virgin media's future

[joff81]

Originally Posted by ottoni

It just makes me so mad that some posters on here think that virgin have bent over backwards for us. Put simply they haven't. They haven't invested enough, they haven't been successful in channel negotiations, they haven't been quick enough in bringing out technology, they lag desperately behind other countries cable sytems let alone sky in this country.
I know there will always be people ready to fly to virgins defence in just about everything they do, but why should we put up with a second rate service?
Its time we let virgin know that they need to be on the ball a lot quicker then they are now. To be honest freesat is a godsend, just to give a bit more variety then virgins xl pack gives. And before you go on about VOD, I'm talking linear content, Vm just dissapoints time and time again.

i tell you if i could get permission to have a Sky dish and could had a BT line connected from my house to the BT exchange i would jump ship in a heartbeat.
as it stands im stuck with VM as i cant get permission to have a Sky dish so im stuck with VM or freeview for tv.
this is one of the reasons im so dissapointed with VM lack to add channels as i have no option but to stick with them or move.

[nialli]

Originally Posted by ottoni

your absolutely spot on, if you want more tv channels then we will have to go to sky. Virgin media don't seem to really care about their customers, and keep taking choices away from them. Who gives a damn about how hard and long the negotiations were, we didn't and haven't seen a positive result from this.
Nothing is guaranteed at all for tv customers from virgin, whereas sky customers get it all 1st time! I don't really see VOD at the moment being overly important. People still want and demand the fullest choice of linear tv channels. This is something that virgin just cannot committ to or can be bothered with. It's either capacity problems, regional variations!
We are basically being told that if you want all the channels, go elsewhere! fair enough, I can understand that, and the choice is there for people.
But I do not want to hear about how hard virgin have had it to get these sky channels. They are a platform, they should provide what the customer wants. And I think the overall message on both DS and this forum is that we want as much choice in linear tv terms as sky does. VOD is nice, but its not going to take the place of linear just yet.
They seriously need to get their act together, TIVO should already be here, not coming soon, this is 2010 not 1981.

I disagree with pretty much every single point you make.

[techguy]

Originally Posted by nialli

I disagree with pretty much every single point you make.

I for one agree with nearly everything mentioned...

and despite from denials from 'insiders', there is an issue in terms of bandwidth - not so much in terms of capacity for new channels anymore .. but on who will pay for expensive coders and muxing equipment in the headends / hubs, everytime a new channel joins the platform. VM has in the past relied on broadcasters to contribute to this in a similar way to how sky demand a "platform contribution" charge. But with Sky's growing customer share, cable is forced more than ever to make concessions to secure carriage.

Maybe Tivo could be VM's saviour? But they'll have to find a way of making it the standard V+ offering if they are to compete in future... I.e. it replaces the existing v+ product .. with perhaps existing customers having to pay an install/upgrade charge just like Sky+ customers did when getting SkyHD

[Jameseh]

I really don't see what is so special about the TiVo boxes. The content will be exactly the same, just how you get to it and how much you can record of it will differ.

[jb66]

I think the future is streaming channels as apposed to the linear way and the boxes will just be modems with hard drives, that's a long way away. Personally I think virgin provide a good service for a reasonable cost. The folk who say virgin are off the ball are probably the same folk who call retentions and argue sky is cheaper. Virgin is a business and there is no point wasting money on bandwidth for the god channel+1 and other junk which would be passed to us, the customer.

[Maggy J]

If you aren't happy with the DTV you get from your provider why not find another provider?Also you need to address your complaints directly to VM.This site offers help to those suffering from technical problems or seeking advice on how to get better services.

As I see it VM have decided to get out of the provision of content in TV..they have just decided to be a carrier of someone else's content mainly because they don't have the cash to compete with Sky.Sky can compete better because they have more access to more areas on their platform.VM can only provide through cable and ASDL and do not reach every part of the UK unlike Sky who's reach vis satellite means they get the lion's share of the income.It was a clear business decision.

I think that by concentrating on provision of other's DTV content,their phone,TV and BB packages are good enough to provide them with a good share of the available market especially their BB.

[xthedarkhourx]

Personally, there are very few (if any) channels I would watch if VM had exactly the same number of channels as Sky. I had Sky before I moved house a few years ago and I can't think of any channel I miss being able to watch.

I wouldn't mind VM having a few more music channels, but saying that - availability of music is so much easier generally (Spotify etc) that I'm not overly bothered.

I believe the majority of additional channels carried by Sky aren't worth a watch and overall I'm satisfied with the service provided by VM. I knew which channels they had when I signed up and since I joined the overall number of channels has increased. VOD offers additional content again.

As has already been said, Sky have far more resource to work with than VM - In an ideal world I'd love VM to offer every available channel, have more VOD, faster boxes and do my ironing but it's not going to happen. They provide me with the service I signed up for.

[LexDiamond]

I have XL TV. I get a premier league game a week (in HD too although I couldn't care less). I have extensive access to On Demand tv as well as music. I have more recorded content on my HDD than I could possibly ever watch and I regularly have to delete recorded content without ever even getting the chance to watch it.

So I basically have more tv that I could ever watch plus premium sports and OD all from what is a basic tv package (plus all the HD which I don't have to sub seperately and again I couldn't care less about this but it is still there). So I'm a very happy customer. If I wasn't I would cancel as soon as my minimum contract period as over.

Which makes me wonder why do people pay for a service they don't even want

[daggman]

I Have been with cable for about 9 years, I enjoy there broadband always works and works well, the phone rings and i speak, but i do feel the tv side lets them down, we had the tv switched off in march and switched to sky HD, free HD for 12 months, but in my opinion compared to are old SA V+ box the sky box is a joy to use, the look of the now and next bar is much better and the epg is much clearer, but best of all is the speed of the box/epg everything responds straight away, its a pleasure to use compared to SA V+, but if virgin can come out with these new boxes with new much faster EPG at a reasonable activation fee, i will come back at the end of my contract, so come on virgin get these new boxes out , improve the epg, and some more HD channels. the future can still be bright.

[garcher18]

I moved from Sky about three years ago, due to unreliable boxes, we went through 3 Sky+ boxes in six months. we record a lot of content, for the fact we can record two things at once is real winner. I like VM, ok they might not have all the channels that sky have, buthas never affected what I wanted to watch.

[Paranoimia]

We're also happy with Virgin's TV service. The only grumble is that, due to the way things are packaged, you have to take so much rubbish to get the channels you want to see, and it costs you more than it should as a result. But that's the same with Sky, too.

I'd much rather pay individually for the channels I want, and drop the rest altogether. Not interested in Red Button functionality or digital text at all. I'd happily make do with BBC1 & 2, ITV, C4, Five, SyFy, Sky1, Virgin1/Channel On1, Comedy Central and maybe 3 or 4 others.

But to get those, we have to take a combination of packages or the XL package, which costs us more money and provides us with countless channels we never have and never will watch. We've looked at dropping certain things, but the way it works out with the package deals, fewer channels would actually cost us more money.

I don't see why channels we don't watch should benefit from our cash. Just let us pay directly for the channels we want, let the rest of them go under and free up bandwidth for better or HD channels in the process.

[Mattyness]

Originally Posted by nialli

".
Lack of SD and HD channels
Believe it or not, we don't all want hundreds and hundreds of useless channels. The only channel available on Sky that I would want is Sky1 HD, and that's launching on Virgin shortly

Couldn't agree more, from randomly browsing my parents box one day, I could honestly say that besides from the stuff already on Virgin Media, there really isn't a whole host else thats actually worth Virgin Medias time in my opinion.

There are countless channels that arent even in English, and some channels that are quite frankly bizzare. I wouldn't want that garbage cluttering up the list of channels, especially if im trying to find something to watch.

All I could ever want from Virgin is.

CCTV News, NHK World TV, the CBS Channels, and a couple of documentary channels that arent on VM at the moment. Screw the rest.

Sure okay Virgin Media has some crappy shopping channels, but all in all they have picked up the gems from the trash.