NW
I puprosely set the setting on my parent's box, it's the box itself that changes the setting for some reason. I know what you mean Brekkie I admit to doing that at other people's houses.
Brekkie Boy posted:
It's not just parents - very few shops ever have their widescreen TV's set up correctly!
It's one thing that really bugs me - I'm always correcting the settings on peoples TV's when they're not looking!
It's one thing that really bugs me - I'm always correcting the settings on peoples TV's when they're not looking!
I puprosely set the setting on my parent's box, it's the box itself that changes the setting for some reason. I know what you mean Brekkie I admit to doing that at other people's houses.
OH
What on earth are you talking about? What does Sky offer that Virgin Media doesn't?
VM has cable broadband with consistently higher download speeds than the "up to 16Mb" service offered through ADSL; as with all ADSL services, you're lucky to ever get close to that
VM offers the Sky premium channels at a lower price than Sky itself
VM has VOD services available to all customers, and some premium VOD services including pay-per-view
VM customer service is extremely good (and indeed Telewest customer service that I personally used was also consistently impressive for the eight years that I used the service before that; though I accept that ntl was much much poorer on that front)
A VM contract doesn't require you to buy your equipment up front, and also includes any maintenance costs as part of your monthly contract; Sky requires you to pay for the box, and pay for maintenance visits and equipment replacements
Sky has scores more channels, but most of these additional channels are shopping or music channels which add little value to the service, and really aren't missed on VM
The only real lead that Sky has over VM is on HD services, which on VM are an absolute joke at the moment.
I'm absolutely stunned at Sky's current arrogance, in presuming that they can bully a competitor into paying such a huge premium for their channels, or else remove them, and in additionally planning to remove their channels from the Freeview platform in favour of charging people on DTT to watch them.
Sky obviously realises that the majority of people won't care who said this and who did that behind the scenes, and that most Virgin Media customers will simply hurl abuse at VM for removing the channels rather than consider Sky's underhand anti-competitive bullying tactics, and yes, they will win some customers from VM as a result of these aggressive actions.
The only party who really loses out in all this is the viewer, as the more people who defect to an increasingly powerful, influential and abusive BSkyB, the stronger that bully gets, and the more Sky will feel that they have a right to dictate how the broadcasting landscape is shaped.
It really is about time Sky was put in its place - I can't honestly understand how OFCOM can accept this kind of activity as being acceptable for such a powerful organisation.
For once (lol) I whole heartily agree with 100% everything BBCLDN has said.
Elegantly put and totally correct.
I did mention many pages back about Sky's plans to introduce charging for its 'channels' on DTT, removing them from Cable and leaving them only on Sky.
This will only harm Sky, its amount of viewers and the uptake of 'Freeview.'
What I find more interesting is whether VM will now pull all its channels from Sky! If that's what they got to do to get some action out of Ofcom I totally agree with them using that tactic.
Sky One is not what is used to be and this is reflected in the ever decreasing ratings for the channel. Sky News was the best news channel but even Sky have managed to fudge that aswell. The only good thing was Sky Sports News and all pubs across Britain who were bullied into paying huge premiums for SKy Sports 1,2,3 (many thousands of pounds per pub in some cases) resorted to broadcasting Sky Sports News instead - not they wont be able to show anything!
Sky really is cutting off it's nose to spite it's face here and will come out so much worse than anyone else from the deals.
ohwhatanight
Founding member
BBC LDN posted:
BBriscoe posted:
This could be a disaster for Virgin Media. I know it I was still a customer I'd be switching straight over to sky.
Luckily, I saw the light over a year ago and made the switch then from NTL to Sky. They offer a much better package, and their customer service is....well they have customer service!
Come on all you Virgin Media customers, see the light and make the switch to sky!!
Luckily, I saw the light over a year ago and made the switch then from NTL to Sky. They offer a much better package, and their customer service is....well they have customer service!
Come on all you Virgin Media customers, see the light and make the switch to sky!!
What on earth are you talking about? What does Sky offer that Virgin Media doesn't?
VM has cable broadband with consistently higher download speeds than the "up to 16Mb" service offered through ADSL; as with all ADSL services, you're lucky to ever get close to that
VM offers the Sky premium channels at a lower price than Sky itself
VM has VOD services available to all customers, and some premium VOD services including pay-per-view
VM customer service is extremely good (and indeed Telewest customer service that I personally used was also consistently impressive for the eight years that I used the service before that; though I accept that ntl was much much poorer on that front)
A VM contract doesn't require you to buy your equipment up front, and also includes any maintenance costs as part of your monthly contract; Sky requires you to pay for the box, and pay for maintenance visits and equipment replacements
Sky has scores more channels, but most of these additional channels are shopping or music channels which add little value to the service, and really aren't missed on VM
The only real lead that Sky has over VM is on HD services, which on VM are an absolute joke at the moment.
I'm absolutely stunned at Sky's current arrogance, in presuming that they can bully a competitor into paying such a huge premium for their channels, or else remove them, and in additionally planning to remove their channels from the Freeview platform in favour of charging people on DTT to watch them.
Sky obviously realises that the majority of people won't care who said this and who did that behind the scenes, and that most Virgin Media customers will simply hurl abuse at VM for removing the channels rather than consider Sky's underhand anti-competitive bullying tactics, and yes, they will win some customers from VM as a result of these aggressive actions.
The only party who really loses out in all this is the viewer, as the more people who defect to an increasingly powerful, influential and abusive BSkyB, the stronger that bully gets, and the more Sky will feel that they have a right to dictate how the broadcasting landscape is shaped.
It really is about time Sky was put in its place - I can't honestly understand how OFCOM can accept this kind of activity as being acceptable for such a powerful organisation.
For once (lol) I whole heartily agree with 100% everything BBCLDN has said.
Elegantly put and totally correct.
I did mention many pages back about Sky's plans to introduce charging for its 'channels' on DTT, removing them from Cable and leaving them only on Sky.
This will only harm Sky, its amount of viewers and the uptake of 'Freeview.'
What I find more interesting is whether VM will now pull all its channels from Sky! If that's what they got to do to get some action out of Ofcom I totally agree with them using that tactic.
Sky One is not what is used to be and this is reflected in the ever decreasing ratings for the channel. Sky News was the best news channel but even Sky have managed to fudge that aswell. The only good thing was Sky Sports News and all pubs across Britain who were bullied into paying huge premiums for SKy Sports 1,2,3 (many thousands of pounds per pub in some cases) resorted to broadcasting Sky Sports News instead - not they wont be able to show anything!
Sky really is cutting off it's nose to spite it's face here and will come out so much worse than anyone else from the deals.
SE
What I find more interesting is whether VM will now pull all its channels from Sky! If that's what they got to do to get some action out of Ofcom I totally agree with them using that tactic.
They can't they've previously renegotiated with Sky on carriage for Living, Bravo, Challenge etc, and it was at a much reduced (and realistic) rate I understand. They don't have that as a bargaining tool anymore.
Square Eyes
Founding member
ohwhatanight posted:
What I find more interesting is whether VM will now pull all its channels from Sky! If that's what they got to do to get some action out of Ofcom I totally agree with them using that tactic.
They can't they've previously renegotiated with Sky on carriage for Living, Bravo, Challenge etc, and it was at a much reduced (and realistic) rate I understand. They don't have that as a bargaining tool anymore.
BR
The ironic thing is knowing all the times TV companies have complained about how Sky has treated them when it comes to putting them on the satellite platform and OFCOM have let Sky off, knowing OFCOM it wouldn't surprise me at all if Sky make a complaint about Virgin and Virgin get done for it!
OH
What I find more interesting is whether VM will now pull all its channels from Sky! If that's what they got to do to get some action out of Ofcom I totally agree with them using that tactic.
They can't they've previously renegotiated with Sky on carriage for Living, Bravo, Challenge etc, and it was at a much reduced (and realistic) rate I understand. They don't have that as a bargaining tool anymore.
Im sure there are things VM could do - like rename all its channels VM Living , VM Bravo etc and say to Sky that the contract doesnt include these new channels and the previous incarnations cease broadcasting.
If they really wanted to there are ways and means around anything!
ohwhatanight
Founding member
Square Eyes posted:
ohwhatanight posted:
What I find more interesting is whether VM will now pull all its channels from Sky! If that's what they got to do to get some action out of Ofcom I totally agree with them using that tactic.
They can't they've previously renegotiated with Sky on carriage for Living, Bravo, Challenge etc, and it was at a much reduced (and realistic) rate I understand. They don't have that as a bargaining tool anymore.
Im sure there are things VM could do - like rename all its channels VM Living , VM Bravo etc and say to Sky that the contract doesnt include these new channels and the previous incarnations cease broadcasting.
If they really wanted to there are ways and means around anything!
OH
Could you explain the portion in BOLD Andrew?
Thanks.
ohwhatanight
Founding member
24:7 posted:
Wow, so none of the Sky channels will be availible on Virgin soon,
ut if you choose to have them you can.
Sorry if already mentioned.
Could you explain the portion in BOLD Andrew?
Thanks.
DJ
Virgin have setup a website about the Sky channels being pulled and want people to leave their views
I love this one "tom sowerby from cleveland says:
never watch any sky programs murdoch can stick his sky"
www.virginmedia.com/fairplay
I love this one "tom sowerby from cleveland says:
never watch any sky programs murdoch can stick his sky"
www.virginmedia.com/fairplay
WI
william
Founding member
Can anyone answer me this..
Given Sky News is transmitted FTA (not just FTV, but free to air without encryption or needing a viewing card) - does that mean Sky have effectively surrendered their right to control what platforms its broadcast on. i.e. if Virgin choose to carry it - what could they do? (well obviously I suppose it depends where Virgin physically acquire the feed from in the first place, but you see what I mean)
I note SSN *does* need a viewing card.
Given Sky News is transmitted FTA (not just FTV, but free to air without encryption or needing a viewing card) - does that mean Sky have effectively surrendered their right to control what platforms its broadcast on. i.e. if Virgin choose to carry it - what could they do? (well obviously I suppose it depends where Virgin physically acquire the feed from in the first place, but you see what I mean)
I note SSN *does* need a viewing card.
RB
I know it sounds silly but have you tried altering the Screen Settings on your STB? Pratically when all STB's are first installed they keep it on 4:3 Normal and let you change it.
On my parents' Widescreen TV they have it on 16:9 Widescreen but it often goes into Letterbox or 4:3 Normal mode. I have a Widescreen TV and the same setting and it never happens to me, yet we have the same model of STB, albeit mine has a Cable & Wireless logo stamped over it.
You're dead right. I did set up the STB correctly at first but had to switch it off at the plug recently. Then it went back to its original settings and I hadn't realised. I am a fool!
nwtv2003 posted:
RB posted:
The signal that Virgin/NTL's been pumping into my home has had the wrong ratios for ages.
They've never been good.
Everything's just 4:3 with the bits on either side just chopped off.
Is this the same everywhere? Sorry if it's been mentioned elsewhere in the thread.
They've never been good.
Everything's just 4:3 with the bits on either side just chopped off.
Is this the same everywhere? Sorry if it's been mentioned elsewhere in the thread.
I know it sounds silly but have you tried altering the Screen Settings on your STB? Pratically when all STB's are first installed they keep it on 4:3 Normal and let you change it.
On my parents' Widescreen TV they have it on 16:9 Widescreen but it often goes into Letterbox or 4:3 Normal mode. I have a Widescreen TV and the same setting and it never happens to me, yet we have the same model of STB, albeit mine has a Cable & Wireless logo stamped over it.
You're dead right. I did set up the STB correctly at first but had to switch it off at the plug recently. Then it went back to its original settings and I hadn't realised. I am a fool!