Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mr Skrunts]

Just watched a Clint Eastwood movie on Yorksihre, advert came on from virgin saying they have stopped charging extre for HD

http://allyours.virginmedia.com/websales/service.do?id=1

So, Tunnie

[size=12]
When are Sky Going to STOP charging us to watch HD[/size]

[jonnycool]

Just watched a Clint Eastwood movie on Yorksihre, advert came on from virgin saying they have stopped charging extre for HD

http://allyours.virginmedia.com/websales/service.do?id=1

So, Tunnie

[size=12]
When are Sky Going to STOP charging us to watch HD[/size]

That's what I'm waiting for as well, already pay far too much for my telly 

Jon

[tunnie]

they will have to at some point, however HD costs a lot more to broadcast. Hence BBC never did a mirrored HD BBC 1 unlike Sky.

[Mr Skrunts]

they will have to at some point, however HD costs a lot more to broadcast. Hence BBC never did a mirrored HD BBC 1 unlike Sky.

Here we go, here come the excusses.

My box is a year old next month, 1st thing I am foing is dropping the HD bit and save myself just short of a tenner a month.

They allways say they will mirror what virgin do, but only if they have to.  Why dont they become leaders instead of followers.  If anyone ever starts a new service that works dont they realise they would lose most of us bacause it seems all of those that dont work for shy are very unhappy with it.

Most of the buffy, angel, lie to me type programs are only 45 mins, so that means we put up with 25% of the hour we pay for watching advertising that we really are not interested in.  ITV, Channel 4 and 5 do the same but we dont have to pay for it.

[Dishevelled Den]

Can Virgin match the HD output from Sky however - and can Virgin provide a service to most parts of the nation as Sky is presently doing.

I'm no champion for Sky (or Digger) but they seem to be a progressive company exploiting the readily useable extent of up to date technology - their investment in the technology required to do this costs money, so the investment has to be recouped in one way or another.

I don't mind in the least paying for the HD subscription - the Arts channel is worth it on its own - but I do think that charging a further HD subscription for additional boxes on their 'multi-room' tariff is a bit much.

Sky, by innovation and clever marketing have carved out a niche in the subscription television sector - their service isn't perfect, far from it but it's there and it's useable and worth paying for the right to use whatever part of it interests you and, unlike taking the service offered by the State Broadcaster, if you don’t want to use certain of the services offered, you don’t pay.

In this new world, choice is champion – but has to be paid for in the end.

[tunnie]

they will have to at some point, however HD costs a lot more to broadcast. Hence BBC never did a mirrored HD BBC 1 unlike Sky.

Here we go, here come the excusses.

My box is a year old next month, 1st thing I am foing is dropping the HD bit and save myself just short of a tenner a month.

They allways say they will mirror what virgin do, but only if they have to.  Why dont they become leaders instead of followers.  If anyone ever starts a new service that works dont they realise they would lose most of us bacause it seems all of those that dont work for shy are very unhappy with it.

Most of the buffy, angel, lie to me type programs are only 45 mins, so that means we put up with 25% of the hour we pay for watching advertising that we really are not interested in.  ITV, Channel 4 and 5 do the same but we dont have to pay for it.

All those shows require rights to broadcast which are not cheap, the cost millions to buy, costs have to be recouped.

Thats fine for other channels but as Sky has their own broadcast tech and rented satellites,  those costs have to be factored in to.

Adverts Pay for shows, Subscription pays for tech, broadcast and development.

Sky have to pay for amount of data broadcast to and from sats, HD requires a lot more bandwidth. Virgin have their own cable tech, so its much cheaper for them to send out HD.

[Mr Skrunts]

Cant remember the name before Virgin but they put in enough installations fo make a profit and cover thier outlay and then pulled the plug.

I cant compare the 2 side by side as I dont have access to virgin.

Sky are well on thier way to making profits of £1B  a year. and thats proffit, after all over heads and delvelopement for the future have been paid for.

I'm no champion for Sky (or Digger) but they seem to be a progressive company exploiting the readily useable extent of up to date technology - their investment in the technology required to do this costs money, so the investment has to be recouped in one way or another.

I dont disagree with your reply, but I also feel we as custoners are exploited.  If sky is growing as fast as they reckon, and profits keep going up, then why not benifit thier customers.  Sky movies is split so they make 2 extra charges rather than just one as it used to be.

If I had the choice of Virgin or Sky, then I would dump Sky ASAP.

[Mr Skrunts]

they will have to at some point, however HD costs a lot more to broadcast. Hence BBC never did a mirrored HD BBC 1 unlike Sky.

Here we go, here come the excusses.

My box is a year old next month, 1st thing I am foing is dropping the HD bit and save myself just short of a tenner a month.

They allways say they will mirror what virgin do, but only if they have to.  Why dont they become leaders instead of followers.  If anyone ever starts a new service that works dont they realise they would lose most of us bacause it seems all of those that dont work for shy are very unhappy with it.

Most of the buffy, angel, lie to me type programs are only 45 mins, so that means we put up with 25% of the hour we pay for watching advertising that we really are not interested in.  ITV, Channel 4 and 5 do the same but we dont have to pay for it.

All those shows require rights to broadcast which are not cheap, the cost millions to buy, costs have to be recouped.

Thats fine for other channels but as Sky has their own broadcast tech and rented satellites,  those costs have to be factored in to.

Adverts Pay for shows, Subscription pays for tech, broadcast and development.

Sky have to pay for amount of data broadcast to and from sats, HD requires a lot more bandwidth. Virgin have their own cable tech, so its much cheaper for them to send out HD.

Maybe there is a lesson to be learnt there then.  But even if they bought thier own I cant see them bring prices down.

Be honest, Sky like other companies is a selfish business, it's only there to make huge profits, it really is not bothered in what the xustomer really wants, it just gives them the least they can get away with at the time, for as much as they can charge them at the time.

[tunnie]

Used to be NTL & Telewest, they merged, and then bought by Branson.

I'm no champion for Sky (or Digger) but they seem to be a progressive company exploiting the readily useable extent of up to date technology - their investment in the technology required to do this costs money, so the investment has to be recouped in one way or another.

This does make me laugh, the government can exploit motorists in tax, so can company with their employee's

"as customers we are exploited" - You don't have to be with them, if you don't want the content, then go freeview, if you do want the choice, movies on demand and such, shows you cannot get on freeview then you have to pay for them!

I compare it to Tesco, no one forces people to shop there, people have a choice, they are then blamed for exploiting customers for profit 

[Dishevelled Den]

Cant remember the name before Virgin but they put in enough installations fo make a profit and cover thier outlay and then pulled the plug.

I cant compare the 2 side by side as I dont have access to virgin.

Sky are well on thier way to making profits of £1B  a year. and thats proffit, after all over heads and delvelopement for the future have been paid for.

I'm no champion for Sky (or Digger) but they seem to be a progressive company exploiting the readily useable extent of up to date technology - their investment in the technology required to do this costs money, so the investment has to be recouped in one way or another.

I dont disagree with your reply, but I also feel we as custoners are exploited.  If sky is growing as fast as they reckon, and profits keep going up, then why not benifit thier customers.  Sky movies is split so they make 2 extra charges rather than just one as it used to be.

If I had the choice of Virgin or Sky, then I would dump Sky ASAP.

I can sympathise with you Mr S as the availability of a fast optical network to deliver television services certainly is appealing - but as I'm presently living in the ass-end of nowhere, the likihood of getting such a service is limited for now and the forseeable future.

Sky provide the service and I'm happy to pay for it as there's no real alternative.

[Mr Skrunts]

Used to be NTL & Telewest, they merged, and then bought by Branson.

I'm no champion for Sky (or Digger) but they seem to be a progressive company exploiting the readily useable extent of up to date technology - their investment in the technology required to do this costs money, so the investment has to be recouped in one way or another.

This does make me laugh, the government can exploit motorists in tax, so can company with their employee's

"as customers we are exploited" - You don't have to be with them, if you don't want the content, then go freeview, if you do want the choice, movies on demand and such, shows you cannot get on freeview then you have to pay for them!

I compare it to Tesco, no one forces people to shop there, people have a choice, they are then blamed for exploiting customers for profit 

You said it in one Tunnie.

I dont have the choice, so I have to pay for it if I want it.I dont have access to virgin and freeview does not give the choice either.  in all honesty, if I got what I wanted I would have to pay another subscription to sky sports, but all I want to watch is wrestling (WWE) so I go without.

I refuse to shop at tescos, ASDA sell sell everything I need and deliverit to my door far cheaper than jumping in the Mig and fetching it myself.

[Dishevelled Den]

Used to be NTL & Telewest, they merged, and then bought by Branson.

I'm no champion for Sky (or Digger) but they seem to be a progressive company exploiting the readily useable extent of up to date technology - their investment in the technology required to do this costs money, so the investment has to be recouped in one way or another.

This does make me laugh, the government can exploit motorists in tax, so can company with their employee's

"as customers we are exploited" - You don't have to be with them, if you don't want the content, then go freeview, if you do want the choice, movies on demand and such, shows you cannot get on freeview then you have to pay for them!

I compare it to Tesco, no one forces people to shop there, people have a choice, they are then blamed for exploiting customers for profit 

Tunnie, the exploitation I referred to concerned the technology that afforded a readily useable HD television service not exploitation of customers.  The content of my posts should make that obvious.


http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/YaBB.pl?action=post;num=1273881686;virboard=;quote=4;title=PostReply

[Del Boy]

I use Virgin + HD, it's a lot better than the Sky + HD I had before, although sky HD hadn't been out very long when I had it, but on the other hand neither had Virgin and that was much better then. I also get, well I say I, the mrs gets 80 hours of recording, I think iirc sky was less.

[tunnie]

Used to be NTL & Telewest, they merged, and then bought by Branson.

I'm no champion for Sky (or Digger) but they seem to be a progressive company exploiting the readily useable extent of up to date technology - their investment in the technology required to do this costs money, so the investment has to be recouped in one way or another.

This does make me laugh, the government can exploit motorists in tax, so can company with their employee's

"as customers we are exploited" - You don't have to be with them, if you don't want the content, then go freeview, if you do want the choice, movies on demand and such, shows you cannot get on freeview then you have to pay for them!

I compare it to Tesco, no one forces people to shop there, people have a choice, they are then blamed for exploiting customers for profit 

You said it in one Tunnie.

I dont have the choice, so I have to pay for it if I want it.I dont have access to virgin and freeview does not give the choice either.  in all honesty, if I got what I wanted I would have to pay another subscription to sky sports, but all I want to watch is wrestling (WWE) so I go without.

I refuse to shop at tescos, ASDA sell sell everything I need and deliverit to my door far cheaper than jumping in the Mig and fetching it myself.

One option is iPhone TV (if you have one) at £6 a month its a bargin if you don't have Sky Sports

[Mr Skrunts]

Cant remember the name before Virgin but they put in enough installations fo make a profit and cover thier outlay and then pulled the plug.

I cant compare the 2 side by side as I dont have access to virgin.

Sky are well on thier way to making profits of £1B  a year. and thats proffit, after all over heads and delvelopement for the future have been paid for.

I'm no champion for Sky (or Digger) but they seem to be a progressive company exploiting the readily useable extent of up to date technology - their investment in the technology required to do this costs money, so the investment has to be recouped in one way or another.

I dont disagree with your reply, but I also feel we as custoners are exploited.  If sky is growing as fast as they reckon, and profits keep going up, then why not benifit thier customers.  Sky movies is split so they make 2 extra charges rather than just one as it used to be.

If I had the choice of Virgin or Sky, then I would dump Sky ASAP.

I can sympathise with you Mr S as the availability of a fast optical network to deliver television services certainly is appealing - but as I'm presently living in the ass-end of nowhere, the likihood of getting such a service is limited for now and the forseeable future.

Sky provide the service and I'm happy to pay for it as there's no real alternative.

[edit]
Sky provide the service and I'm not as  happy to pay for it as there's no real alternative.[/edit]

and the reasons.

Repeats/looping programs
Price hikes without better value for money.
Repeats/looping programs
Lack of quality new programs for the extra outlay.
Repeats/looping programs
Poor/lack of service in bad weather.
Repeats/looping programs
Lack of functional use from whay is allready built into thier boxes.


I have a twin freesat box, as soon as I get chance to have more cables brought down from the dish, if it proves to be worth while then I dump sky.

£31 per month saved
£372 per year total saving