VM CEO: We don't need HD channels

[mertle]

I see lot mis information here 72op is defenately better than standard thats for sure. Those who dont might not be calibrated properly. Tv's out the shop will never look right in your home and need tweaking you can lose definition in the black levels.

http://www.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lcdt...libration.html

I find HD much cleaner looking and sharper image. Broadcast HD not as good as blu ray but you should see a difference from standard or upscalled signals.

1080i/p is even better still. Yes even 1080i signals as long as the source is 1080 and not upscalled 720.

some might want to read up why so here the link

http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoff...061080iv1080p/

Shop around do your homework you can get damn good set for £600. also consider this is the tv getting hd resolution you are especting.

http://hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/0506halfrez/

may as well put this up for some to look at about the signals and differences from standard to HD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDTV

VM got to consider this go out look for tv now.

its hard to find lcd plasma's without being HDready or 1080 full. You might find a few but the industry is in full swing to get people to HD. CRT's getting scarce most manufacturers such as sony pulling the plug.

That means the likelyhood is greater that people will be getting HD whether by deliberate or by default. VM do need to make sure that this decision dont blow up in there face such as the decision to go for the gimped V+ box.

[Mick Fisher]

Originally Posted by kibblerok

Sky could simply give HD boxes away for free, £5 extra per month sub (even free if they dared maybe 18 month contract?) and crush virgin media TV like a paper cup.

Taking that hit now could destroy virgin... and if they gain the TV customers, they're likely to gain the phone & bb as they are likely to move at the same time

VMs head in the sand attitude may well hold now, but its not going to last.

Maybe? Maybe not?

Since VM have always claimed they make nothing from their TV Service it becomes clear why they do not invest in it.

Landlines seem to becoming a dead dog too.

It's not surprising that VM have stated that they only want to concentrate on their BroadBand Service.

If only they would do as they state because it seems the BroadBand Service is in danger of descending to the standard set by their dreadful TV service.

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

Maybe? Maybe not?

Since VM have always claimed they make nothing from their TV Service it becomes clear why they do not invest in it.

Landlines seem to becoming a dead dog too.

It's not surprising that VM have stated that they only want to concentrate on their BroadBand Service.

If only they would do as they state because it seems the BroadBand Service is in danger of descending to the standard set by their dreadful TV service.

Well said Mick, if BB is indeed now VMs flagship product, Berkett for unknown reasons seems to be steering it towards the rocks. I cant believe Mr Branson is satisfied with the "publicity" this company is bringing to the Virgin brand.

[kibblerok]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

Maybe? Maybe not?

Since VM have always claimed they make nothing from their TV Service it becomes clear why they do not invest in it.

Landlines seem to becoming a dead dog too.

It's not surprising that VM have stated that they only want to concentrate on their BroadBand Service.

If only they would do as they state because it seems the BroadBand Service is in danger of descending to the standard set by their dreadful TV service.

But theres money to be made in this market, just because virgin aren't making any doesnt mean its not there.

The point of my post was to highlight that Virgin may well focus on other areas but neglecting the demands of consumers on the TV side moves them to Sky for TV as theres pretty much nobody else.

When theres so much to be saved having multiple services from one provider - if virgins phone and TV aren't attractive the pull of VM broadband may not be enough to counter the savings of getting all 3 from sky.

By neglecting their TV, they face losing customers for any of their other services due to the pull of combined discounts (ie Sky free BB) from other providers.

[Mick Fisher]

Originally Posted by kibblerok

But theres money to be made in this market, just because virgin aren't making any doesnt mean its not there.

The point of my post was to highlight that Virgin may well focus on other areas but neglecting the demands of consumers on the TV side moves them to Sky for TV as theres pretty much nobody else.

When theres so much to be saved having multiple services from one provider - if virgins phone and TV aren't attractive the pull of VM broadband may not be enough to counter the savings of getting all 3 from sky.

By neglecting their TV, they face losing customers for any of their other services due to the pull of combined discounts (ie Sky free BB) from other providers.

VM seem to be incapable of making a profit!

For reasons of their own VM seem to be letting standards drop across the board.

It's been suggested the reasonis because the CEO is a fool but I don't think so. Fools don't get to a position like that in a Company.

I would suggest it is because they are broke and on the verge of folding (again).

Or

Because the churn after the 20meg upgrade fiasco and the loss of the Sky basics was lower than expected, VM are actively seeing just how far they can extract the urine from their customer base before a positive churn becomes a negative churn. While at the same time saving oodles of cash on not upgrading the network and making staff redundent.

The problem with this is maybe they are on a plateau with this at the moment but they could encounter a cliff like the digital signal cutoff point when a weak signal completely loses the picture. If this was to occur they could find themselves in an impossible to recover situation.

As to their stance on HD, when the 5 major channels launch HD their position will be increasingly untenable. I would expect mass defections to Freesat.

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

As to their stance on HD, when the 5 major channels launch HD their position will be increasingly untenable. I would expect mass defections to Freesat.

I wonder what Berketts reaction to that will be, something along the lines, "VM doesn't need the thousands who have left for Freesat, even though they have five HD channels its not what our customers want"

[moroboshi]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

It's been suggested the reasonis because the CEO is a fool but I don't think so. Fools don't get to a position like that in a Company.

To me it seems like he made a list of all of the things people really thought valuable and worthwhile when he became CEO - net neutrality, privacy when browsing, HD channels, no throttling/downoad limits etc. Since then he has attacked each one, perhaps to assert himself, make a name for himself, or perhaps just because he really is an idiot.

He's succeeded certainly, but as a CEO of a company he's a spectacular failure. I really can't think of any CEO aside from Murdoch who is so completely obnoxious and counter to everything sane people think important. He is surely a terrible embarrassment to the rest of the company who must dread his next venom filled attack on some other sacred cow. He's also totally counter to the 'nice guy' image Branson likes to put forward. I wonder if Branson even knows what this clown is up to, or is he too busy off building a moon rocket or some such.

I'd say he'll be gone within 6 months, or VM will have sold up or gone bankrupt. You can only beat up your customers so much before they leave, and I think for many he's already well past that point.

---------- Post added at 10:11 ---------- Previous post was at 09:21 ----------

Another issue which Virgin's moronic CEO conveniently fails to mention when he's waxing lyrical over how wonderful upscaled PAL is, is that PAL broadcasts with 2 channel sound. The new HD channels come with Dolby Digital 5.1, which while a far cry from the sound on a blu-ray (Dolby True HD, DTS Master HD), is still a huge leap over 2 channel sound.

But then again, if he's happy with crusty old SD PAL, then he probably doesn't even see the need for stereo sound, let alone surround.

[TheBlueRaja]

I think we all know now why Virgin are so bad, their CEO is obviously a muppet.

[mertle]

Originally Posted by frogstamper

I wonder what Berketts reaction to that will be, something along the lines, "VM doesn't need the thousands who have left for Freesat, even though they have five HD channels its not what our customers want"

very good point freesat is now not just a danger to sky but now VM. However for those who for many reason cannot have a dish freeview for HD as it goes live in your area looks the only option.

Ofcom announced freeview will later this year get DVB-t2.

Will be introducing HD on freeview although only the main 5 from 2009 as each region goes digital only they will get ITV HD, BBC HD, c4 HD, 5 HD.

You can see freeview also hurting VM.

I hope his comments been taken out of context he was talking about the immediate period to early 2009. He does have a point during this stage of HD. But from mid 2009 there is definate need to start looking at HD as standard.

[gc10360]

Originally Posted by Sirius

So no HD = First mistake.

Phorm Spyware system = Second mistake.

STM for most of the day to save money on upgrades = Third mistake

Excellent first few months in the job would you not say.

Will now wait for the retraction and the statement that he was taken out of context by the big bad press

looks like he may have fell victim to the 3strikes rule that virgin were trying to implement!

---------- Post added at 12:50 ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 ----------

OMFG its TRUE!!! Neil Berkett was hired by sky to infiltrate Virgin Media and finish the company off....

Neil Berkett is...... THE INFILTRATOR!!!

showing on sky1 and sky1 HD this tuesday 8:00pm

[NTLVictim]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

It's been suggested the reasonis because the CEO is a fool but I don't think so. Fools don't get to a position like that in a Company.

Yes they do Mick, with sickening regularity.

It's called "failing upwards"..

[Mick Fisher]

Originally Posted by NTLVictim

Yes they do Mick, with sickening regularity.

It's called "failing upwards"..

Nicely put.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by mertle

Will be introducing HD on freeview although only the main 5 from 2009 as each region goes digital only they will get ITV HD, BBC HD, c4 HD, 5 HD.

Sorry to be pickey, but I think you mean the main 4!

[sollp]

Originally Posted by kibblerok

Sky could simply give HD boxes away for free, £5 extra per month sub (even free if they dared maybe 18 month contract?) and crush virgin media TV like a paper cup.

Taking that hit now could destroy virgin... and if they gain the TV customers, they're likely to gain the phone & bb as they are likely to move at the same time

VMs head in the sand attitude may well hold now, but its not going to last.

I disagree on that one, the cost to alot of customers in purchasing HD LCD/PLASMA is far to great aleap. Just to get a few sports movies in HD isn't enough. It will be a few years until the vast majority ot mainstream programming will be HD and then the need for HD tv's will be there. At the moment the demand and cost is to much. With Sky you have top pay for the STB, The TV set ups ranging from £700-£1800, for the stand surround ect included, just to recieve a few channels isn't really worth at the moment.

Talking about destrying VM just as you say is shortsighted, ADSL in my view is less of a product than cable broadband,and not knowing much about BT Vision and it's performance, i can only assume with the poor performance of ADSL this is no better.

But i agree VM shouldn't and most likely won't, sit back for the next few years with there, "head in the sand" as you say.