View Full Version : Virgin media no longer recieving sky channels
jacobzcoool
01-03-2007, 17:51
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/28/sky_scr_ws_virgin/
How long until Virgin media go bust? Bets anyone?
At least it will stop Virgin Mobile sending me 'give Richard Branson more moniez lol!11' spam :D
SiLvEr_SnAkE
01-03-2007, 18:12
A lot of people I know are moving to Sky.
The only thing is really used was SkyOne for The Simpsons and Nip/Tuck but both are downloadable so I'm not too bothered.
Yep, Sky said yesterday. If we dont get the money by midnight all BskyB channels will be disconnected. And virgin didnt pay up. So there it is. Virgin are **** anyway :)
[GPO]Solitaire
01-03-2007, 18:20
Think the channels that should be showing the Sky channels now say something like:
"Thanks to Sky some of the no-premium Sky channels, Sky One and Sky News, are no longer available. They've taken their ball and gone home."
Also Sky are dropping their channels from FreeView later in the summer too and moving them to "Top-up-TV".
nicky munchkin
01-03-2007, 18:34
The only sky channels on freeview are sky 3 which shows a few classics of futurama, sky news (bbc news is better), and sky sports news.
Good riddance...
re-enter
01-03-2007, 18:40
Yeah never liked Virgin/NTL TV, Sky's tv package was always better..
saying that i don't like virgin mobile either but the broadband i love!!!
Cosmo_1847
01-03-2007, 18:41
I don't really care cos the channels that I watch are free anyway and I don't watch any of the sky channels apart from sky movies from time to time. If I really want to see the film I will get it on DVD or go to the cinema.
Solitaire;395029']Also Sky are dropping their channels from FreeView later in the summer too and moving them to "Top-up-TV".
no they aren't... they have 'proposed' to move them to MPEG4 which would require a new box to view them. Top-up TV have nothing to do with it. This would allow them to squeeze more channels into the space and they would add some Pay-TV channels using the extra space.
this is only a proposal and requires Ofcom approval. nothing has even been submitted to ofcom yet.
Cosmo_1847
01-03-2007, 18:49
Could a firmware update on the current freeview boxes support MPEG4?
Could a firmware update on the current freeview boxes support MPEG4?
i think it would require new hardware... it's not software decoding.. it's hardware decoding.
existing boxes can't decode MPEG4
nicky munchkin
01-03-2007, 18:59
Top up TV could not suck more a$$. How many extra channels (7?) for a tenner isnt it? Get sky.
Top up TV could not suck more a$$. How many extra channels (7?) for a tenner isnt it? Get sky.
no... that is their old product. they replaced it with 'anytime' when Five took two of their streams.
they now offer a service that downloads programs overnight for your to watch the following day.
you don't actually get any channels as such, you get selected programs (that they choose) downloaded to a PVR box that is always crashing and locking up :D
'yesterdays tv tomorrow'
Sky wanted double their existing fee for Sky 1, 2, News & Sports News.
Virginmedia were willing to pay an extra 30% but Sky were not happy with that.
Fireblade
02-03-2007, 03:58
... but the broadband i love!!!
Then you'll no doubt be interested in this little snippet of info :D
It may have been in the pipeline before the fallout with Sky... but I read somewhere yesterday, they'd announced that all current 10Mb subscribers, are to get a FREE upgrade to 20Mb!!
And they plan on a offering a 50Mb service in the future :eek:
Then you'll no doubt be interested in this little snippet of info :D
It may have been in the pipeline before the fallout with Sky... but I read somewhere yesterday, they'd announced that all current 10Mb subscribers, are to get a FREE upgrade to 20Mb!!
And they plan on a offering a 50Mb service in the future :eek:
not quite what i got from the tech dept.... they are trialling 100Mb connections... well they were when they were still NTL.
same as cosmo here.... the only channels we watch here are free anyway..
i disconnected the sky box, anf fitted freeview boxes to all the tellys. fiver each down the bootsale for a boxed freeview receiver.
Sky wanted double their existing fee for Sky 1, 2, News & Sports News.
Virginmedia were willing to pay an extra 30% but Sky were not happy with that.
i've seen reports that say that Sky were settling for a 20% increase, but Virgin still didn't want to pay that.
Sky are well within their rights to charge whatever they feel is right for them. If Virgin don't like it then tough to them. They should just allow Sky direct access to charge the virgin customers direct if that particular customer wants the channel.
nicky munchkin
02-03-2007, 18:45
Whats the point in 100meg internet. There cant be a server in the world that will let you download at that speed.
Cosmo_1847
02-03-2007, 20:16
I think the idea is that you are connected to more than one. eg looking at the internet while streaming music or by having lots of users in the house.
redswipe
02-03-2007, 21:04
Sky wanted double their existing fee for Sky 1, 2, News & Sports News.
Virginmedia were willing to pay an extra 30% but Sky were not happy with that.
Sky apparently wanted 90p per month per subscriber from Virgin Media. There was a good explanation of the fallout on Guardian Online. I can't just post a link because you have to be registered to read it so here is the whole article:
"The week-long war of words between Virgin Media and bitter rival BSkyB last night culminated in the satellite broadcaster's channels, including Sky One, being pulled from 3.35 million households.
The failure of the two sides to reach a deal meant fans of shows such as Lost, 24 and Battlestar Galactica were cut off halfway through the current season.
Sky's contract to provide its basic channels - Sky One, Sky Two, Sky Sports News and Sky News - ran out at midnight without a deal in place after a dispute over price. Virgin Media plans to reshuffle its service so its new video-on-demand channel, Virgin Central, will appear on channel 120 where Sky One used to be. Cable customers will still be able to watch Sky's premium channels such as Sky Sports.
The dispute went public last week when the Virgin chief executive, Steve Burch, attacked Sky for its negotiating stance over how much Virgin pays Sky for its content. Yesterday the two companies even argued over who had orchestrated a last-minute lunchtime phone call between Sky's James Murdoch and Virgin executives Mr Burch and Jim Mooney aimed at resuscitating talks.
On the call Virgin suggested appointing an independent arbitrator to help thrash out a new deal, but demanded this process include a recent contract to supply Sky's satellite customers with channels from Virgin's content arm, Flextech.
Last month Sky secured a dramatic cut in what it pays for the channels - including Living TV - slicing Virgin's take from 40p a month per subscriber per channel to less than 10p. Sky says it is asking for just over 90p per month per subscriber for its channels. Virgin Media's chairman Mr Mooney said the company, which is £5.7bn in debt, had been "coerced" into signing the Flextech deal.
"The facts are their channels have declined in popularity, ours have increased in popularity. The facts are they are trying to double their charge to us and cut our fee," he said. "That's why they don't want to go to arbitration because the facts are so lopsided against them an arbitrator would see through that."
Sky hit back, saying: "Virgin Media has declined to re-enter talks and is now seeking to reopen existing agreements." The satellite broadcaster added that it wants to be able to sell its channels directly to cable households. Mr Burch, said that idea was "ludicrous".
Virgin Media, announcing results showing it lost 37,000 customers in the last three months of 2006, admitted the Sky switch-off could cost it more viewers.
Away from the fight over the Sky channels, Virgin yesterday announced slightly higher than expected fourth quarter revenue of £1.08bn, up from £916m in the previous year, and pledged to increase its £200m of free cashflow by at least 50% this year and again in 2008.
Virgin Mobile added a mere 11,100 customers in the last three months of 2006, traditionally one of the most buoyant periods in the industry, compared with 122,700 in the third quarter. While it gained 70,000 subscribers willing to pay monthly - up from 30,000 in the previous three months - it lost ground in the pre-pay market. Virgin used to dominate the pre-pay sector but is now concentrating on higher value contract customers."
Whats the point in 100meg internet. There cant be a server in the world that will let you download at that speed.
yes... there is... but only for those of us that pay for it.. the freeloaders won't get access...
Sky are well within their rights to charge whatever they feel is right for them.
& VirginMedia are also well within their rights to tell them to go & take a running jump at asking for double the previous price.
They should just allow Sky direct access to charge the virgin customers direct if that particular customer wants the channel.
& do Sky allow VirginMedia to charge Sky customers direct?
Going by the above it looks like Sky pay Virginmedia & then bill customers.
I wonder if the Sky customers are getting the benefit of the 75% cut ... :rolleyes:
& do Sky allow VirginMedia to charge Sky customers direct?
Going by the above it looks like Sky pay Virginmedia & then bill customers.
I wonder if the Sky customers are getting the benefit of the 75% cut ... :rolleyes:
there's no need, as virgin and sky just signed a contract for the virgin channels to be on the sky network. sky have paid virgin for their channels, why shouldn't virging pay sky for theirs.
sky are running a business, not a charity. if virgin are using the sky channels as a major part of the channel package, then they should pay for the privelidge of having them.
ps... i am neither a sky or a virgin customer. i am merely offering a neutrals opinion.
jacobzcoool
03-03-2007, 10:23
lol, I am a sky customer and glad of it, I would go mad not being able to watch the next 24 on Sunday without having to download it :p
re-enter
03-03-2007, 12:14
there's no need, as virgin and sky just signed a contract for the virgin channels to be on the sky network. sky have paid virgin for their channels, why shouldn't virging pay sky for theirs.
sky are running a business, not a charity. if virgin are using the sky channels as a major part of the channel package, then they should pay for the privelidge of having them.
ps... i am neither a sky or a virgin customer. i am merely offering a neutrals opinion.
Yeah but have you heard of a double payraise and a bit more? taking the p*ss, sky think there so good so are charging so much for their service, i don't think there even that good.
Simpsons was good when i was in school.. and lost was originally a abc/ch4 production they stole... wahoo great yeah, hope Virgin kick them in the ass with the 50mb/100mb on TV demand download service there planning.
double payraise ??
i think the quoted figure was 3p per day per customer sky were asking for.
it's quite simple. if virgin don't think that is value for money then simply don't take the channels. there was no need for the big argument and the petty channel name changing on their EPG.
if virgin customers think it IS value for money then they will either
1) complain to virgin to make them change their mind
2) leave virgin and go to sky
if virgin customers also think it's a rip-off then virgin have lost nothing as their customers have shown they don't want the channels.
no need for the big public spat.
it's clearly turned out to be a big public muscle flexing episode between two billionaires.
No one seems to appreciate the point that things like Sky are just a means of extracting money from us. If Sky hadn't bought 24, Nip/Tuck, Lost, et al. they would have been on the main networks at no extra cost to us. Instead, we have to pay extra money if we want to see them.
Are we all stupid!!! <Yes>
Sky are NOT offering a service. They are creating income for themselves by buying up what most of us would like to watch and charging us extra for it and then make us endure an almost American level of advertising to add insult to injury.
If it costs 3p per customer per day (note they did not deny they were doubling their charges) then that makes it roughly £10 per year. Does anyone really think that when this is all re-packaged and sold to us it won't be £10 per MONTH.
They repeat programmes SO MUCH, that they advertise "BRAND NEW episode" when there actually is one.
If it isn't governments taking away our freedom under some pretext or other, it's private industry making monkeys of us all. When will we ever learn:mad:
sky aren't the only company with pay-tv services though.
Virgin also have pay-tv only channels (livingtv to name just one), which they sell to sky.
HBO in america is a paytv network.
lets not forget that virgin have a monopoly on the cable network (they bought just about every other company that did have a cable network).
sky ARE offering a service, at a price - as i said, they are business. of course they set it up to make money, they didn't set it up to give everyone free tv.
regarding 3p per day... that is really up to Virigin whether they just charge their own customers the £10 per year or not. some would say if that is what sky are chargin virgin, then that is what it should cost the end-use. somehow i think virgin probably charge their customer £10 a MONTH for the channels !
you mentioned nip/tuck, lost etc etc... those are american imports. are they broadcast in america at no cost to the viewer ? or do the viewers need a cable subscription to view ? i think they do (not 100% sure though). if they do have to pay, why should we in the UK think we should be able to watch them for free ? if the Channel4 / BBC thought they would make them enough money back then they could have matched the bid from Sky. evidentally they obviously though they could not make money back on advertising revenue (in the case of channel 4). we pay for the BBC already anyway.
Reading through many posts on the Virgin newsgroups not many are bothered by sky removing the channels ... Only sky 1 seems of any interest and with repeat after repeat it is no big loss .... Virgin gave Sky a 75% price cut for its services which had an increase in viewers and then Sky wanted double the original price for there channels which had been losing audiences ....
I think Sky will lose a lot advertising revenue but I think and they hope viewers will jump ship from VM to Sky. Sky prob has better TV but Vigins fibre optic hardware is far better. The amount of freezing of pics you get with Sky is quite a lot especially if you have the odd storm. Internet wise Skys is very poor in general compared to Blueyonder\VM
In the end you make your own mind up but I am glad VM would not be blackmailed into paying. Who do you trust more Murdoch or Branson? lol
Regards
[GPO]Solitaire
05-03-2007, 13:29
Branson is a spoilsport!!
The Tech Dept at Virgin media were puting funny / slagging messages on the old Sky channels and EPG regarding Sky (Sky Snooze and Sky Sports Snooze as Virgin has branded the empty channel spaces on the cable electronic programme guide.)! He got them to remove all the messages and put the "Picked up the ball and went home" message insted :(
Also late on Friday Virgin Media says that it will allow its TV customers (not broadband or phone, mind you) to cancel their contracts without penalty payments before the end of March.
Virgin gave Sky a 75% price cut for its services which had an increase in viewers and then Sky wanted double the original price for there channels which had been losing audiences ....
more fool Virgin then !
Solitaire;395549']Branson is a spoilsport!!
The Tech Dept at Virgin media were puting funny / slagging messages on the old Sky channels and EPG regarding Sky (Sky Snooze and Sky Sports Snooze as Virgin has branded the empty channel spaces on the cable electronic programme guide.)! He got them to remove all the messages and put the "Picked up the ball and went home" message insted :(
Also late on Friday Virgin Media says that it will allow its TV customers (not broadband or phone, mind you) to cancel their contracts without penalty payments before the end of March.
that just shows he is professional in the way he does his business. the "comedy" names were very unprofessional and i'm not surprised that branson stopped it.
Sky were showing adverts telling VM customers to complain to VM customer services about losing the channels :rolleyes: ... So I guess neither were being fully grown up about it ....
Only time will tell who comes off best so to speak. My only grievence against Sky was they would not let Telewest as it was broadcast the HD channels to make use of Telewests\VM superior TV Drive but I also understand why.
In the end us the customers may be the real winners with better services and deals all round to keep us from switching sides (one way or another)
Regards
[GPO]Solitaire
05-03-2007, 13:58
Short Term (well at least the next 6 months!) the customers will be the losers. only people currently winning are the freeview box retailers ;)
Once VirginMedia get their schedules and channels sorted they will be a good match for Sky.
jacobzcoool
05-03-2007, 17:52
Not without Lost, 24, etc they won't :p
Not without Lost, 24, etc they won't :p
Yes they will. They have the rights to show them "on demand"
Cheers,
Stephen
lost and 24? yeah right.... the viewing figures on both those shows is paltry compared to other stuff. If sky are serious about pulling in viewers then they really need to get some much better programming.
Take lost... most people have given up on it as it has just got too lost up its own arris trying to be clever but just losing its audience instead.
Yes they will. They have the rights to show them "on demand"
Cheers,
Stephen
only after the "first run" has completed on Sky though surely. i would doubt they would be able to show it "on demand" at the same time as it is being "premiered" on sky.
nicky munchkin
05-03-2007, 18:55
Save money and buy a freeview box imo! Unless your that much of a sports addict, or have an obsession with 24 then freeview is fine for you. If your kids start to complain that they cant watch old reruns of Kenan and Kel then remind them who pays the bills (while hitting them).
Virgin has little advantages over freeview now they have lost sky.
redswipe
05-03-2007, 19:16
Virgin has little advantages over freeview now they have lost sky.
I agree. I just looked at what channels you get without Sky and apart from documentaries there isn't much to raise it above freeview imo.
I've read a bit about this on other forums and its funny how many people seem to think the fact Sky makes up only 3% of VM's total viewing figures means that only 3% of their customers will miss it :rolleyes:
Apparently some consumer watchdog has now stepped in.
"Consumer watchdog sets deadline for Virgin v Sky talks
Britain's official consumer watchdog has threatened to bring in regulators if Sky and Virgin cannot resolve their carriage dispute before the end of the month.
The National Consumer Council can launch a formal complaint to the Office of Fair Trading and the media regulator, Ofcom, claiming the loss of Sky's basic channels on Virgin is unfair to consumers.
Philip Cullem, deputy chief exec of the NCC, said Sky and Virgin were "behaving like children" in an interview with BBC Radio Five Live. He said the watchdog will decide at the end of March "about putting together a super-complaint that will help knock heads together".
"Let's have a common sense solution and one that puts the customers first rather than all this posturing between two rather big media companies."
Meanwhile, Virgin said it has lost only about 100 customers a day since the Sky basic channels disappeared on Thursday, while Sky said it has had 'hundreds' of ex-Virgin customers asking for its rescue package. Virgin has been offering heavy discounts to disgruntled customers, but also says they can cancel contracts with no penalty before the end of March. Sky has offered deals from £15/month to former Virgin subscribers."
Source (http://blog.wotsat.com/page/whatsat?entry=consumer_watchdog_sets_deadline_for)
The only channel I watch is SkyOne, and personally I would rather not get it than have Virgin cave to what seems to be basically commercial terrorism. I understand BSkyB would want to increase the fees, but they have asked for way too much. I reckon they thought Virgin being a fairly well endowed company would just pay up so a not to look like chumps so early, but they didn't. I can't say I would do different in their position. Now Sky are cashing in by mopping up the fickle mush heads that are jumping ship.
So no matter what I won't be getting Sky, if Virgin lose all the channels I have interest in, at most, I'll just get rid of everything and stick with terrestrial, or freeview.
redswipe
05-03-2007, 23:25
The only channel I watch is SkyOne, and personally I would rather not get it than have Virgin cave to what seems to be basically commercial terrorism.
Its not terrorism, its business. Virgin didn't get where they are today without being just as aggressive and if the situation were reversed I doubt Virgin would be any less bullish than Sky are. When Sky agreed to discuss this deal Virgin decided to play hardball and said they would only agree to mediation if another media contract was also brought into discussion. Virgin thought they somehow had the upper hand because they never thought in a million years that Sky would be willing to scratch £20million in lost revenue by losing Virgin so they called their bluff....and found out the Sky have bigger balls than they do. Sky only need to steal a small percentage of Virgins customers and they will make back the money they lost with this deal in no time.
At the end of the day the people who have lost out are Virgin customers and Virgin themselves because Virgin Media is now a less attractive option to new and existing customers than it was a week ago and they were already losing customers then (37,000 in the last 3 months of last year).
I understand BSkyB would want to increase the fees, but they have asked for way too much.
They asked for way to much according to Virgin Media and considering they are over £5.7bn in debt they might be a little bit biased ;)
Its not terrorism, its business. Virgin didn't get where they are today without being just as aggressive and if the situation were reversed I doubt Virgin would be any less bullish than Sky are. When Sky agreed to discuss this deal Virgin decided to play hardball and said they would only agree to mediation if another media contract was also brought into discussion. Virgin thought they somehow had the upper hand because they never thought in a million years that Sky would be willing to scratch £20million in lost revenue by losing Virgin so they called their bluff....and found out the Sky have bigger balls than they do. Sky only need to steal a small percentage of Virgins customers and they will make back the money they lost with this deal in no time.
& that other contract was the 1 that Sky recently extorted out of Virgin because they knew that Virgin had it's hands tied due to advertising commitments - as a result Sky ended up paying a 1/4 of what they previously had. Sky knew that they had Virgin over a barrell & twisted the knife deeply. However, they weren't satisfied with winning just that round but wanted double from Virgin what they were used to paying.
& you can bet that Sky customers won't see any of the savings/gains ....
Tbh the only thing that I will miss will be Sky one as Sky two was just Sky one at different times :p & I never watched Sky News or Sport News.
I have certainly no intentions at this stage of going to Sky - I've extracted too good a deal over the years from what is now VirginMedia ;)
redswipe
06-03-2007, 01:48
& that other contract was the 1 that Sky recently extorted out of Virgin because they knew that Virgin had it's hands tied due to advertising commitments - as a result Sky ended up paying a 1/4 of what they previously had. Sky knew that they had Virgin over a barrell & twisted the knife deeply. However, they weren't satisfied with winning just that round but wanted double from Virgin what they were used to paying.
Its not Sky's fault they are better at this game than Virgin. Virgin overextended themselves and Sky took advantage. When Virgin thought they could recoup that hit by taking advantage of an independent mediation session Sky obviously didn't want to know and you cant blame them. As I said earlier if the situation were reversed you can bet your life that Virgin would have tried to screw Sky for as much as they could because at the end of the day they are each others biggest rivals in this field.
I've been a Sky subscriber for the best part of 13 years and I've always found them to be excellent in every way and imo this situation with Virgin is just another example of them being very good at what they do while as always Virgin are a being a bit hit and miss.
Branson is very good at playing the underdog though - it's almost corporate culture :p.
They probably had a clue that they could get the regulator involved.
Interestingly my sister's family have just moved to Sky from NTL.
It only took Sky 3 months (& several broken appointments) to install & so far the verdict is that HD etc. isn't worth the extra.
jacobzcoool
06-03-2007, 16:59
lol, it took us 2 days to get Sky, then 1 day later to get Sky+
prosser13
07-03-2007, 17:58
Any one else seen the Sky adverts?
Their completely anti-Virgin
Should be banned
It was even on Watchdog last night but what made me laugh was that a viewer wanted a reduction in the monthly bill because of less channels and I find myself agreeing to this although how much is another thing BUT they said I have lost 4 of my favourite channels, now come on sky news, sky travel, sky sports news and sky 1 :rolleyes: ... I think someone is trying just to hard to get a discount :D
jacobzcoool
07-03-2007, 19:06
Maybe he should just get sky :p
nicky munchkin
07-03-2007, 19:44
Yes I have seen the new sky adverts and I think they are pathetic, you can almost sense the tone of ner nicki ner ner in it. I think the adverts are dumb anyways because if they have to give the channels back to sky which I can sense happening then they will have to take all the adverts down and make one which says "erm, yes sorry virgin does have sky channels now".
Overall I think it is Virgin who will come out on top.
surely nobody can force sky to give their channels to virgin. if they decide they simply don't want a carriage deal then nobody can force them.
sky should just right off the £30m. they will make some of it back by the virgin customers moving to sky if the feel they must have sky1.
redswipe
07-03-2007, 21:13
I think the adverts are dumb anyways because if they have to give the channels back to sky which I can sense happening then they will have to take all the adverts down and make one which says "erm, yes sorry virgin does have sky channels now".
If Virgin want Sky's channels they are going to have to pay for them like I have to.
Overall I think it is Virgin who will come out on top.
Not in a million years. On one hand you have News Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation) who are one of the biggest and most powerful media companies in the world and on the other you have Virgin Media who according to an article in the Guardian are £5.7bn in debt and are losing customers.
nicky munchkin
07-03-2007, 21:41
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HPIM0062.JPG
Acting like little kids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HPIM0062.JPG
Acting like little kids.
they are both as bad as each other in terms of the publicity. virgin lots any upper hand they might have had by putting childish channel names on their epg.
surely nobody can force sky to give their channels to virgin. if they decide they simply don't want a carriage deal then nobody can force them.
Ofcom can but I doubt that it wouldn't be for free, I'm sure that there would be a fee.
Mind you that's what Virginmedia want - an arbitrator to set a "fair" price for both's usage of the other.
prosser13
08-03-2007, 19:35
If Virgin want Sky's channels they are going to have to pay for them like I have to.
They already do.
Sky have pratically DOUBLED the cost (from like £30 mil to £50 mil a year), which would have forced Virgin to raise their prices, forcing them out the market
[GPO]Solitaire
08-03-2007, 19:46
[quote]Originally Posted by Chenks
surely nobody can force sky to give their channels to virgin. if they decide they simply don't want a carriage deal then nobody can force them.[quote]
It's not what OFCOM can force Sky to do, it's what thay can order SKY to give up!
OFCOM have not hid the fact that they think Sky's Aqusition of 17% of ITV is verging on the edge of a Monopoly for SKY. Up till now Virgin didn't have any means to get SKY to give up that 17% (the same 17% Virgin was tying to buy before SKY paid over the odds for it). If Virgin can make SKY look like it's trying to run a Monopoly they can get OFCOM to force SKY to sell their share in ITV, giving Virgin a chance to buy it and become a major rival to SKY.
shifty.ricky
08-03-2007, 20:04
They already do.
Sky have pratically DOUBLED the cost (from like £30 mil to £50 mil a year), which would have forced Virgin to raise their prices, forcing them out the market
and..... its not personal its business.
jacobzcoool
08-03-2007, 20:13
They already do.
Sky have pratically DOUBLED the cost (from like £30 mil to £50 mil a year), which would have forced Virgin to raise their prices, forcing them out the market
Fair enough I say. Sky could have never supplied their channels in the first place.
PJ Matthews
10-04-2007, 23:39
I fully back Sky here but looking at the figures Sky One has dropped way out of the most watched non terrestial channels where it was sitting at number 2. Can't be good for the advertisers.
well i've just ordered my freesat card from sky....
20 quid to activate all the free channels via my digibox, no further payments either... saves leaving the box dead on the shelf and means i can put the freeview box in the bedroom...
Cable Monkey
11-04-2007, 08:38
I fully back Sky here but looking at the figures Sky One has dropped way out of the most watched non terrestial channels where it was sitting at number 2. Can't be good for the advertisers.
In order to restore the financial loss to Sky from subscriptions Sky need to convince 150,000 Cable subscribers to defect. However from an advertising perspective, how do you compensate for the loss of 4 million potential viewers? I think the greater error of judgement was on the part of Sky, though neither side emerges with anything like a 'victory'.
I was just thinking last night how little I've missed Sky One despite it having several of my favourite shows.
They'll be shown elsewhere anyway, just a little bit later.
SiLvEr_SnAkE
11-04-2007, 16:26
Same here, I only lost Nip/Tuck really but I can get it via freeview as they moved it to Sky3.
Of course the Simpsons as well but you can download them pretty easily. :p
mattierara
11-04-2007, 17:03
In order to restore the financial loss to Sky from subscriptions Sky need to convince 150,000 Cable subscribers to defect. However from an advertising perspective, how do you compensate for the loss of 4 million potential viewers? I think the greater error of judgement was on the part of Sky, though neither side emerges with anything like a 'victory'.
So true, already the sky/bbc joint bid for fa cup football has been beaten by itv/setanta quite simply because sky cannot bid high because of the reliance on the income it formerly had from its virgin viewers. Alternatively how can virgin attract new customers without these premium channels to include in their packages? Personally whatever happens, i feel it will only spur on competition and ultimately benefit the consumer. It may well take some time though
DarkEntity
11-04-2007, 18:37
Did we loose Sky1?
i hadnt noticed at all....everything i watch i can get elsewhere, no loss imo
Sky should be Forced to alow Skyone to be shown on all platforms (as is the case with sky movies and ondemand), As it once was with OnDigitan (ITV Digital) But the regulator decided that Skyone didnt have to be there and it as cut off. Im glad to see Sky Ones viewings drop over 30% since they did this. maybe sky will get there ass together and stop being schoolyard bullys.
jacobzcoool
11-04-2007, 21:19
I say fine, they could have just never provided skyone in the first place, if they want to raise their prices for a competitor when then could have just not provided them skyone, they should do what they want.
I say fine, they could have just never provided skyone in the first place, if they want to raise their prices for a competitor when then could have just not provided them skyone, they should do what they want.
??? ?? ? ???
jacobzcoool
12-04-2007, 13:03
uuhh;400324']??? ?? ? ???
??? ? ?? ??? ?
SiLvEr_SnAkE
12-04-2007, 13:14
??? ? ?? ??? ?
??? ?? ? ???
The question marks refer to me not understanding anything jacobzcoool said in his post.
jacobzcoool
12-04-2007, 19:43
The question marks refer to me not understanding anything [M]uuhh said in his post.
nicky munchkin
12-04-2007, 19:52
uuhh;400297']Sky should be Forced to alow Skyone to be shown on all platforms
Why should they :confused:. There not a public service you know.
I actually loathe sky but the above goes for any company really (Microsoft are the biggest example of this- it really pees me off when people stick up for the "microsoft should give windows away for free" crap).
Alternatively how can virgin attract new customers without these premium channels to include in their packages?
they aren't premium channels - the premium channels (Movies, Sports) are still available by subscription.
The question marks refer to me not understanding anything [M]uuhh said in his post.
Jacob. instead copy/paste. Why dont you refrase your post in a way that maeks sence, so i can understand the point you where trying to make. or you can carry on being an idiot. its your call. i dont care eaither way.
Why should they . There not a public service you know.
I actually loathe sky but the above goes for any company really (Microsoft are the biggest example of this- it really pees me off when people stick up for the "microsoft should give windows away for free" crap).
thats true and a makes a good debate. however sky was not giving and never has given anythign away for free. Virgin paid sky for the channels. this payment has always been subsidized by their customers. i am a Sky customer, and have been none stop for 7 years, however Skyone has never been Given away, its always been paid for. and it was the extream price increase that caused the loss of skyone from Virgin. i have actualy stopped watching skyone, i do not find it entertaining, as i did in the past when it was my "home" channel. id much rather watch BBC, or one of the other channels. so i cant see why sky would put up the price so much for 2 shows. Lost and 24, considering the quality of those shows has also took a nose dive.
nicky munchkin
12-04-2007, 22:06
uuhh;400479']Jacob. instead copy/paste. Why dont you refrase your post in a way that maeks sence, so i can understand the point you where trying to make. or you can carry on being an idiot. its your call. i dont care eaither way.
thats true and a makes a good debate. however sky was not giving and never has given anythign away for free. Virgin paid sky for the channels. this payment has always been subsidized by their customers. i am a Sky customer, and have been none stop for 7 years, however Skyone has never been Given away, its always been paid for. and it was the extream price increase that caused the loss of skyone from Virgin. i have actualy stopped watching skyone, i do not find it entertaining, as i did in the past when it was my "home" channel. id much rather watch BBC, or one of the other channels. so i cant see why sky would put up the price so much for 2 shows. Lost and 24, considering the quality of those shows has also took a nose dive.
Go Virgin :D
You'll get much better BB (according to stats by that broadband comparer that was posted here a few weeks ago),and a great service especially if you don't want sky one.
Sky have the right to charge what they like, Virgin must decide if they should fork out, Sky must decide if it matters to them loosing a hundred million or so a year from Virgin.
Go Virgin :D
You'll get much better BB (according to stats by that broadband comparer that was posted here a few weeks ago),and a great service especially if you don't want sky one.
Sky have the right to charge what they like, Virgin must decide if they should fork out, Sky must decide if it matters to them loosing a hundred million or so a year from Virgin.
Cable has never been available where i live.
nicky munchkin
12-04-2007, 22:55
They do ADSL too but not part of a TV/phone package iirc.
jacobzcoool
13-04-2007, 11:05
Unfortunately most of the non movies tv I watch is sky one :p
I have never watched Sky1 and everything I could see on there I download from newsgroups anyway.
i used to watch sky 1 when they first launched and for a few years after that ( all the way till the squariel died a death with the switch off of BSB). Sinc then sky 1 has yet to put on decent programming and is really no longer worth paying for anyway.
I was glad I had a motorised dish back then too... most of my viewing came from eutelsat or hotbird. the german music channels are far better than the uk ones...
toryboy2000
16-04-2007, 21:04
Im on Virgin & changed over just before the Sky 1 poo hit the fan, im sticking with them though as i dont agree with how sky operate.
I had a letter last week saying they were upgrading my 10mb to 20mb too
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.