Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35959742)

1. Gold HD
2. More 'On demand'.
3. A commitment from the BBC to commence negotiations on the BBC archives which they previously refused.
Possibly, 4. A reduction in cost, which would have reduced the size of the price hike.

I think all this, together with the discounts and compensation payments (and of course the return of the UKTV channels) as well as those 'replacement channels', have satisfied most.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35959742)

What were the old and new carriage costs, then, Richard? They haven't made that public as far as I am aware, so you cannot say the nil carriage costs for three weeks or so will not cover the discounts and compensation payments. It's just a finger in the air argument.

As far as your second paragraph is concerned, when did you start setting the rules? You are plugging this tired old argument to death, and yet we will all see that this will be a distant memory for most of us before too long. Surely there is a limit, even for you, on the number of different ways you can make this point.

With regard to the UKTV HD situation, yes, I stand corrected in that Gold HD was the only one withheld previously. I was mistakenly counting Drama, which unfortunately is not available in HD, although I can't think why. It would make more sense if it was Drama rather than Gold, but there you go.

---------- Post added at 17:10 ---------- Previous post was at 17:06 ----------



1. Gold HD
2. More 'On demand'.
3. A commitment from the BBC to commence negotiations on the BBC archives which they previously refused.
Possibly, 4. A reduction in cost, which would have reduced the size of the price hike.

I think all this, together with the discounts and compensation payments (and of course the return of the UKTV channels) as well as those 'replacement channels', have satisfied most.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35959698)

So why are there still excessive waiting times to cancel and why are some customers being hung up on immediately they do actually get through? It's suspected that this is to get the average number of calls waiting down and/of to put people off from cancelling.

This is normally a disciplinary offence and calls ending so quickly would show up to management, so it's entirely possible that they have instigated this.

This report contains information that the fallout over the way the whole thing was handled is not over yet as far as some customers are concerned:

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...-for-2018.html

Do you really think that the carriage costs which work out at pennies per week per subscriber per channel for three weeks will cover the extra discounts given out (for a decent amount and indefinitely in some cases)? Come on now.

The actual affect of the dispute won't be known until the figures are released, so don't try and pretend otherwise.

---------- Post added at 15:18 ---------- Previous post was at 15:11 ----------



You keep saying this, but you aren't obliged to read or contribute to any thread you don't want to you know!

I think that it's interesting to analysis the continuing affects of the situation, hopefully VM will be doing the same thing and might learn something about customer care and retention.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35959742)

3. A commitment from the BBC to commence negotiations on the BBC archives which they previously refused.
Possibly,

Originally Posted by tvtimes (Post 35959754)

You missed my point, OB :). I meant what was the point in not allowing customers out of contract, aggravating them even further, when VM as a company would have been aware a price rise was coming soon and those upset customers could leave anyway. It just made the situation worse and Virgin Media wouldn't have known at that immediate time the channels would definitely come back and they would eventually get a better deal.

Originally Posted by tvtimes (Post 35959759)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the BBC been selling off their archive content to the likes of Netflix? How can the BBC give commitments to VM when they have sold off a lot of on-demand rights? Haven't the BBC made such promises before when they negotiated previously and they never came to fruition?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35959760)

Sorry, yes, I see what you meant.

Still, a contract is a contract, I suppose, and some of those refused may later decide to stay.

I agree that some would be upset, though.

---------- Post added at 17:37 ---------- Previous post was at 17:33 ----------



It depends whether Netflix have been given exclusive rights, and if each deal with Netflix is separate, then there is scope to negotiate at least future releases with VM as well as Netflix.

If exclusive rights have not been given, there's no problem as far as I can see.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35955652)

It has UK TV Play on there as a app which has catch up and on demand content.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35959742)

What were the old and new carriage costs, then, Richard? They haven't made that public as far as I am aware, so you cannot say the nil carriage costs for three weeks or so will not cover the discounts and compensation payments. It's just a finger in the air argument.

As far as your second paragraph is concerned, when did you start setting the rules? You are plugging this tired old argument to death, and yet we will all see that this will be a distant memory for most of us before too long. Surely there is a limit, even for you, on the number of different ways you can make this point.

With regard to the UKTV HD situation, yes, I stand corrected in that Gold HD was the only one withheld previously. I was mistakenly counting Drama, which unfortunately is not available in HD, although I can't think why. It would make more sense if it was Drama rather than Gold, but there you go.

---------- Post added at 17:10 ---------- Previous post was at 17:06 ----------



1. Gold HD
2. More 'On demand'.
3. A commitment from the BBC to commence negotiations on the BBC archives which they previously refused.
Possibly, 4. A reduction in cost, which would have reduced the size of the price hike.

I think all this, together with the discounts and compensation payments (and of course the return of the UKTV channels) as well as those 'replacement channels', have satisfied most.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35959829)

What rules are you talking about? Some of your comments are becoming more and more bizarre.

It's not your place to try and inhibit others from expressing their opinion with the use of sneery and sanctimonious remarks as you appear to be increasingly doing.. I think that this will have an affect on VM well into the future because some people have now lost faith in VM to be able to continue providing the channels that they signed up for and you don't. It's as simple as that and whose opinion is correct will become clear when the company results are published.

If a customer is now getting an open ended discount of pounds per month, it's bound to cost more in lost revenue than what they saved by not having to provide that customsr the UKTV channels for 2/3 weeks at a cost of pennies per channel per week. Multiply this many times and there you have your answer.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35959840)

You may wish to check your self-awareness levels = you are literally doing what you state OB is doing.

Originally Posted by Inactive Digital (Post 35955591)

So Virgin claims the BBC is witholding on demand, and UKTV says the fallout is because Virgin is cutting the amount it's willing to pay them. Where does the truth lie? Somewhere in the middle is my guess.

The 2016 BBC carriage deal with UKTV included 10,000 hours of on demand content, including Only Fools and Horses (see here). OFAH is BBC content of the type Virgin says UKTV can't provide. So at some point in the past two years, UKTV seems to have lost the rights to on demand BBC archive programmes. If the BBC gave UKTV no option to renew the on demand rights, I can see why Virgin would be upset with the BBC.
That to me would not be a failure on Virgin's side and if they are getting less from UKTV, why wouldn't they expect to pay less?

Of course, the same could be said for the customers too!

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35959829)

What rules are you talking about? Some of your comments are becoming more and more bizarre.

It's not your place to try and inhibit others from expressing their opinion with the use of sneery and sanctimonious remarks as you appear to be increasingly doing. I think that this will have an affect on VM well into the future because some people have now lost faith in VM to be able to continue providing the channels that they signed up for and you don't. It's as simple as that and whose opinion is correct will become clear when the company results are published.

If a customer is now getting an open ended discount of pounds per month, it's bound to cost more in lost revenue than what they saved by not having to provide that customsr the UKTV channels for 2/3 weeks at a cost of pennies per channel per week. Multiply this many times and there you have your answer.

Originally Posted by johnathome (Post 35955666)

Once you create a sky account there's a forum on the sky.com site.

Originally Posted by SnoopZ (Post 35962617)

Did Gold HD ever turn up as i can't find it, and the usual 124 channel still looks SD?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35962705)

Nobody has said that VM are unable to add it due to capacity constraints :rolleyes:

VM are, as expected, now taking steps to get more out of their existing capacity e.g. by squeezing more channels into the same space.

I very much doubt it will be contractual as GOLD HD was offered right at the start of the initial negotiations.

Originally Posted by SonicMaster (Post 35962640)

Not until mid September.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35962835)

A self prediction or a sourced one?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35963402)

Typical, isn't it? No sooner is the UKTV deal with Virgin settled, the whole future of these channels is suddenly up in the air!

Still, it could be that the channels will remain, with new ownership, and some content added to the new streaming service that the Beeb want to see put in place.

http://www.a516digital.com/2018/09/c...in-bid-to.html

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35963430)

Hopefully the restructure of UKTV will end the farce of licence fee payers shelling out again for content they funded previously. Not holding my breath though...

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35963430)

Hopefully the restructure of UKTV will end the farce of licence fee payers shelling out again for content they funded previously. Not holding my breath though...

Originally Posted by johnathome (Post 35963429)

I absolutely will not pay any more on top of the licence to watch any BBC/ITV shows.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35963438)

I imagine that this is only true for older programming that the BBC own the rights to. The Government has for some time forced the BBC to use independent TV production companies, hence how Channel 4 were able to poach that popular baking programme from the BBC.

Originally Posted by Gavin-D (Post 35971996)

UKTV have added Yesterday+1 to freeview channel 99 ahead of the expected split

https://www.a516digital.com/2018/11/...-ahead-of.html

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35972038)

Yesterday+1 ?? Isn't that today ??