks reddening now..

I told you Stuart. VM need to be ready to capatlise on this now if their TV service has any future. Its no point missing the bus. When new subscribers go to SKY they will be in no hurry to switch to cable, thus the possible sale is more or less gone forever

Anything to say about the Poll quoted above all the naysayers....?

[EBD3000]

Lets Break that down shall we -

Originally Posted by joyrider1

Well said, there are those on this board who will not admit that HD is an emerging market that is ready to take off big time. VM are no positioning themselves early enough to capatalise on this.

I agree that HD is emerging market that could make Virgin a lot of money. Plus they should start plans now instead of waiting until they are forced to do it.

Originally Posted by joyrider1

Time for VM to make plans to capture the new possible customer base. 74.....yes 74% of nearly all the population (96%) ar intrested in getting HD
So all those who say this will not be a mass market must feel your cheeks reddening now..

Stats stats stats, can be manipulated anyway you want. It depends on how the question was worded. Finally its extremely dodgy to upscale 74% of however many people were asked for a survey (where 3% to 4% of those asked would have responded) to the population of the uk.

Originally Posted by joyrider1

VM need to be ready to capatlise on this now if their TV service has any future. Its no point missing the bus. When new subscribers go to SKY they will be in no hurry to switch to cable, thus the possible sale is more or less gone forever

True its harder and more expensive to convince people to come back than it is to keep people. Virgin needs to get its finger out as I doubt it needs to get as many channels as it thinks to satisfy people. I'd be happy with 5+ true HD channels over 30 part time HD/SD upscale channels.

[akki007]

Originally Posted by joyrider1

Well said, there are those on this board who will not admit that HD is an emerging market that is ready to take off big time. VM are no positioning themselves early enough to capatalise on this.

---------- Post added at 08:18 ---------- Previous post was at 08:13 ----------

This is for Stuart, some new data for you to chew over

The best HDTV deals
By Charlie Ponsonby, SimplifyDigital
February 17 2009

Adverts for high definition TV (HDTV) are hard to escape, but is it any good and what are the cheapest deals for watching it?

Recent research commissioned by Sky and YouGov reveals 96% of people are now aware of HDTV and 74% are "interested" in watching their favourite programmes in HD quality.

With this in mind, Sky recently took the much anticipated decision to drop the price of their Sky+ HD digiboxes to £49 and push their HD service as their lead digital TV package.

At the same time Freesat, which also offers HD viewing, announced it has more than 200,000 customers.

---------- Post added at 08:24 ---------- Previous post was at 08:18 ----------

Time for VM to make plans to capture the new possible customer base. 74.....yes 74% of nearly all the population (96%) ar intrested in getting HD
So all those who say this will not be a mass market must feel your cheeks reddening now..

I told you Stuart. VM need to be ready to capatlise on this now if their TV service has any future. Its no point missing the bus. When new subscribers go to SKY they will be in no hurry to switch to cable, thus the possible sale is more or less gone forever

Anything to say about the Poll quoted above all the naysayers....?

You really are the most naive person I have ever virtually met. As the person above has already stated, you cannot take research conducted by SKY(!!!) and suggest the results are representative of the entire population! You just cannot do that! Here's what I would be asking: Who did you survey? Are they existing Sky customers? What demographic.

You appear to be suckered in by every marketing ploy you come accross be it HD, Sky "Research" or whatever.

So it still comes down to this, there is not enough interest in HD at the moment to warrant any major investment. It's been said elsewhere that most of the HD on Sky is just upscaled SD. Whoop-de-doop!

[Raistlin]

If people can't hold a sensible debate without constantly having a pop at each other they're very quickly going to find themselves in my bad books.

Debate the topic people, don't make it personal.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by joyrider1

Time for VM to make plans to capture the new possible customer base. 74.....yes 74% of nearly all the population (96%) ar intrested in getting HD
So all those who say this will not be a mass market must feel your cheeks reddening now..

I told you Stuart. VM need to be ready to capatlise on this now if their TV service has any future. Its no point missing the bus. When new subscribers go to SKY they will be in no hurry to switch to cable, thus the possible sale is more or less gone forever

Anything to say about the Poll quoted above all the naysayers....?

Polls can be wrong. As for the lack of HD channels, how do you know VM is not ready now, or if not now, will be soon? As I understand it, the technical problems stopping them introducing HD are bandwidth related. This is why they are in the process of turning off the Analogue TV system. How do you know that VM are not in discussions with various channels so that they can launch HD channels (I'd be surprised if we didn't see at least ITV HD and 4HD on the service)? That they haven't talked about it means nothing. Very few companies talk publically about negotiations.

Oh, and just to make one thing clear. I am saying that HD has not taken off YET. I am not saying it won't.

[Gadgie]

I have a question about Sky, that I know I should have asked earlier. Has anyone had any problems with their V+ H/D box? Reason I ask is, when we were with VM they would come out an repair or even replace the box, if a problem occurred.
I have since been told that Sky don't do this, and that you need to take out a insurance policy to cover any possible repair, is this true?

Its not going to change my mind about switching over to Sky, as I believe that the quality of H/D is worth it, (as mentioned in an earlier post)

I know my Internet wont be so good, but that's the down side of it all, but you never know, VM might just improve their H/D service in the future, and entice me back again.

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by Gadgie

I have a question about Sky, that I know I should have asked earlier. Has anyone had any problems with their V+ H/D box? Reason I ask is, when we were with VM they would come out an repair or even replace the box, if a problem occurred.
I have since been told that Sky don't do this, and that you need to take out a insurance policy to cover any possible repair, is this true?

Its not going to change my mind about switching over to Sky, as I believe that the quality of H/D is worth it, (as mentioned in an earlier post)

I know my Internet wont be so good, but that's the down side of it all, but you never know, VM might just improve their H/D service in the future, and entice me back again.

The difference with Sky is that you own your stb, so if anything goes wrong with it,[outside of warranty of course] you are liable for the costs.
As you say Sky do offer an insurance plan to mitigate any heavy repair costs which in my opinion would be well worth getting.

[LondonRoad]

$ky charge abour £70 to repair / replace a Sky+ box and give you a new 1 year warranty. I don't know if it's more expensive for a HD box. When I was with sky the repair charge was cheaper than 1 years insurance/repair plan.

Alternatively if your box breaks, threaten to leave. They have always repaired it for free in my experience.

[beeman]

However if the box dose fail outside of the warrenty and you dont have an insurance policy just threatern to cancal and they will repair/replace it for free (with a new 12 month contract) my mum is now on her 3rd sky+ box and has only ever paied the origional install fee the 2 replacement boxes have been free

[joyrider1]

Remember that even though an item (SKY HD Box of example), mabye outside its 12 month warranty, if the box fails you have recourse through the comsumer protection laws in that they state. "The item must last a reasonable amount of time to be fit for purpose".

So if your box fails after 18 months then the onus is still on the supplier to fix/repair the item, as this would not be considered a reasonable amount of time for a non portable appliance.

A 12 month warranty is offered IN ADDITION to your standard consumer laws, dont be fobbed off if you find yourself in this situation. If you think it is worth it, threaten a small claims court case. Always works...