HD : Itv2 hd

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by ahardie

I'm sure you are a top notch bloke Muppetman but you have to appreciate that not everyone shares your views. You obviously don't agree with VM's policies as you have moved your tv service but not all of us think that more HD channels are the be all and ednd all. Personally I am quite happy with what I get for money. Yes I would like them to add more HD channels, especially now I have a large drive to record them on but personally I don't want to pay more for them. As far as I am concerned my VM services are pretty good value for what I want. Of course I want more though, that is human nature.

There are plenty of people who only ever post negatively. I am sure there is room enough in this forum for people who like their cable services.




Totally agree.

I fully agree with you , VM offering is completely different to that of Sky , I do not dislike cable in fact my TV service was on the whole pretty good and I can't fault my V+ , my main reason for switching was to get SS 3 and 4 in HD and ESPNA HD.

I agree with VM policy of trying to get channels at competitive prices , I was merely stating a customer will always compare the two , and also that on this occasion Sky had no involvement on VM not carrying the ITVHD channels. I have publicly stated on here that I would consider a return to VM so as you can see I'm hardly anti VM , I still have M TV , XL BB and M phone. I have absolutely no problem with peoples differing views , were I do have a problem is when somebody states something what's factually untrue.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

on this occasion Sky had no involvement on VM not carrying the ITVHD channels

How could you possibly know that? Don't forget Sky is a significant shareholder in ITV.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

How could you possibly know that? Don't forget Sky is a significant shareholder in ITV.

Yes sky now own less than 7.5% they were made to sell shares from the original 17.9% however itv have already claimed to have held talks with VM and a user on here has received an email from ITV stating they are open to negotiations with other platforms. I feel the wait is down to VM trying to thrash the best price out , which is obviously beneficial to customers , I feel it will arrive and possibly before the end of the year however that's just my opinion nobody really knows. I would no longer class 7.5 % as a shareholding what would seriously block VM from carrying these channels.

[Rillington]

Originally Posted by denphone

l will never go to Sky lets make that perfectly clear ands virgins tivo and broadband are excellent but l do believe they should be doing more with regards to getting channels quicker as there are plenty of channels they could get which are not even owned by Sky so there are no excuses its as simple as that.

I'm inclined to agree. Cable in this country ever since the launch of digital cable has never considered adding new channels to be a priority as they have seen broadband as their number one priority, probably with on demand television, specifically Tivo, as their number two priority. New channels isn't something that VM, or its predecessors ever saw as important which is why new channels very rarely launch on VM and when they do they tend to replace an existing channel. This strategy has always been controversial and always ignites passionate debates on forums such as this one.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Rillington

I'm inclined to agree. Cable in this country ever since the launch of digital cable has never considered adding new channels to be a priority as they have seen broadband as their number one priority, probably with on demand television, specifically Tivo, as their number two priority. New channels isn't something that VM, or its predecessors ever saw as important which is why new channels very rarely launch on VM and when they do they tend to replace an existing channel. This strategy has always been controversial and always ignites passionate debates on forums such as this one.

Yes l agree and l also think they have the wrong strategy on this.

[Stephen]

I honestly don't think that VM have the wrong approach when it comes to adding channels. Sky run in all guns blazing and pay silly amounts of money, where as VM tend to wait a bit and actually try and negotiate a better deal for them and the customers.

So yes channels can take longer but VM is sensible in no spending silly amounts of money.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I honestly don't think that VM have the wrong approach when it comes to adding channels. Sky run in all guns blazing and pay silly amounts of money, where as VM tend to wait a bit and actually try and negotiate a better deal for them and the customers.

So yes channels can take longer but VM is sensible in no spending silly amounts of money.

l am not advocating spending silly amounts of money but l am sure even you would admit Virgins negotiating seems to take a eternity on getting some of these channels.

[Lew]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I honestly don't think that VM have the wrong approach when it comes to adding channels. Sky run in all guns blazing and pay silly amounts of money, where as VM tend to wait a bit and actually try and negotiate a better deal for them and the customers.

So yes channels can take longer but VM is sensible in no spending silly amounts of money.

Sky also have the advantage that they can leave it up to the individual channels to handle the uplinking to the satellite and all they need to do is add the channel to their EPG. This is what a lot of people seem to forget when they complain about VM not instantly adding channels when they launch.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Lew

Sky also have the advantage that they can leave it up to the individual channels to handle the uplinking to the satellite and all they need to do is add the channel to their EPG. This is what a lot of people seem to forget when they complain about VM not instantly adding channels when they launch.

I take your point to a certain extent but even you would admit that some channels we still have not got which Sky had 18 months ago and surely it does not take that long to get certain channels.

[Lew]

Depends how much they want, really. It sort of ties in with my previous post. If, for example, ITV wanted £1 per month per subscriber for their HD channels, for Sky that £1 per month is all they'd need to pay as ITV were fronting the cost of uplinking the channels to the satellite. For VM it would cost them the £1 per month, plus however much it would cost them to add the channel to their system. This, I believe, is why VM go to such pains to negotiate a good price for channels as they have extra expense involved that Sky don't.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by denphone

l am not advocating spending silly amounts of money but l am sure even you would admit Virgins negotiating seems to take a eternity on getting some of these channels.

Not at all. VM have a lot more work involved in getting channels on to the system. So it will naturally take longer.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Not at all. VM have a lot more work involved in getting channels on to the system. So it will naturally take longer.

But you have to admit that cable customers get frustrated by having to wait much, much longer to get these channels.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I honestly don't think that VM have the wrong approach when it comes to adding channels. Sky run in all guns blazing and pay silly amounts of money, where as VM tend to wait a bit and actually try and negotiate a better deal for them and the customers.

So yes channels can take longer but VM is sensible in no spending silly amounts of money.

Care to point me in the direction of figures to back up the statement that Sky pay silly amounts.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by denphone

But you have to admit that cable customers get frustrated by having to wait much, much longer to get these channels.

I personally don't I have other things in my life to worry and get frustated about. If they come, they come. Doesn't bother me either way.

[Rillington]

Originally Posted by denphone

But you have to admit that cable customers get frustrated by having to wait much, much longer to get these channels.

And the vast majority of new channels don't appear at all. Correct me if I am wrong but the only brand new channels (not including HD simulcasts of existing channels nor channel swaps such as swapping Pop for True Entertainment) which have been added in the last year or so have been a premium channel (Cinemoi) and a timeshift channel (ITV1 +1) whilst many more channels have been removed, either due to them being closed by the channel's owners or decisions taken to remove channels from VM such as MTV Classic. The removal of these channels is in addition to the removal a couple of years earlier of the former Sky music channels which later became owned by Chart Show Media. VM seems to argue that people only want to access music videos on demand and not via linear music channels which must be the reason why so many music channels have been removed with nothing being added to replace them, underlining my point that VM doesn't see television channels as a priority and that Tivo is much higher up their priority list, second, of course, to broadband with on demand probably being their number three priority and new linear channels being right at the very bottom.

As I said before, VM seems not to consider adding new channels as something it wants to do. That's their decision and people have to decide whether to remain a VM customer based on this decision that VM has made and if people want more channels, including almost every channel launched since VM was formed oour years ago out of the ntl/Telewest merger, then they need to think about getting Sky.