DS Forums

 
 

New Channels


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 15-09-2012, 12:52
XxBlaKOuTZxX
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.
XxBlaKOuTZxX is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 15-09-2012, 13:58
ShaunW
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gtr Manchester
Posts: 2,314
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.
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 ?
ShaunW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2012, 15:53
real world
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 249
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 ?
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
real world is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2012, 08:48
ShaunW
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gtr Manchester
Posts: 2,314
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
Thanks for taking the time to clarify.
ShaunW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2012, 09:10
UB40bigfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 10
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
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.
UB40bigfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2012, 09:38
RileyScott
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.
RileyScott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2012, 10:18
Technix
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 2,530
I mean from what I've read Sky is the UK's largest triple pay provider.
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.
Technix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2012, 10:43
Technix
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 2,530
Just reading a post Ben has linked to in the V+HD forum:

... as we launch more channels in the forthcoming months.
http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/...D/td-p/1310097

Confirmation we're getting more channels very soon?
Technix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2012, 11:03
XxBlaKOuTZxX
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Edinburgh / Scotland
Posts: 2,773
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.
It used to be the same in my area. Sky dishes weren't allowed but when the rules where changed (we fought for that and it took ages) then there used to be Sky installation vans around here everyday (still going on now).
At the moment there are around 100+ Sky dishes in my street alone and still more are being installed on a regular basis.
XxBlaKOuTZxX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2012, 11:08
real world
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
real world is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2012, 11:12
real world
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 249
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.
Is that a fact or a belief, fact is VM compete very healthilywit Sky in the areas they cover and if they had a product covering the whole of the uk, they could potentially have more customers.

Work ou the math above and you will see why
real world is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2012, 12:07
XxBlaKOuTZxX
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Edinburgh / Scotland
Posts: 2,773
[quote=real world;61171829]
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
All because I mentioned that I thought VM customers were getting a bum deal when it came to HD channels. I had no intention of putting VM down at all. All I did was compare how much it would cost me to get the same channels on VM that I get from Sky. 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)
XxBlaKOuTZxX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2012, 12:11
XxBlaKOuTZxX
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
XxBlaKOuTZxX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2012, 12:26
martine93
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,834
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 )
People don't just get TV now a days so that comparison means nothing and is also wrong because it is £75.25 not £80.25
martine93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2012, 12:36
XxBlaKOuTZxX
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.
XxBlaKOuTZxX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2012, 12:53
real world
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 249
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
ok you made your point but you are posting in a cable forum where the majority of peope are happy with their lot.

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
real world is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2012, 12:58
R410
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Guisborough, North Yorkshire
Posts: 2,878
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.
Yeah. A lot of people have got TV from Sky, but have got their phone and broadband from another provider.

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
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.
R410 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2012, 13:00
mersey70
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.
mersey70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2012, 13:02
XxBlaKOuTZxX
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Edinburgh / Scotland
Posts: 2,773
Fair enough. Both services have their good and bad points.
XxBlaKOuTZxX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2012, 13:38
mersey70
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,996
Fair enough. Both services have their good and bad points.
Exactly bud, it's horses for courses what the individual wants. Nobody can generally say a service is better than the other.

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.
mersey70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2012, 14:00
R410
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.
R410 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2012, 14:30
XxBlaKOuTZxX
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Edinburgh / Scotland
Posts: 2,773
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.
Yes I included SS and SM with their Premium HD pack and Cinemagic.
XxBlaKOuTZxX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2012, 14:40
martine93
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,834
Yes I included SS and SM with their Premium HD pack and Cinemagic.
Disney Cinemagic is actually included in the Sky Movies pack.
martine93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2012, 16:30
martine93
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 ?
martine93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2012, 17:12
gillyallan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,102
would like Disney HD
gillyallan is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:23.