BT offer out dated

moviemoghul

I've done thorough research before i bought, so here we go!
Its all very well comparing pricing between BT v SKY v Virgin. But you're comparing apples with pears. There is no point in buying a sports package which is not HD. The World Cup transmission has proved this point. BT are offering a non HD Sky Sports service, to claim its a coup indicates how far off the mark they've really got. Sky have been offering its upgraded HD service (and its now a free upgrade) for over 2yrs. Virgin after its early summer deals with Sky will now show Sky Sports 1-4 and ESPN all in HD. If you're a sports fan then no doubt you'll be watching your sport on a 37"+ HD TV.
HD large screen TV's regardless of critical reviews offer a poor picture unless they get a good HD signal, otherwise you'll get motion blur. So if you dont want to miss your favourite sport (Sky the programmer can move events onto any of their 4 sport channels) then your options are SKY or VIRGIN for picture quality and coverage of sport.
BT vision is a great idea but until 50% of the country get Freeview HD transmissions your quality of picture for sport will be second rate. (its fine for all other programs)
And until BT upgrade your local telephone exchange to 10mb and above (thats their claimed 100mb exchanges which if you check out BTs own literature are currently running a year behind) then you can't get the non freeview channels -ESPN, Sky Sports, Movies, at HD quality. And even when you can, the future as BT call it (Its 8yrs past for Virgin subscribers!) will cost you a fortune. Add in a nominal £20 for all Sky sports HD + £10 for ESPN HD and BT vision may cost significantly more than the PAST offered by Virgin and SKY. Is there really a choice?

And just for those who wish to check out the authenticity of my arguement. I live in Oxford. Freeview HD is 2011-2012. BT literature stated that my local exchange Summertown was to be upgraded summer 2009, one of the first in the UK. It didn't happen. Now the upgrade is hidden amongst BT's latest literature with some 100 other exchanges (not even alphabetically listed! so you can't find it) and its supposed to happen october 2010-spring 2011. North Oxford is a synch to upgrade. It makes you wonder though. The university is one of the top 5 educational establishments in the world and we are currenly operating on 1.2mb broadband, super highway for the UK. We are so far behind the rest of Europe its not even funny!

Muhasib

that's a really long first post i have to say.

I think if you were a real sports fan though then you would be watching at the event and not on a 37" or larger tv.

I have a 32" TV and an interest in sport and find this no problem so don't agree with your assertion that i should have an even bigger screen.

Whether your local University is one of the top 5 in the world won't have an impact on consumer broadband as I would expect they get their IT network links provided by JANET.

BarGin

moviemoghul wrote: »

Virgin after its early summer deals with Sky will now show Sky Sports 1-4 and ESPN all in HD.

Virgin will only have Sky Sports 1 & 2 in HD.

http://www.sky.com/shop/sports/home/compare-sky-virginmedia/

Pete*G_4

moviemoghul wrote: »

I've done thorough research before i bought, so here we go!
Its all very well comparing pricing between BT v SKY v Virgin. But you're comparing apples with pears. There is no point in buying a sports package which is not HD. The World Cup transmission has proved this point. BT are offering a non HD Sky Sports service, to claim its a coup indicates how far off the mark they've really got. Sky have been offering its upgraded HD service (and its now a free upgrade) for over 2yrs. Virgin after its early summer deals with Sky will now show Sky Sports 1-4 and ESPN all in HD. If you're a sports fan then no doubt you'll be watching your sport on a 37"+ HD TV.
HD large screen TV's regardless of critical reviews offer a poor picture unless they get a good HD signal, otherwise you'll get motion blur. So if you dont want to miss your favourite sport (Sky the programmer can move events onto any of their 4 sport channels) then your options are SKY or VIRGIN for picture quality and coverage of sport.
BT vision is a great idea but until 50% of the country get Freeview HD transmissions your quality of picture for sport will be second rate. (its fine for all other programs)
And until BT upgrade your local telephone exchange to 10mb and above (thats their claimed 100mb exchanges which if you check out BTs own literature are currently running a year behind) then you can't get the non freeview channels -ESPN, Sky Sports, Movies, at HD quality. And even when you can, the future as BT call it (Its 8yrs past for Virgin subscribers!) will cost you a fortune. Add in a nominal £20 for all Sky sports HD + £10 for ESPN HD and BT vision may cost significantly more than the PAST offered by Virgin and SKY. Is there really a choice?

And just for those who wish to check out the authenticity of my arguement. I live in Oxford. Freeview HD is 2011-2012. BT literature stated that my local exchange Summertown was to be upgraded summer 2009, one of the first in the UK. It didn't happen. Now the upgrade is hidden amongst BT's latest literature with some 100 other exchanges (not even alphabetically listed! so you can't find it) and its supposed to happen october 2010-spring 2011. North Oxford is a synch to upgrade. It makes you wonder though. The university is one of the top 5 educational establishments in the world and we are currenly operating on 1.2mb broadband, super highway for the UK. We are so far behind the rest of Europe its not even funny!

so much rubbish in one post it's untrue. sounds like a troll to me as well, what with the long post first up and the rant for no real reason.

I didn't have an issue watching the world cup on my 37" TV in SD, granted if I'd watched a HD match and then gone to SD I'd probably have known the difference, but as I've never had HD, it made no odds. The argument that you need a 37" or larger to enjoy sports is preposterous as well - I've only recent upgraded to a 37" Bravia (that only cost me £24 plus some vouchers I earned through just doing my normal job day in day out for 2-3 months) and I never had a problem with my old 28" Samsung CRT. Truth be told, it wouldn't bother me at all if I had to go back to it, other than my lounge would be a little more cluttered again as the new TV is now wall mounted :rotfl:

We live in a non-cable area (no plans to bring it to us either as we live 15 miles form the nearest town/city), and comparing like for like, Sky was going to be £14 per month more expensive than BT, for what in real terms is exactly the same service. The channels we watch are on Freeview, other than the UFC on ESPN which I get free through BT (and would have to pay for through Sky, hence they are/were more expensive overall) and Sky Sports, which I have also factored into the equation with SS costing me £12pm through BT - near on exactly the same price it would cost me to go through Sky. The difference as you said is that I would also get SS3+4, and HD if I went through Sky, but then again as stated I've never had it so I'm not going to miss it.

If and when I feel I can no longer live without HD, I will revisit my options. Until then your argument is invalid.

Ste_C

moviemoghul wrote: »

If you're a sports fan then no doubt you'll be watching your sport on a 37"+ HD TV.

Absolute nonsense.

I've got a 21" LCD and it's fine for me. I've no desire to go HD until HD is the norm.

a27

Pete*G wrote: »

I've only recent upgraded to a 37" Bravia (that only cost me £24 plus some vouchers I earned through just doing my normal job day in day out for 2-3 months)

Please elaborate.