Not really news, and that next few months line was last seen...er...a few months ago. Those still on VM not already signed up to Sky HD are advised not to restrict their respiration waiting in anticipation...
UPDATE: This from an interesting thread on Cable Forum. Aaron emailed Berkett about his promise of HD channels in the next few months (Dec 08) and got this reply:
"No I was referring to HD channels which was absolutely our intention. We are negotiating as we speak and will be launching 6 or seven channels at once shortlyBe still my beating heart...deep breaths...
Neil Berkett | Chief Executive Officer
Virgin Media"
36 comments:
"at once shortly" in the history of the company strikes me as the words of either a very confident man about to magic these channels out of virtually nowhere to many cheesed off viewers or the words of a pathological liar. We'll find out which one it is "shortly", or will we :-D.
The way I'm interpreting it is -
"We are negotiating as we speak and will be launching 6 or seven channels at once, shortly". Note the extra comma.
So when they launch the new HD channels, they will be done simultaneously rather than a staggered launch.
"Pathological liar" is a bit strong mate. I know we've all grown a bit cynical but there's no reason to resort to personal insults.
"Pathological liar" is a bit strong mate. I know we've all grown a bit cynical but there's no reason to resort to personal insults.
the thing is what dememted said is not a personal insult its just what Neil Berkett has proven himself to be after promising HD content in the past and consistantly not delivering.
going on what has happened in the past what makes anyone think that this time it will be different because i dont !!!
All I can say is that I'll believe it when I see it.
I had a Virgin man round last week to fix one of my boxes and he admitted to me that Virgin are far more focussed on on-demand content and fast broadband - he said that that was what our customers wanted, to download films and watch them on your TV or pick and choose what you want to watch via catch up TV and the like.
I told him that was rubbish, but he wouldn't accept it - he said for watching lots of HD I need to go to Sky (and this is a Virgin engineer telling me this!!).
He said that Virgin will be doing what they do best (i.e. stuff that differentiates them) as their current infrastructure isn't good enough to support multiple HD channels with the current HD encoding they use (another reason why I'll believe it when I see it).
It's not good news people...
Read the article. The clue is in the last sentence.
It is understood that additional talks are underway with a view to adding more linear HD services later this year and into 2010.
Watched the England game on ITV HD on my Dad's Sky HD last night. Picture was absolutely brialliant, well done ITV HD. Can't believe Virgin can't even get this channel with the financial mess ITV are in!
If you can get Sky HD. Its always going to be streets ahead in HD!
I'm calling BS on this. This supposed statment is badly written to say the least - 'at once shortly'. Huh? Can Berkett even speak English? Certainly he can't be trusted to tell the truth, I'm sure we all remember the 4 new HD channels we were promised before the end of March. I'm calling it now - no more HD on Virgin Media for at least 10 years, perhaps indefinately.
Like I said, they're concentrating on their strengths (which also make them maximum profit) like broadband and on-demand content.
Just this morning I had a note through the door extolling the virtues of 'better broadband' provided by Virgin's optic fibre network.
You're right about ITV HD and the financial state of ITV though, you would think ITV would be trying to get it seen by as many people as possible - I can't help but think that there's some underlying issue that we know nothing about that's prevent VM going any further with HD.
It may be politics, it may be some technical reason or it may be a combination of the two but the broken promises of the past do nothing to instil confidence in VM's ever suffering HD subscribers...
Still no subtitles on VOD or BBC HD. 1 in 7 have hearing problems, that 1 in 7 that can't use the services that Virgin are so proud of.
Didn't the Neil Birkett email surface AM 1st April?
Why would he personally answer an individual customer and quote a different number of channels to that in the new 3-4 "coming soon" spokesperson release on the same day?
It did appear on April 1st, but if you check the OP on the Cable Forum thread it was received late afternoon. I believe the OP to be genuine, as is Berkett's response (though it may be from his office rather than him personally).
I don't know Mr Berkett nor do I know if he's ever heard of this blog. I'm not sure if he's actively involved in the negotiations for HD or (as I suspect) has delegated it. It's not unusual for a CEO to put some spin on a company's performance or plans, and I'm au fait enough with contract negotiations to know that they can be protracted beyond expectations over the smallest matter. Some of the accusations made about his character and calls for his resignation on some forums are, frankly, ridiculous.
It sounds like VM plan to introduce a handful of HD channels, possibly at an additional price. Would you pay? I feel a blog poll coming on...
Surely we are paying for it? I mean what was that extra pound for?
Can't figure out that extra pound - why just XL customers? Not all XL customers are V+ customers, so it cannot be for HD. I thought it may have been an increase passed on from Setanta
Not every XL subscriber has the V+ box, so that pound can't be for the HD channels as not everyone can access them
if we are paying or have paid for the V+ box why would we pay any more for more HD channels, surely having the V+ box entitles us to more HD channels when they become available.
"if we are paying or have paid for the V+ box why would we pay any more for more HD channels, surely having the V+ box entitles us to more HD channels when they become available."
New channels they add could easily be put on any of the TV tiers (M, L, XL) or on a new tier (XXL?) or only if you pay a separate HD charge (like Sky's £10/month). You've paid the extra "installation" and are paying a monthly fee (either £5/month or included in XL TV) for the privilege of the HD capable box and recording capabilities, I don't see why you'd think that entitles you to everything they add in the future for no extra cost.
"Not every XL subscriber has the V+ box, so that pound can't be for the HD channels as not everyone can access them"
I'm sure some subscribers will always be subsidising some other subscribers. Extra charge on the XL package might really be paying for HD XL channels that not all XL viewers receive, or M channels, or anything really.
"You've paid the extra "installation" and are paying a monthly fee (either £5/month or included in XL TV) for the privilege of the HD capable box and recording capabilities, I don't see why you'd think that entitles you to everything they add in the future for no extra cost."
as you said, because we are paying or have paid for the privilage of having a HD box.
"as you said, because we are paying or have paid for the privilage of having a HD box."
And you have the HD box, and will keep it while you pay for it (or for XL). Unless you agreed to a contract that includes all future HD channels it would be really naive to think you'd get them.
The promises of what's coming "shortly" have been a bit misleading, but now you get everything they say you get now.
Actually I have a question? How many HD channels does Sky actually have? In the sense how many are just upscaled and how many are actually HD? Doesn't the V+ box upscale? In that sense couldn't we say all the channels on V+ HD?
Sky have 31 proper HD channels plus the 2 box office channels, plus some people can get ITV HD.
Contrary to popular myth of the 31, 18 are non-upscaled and an additional one is so close to 100% with exception as to be practically that. Strictly speaking BBC HD is not 100% HD as they are merely classify any programme as more than 75% HD as HD, for example the olympics had a lot of really poor quality upscaled SD in it.
So 20v1 (if you include ITV).
P.S. the v+ does upscale. It's nowhere near as good as C4HD's upscaling and a country mile away from their HD material.
Cheers Demented! That's actually very intersting that not all of the sky hd channels are hd but upscaled. If berkett is speaking the truth and he is after only full hd channels then VM may soon have a very comparable service to Sky.
I doubt it. The sorts of channels that people have talked about are included in those with a mix of upscaled/HD. So if people have a phobia of a mixed HD channel. It seems incredibly unlikely all the new HD channels would be 100%* HD.
To Alexei
All of the Sky HD channels show HD content. Some of them show upscaled material in addition, but none of them show ONLY upscaled content.
In addition, material upscaled by the broadcaster is far superior to that merely upscaled by the V+ (or Sky+HD) decoder.
There is no chance in hell that Virgin Media will have a "very comparable service to Sky" anytime soon.
I don't understand why you think a channel mixing HD content with some upscaled material is somehow not acceptable?
Hi Sirius, thanks i didnt say it was unaceptable, my response was more in line with what Berkett had said about pursuing full HD channels (not sure now where i read that as there seems to be a lot around at the min on what he is saying?). And if we had 6 or 7 full HD Channels and thanks to the info from demented Sky have 20, we will only be lagging by say 13/14 channels. Which is a good start? Unless of course were getting HD Shopping channels? Thanks.
Errr
Read the linked story from Digital Spy, it's a Virgin Media "spokesperson" who is quoted as claiming that Virgin is only interested in channels which are 100% HD, not any named source and CERTAINLY not the chief executive!
Also, where do you get 20 Sky HD channels from? The number is 31 and climbing! It doesn't matter if many of those channels mix HD with upscaled material, they are still unavailable (and likely to remain so) to Virgin customers!
I'm afraid you're falling for some very obvious Virgin Media "spin", probably compounded by some poorly written (as usual) reporting by whoever wrote the DS article.
Hi Sirius, Thank you for clearing that up. The 20 full Hd channels to which i was referring to are from Demented's Comments, where he says 18 channels are not upscaled, one is near to 100% and ITV 1 for those of sky who can receive.
I think anyone who truly believes the press releases from Virgin Media with regard to HD are sadly deluded.
I received a flyer today (so much for "paperless billing"-they send me adverts instead once a month) in which "Richard Branson" claims that "All this is possible thanks to the power of our fibre optic technology. Giving us the capacity......(to) keep offering you more. More of what you want when you want it"
Well, I think the readers of this blog have wanted a proper HD service for some considerable time and Virgin still haven't delivered the "goods"
There's no point numbering HD channels in that weird way. Many of the channels I'm desperate to have available are simulcast of SD channels, so obviously they're going to either broadcast part time or upscale the SD.
To compare properly, you'd have to count something like hours of new HD content each week, hours of repeats, hours of upscaled etc. That way you could also count VM's TVC and More VOD more fairly against linear channels (even though it's been mostly "repeats" on VOD for a while). And even then you'd probably just want to look through the schedules and see which of those things you actually want to watch!
Sky HD will probably still have orders of magnitude greater amount of HD content available of course, unless VM manage to get a HUGE library of HD VOD content (which could conceivably happen tomorrow, unlike 30 HD channels launching on VM).
if you click this and refer 14 people you can get a free ps3. im not lying my friend has done it and you only have to complete one offer
http://gifts.freebiejeebies.co.uk/58360
Ignoring the spam advert above ...
Of course the comparison is not valid, if using that "weird way" LOL!
I think we'd haqve to discount much of the HD on VOD because, not only is it repeats, but the content hasn't been refreshed for years. Until Virgin is offering Movies and (Live) Sport in HD it can NEVER be said to have a "comparable service" to Sky.
"I think we'd haqve to discount much of the HD on VOD because, not only is it repeats, but the content hasn't been refreshed for years."
If I was doing a number of hours comparison, I would include the VOD as repeats, the same as the endless repeats on BBC HD and most of the schedules of the non-Sport channels. True I'm mostly fed up with the VOD (but The Sopranos just started from the beginning again yay) but I'd be mostly fed up with most of the schedules of most of the Sky HD channels too!
"Until Virgin is offering Movies and (Live) Sport in HD it can NEVER be said to have a "comparable service" to Sky."
Well VM has some HD movies in the form of Filmflex (limited selection and only PPV, but suits me as an alternative to Sky Movies channels subscription), and occasional movies and big sports on BBC HD. If you want your live sports then there would really be no alternative to linear Sky Sports HD channels - VM should definitely offer that ASAP - but most other HD needs can be be met by a huge selection of VOD (preferably by subscription and not just PPV like existing Filmflex) which VM are more suited towards than many linear HD channels.
They definitely need to add more VOD instead of just talking about it, but I think it is only fair to count the existing VOD as "repeats" when comparing to the hours of repeats in the Sky HD channel schedules.
Two people from Virgin Media came to my house today, but I was at work and my girlfriend spoke to them and told them to come round later tonight...hopefully they will as I have a few things to get off my chest lol
They seemed to only be going around to VM Customers as they were selecting which houses to go too and they went to her mums.
When I said Movies and live sport, I obviously didn't mean anything shown by BBC HD (because that's available on Sky too) and I certainly didn't mean pay per view films (because Sky has those also and they are far too expensive).
Face it, even if Virgin actually launch "6 to 7" (fat chance) HD channels, their HD service still won't come anywhere near being "comparable" to Sky's.
I do believe that VM can have a service better than Sky (for my own and a lot of people's needs at least) if they acquire enough VOD content.
You say PPV movies are too expensive, but I maintain that watching an HD PPV movie even quite a few times each month is better value than the Sky Movie packages available on VM: http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/dtv/skymovies.html I watch a fair few that I want to see in HD and pay less than a Sky Movies subscription (especially since I'm not on XL - makes the Sky Movies subscriptions cost much, much more than PPV per film I'd actually watch). I know a lot of readers of this blog subscribe to absolutely everything and would see PPV on top of that to be too much - fair enough, but it's not THAT expensive for casual film watchers already on the cheaper subscriptions.
VM could conceivably add some sort of subscription option for all-you-can-eat VOD movies that REALLY competes with Sky Movies.
Sky definitely wins for HD content now and in the vague "coming shortly" future of VM. But VM could compete with it, even though they don't have the bandwidth for many linear HD channels, if they invest as much in VOD as they're hinting thay are. Not that I'm expecting them to have these fantastic services I'm imagining any time in the next year or two though...
Post a Comment