[Deacon1972]

Originally Posted by Technix

Complete fail!

The first 2 relate to a VoD wrong or failed asset problem which the OP says was resolved. The fact they could play the ads at the start of the programme shows it wasn't a capacity issue!

The other one's from 2007, ie. 5 years ago, and not current. A lot has changed in those 5 years and that post isn't representative of the current network.

Must try harder next time!

Eh?

The first link says...

My mum lives in Nottingham and has been having trouble with the On Demand service for two days now, just keeps saying it is not available!

Wrong link for the second.....

http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/...le/td-p/285599

Just shows VOD is not as smooth running for some, regardless of the fault, I had outages more than once.

There are more current ones if you want?

[PudpullerTM]

Originally Posted by charliestumpy

Although arguably Mr Richard Branson was a bit 'iffy' to start his 'Virgin' with the 1973 lovely Mike Oldfield analogue thang/endorses wasteful hydrocarbon combustion a bit too unnecessarily, VM cable produces a better overall product (cheaper too) than does evil Murdochs' 'Sky' (go Wiggins...).

Cable HD is superior to Satellite HD.

The message, not the (overpriced) medium/large/small/seer etc ...

although mr Branson owns virgin group he DOES NOT own or have any say (apart from owning a few shares) in what virgin media does

[PudpullerTM]

Originally Posted by joshua_welby

You did not mention

josh will you say I do not want these channels when vm start offering them to you.

you said you didnt want HD till vm started offering it why did you buy an HD tv "if you didnt want hd channels"

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Technix

It's always been a discussion to me with facts posted by me too, you chose it to be an argument because so far you've failed to convince me how "inferior" the V+ is. Also fibre wouldn't affect the speed at which you can start playing Anytime+ content when Sky cap download rates.

My point about OD issues is that there hasn't been a post on here in ages from someone claiming to have these issues, this is what you Sky fanboys rely on to get your facts.

To you it's not an argument , yet you feel the need to call me as well as another poster on here a Sky fanboy despite the fact that in the last 4 years I've been with VM , BT Vision and Sky hardly the actions of a fanboy , I actually agree with a fair few of your points , cable thanks to its two way nature will always have a massive On Demand advantage over satellite and as you rightly say with Sky/Youview your BB bandwidth is reduced when using On Demand and anyone with a connection of say under 5mb will struggle with HD. My comment about entering On Demand being slow relates to all boxes on the liberate software in my experience using TIVO that isn't an issue. On Sky an 11 mb connection would eat HD no problem , however there was some earlier issues were entertainment content was slow maybe they've changed the way they encode shows , XBOX HD content has always been fast to download even on slower connections.

[Deacon1972]

Originally Posted by Technix

The point being the vast majority won't have a problem.

Probably not, but there are customers with problems.

Originally Posted by Technix

Anytime+ was introduced 2 years ago, opened up to non-Sky BB users only a few months ago and Sky+ HD has been around 6 years, what is the likelihood all these boxes will be connected to a router or all these customers will know how and what to do?

Prices for homeplugs: https://www.google.co.uk/#q=homeplug...w=1280&bih=674

£60 Sky wireless sender!: http://www.sky.com/products/kit/wireless-connector/ (VM boxes provide this functionality for free)

Lets face it, you don't know how many have bought wireless adaptors.

Originally Posted by Technix

It happened to be a Sky upto 24Mb (but only delivering 11) line actually, and that was me using it at a non-peak hour.

Something wrong somewhere, it's certainly not as lack lustre as you are making out.

Originally Posted by Technix

It would be with those hundreds of hours of HD recording and more HD channels we keep getting told about, especially on the basic and majority installed 250/160 GB models.

Even the basic box can record more than double that of the V+.

Originally Posted by Technix

Sweeping statement, where's the source for that? I have both boxes connected to a top of the range TV and can quite clearly see the V+ has better SD upscaling.

No more sweeping than your statement.

Originally Posted by Technix

It is!

Well I've tried to think back to remember all the times that 8sec replay would have made my life complete, can't think of one instant. Rewind at x2 will do if it's ever needed.

Originally Posted by Technix

Exactly how does it "screw" up a recording if it has recorded the whole programme?

Didn't always record the programme in full, even with 10mins added.

Misses likes soaps and when they had extra padding on it use to screw up the back to back recordings, especially if they were watching live TV.

When doing a manual recording to cover live sport overruns I had to check following recordings to make sure they were safe.

Plenty of posts on this in here and on the cable/VM forum.

Originally Posted by Technix

Like I said I've never had problems and I do record HD.

How much is a 1TB HDD? Much cheaper than Sky's HD tax or 1TB box.

I don't know, £150?

Spending anything on something that you don't own is just ridiculous, I suppose it just goes to prove the V+ is not fit for purpose if all these customers are having to upgrade the HDD themselves.

At least the Sky box is yours, you can pick up a 1.5Tb box for £99.

[Technix]

Originally Posted by Deacon1972

Eh?

The first link says...

My mum lives in Nottingham and has been having trouble with the On Demand service for two days now, just keeps saying it is not available!

Wrong link for the second.....

http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/...le/td-p/285599

Just shows VOD is not as smooth running for some, regardless of the fault, I had outages more than once.

There are more current ones if you want?

The fact is it wasn't a capacity issue which is the message you claimed to have seen because your local network was highy utilised!

Your corrected link is from January 2011, again irrelevant and not representative of the current network.

[Deacon1972]

Originally Posted by Technix

The fact is it wasn't a capacity issue which is the message you claimed to have seen because your local network was highy utilised!

Your corrected link is from January 2011, again irrelevant and not representative of the current network.

The message I got was VOD was unavailable try later, I suppose this was a generic message that accompanied various faults. The error code would be the clue to what the fault was.

All I'm am saying and all I have ever said is it was not very reliable and consistent in my area. I accept it works well for others, in the same respect I have a very good Sky service but accept there are those that don't.

[Technix]

Originally Posted by Deacon1972

Lets face it, you don't know how many have bought wireless adaptors.

At that price there won't be many! Sky released numbers about connected boxes (I will look for that link later) and it was nowhere near the number of houses with Sky+ HD.

Something wrong somewhere, it's certainly not as lack lustre as you are making out.

Neither are your claims about VM services.

Even the basic box can record more than double that of the V+.

The 100s of hours of inclusive VoD HD content more than makes up for that as can an upgraded V+.

Well I've tried to think back to remember all the times that 8sec replay would have made my life complete, can't think of one instant. Rewind at x2 will do if it's ever needed.

Well you don't know what you're missing out on and can't possibly comment when you haven't used it, the same goes for the TiVo.

Didn't always record the programme in full, even with 10mins added.

Misses likes soaps and when they had extra padding on it use to screw up the back to back recordings, especially if they were watching live TV.

When doing a manual recording to cover live sport overruns I had to check following recordings to make sure they safe.

Plenty of posts on this in here and on the cable/VM forum.

A quote from you earlier "Something wrong somewhere, it's certainly not as lack lustre as you are making out". All soaps are available on demand on VM so why record them (or even watch them at all)?

I don't know, £150?

£150, probably if you shop at M&S, I picked one up for £45 last year.

Spending anything on something that you don't own is just ridiculous, I suppose it just goes to prove the V+ is not fit for purpose if all these customers are having to upgrade the HDD themselves.

At least the Sky box is yours, you can pick up a 1.5Tb box for £99.

You have to pay VM to use the V+ as would you to Sky to use the Sky+ box main features on hardware that you so importantly own - it's just as ridiculous, probably even more so because you own it.

The 1.5TB Sky box with only 1TB usabale by you, the person who owns it, is only £99 if you pay a further £123 a year, so is in fact £222 + subs.

[Deacon1972]

Originally Posted by Technix

At that price there won't be many! Sky released numbers about connected boxes (I will look for that link later) and it was nowhere near the number of houses with Sky+ HD.

If that's the case then it only goes to show that not many customers had to by additional equipment to get Anytime +, not the millions you said.

Even if they did, what's the difference between Sky customers buying additional equipment and Virgin customers spending extra on upgrading their HDD?

Originally Posted by Technix

Neither are your claims about VM services.

I never said their services were lack lustre - I was happy with the BB and phone, I wasn't completely happy with their V+ box.

Originally Posted by Technix

The 100s of hours of inclusive VoD HD content more than makes up for that as can an upgraded V+.

For me I'd rather be able to record what appeals to me and the family, not have to rely on preloaded content.

Originally Posted by Technix

Well you don't know what you're missing out on and can't possibly comment when you haven't used it, the same goes for the TiVo.

Well it's a feature I've been able to live without for many a year.

Tivo has no D/EPG so it does not appeal to me, regardless of what else it can do, in addition to that I think space would be an issue, my 1Tb box runs at about 30%, don't think the TiVo would fit what I have stored now let alone have space for more recordings.

Originally Posted by Technix

A quote from you earlier "Something wrong somewhere, it's certainly not as lack lustre as you are making out". All soaps are available on demand on VM so why record them (or even watch them at all)?

Had to record them just in case VOD didn't work - btw, the misses watches them, not me.

When VOD was working you couldn't come out of it because it wouldn't return to the point you stopped it, you had to FFW at x6, with Sky at least it remembers multiple stop points.

You'll just have to accept I had problems with V+

Originally Posted by Technix

£150, probably if you shop at M&S, I picked one up for £45 last year.

Even £45 is too much.

Originally Posted by Technix

You have to pay VM to use the V+ as would you to Sky to use the Sky+ box main features on hardware that you so importantly own - it's just as ridiculous, probably even more so because you own it.

The 1.5TB Sky box with only 1TB usabale by you, the person who owns it, is only £99 if you pay a further £123 a year, so is in fact £222 + subs.

If VM customers are spending their own money on a product they don't own it shows it's shortfalls.

[Deacon1972]

Originally Posted by martine93

How do work that out exactly ? I would say a 1TB TiVo would run at about 60%.

70% used - 30% empty space.

[Technix]

Originally Posted by Deacon1972

If that's the case then it only goes to show that not many customers had to by additional equipment to get Anytime +, not the millions you said.

It doesn't magically connect to the router, you do need extra equipment - the most messy is the cheapest where as the most convenient is expensive, whichever option the customer takes it's still an additional cost which is not needed on VM even with their 10 year old boxes.

Even if they did, what's the difference between Sky customers buying additional equipment and Virgin customers spending extra on upgrading their HDD?

The difference is you have to spend more to get what's included in your subscription. With Virgin there's other options to upgrading the V+'s HDD - the free 500GB TiVo or the free 1TB TiVo in the Premiere and VIP Collections.

For me I'd rather be able to record what appeals to me and the family, not have to rely on preloaded content.

I can do that too but I also have the option not to record stuff and have it available to me without it taking up my personal storage and have extra padding around the ends of the recordings to navigate through.

Well it's a feature I've been able to live without for many a year.

Going back to your original post, pressing rewind (0.5s) waiting 4s for it to get to the 8s mark and then pressing play (0.5s) takes around 5s to do and isn't the same as the one button press instant replay on VM, which would take 0.5s to complete. You also seemed to have changed your mind about it from a "great feature" to something useless within an hour. If it was as redundant as you're making it out to be then there would be no point to a PVR or live rewind.

Tivo has no D/EPG so it does not appeal to me, regardless of what else it can do, in addition to that I think space would be an issue, my 1Tb box runs at about 30%, don't think the TiVo would fit what I have stored now let alone have space for more recordings.

Like I said earlier: I've had no real problems with late running programmes, the most popular UK programmes are available on demand and my 1TB TiVo runs at 70% without me worrying about needing space.

SD, which also makes up the majority of channels and Anytime+ content on Sky, is MPEG2 as on Sky and doesn't take up any extra space than it would on the Sky+.

When VOD was working you couldn't come out of it because it wouldn't return to the point you stopped it, you had to FFW at x6, with Sky at least it remembers multiple stop points.

You can pick a point to start playing the VoD content on VM, unlike on Sky

Even £45 is too much.

Not as much as paying the standard prices for a 1TB Sky box (£199 + subs).

If VM customers are spending their own money on a product they don't own it shows it's shortfalls.

Not as much as owning and not being able to utilise the main features of a product that you own outright. Let's not forget the extra charges when it breaks down after a year.

[Cyclist]

Originally Posted by joshua_welby

Sky pays the channels in their Entertainment, Movies and Sports packs and the channels pay for a listing in the EPG and for the Encryption

Sky decides what channels go on their platform via the EPG fee and the deals that they make except for the FTA/FTV channels as they can deal directly with Astra and/or Eutelsat,
this also includes pay TV channels like ViewAsia, Geo TV and the like as you pay them directly, they have no relationship with Sky
only through the EPG slots that they have and the fees they have to pay for them

Virgin decides what goes on their platform full stop, it is not an open platform like Sky

Freeview channels are decided by a number of companies,
first of all is the Multiplex operator then it is the company that gives the Broadcaster the EPG LCN needed for us to be able to view and Record the channel(s)

The channels on Freesat is decided by the EPG fees this is handled by the platform operators the BBC and ITV

Thanks for clarifying billing and who controls what goes on what platform. If I have got this right Sky has adult channels whether it wants them or not, some are FTA, some are FTV, some are subscription via Sky's Livingstone call centre.

By contrast Virgin has complete control of it's channels and has no adult content whatsoever?

Where does that leave viewer choice?

Are any other categories excluded?

[GARETH197901]

Originally Posted by Cyclist

Thanks for clarifying billing and who controls what goes on what platform. If I have got this right Sky has adult channels whether it wants them or not, some are FTA, some are FTV, some are subscription via Sky's Livingstone call centre.

By contrast Virgin has complete control of it's channels and has no adult content whatsoever?

Where does that leave viewer choice?

Are any other categories excluded?

Virgin does have Adult Content,just not as much as Sky(12 channels in total.1 Preview Channel,8 Pay Per Nght Channels and 3 Subscription Based Channels,but no Babestation style channels)

[Hoop-dee-Doo]

Originally Posted by GARETH197901

Virgin does have Adult Content,just not as much as Sky(12 channels in total.1 Preview Channel,8 Pay Per Nght Channels and 3 Subscription Based Channels,but no Babestation style channels)

Virgin has more adult content than Sky. As well as the above it also offers an extensive Adult on demand library.

Channels, brands or other elements that make up the service include;

Adult Channel
Amateur Babes
Amateur (& Gonzo)
Anal
Barely Legal (AKA Barely 18 or Just 18)
Bizarre
Boy/Girl
British Filth (AKA UK Filth)
Couples
Czech Stars
Domination
Erotic Series
Exotic (AKA Ethnic)
Extreme
Foreign (AKA International)
Gay
Gay & Lesbian
Girl on Girl (AKA Lesbian)
Group Sex (AKA Orgies)
High budget and parodies (AKA Parodies)
Hustler TV UK
Kink & Fetish (AKA Fetish)
Late Night Movies
Late night series
Mature wives (AKA Wives)
MILFS (AKA Mature Women)
Muscle Boys (& Leather Boys)
Playboy Girls
Playboy TV
Porn Star
Premium Porn
Pretty Boys
Reality
Reality Sex TV
Rear Action
Solo
Spice
Spice Extreme
Teens & Amateurs
TAC
TSTV
Twinks
US Movies (AKA Movies)
XXX Gay (trade)
XXX Movies
XXX Mums
XXX TV

List courtesy of ATVOD.

[GARETH197901]

Originally Posted by Hoop-dee-Doo

Virgin has more adult content than Sky. As well as the above it also offers an extensive Adult on demand library.

Channels, brands or other elements that make up the service include;

Adult Channel
Amateur Babes
Amateur (& Gonzo)
Anal
Barely Legal (AKA Barely 18 or Just 18)
Bizarre
Boy/Girl
British Filth (AKA UK Filth)
Couples
Czech Stars
Domination
Erotic Series
Exotic (AKA Ethnic)
Extreme
Foreign (AKA International)
Gay
Gay & Lesbian
Girl on Girl (AKA Lesbian)
Group Sex (AKA Orgies)
High budget and parodies (AKA Parodies)
Hustler TV UK
Kink & Fetish (AKA Fetish)
Late Night Movies
Late night series
Mature wives (AKA Wives)
MILFS (AKA Mature Women)
Muscle Boys (& Leather Boys)
Playboy Girls
Playboy TV
Porn Star
Premium Porn
Pretty Boys
Reality
Reality Sex TV
Rear Action
Solo
Spice
Spice Extreme
Teens & Amateurs
TAC
TSTV
Twinks
US Movies (AKA Movies)
XXX Gay (trade)
XXX Movies
XXX Mums
XXX TV

List courtesy of ATVOD.

I Was commenting on Linear Channels not VOD

[Technix]

Originally Posted by Deacon1972

Lets face it, you don't know how many have bought wireless adaptors.

As promised here is the link from January:

http://corporate.sky.com/media/press...ncreased_reach

Only 1 million homes are connected and today's announcement says they've still only surpassed 1m connected boxes 7 months on. This repesents only 10% of their customer base compared to Virgin's 100%. It's highly unlikely that all of the 10% connected their STB with Sky's £60 rip-off wireless sender.

[MojoMaster]

It's funny that most people are digressing from the fact that Tivo isn't as great as it's made out to be.

[real world]

Originally Posted by MojoMaster

It's funny that most people are digressing from the fact that Tivo isn't as great as it's made out to be.

Will you head off back to the Sky forum now as you have no grasp of reality. They installed the TiVo millionth customer yesterday so somebody must like ir

[MojoMaster]

Originally Posted by real world

Will you head off back to the Sky forum now as you have no grasp of reality. They installed the TiVo millionth customer yesterday so somebody must like ir

It's a shame Virgin couldn't afford anyone a bit better than Martin Kemp to deliver it! Sky can't be charging them that much for the their channels surely?

[real world]

Originally Posted by MojoMaster

It's a shame Virgin couldn't afford anyone a bit better than Martin Kemp to deliver it! Sky can't be charging them that much for the their channels surely?

Usain bolt, David tenant and Stephen fry cost a fair bit though!

Also if you read the press release you would have found out that the customer was a fan of soaps and particularly Martin Kemp.

But hey looking at your previous posts it would be daft of me to expect you to let facts get in the way of what you want to believe.

[SC03OTT]

PMSL.

"They see me trollin', they hatin'...

[MojoMaster]

Originally Posted by real world

Usain bolt, David tenant and Stephen fry cost a fair bit though!

Also if you read the press release you would have found out that the customer was a fan of soaps and particularly Martin Kemp.

But hey looking at your previous posts it would be daft of me to expect you to let facts get in the way of what you want to believe.

Instead of spending out silly money on those adverts, perhaps they would be better served by spending some money to improve the channel line up?

Surely most of their customers would prefer that? If they are honest with themselves.

[Rorschach]

Originally Posted by MojoMaster

Instead of spending out silly money on those adverts, perhaps they would be better served by spending some money to improve the channel line up?

Surely most of their customers would prefer that? If they are honest with themselves.

Is there any way, any way at all, that I and others can convince you we really, really don't want Ahlebait TV, Babe Guide, Faith World TV and Holiday + Cruise?

[BrianTheLion]

Originally Posted by Rorschach

Is there any way, any way at all, that I and others can convince you we really, really don't want Ahlebait TV, Babe Guide, Faith World TV and Holiday + Cruise?

Regardless of whether you would watch them or not, are not just a little bit annoyed that there are almost as many missing channels as there are actual channels on the Virgin EPG?

It's a simple case of "More bang for your buck!"

[Technix]

Not if it's just those 3rd rate, low bitrate, religious, foreign, shopping and slappers on sofas you're talking about. Almost all of the channels you painfully and pointlessly listed are nothing to do with a Sky TV subscription so your quote about them being more bang for your buck is plain ridiculous. If I or any other VM TV customer was desperate for Ahlebait TV or Babestation we could get them by bypassing Sky.