TiVo : Poor choice of Channels

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

When Sky offered VM the channel, it was at a 'reasonable' offer, VM turned it down.

You don't know that either.

Sky Pedantic HD.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Jameseh

Sky Pedantic HD.

Whens that channel going to arrive James.

[nialli]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

When Sky offered VM the channel, it was at a 'reasonable' offer, VM turned it down.

Sky's definition of "reasonable" of course; I have it on good authority that Sky was looking to recover its considerable costs in acquiring the HBO content and the initial price was far higher than what most would consider "reasonable".
I don't know what price has recently been discussed between the two companies. For VM to return to the table, it must be lower than was first demanded by Sky.

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by Jameseh

Sky Pedantic HD.

A pedant writes...

...I think its fair enough to challenge assertions based on little or no evidence, and by doing so you give somebody the chance to produce such evidence - it might, after all, be me thats in the wrong here, Arthur may well have a sound basis for his assertion that Sky offered Atlantic at a fair price.

Arthur, my opinion is that you have been poorly treated by Virgin. 6 engineer visits to set up their flagship TV product is really poor. I think as a result you have really valid points to make about the way in which some customers are treated by Virgin. I also think that you post a lot of unqualified statements which aren't true and as a result the important points that you do make are often written off as rantings. Which is a shame.

What andy_m said....

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Hi Andy and Hugh, How amny customers does VM have, must be thousands, if each customer paid an increase of say £1.00 per month on top of there existing payment - l am not saying it would pay for Atlantic.

When Sky offered VM the channel, it was at a 'reasonable' offer, VM turned it down.

What l am saying is that surely if VM went for Atlantic with other channels, then l would not grumble. Remember what l have said before Sky is a business and not a charity.

Nonsense, I know for a fact the offer was in no way reasonable.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Hi Andy and Hugh, How amny customers does VM have, must be thousands, if each customer paid an increase of say £1.00 per month on top of there existing payment - l am not saying it would pay for Atlantic.

When Sky offered VM the channel, it was at a 'reasonable' offer, VM turned it down.

What l am saying is that surely if VM went for Atlantic with other channels, then l would not grumble. Remember what l have said before Sky is a business and not a charity.

It doesn't sound to me like it was a 'reasonable' offer, Arthur. In any case, the value of something is the price people are prepared to pay for it. Sky are crazy to charge a price that no operator is prepared to pay and then carry the channel at a huge loss. But then, Sky's pockets are deep....

Directors so thick??

You mean the directors who took a company from the brink of bankrupcy and turned it into a business that can compete head on with Sky and BT, two companies who have a national footprint and god knows how many billions to throw at any challenge that they are faced with.

Give them some respect man - its a cut throat world out there, its in the press how much Sky are struggling to attract new TV customers and thats with lots of HD, 3D, Sky Atlantic, Formula 1 etc etc.

http://advanced-television.com/2012/...nbeat-quarter/

The cost for Atlantic will be a a set fee per customer as are the majority of deals so if that is £1 thats 4 million per month or £48 million per year to VM - would they really get that amount of new custom to cover that amount??

But hey Ho Aurthur you clearly know best about whats the right way to run a business

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I do agree with most members, and especially with Dlc. But l think the directors of VM should have a good look at themselves over this, they were offered Atlantic several months ago but said it was too expensive.

This channel should have been in with the negotiation team, but there again the directors are so thick to understand there are channels out there to get but don't bother. Why on earth did they go after +1 channels is beyond me as we now have a 'recording' button on the boxes.

Even IF VM put the prices up say £1.00 per month on the XL, they could still cover the extra channels, Many members won't pay the extra fee, but there again you cannot have 'your cake and eat it'.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by passingbat

For me, VM are far better than Sky on everything apart from TV channels. The three recordable tuners and Whishlists are that Tivo offers have become a 'must have' feature for me and to downgrade to the limited functionality of a Sky box would be unacceptable.

But I also want Sky atlantic, and would prefer to have more channels in HD, which means going to Sky.

Because VM have vastly increased their HD channels, I don't see HD as a significant problem now, as a very big proportion of the shows I record are in HD anyway.

That just leaves channel content. The only channel that I really want is Atlantic; I don't really care about the other channels that Sky have that VM haven't.

I agree with you on Sky Atlantic. There are shows on there that are exclusive to the channel and it would be good to have these available on the TIVO. But you probably know my views on that by now.

However, I would like to challenge the general notion that comes up time and time again, that VM have 'a poor choice of channels'. They don't actually, we have the best of what is going, with just a few notable exceptions.

I was looking at the recordings I have made and I am absolutely spoiled for choice. If I just take the dramas and nothing else, I have the following to choose from at the moment:

Accused (4 episodes); The Best of Men; The Bletchley Circle; Burn Notice (8); Clinton (4); The Closer (20); Continuum (6); Dallas (7); DCI Banks (4); Downton Abbey; Flashpoint (14); Fringe; Game of Thrones (2); A Gifted Man (12); The Glades (8); Good Cop (4); Hatfields & McCoys; Homefront (6); Homeland (4);Hunted; The Killing (13); King (7); Last Resort; The Last Weekend (3); Leaving (3); Life on Mars USA (15); Line of Duty (5); Luther (3); Mandela (5); The Mentalist; Monroe (5); Mrs Biggs; Murder: Joint Enterprise; The Paradise (2); Perception (4); Person of Interest (9); Prime Suspect (14); Prisoners of War(10); The Reckoning (2); Revenge (12); The River (4); Room at the Top (2); Ruth Rendall's Thirteen Steps Down (2); Scandal (2); The Scapegoat; The Sculptress (2); Strike Back - Vengence (9); Unforgettable (4); Vera (3); White Collar (3).

These are all dramas that my wife and I (some of them my wife only!) really want to watch, so to us, this is quality viewing.

That is not to mention some films like Warhorse that I have recorded, documentaries, science programmes, general entertainment, etc, etc.

When you consider all the On Demand content, now with Sky Anytime added, there is a bewildering amount of stuff available to watch. This really doesn't sit well with the argument that we have a poor choice of channels. We may have fewer channels than Sky, but we have more viewable content available plus loads of music.

When people talk about the channels they don't have, channels like CBS Drama are quoted, and though it would be an OK channel to have, the bulk of its programming consists of things that have been on other channels in the past and no doubt will be again. Examples include CSI, Judge Judy (!); Judging Amy; JAG; Boston Legal; Cheers; and Dallas.

So if instead of being channels obsessed and we concentrate on content, which after all is important, you will see that VM is really quite well positioned to be able to brag about its jolly good TV service.

The deficiency is really quite small and it has resulted in my not being able to watch just two programmes that I really wanted to see - Boardwalk Empire and Mad Men. And that is down to Sky rather than Virgin Media, with their continuing campaign against people who subscribe to Sky but not via their satellite service. What a way for an organisation to treat its subscribers!

[Dave42]

only missing sky channels I want is the sports HD channels as for SA I say again it much overhyped channel ever only thing worth having of there is game of thrones not all the other crap it show as proved by viewing figures less than 10% of sky customers watch it

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Dave42

only missing sky channels I want is the sports HD channels as for SA I say again it much overhyped channel ever only thing worth having of there is game of thrones not all the other crap it show as proved by viewing figures less than 10% of sky customers watch it

Yes l agree Dave but rest assured there will always be those wonderful defenders of the faith who believe in better.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Dave42

only missing sky channels I want is the sports HD channels as for SA I say again it much overhyped channel ever only thing worth having of there is game of thrones not all the other crap it show as proved by viewing figures less than 10% of sky customers watch it

Well, I have some sympathy with that, but I wouldn't judge the quality of the channel by the number of people watching it. Sadly, the majority of the public sit watching lifestyle and low quality programming for a worrying amount of time, which I find alarming.

Game of Thrones, now being shown on Sky 1, is very good quality, as is Mad Men. I am not in a position to judge the other shows on Atlantic because I haven't seen them but there are one or two others I would have recorded had I been able to access the channel.

It also has its fair share of programmes I would never watch, but then again, so has Sky 1 and most of the other digital channels.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

However, I would like to challenge the general notion that comes up time and time again, that VM have 'a poor choice of channels'. They don't actually, we have the best of what is going, with just a few notable exceptions.

I think I pretty much agreed with you on that in my last two paragraphs. Also, I posted on another thread, that to move to Sky with the exact same package that I have with VM, would cost an extra £18 p/m.

HD is an issue for many people though, especially sports fans, and I understand why. I would love more HD, but because VM have made massive strides in HD channels, the few SD shows that I watch are not a big issue.

But Sky do excel in channels; there can be no disputing that, but the significance of that will vary for each individual VM customer.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by passingbat

I think I pretty much agreed with you on that in my last two paragraphs. Also, I posted on another thread, that to move to Sky with the exact same package that I have with VM, would cost an extra £18 p/m.

HD is an issue for many people though, especially sports fans, and I understand why. I would love more HD, but because VM have made massive strides in HD channels, the few SD shows that I watch are not a big issue.

But Sky do excel in channels; there can be no disputing that, but the significance of that will vary for each individual VM customer.

I agree, passingbat. VM could do more with HD channels, but many of the channels Sky has that we don't are not worth a light.

Sky could offer 2,000 channels, but if none of them contain content worth watching, what's the point?