Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35430041)

According to Digital Spy, Season 2 of "Nikita" will be shown on..... Sky Atlantic.

Now, tell me again how Sky aren't moving all their best shows to Atlantic so no other TV provider can show them :rolleyes: :(:mad::(:mad::(:mad:

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35430042)

It says Sky Living in June on here , not sure if it's correct. I know S1 was shown on Sky Living.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/...s-the-plp.html

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35430042)

It says Sky Living in June on here , not sure if it's correct. I know S1 was shown on Sky Living.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/...s-the-plp.html

Originally Posted by Telly Bear (Post 35430045)

I have Carlwaring on ignore as do lots of users..

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35430053)

If Scotland votes for independence it has already been suggested that the BBC might not have a future in Scotland.

Whilst I'm not a big fan of paying a TV license the thought of losing BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four, BBC News, BBC HD all BBC Radio and BBC iPlayer doesn't sit well with me at all.

For me personally about 40% of all programmes I digest on TV, radio, online and via catch up are from the BBC. I also visit the BBC news website more times than any other site on the net each day. Call me old fashioned but I enjoy TV and radio more when it's commercial free.

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35430053)

If Scotland votes for independence it has already been suggested that the BBC might not have a future in Scotland.

Whilst I'm not a big fan of paying a TV license the thought of losing BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four, BBC News, BBC HD all BBC Radio and BBC iPlayer doesn't sit well with me at all.

For me personally about 40% of all programmes I digest on TV, radio, online and via catch up are from the BBC. I also visit the BBC news website more times than any other site on the net each day. Call me old fashioned but I enjoy TV and radio more when it's commercial free.

Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35429969)

I knew someone would mention this. However, when you add in everything extra that they have now been given to do with the same money (like funding the World Service) then it does amount to a real-world cut of something like 16-20% :)


No they did not :mad: You shouldn't believe everything you read in certain newspapers with proven anti-BBC agendas (which then gets repeated as fact in other papers.)

IIRC (and it was some years ago now ;)) that £18m was, in fact, the amount paid to his production company over three (or so) years for everything they produced for the BBC; which was more than just the one BBC1 chat show.

I don't agree with the principle of the idea (ie the BBC making smarter, better use of the money it gets) but the situation is not helped when completely incorrect information, such as the above, is quoted as truth.

Originally Posted by DaMac (Post 35430407)

Havn't read all this post but as to the idea of BBC scotland contributing shows as part of any arangement to cover revenue going in or coming out isnt going to work, look whats happened with ITV and STV.. Taggart doesn't really contribute enough to the network when you have Talent, X Factor, Corrie, Emmerdale I'm a celeb all costing big bucks to produce. Scotttish people would just have to have access to these channels blocked, and if they wanted them Sky or whoever would have to offer .them as BBC add on pack, a lot like asian people can get the asian channels as extras

Originally Posted by andy_m (Post 35430406)

The point about Jonathon Ross is that the BBC have been wasting our money for years ....

Originally Posted by boragthung (Post 35430635)

Seeing as how the likes of $ky must make a fortune from advertising why should they be allowed to charge a subscription on top of that?

Originally Posted by Superblade7 (Post 35430662)

I just thought I would add my points to this pretty interesting post:

Sky have dominance because they took a big risk in the early days and bought the rights to the Premier League and first run movies on tv. This has paid off over the years as the popularity of having the choice to watch these on tv has grown and grown.

Originally Posted by Superblade7 (Post 35430662)

At the same time the cable industry was split into different companies all doing their own thing. If VM had been around in the late 80's / early 90's as the company they are today then things may have been different as they may have gone head to head for certain content. Unfortunately they weren't and that is where we are today.

Originally Posted by Superblade7 (Post 35430662)

The other advantage Sky have is it's availability as it is available in many more homes than cable and is therefore always going to pull a larger market share and in turn far greater revenue. They then use this revenue to invest in their programming, content and ever improving products and services.

Originally Posted by Superblade7 (Post 35430662)

The Sky quality also shows through, for example, the Champions League final last night, I chose to watch it on Sky Sports rather than ITV as I personally believe Sky present their football content far superior to any other channel.

Originally Posted by Superblade7 (Post 35430662)

VM currently have superfast broadband and all their advertising is focused on that as that's VM's USP.

Originally Posted by Superblade7 (Post 35430662)

Also, wouldnt it be boring if they were exactly the same as forums like this wouldn't be littered with all these interesting posts about pro's and con's and showing that everyone has their own views and where people have problems, others are always willing to help.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35430667)

Yes in the days of NTL , Telewest they were terribly run , thankfully VM have turned it around.

Originally Posted by hdtvfan (Post 35430679)

lol, Virgin is all the worst parts of NTL and Telewest all rolled into one.

but my experience in an ex Telewest area is that things have gone downhill since Virgin took over.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35430667)

Yes in the days of NTL , Telewest they were terribly run , thankfully VM have turned it around.

Originally Posted by hdtvfan (Post 35430679)

lol, Virgin is all the worst parts of NTL and Telewest all rolled into one.

Originally Posted by colin25 (Post 35430418)

You forget..BBC doesn't stand for English braodcasting Corporation..even if it acts like that at times.

So blocking isn't an option..unless it is devolved

Your comparison to asian channel is amusing though :D

Originally Posted by DaMac (Post 35430697)

Don't mean to offend, my Father and all his family are from Scotland, but if Scotland goes it alone then it is effectivly resigning from Great Britain... British being the first word of BBC. Yes you could say that Scotland is in the British Isles, but then so is Ireland but i don't think any one pushes that point to far :erm:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35430689)

Not sure how many share your experiences of Virgin to be perfectly honest as the vast majority l know are very happy with their services and experience's with Virgin and if you are so unhappy with them then why are you still with them.:)

Originally Posted by hdtvfan (Post 35430749)

Basically I have no choice with respect to internet, its either stick with Cable and all their problems or take an 8mb at best connection from BT.

I have switched my TV package between Sky and Cable every couple of years to take advantage of deals and to get certain channels or services but I am stuck with cable for internet until BT pull their finger out.

I know most people on here are problem big Cable fans but from my experience cable has declined since Virgin took over Telewest. Friends in the same area seem to agree as well, the only people I know who are happy with the switch to Virgin the two exNTL customers I know from work (Apparently Virgin is an improvement over NTL (Which makes me wonder just how bad NTL where)) so maybe it depends on which network you had before Virgin whether you think things have got better or worse.

Originally Posted by boragthung (Post 35430635)

Can't believe how big this thread's got! It's sort of evolved from my original moan though.

My opinion on licence fees and subscriptions - I have no problem with paying so I can have advert free quality (well some of it) telly. The licence fee provides a large number of services compared to what is provided by the likes of $ky at a more substantial cost.

Seeing as how the likes of $ky must make a fortune from advertising why should they be allowed to charge a subscription on top of that? This is the reason they have so much money to outbid and control content. Now I know the answer to that would be providing boxes and cards and encryption just like cable. Personally I think there should be no subs for anything if they raise income from adverts (else with subs - no adverts).

I think all media output should just be put out there FTA - if you want it buy the hardware you want. As it is everything is 'closed shop' with allowing only provided hardware and having viewing cards, subscriptions, etc. But my personal revolutionary new world is never going to happen.

The likes of ITV rely purely on income from adverts and although they have considered (or are considering) it, do not gain subscription income on top of that. Not that I watch much of ITV anyway as I think it is full of brainless tat in the main, with only the odd quality programme (Like Scott and Bailey). No subs to watch Ch4 or 5 either although I think these do get a small cut of licence fee to provide public services (and maybe ITV or rather ITN do as well?).

Originally Posted by Superblade7 (Post 35430662)

I just thought I would add my points to this pretty interesting thread:

Sky have dominance because they took a big risk in the early days and bought the rights to the Premier League and first run movies on tv. This has paid off over the years as the popularity of having the choice to watch these on tv has grown and grown.

At the same time the cable industry was split into different companies all doing their own thing. If VM had been around in the late 80's / early 90's as the company they are today then things may have been different as they may have gone head to head for certain content. Unfortunately they weren't and that is where we are today.

The other advantage Sky have is it's availability as it is available in many more homes than cable and is therefore always going to pull a larger market share and in turn far greater revenue. They then use this revenue to invest in their programming, content and ever improving products and services.

The Sky quality also shows through, for example, the Champions League final last night, I chose to watch it on Sky Sports rather than ITV as I personally believe Sky present their football content far superior to any other channel.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see Sky Atlantic, ITV2/3/4 HD, etc on VM but at the end of the day, it's a business and it has to have a USP to make people choose Sky over it's rivals.

VM currently have superfast broadband and all their advertising is focused on that as that's VM's USP.

I am very happy with my VM services and whilst I would love some extra TV content, to me Sky Atlantic only has had one or two shows that would have been interested in so wouldn't make me switch unless I got a far greater deal which would save me money for similar services.

On the point of the licence fee, I believe the BBC produce some great content, have great services and therefore provide a top class service considering.

My final point to end my post would be that whatever you believe, healthy competition is good for us, the consumer. It is great to have choice, whether you are happy with the FTA range available on Freeview / Freesat or if you want the pay TV content on Sky / VM / BT. It also keeps the prices reasonable as it it were only one big pay TV company, they would probably hike their prices up and you would have to like it or lump it.

Whatever your views, each individual has the right to choose what services are right for them both in terms of what they can afford and what they wish to watch.

Also, wouldnt it be boring if they were exactly the same as forums like this wouldn't be littered with all these interesting posts about pro's and con's and showing that everyone has their own views and where people have problems, others are always willing to help.

Great topic borag!

Originally Posted by hdtvfan (Post 35430749)

Friends in the same area seem to agree as well, the only people I know who are happy with the switch to Virgin the two exNTL customers I know from work (Apparently Virgin is an improvement over NTL (Which makes me wonder just how bad NTL where))

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 35431183)

rather like early freeview that had taken a sleeping pill.:p:

Note a lack of comment about us all funding Sky via Virgin.:shocked:

Originally Posted by richard1960 (Post 35431186)

Funding Sky through VM surely not.OH Noooooooooo.:D:D:D

I wondred where my sub for all those Sky channels on VM were going.:shocked::shocked::D

Originally Posted by DaMac (Post 35431217)

The big post about sky isn't entirley true though is it, i seem to remember a company calld BSB that looked like they could more than give sky a run for their money even back then untill $murdoch decided they was too dangerous and the company's ended up merging (Yeaah right) despite a lot of people at BSB's best efforts to keep the wolf from the door, they eventually was trampled all over.. by the government as well and became BSkyB, otherwise known as Sky TV. :shocked:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35431229)

While BSB and Sky were both loss-making concerns at the time of the 'merger', BSB was losing twice as much as Sky.

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 35431192)

Look back at posts - along the lines that Would not give money to Murdoch s empire. Clearly some people DONT understand that we all ( That watch TV via Virgin) do just that :erm: