|
||||||||
New Channels |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#76 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Edinburgh / Scotland
Posts: 2,773
|
That is correct. To get all Sky's HD channels requires the HD pack at £10.25pm (subscription to their World pack also required) for movies and sports channels in HD of course and for that you also get Cinemagic HD and their 3D channel thrown in. Thanks for the info about the Premium HD pack. I wasn't sure what that covered but for £7pm for only the sports and movies, it doesn't seem a good deal compared with Sky's £10.25 which covers ALL HD channels.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#77 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gtr Manchester
Posts: 2,314
|
Quote:
However in the eyes of a number of consumers they do? As has been said before they have the same % of customers in their footprint as Sky do in theirs.
If its the latter would population density not skew the resulting figures ? |
|
|
|
|
|
#78 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 249
|
Quote:
I'm interested in this, when you say the same are you comparing specific footprint areas (example Greater Manchester) or the overall footprints in general.
If its the latter would population density not skew the resulting figures ? If you look at both companies results you will see the following. VM have 4.8 million customers from the 12 million homes they pass and Sky have 10.6 million customers from the 26 million homes that they could take their services. Therefore, VM has 40% penetration into possible homes that they pass and Sky has 40% penetration into the homes they could serve. However Sky does not have Virgin as a competitor in half the country whereas Virgin does have Sky as a competitor in all the areas it operates |
|
|
|
|
|
#79 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gtr Manchester
Posts: 2,314
|
Quote:
No here is the detail
If you look at both companies results you will see the following. VM have 4.8 million customers from the 12 million homes they pass and Sky have 10.6 million customers from the 26 million homes that they could take their services. Therefore, VM has 40% penetration into possible homes that they pass and Sky has 40% penetration into the homes they could serve. However Sky does not have Virgin as a competitor in half the country whereas Virgin does have Sky as a competitor in all the areas it operates
|
|
|
|
|
|
#80 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 10
|
Quote:
No here is the detail
If you look at both companies results you will see the following. VM have 4.8 million customers from the 12 million homes they pass and Sky have 10.6 million customers from the 26 million homes that they could take their services. Therefore, VM has 40% penetration into possible homes that they pass and Sky has 40% penetration into the homes they could serve. However Sky does not have Virgin as a competitor in half the country whereas Virgin does have Sky as a competitor in all the areas it operates Say's a lot for Sky's quality I guess. I mean from what I've read Sky is the UK's largest triple pay provider. |
|
|
|
|
|
#81 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 119
|
On the large estate where I live EVERY SINGLE property is wired up and ready for cable whereas it takes a lot more effort (and hassle) to have Sky installed.
As each year goes by I notice more and more Sky dishes being installed. I'm sure there are many many similar estates up and down the UK where the situation is similar. |
|
|
|
|
|
#82 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 2,530
|
Quote:
I mean from what I've read Sky is the UK's largest triple pay provider.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#83 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 2,530
|
Just reading a post Ben has linked to in the V+HD forum: Quote:
... as we launch more channels in the forthcoming months.
http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/...D/td-p/1310097Confirmation we're getting more channels very soon? |
|
|
|
|
|
#84 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Edinburgh / Scotland
Posts: 2,773
|
Quote:
On the large estate where I live EVERY SINGLE property is wired up and ready for cable whereas it takes a lot more effort (and hassle) to have Sky installed.
As each year goes by I notice more and more Sky dishes being installed. I'm sure there are many many similar estates up and down the UK where the situation is similar. At the moment there are around 100+ Sky dishes in my street alone and still more are being installed on a regular basis. |
|
|
|
|
|
#85 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 249
|
[quote=Technix;61171324]It took them 6 years to become that and it's not surprising as it sounds with their larger number of customers. Triple play penetration in cable homes is still higher than in Sky homes.[/QUOTE
yes Sky circa 30% and VM circa 60%. Its amazing that Sky customers come on here and can't stand that VM are doing great so have to find all sorts of excuses to put the down. Truly amazing |
|
|
|
|
|
#86 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 249
|
Quote:
Not all those homes can get Sky though an when you think even though in 12 million home where people caan get 100Mb broadband and TiVo quite a lot still choose Sky.
Say's a lot for Sky's quality I guess. I mean from what I've read Sky is the UK's largest triple pay provider. Work ou the math above and you will see why |
|
|
|
|
|
#87 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Edinburgh / Scotland
Posts: 2,773
|
[quote=real world;61171829] Quote:
It took them 6 years to become that and it's not surprising as it sounds with their larger number of customers. Triple play penetration in cable homes is still higher than in Sky homes.[/QUOTE
yes Sky circa 30% and VM circa 60%. Its amazing that Sky customers come on here and can't stand that VM are doing great so have to find all sorts of excuses to put the down. Truly amazing |
|
|
|
|
|
#88 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Edinburgh / Scotland
Posts: 2,773
|
The fact IS that for many, Sky is better value with better content. It certainly IS for me. £84.50pm gets me top package (including upto 20Meg BB )
The point I was trying to make is that I used to pay £21.50 for 10Meg from VM and I now get 18Meg from Sky for £7.50 + £12.25 for line rental. So i'm paying £84.50 for the complete package but it would cost me £82 from VM for their TV package alone. I get a far better deal with Sky. simple |
|
|
|
|
|
#89 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,834
|
Quote:
You do that math and tell me who gets the better deal. £64 for the world package from Sky and £82 to get around the same from VM (BB and Phone NOT included )
|
|
|
|
|
|
#90 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Edinburgh / Scotland
Posts: 2,773
|
I went onto the VM site and chose what I wanted and it came to £80.25 including Premium HD and Cinemagic HD along with the £5pm for Tivo.
Sky Sports pack Movies Pack Tivo 1TB box sub Sky Premium HD Cine magic HD and your XL TV pack is what I chose ok. |
|
|
|
|
|
#91 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 249
|
Quote:
The fact IS that for many, Sky is better value with better content. It certainly IS for me. £84.50pm gets me top package (including upto 20Meg BB )
The point I was trying to make is that I used to pay £21.50 for 10Meg from VM and I now get 18Meg from Sky for £7.50 + £12.25 for line rental. So i'm paying £84.50 for the complete package but it would cost me £82 from VM for their TV package alone. I get a far better deal with Sky. simple The point I an making is that all of the VM customers could probably get Sky if they wanted to but dont. However as VM only cover half the country there could be Sky customers who want VM but can't have it as there is no network So i don't undertand what you are gaining by posting in te cale forums all the time |
|
|
|
|
|
#92 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Guisborough, North Yorkshire
Posts: 2,878
|
Quote:
It took them 6 years to become that and it's not surprising as it sounds with their larger number of customers. Triple play penetration in cable homes is still higher than in Sky homes.
Quote:
The fact IS that for many, Sky is better value with better content. It certainly IS for me. £84.50pm gets me top package (including upto 20Meg BB )
The point I was trying to make is that I used to pay £21.50 for 10Meg from VM and I now get 18Meg from Sky for £7.50 + £12.25 for line rental. So i'm paying £84.50 for the complete package but it would cost me £82 from VM for their TV package alone. I get a far better deal with Sky. simple Also you mention the 10Meg BB, which now has been doubled to so you get 20Meg, so you are actually getting a slower speed than you would be with Virgin. I have no idea how you are getting a figure that high for TV, I can only guess that that you have got the rip-off Sky packages on there too. The cost of them cannot be blamed on VM, as the prices are set by Sky. Even with 60Meg BB, XL TV, Talk Unlimited Call plan, line rental and one TiVo 1TB box I can only get it up to £70. Down to £66.90 pm with an extra V HD box too. For me to switch to Sky for TV and BB (getting an inferior service), I would have to pay a lot more than I do now. I would have to have the Entertainment Extra pack to get the same channels that I already watch. I would have to pay Sky £35 to get the TV that is comparable then also the line rental cost (installation cost too, I do not have one, and you can't get broadband without one) with phone call costs on top of that too. For £36.50 I get both TV and Broadband, so for me VM is a better deal. Even if I did go to Sky I would only get the TV. I will not use their inferior internet service. |
|
|
|
|
#93 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,996
|
I think so long as you are are not a premium sports subscriber Virgin's HD channel offer is now really very good indeed.
And now that MediaBoy has confirmed the extra ITV HD channels are definitely launching in October it will get even better. |
|
|
|
|
|
#94 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Edinburgh / Scotland
Posts: 2,773
|
Fair enough. Both services have their good and bad points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#95 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,996
|
Quote:
Fair enough. Both services have their good and bad points.
But it's good news the ITV HD channels are certainly launching in October, I think MediaBoy also said there is a chance some other SD channels may launch as well and maybe even Sky Atlantic. |
|
|
|
|
|
#96 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Guisborough, North Yorkshire
Posts: 2,878
|
I just wish they would hurry up and announce it officially and tell us what package they are going to be on. No point in me getting a V HD box for them if I need the XL TV pack.
|
|
|
|
|
#97 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Edinburgh / Scotland
Posts: 2,773
|
Quote:
Yeah. A lot of people have got TV from Sky, but have got their phone and broadband from another provider.
It is for you. But there are plenty of others who do not want half of the stuff you do. Also you mention the 10Meg BB, which now has been doubled to so you get 20Meg, so you are actually getting a slower speed than you would be with Virgin. I have no idea how you are getting a figure that high for TV, I can only guess that that you have got the rip-off Sky packages on there too. The cost of them cannot be blamed on VM, as the prices are set by Sky. Even with 60Meg BB, XL TV, Talk Unlimited Call plan, line rental and one TiVo 1TB box I can only get it up to £70. Down to £66.90 pm with an extra V HD box too. For me to switch to Sky for TV and BB (getting an inferior service), I would have to pay a lot more than I do now. I would have to have the Entertainment Extra pack to get the same channels that I already watch. I would have to pay Sky £35 to get the TV that is comparable then also the line rental cost (installation cost too, I do not have one, and you can't get broadband without one) with phone call costs on top of that too. For £36.50 I get both TV and Broadband, so for me VM is a better deal. Even if I did go to Sky I would only get the TV. I will not use their inferior internet service. |
|
|
|
|
|
#98 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,834
|
Quote:
Yes I included SS and SM with their Premium HD pack and Cinemagic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#99 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,834
|
Checked the diagnostics menu on TiVo and noticed the Total Services aka Total Channels have increased from 421 to 423.
Maybe it is Sky Sports News HD and Sky News HD or CBS Drama and Sony Movies ? |
|
|
|
|
|
#100 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,102
|
would like Disney HD
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:23.




