Virgin/Freeview tie-up

Discussion in 'TiVo Series 1 - UK' started by Krautrocker, Jan 8, 2010.

  1. regdor

    regdor New Member

    29
    0
    Jun 22, 2006

    Advertisements

    Seems to me the average household just sees the £40ish a month subscription for sky/cable/phone/broadband as an ESSENTIAL utility bill that along with £30 per month for each family member's mobile they just accept without any thought whatsoever. Just shows how rich the average family is in the UK!!
     
  2. Pete77

    Pete77 New Member

    7,968
    0
    Aug 1, 2006
    Not Far...
    Then they are clearly mistaken as its quite easy to make to do without Sky and still have plenty of tv to watch and I seem to run my Asda Mobile mobile phone for about £35 a year of calling credit.

    Actually the typical UK household is pretty broke and it is their gullibility for paying huge amounts for Sky and a mobile that is one of the main reasons.

    You will note that both Sky and the mobile companies deploy the free equipment and only £30 to £40 per month con as a form of disguised pricing because if people were asked for £350 to £500 up front they simply wouldn't agree to pay it.
     
  3. iankb

    iankb New Member

    6,468
    0
    Oct 9, 2000
    Reading, UK
    The main reason for having loads of satellite channels seems to be to find a programme to watch on one of those days when there is hardly anything to watch on the terrestrial channels.

    If you have a PVR with several tuners and a large amount of storage space, to record all of the conflicts that occur, and to supply a large collection of varied recordings when there isn't much else on the terrestrial channels, you don't really need a large number of channels at all. You should aim to record at least twice as much as you would ever expect to watch, so you can treat your PVR as your personal video-on-demand server.

    Sky is remarkably easy to live without.
     
  4. cwaring

    cwaring VM Tivo User

    9,015
    0
    Feb 11, 2002
    Knaresboroug...
    Unless you want the channels you can't get without having Sky/Virgin, of course.

    Me too; possibly less, but then I'm a household of one who doesn't use his mobile much, whereas I suspect that regdor was referring to your 'average' 3 or 4 person family.
     
  5. Pete77

    Pete77 New Member

    7,968
    0
    Aug 1, 2006
    Not Far...

    Advertisements

    Except of course for those who need to watch Premier League Football, top rugby games or test cricket. And that is the principal explanation as to why Sky so successfully manages to retain its current pay tv stranglehold.
     
  6. iankb

    iankb New Member

    6,468
    0
    Oct 9, 2000
    Reading, UK
    There are other programmes with the same level of intellectual content, such as Eastenders, Coronation Street, and the Teletubbies. :p
     
  7. Pete77

    Pete77 New Member

    7,968
    0
    Aug 1, 2006
    Not Far...
    I think these households are likely to be paying £300 or so per person if they have two older adults and two teenage children and prove as gullible and as poor at basic maths as about 50% of the adult population seem to be.
     
  8. Pete77

    Pete77 New Member

    7,968
    0
    Aug 1, 2006
    Not Far...
    So you are apparently suggesting to TCM2007 (a well known Rugby fanatic) that his program tastes must mainly be in the same area as Eastenders and Coronation Street area?;):p

    Now I personally absolutely detest both football and Rugby but I think there are quite a few died in the wool fans of each game who will utterly deny they are precisely the same people who watch Coronation Street or Eastenders. Apart from anything else I think you will find that a much higher percentage of the female population of this country has a propensity to watch these well known UK Soaps compared to football or Rugby........
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements