Coming to Virgin TV

[wwe]

Originally Posted by ufitm

see my post 702 i think it will becoming on in about mid may or june
do know if it will be on vm , we can only Hope it will ?

u mean 701 m8

[ufitm]

did edit post when notice error your are right should be 701

[Tali]

all the other broadcstors have accepted Sky's price

What other broadcasters?

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by Tali

What other broadcasters?

Yeah!! I did a second take when I read that

[gadge]

Originally Posted by Tali

What other broadcasters?

Tiscalli.

[mentalis]

Originally Posted by ufitm

see my post 702 i think it will becoming on in about mid may or june
do know if it will be on vm , we can only Hope it will ?

C4HD has already launched but is not on VM so I am not hopeful about ITV HD, which hasn't yet launched, being on VM. Not until the devil skates to work, at least.

[Media Boy]

Five are to rename Five Life to Fiver.

Info from Broadcast.

---------- Post added at 11:34 ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 ----------

Full story here: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcas...med-fiver.html ( Thanks to Digital Spy. )

---------- Post added at 11:36 ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 ----------

Sky wins Champions League rights - http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcas...ue-rights.html


Info from Digital Spy.

[paul_hadley]

What a crap name for a channel.

[darthlinux]

Originally Posted by paul_hadley

What a crap name for a channel.

lol kinda like DAVE

[paul_hadley]

Yeah, but I have to admit, the name Dave has grown on me a bit now and it's more clever than Fiver.

Dave - "Everyone knows a Dave"

Fiver - "Everyone has a fiver"...?

[Andrewcrawford23]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Andrewcrawford, following your comments, l would like to comment on the issues, which you raise, People who pay to watch Sky, pay for the service that is provided, which is about 85% / 100 as during bad weather, the signal is badly effected, cs is very good, and the problem is normal solved in a matter of minutes, with VM it is not sometimes, it last for days, when you don't get anything, as it has happened to me.

It is unfair on customers, who live in flats, where under planning law, they are NOT ALLOWED Dishes, although people do have them even on the 18th floor, aroung here blocks of flats have them, but it is mostly cable, and is a right that VM provide a service, under there contract.

As for the supposed court action, it is us the customers, who is paying this through the subs, is a duty for VM, to supply a service to its customers, and that includes all Sky channels, remember, this row only started, after Sky took ITV, from under the nose of Sir Richard Branson, who wanted to buy it, and since then, it has been spoilts brats, in the playground, you can't have my sweets, as you took my favourites, the judge in court, will throw this case out on the first day. with the statement, all the other broadcstors have accepted Sky's price, so why not VM.

Virgin media do provide oyu a service, it does not say anyway that they have to provide the sky channesl, get over it.

the sky channels are a pay service it, it is not a terristal servic eto which they have to provide

[lostandconfused]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

People who pay to watch Sky, pay for the service that is provided, which is about 85% / 100 as during bad weather, the signal is badly effected, cs is very good, and the problem is normal solved in a matter of minutes, with VM it is not sometimes, it last for days, when you don't get anything, as it has happened to me.

Not to play down any problems you have had with VM and how good the service you have had with sky, I find it unbelievable that you can say sky provide service 85-100% of the time! My parents had a sky dish and had problems with it every day with it constantly showing no signal, every time calling CS spending hours on the phone to people who really didnt care and were more interested in palming you off to another department.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

It is unfair on customers, who live in flats, where under planning law, they are NOT ALLOWED Dishes, although people do have them even on the 18th floor, aroung here blocks of flats have them, but it is mostly cable, and is a right that VM provide a service, under there contract.

Your right it is unfair, but planning reasons are there for a reason, and where to you draw a line? Is it ok for someone to put up a huge extention over looking all their neighbours? Subscription TV is not a right its a luxury and they are under no obligation to provide people a service. VM only have a contract with individual customers, if they cant provide services for whatever reason there is no contract between the two parties.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

As for the supposed court action, it is us the customers, who is paying this through the subs, is a duty for VM, to supply a service to its customers, and that includes all Sky channels, remember, this row only started, after Sky took ITV, from under the nose of Sir Richard Branson, who wanted to buy it, and since then, it has been spoilts brats, in the playground, you can't have my sweets, as you took my favourites, the judge in court, will throw this case out on the first day. with the statement, all the other broadcstors have accepted Sky's price, so why not VM

It is probably the customers that are paying, but probably not VM customers it is more likely sky customers that will pay for it through lost advertising etc.
VM dont have a duty to provide any channel apart from the basic BBC channels. It is down to market forces if a customer wants a specific program then they go to that provider.
I dont think that the judge will throw it out of court on the first day. If that was the case then why would sky have put in such a long defence? They must at least be slightly concerned about it.

[Andrewcrawford23]

This isnt confirmed yet i will try get ti confirmed, but my source has said that iplayer should come the 1st or 2nd week of april mostly likely 8th or 10th. no other information but this hasnt been confirmed yet

[grabbi]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

...this row only started, after Sky took ITV, from under the nose of Sir Richard Branson, who wanted to buy it...

As I remember it, it was ntl: who wanted to buy it, and have it in their portfolio. This was just after Virgin became a shareholder in ntl: (Big Richie Rich doesnt have a say in the operations and purchases, dont forget. ).

The court case started as Sky Denied their channels to be put on Cable for a reasonable sum. Because of that, Virgin believed Sky was using Bullying tactics to get their own way, and, in that respect, its true.

Problem is, Sky didnt count on Virgin taking them to court, nor did they count on the Advertisers suing Sky for loss of Customer Base (Some 3m potential customers.) and then the ratings of Sky One etc would plumet because of that loss.

Sky didnt think about this. They saw the green dollars flashing around their heads, and didnt think how much NOT reaching a deal could cost them.

And to that, I say, HA!

[Media Boy]

Just to let everyone know

Last year I was posting that MusFlash TV may appear on Virgin Media.

MusFlash TV was removed from other networks last month so it will not appear on Virgin after all.