Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Sky have no indian call centres by the way, the Sky CS, Retentions, Billing, etc teams are in Scotland, there is a large sales office in London and also one in scotland as well as localised selling in shopping centres etc.

Sky currently outsource NOTHING and they intend to stay that way with Sky controlling the business and no third parties involved.

Also Sky may have asked for slightly more from Virgin Media but they were taking into account the fact that they previously had arrangements with NTL and Telewest and now the companies have merged the price had to reflect the fact they would receive a SINGLE fee.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Me too, but I'm watching it on freesat. I've never quite been able to get used to stuff whizzing across the screen accompanied by annoying sound effects (always reminds me of that old BBC comedy ‘The Day Today’) but it’s reporting (especially over anything relating to the government) is far superior to News 24.


There was some criticism earlier in the thread about how Sky News might cover the VM & Sky Spat, but what they did cover was balanced and professional.

I also think VM have come across as being incredibly childish throughout the negotiations using emotive and aggressive language. Finally, I could not believe it when they changed the Sky News channel name to Old Sky Snooze. I can only reason that they were trying to devalue the channel and imply that it was boring then what does that say about those customers who watch it? As far as I’m concerned the jokes on VM as it just makes them look stupid.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

They are payed per head. No one could have both NTL and Telewest, so the total amount of subscribers is not changing. Why should Sky charge more for one company than they did for two?

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

This isn't correct actually - Sky do outsource. technical support is in India and the company also outsource to Mgt in Kirckaldy and RHL in Glasgow.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

So if NTL had 100k customers and Telewest had 100k customers, and each paid 50p per customer, why should the costs double? Or have I misunderstood something in the accounting?

And is that the same reason why Sky paid £5m instead of £35m for the channels from Telewest?

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

IIRC also, their broadband TS is in the Phillipines and Ireland. And they're as bad as I remeber NTL's being. Fortunately I was setting someone elses up for them rather than being a Sky Broadband customer myself - but they were appaling and as inept as any NTL employee I had the misfortune to have to speak to in either Cardiff or India.

Saying that, at least the Indians lied to you politely!

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Ahem, Sky outsource quite a bit. I work for one of the outsourcing centres in Belfast doing BB Tech support. Their other outsourcing centre is in Manilla (Phillipines) You do not want to get through to them. They also have another outsourced centre in Belfast and one in Derry. So they're actually outsourcing more than they're not...

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

I wonder if 'Virgin One' would be available as a brand name - it was the original name for what is now the 'One Account' (the flexible mortgage advertised by the mortgage shrinker adverts).

I don't know who owns the rights to Virgin One as a brand name but it was still used for a while after the Royal Bank of Scotland took over from Virgin. (Very good account by the way! :) )

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

I think the "Old Sky Snooze" just reflects Sky and shows that VM are real people after all, nothing to do with the programming its self.
I did think it was a bit unprofessional but I guess no one will be getting done for conduct lol.
But it could be far worse

---------- Post added at 02:18 ---------- Previous post was at 02:16 ----------

Mate if Virgin Media was planning to launch Virgin 1, Sky would be down the pattent office registering it to try and make yet another obsticle

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

I reckon "V1" would be a cooler name for a new channel than "Virgin One"....

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Wrong on o so many fronts

I have personal experiance of Skys inept Indian call centres.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Scary thought.... are skys and ntls sorry virgins indian call center the same one?????

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

You would think so i have had the misfortune to deal with both and there both as bad as each other. :(

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Sounds like a weapon of mass destruction...

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

SHHH or Blair & Bush will send in the troops

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Well all I want at the moment is for someone from VM to come and fix the badly tilting cable cabinet that a car backed into on January (yes January) 14th. How on earth can I get someone here? I have reported it so many times, even had someone call me back telling me she has reported it, and still no one has come to fix it. I'm scared it's going to fall over completely and the entire street will lose all their cable service.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

just to add my 1/16p worth to this already crowded debate, I'm going to stick with virgin,I have only had 1 major problem in the past (installer put foot through ceiling of flat below) , they are the cheapest available for all three, and would be for all 4 if i didn't have to pay for the phone. apart from a year and half of not being with them (landlord at the time wouldn't let road and garden be dug up), I have been with ntl/virgin since 2000, and still only see losing sky as a minor irritation. I wouldn't be surprised if the BBC, and ITV are watching this argument and planning to fill the gap in the market (If not virgin itself) so it wouldn't be a loss for too long.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

VERY misleading indeed. Broadband support (Sky BB, Easynet/UKOnline) is outsourced all over the shop, one of the companies they outsource first line support to is down here in Portsmouth.

Also Sky outsource lots of their install work to cowboys. My install here with a Sky engineer went fine, my parents on the other hand had a contractor and the chaps that upgraded their service to Sky+/Multiroom were absolute cowboys. Sky engineers themselves and sky call center staff admit that some of their local contractors can be less than satisfactory with installs, and Sky have to send out their own engineers to fix/clean-up the aftermath quite a lot.

To add to this also, when you come up to your 10th month or so, Sky will pass your details over to a 3rd party servicing company to contact you and sell you box and dish repair cover for £84/year or something stupid. They warn you that a replacement may cost upto £300 (iirc) plus £60 for the engineer to come out and install if you don't sign up. Great. Thank god the last time my box broke (I'm on my 4th) they gave me a new Thomson box which has lasted since :)

When buying at a wholesale level, prices are supposed to go DOWN when you are buying more. The increase in cost reflected the difference in per subscriber costs averaged out across the whole group when the minimum payment guarantee was taken into consideration.

It's clear from the latest articles in the press that Sky probably had no intention of renewing the deal anyway, and their moves on Freeview support this.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

anyone else heard the rumours that sky are going to start putting football on sky one? would they be allowed to do so?

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

There's a link somewhere on here to a report that they are THINKING of doing just that - whether it would be allowed, particularly if they move it from a Premium channel that VM still have - is another matter.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

yeah i read a link somewhere but can`t remember where! i think it would be unfair if they did but , knowing sky !!!!!

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

If it helps, a couple of links on the matter are here (guardian) and here (digitalspy)

However, this is possibly currently postponed, as written in another recent article here (brandrepublic)

Hope this helps :)

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

What do people think of the story that sky are considering putting some movies and sports on sky one? One would have thought that as soon as they start putting premium material like that on that it would have to go on the rate card like the sports and movie channels? Maybe that's what they want as by moving a few bits around, at little cost to themselves they could claim they had to charge more for it?

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

I don't really understand the rate card, what is it and what reasons would they have for doing it? Could someone explain?

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Sky movies? Is that the channel where you get the same films over and over again each month?

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

These links give some more information
Olswang

RateCard

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

lol That still doesn't help me understand what the rate card is! Tried googling it but couldn't see anything that explained it well.

---------- Post added at 11:04 ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 ----------

Thanks for trying, i think i am just more confused now though! heh

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

I think, but may be wrong, in cases where sky has an near monopoly such as the sports and movies they are forced by law to make these available at a reasonable rate (which appear then on the rate card). If some of this content goes onto sky one then it might be viewed as being in the same category as the movie and sports channels so have to be made available at a reasonable rate.

Reasons for doing it maybe two fold:

Firstly if they can charge a premium rate for sky one to cable they might be able to get more money in even if they have to drop the rates for the others a bit.
Secondly they appear to be using this as a sop to the advertisers to stop them renegotiating deals with the loss of the VM customers in a sort if 'jam tomorrow' way.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

I sort of thought that's what you were getting at, but i can only see a couple of reasons for this. One, they are confident that their new high price is fair, or two, rather than accept a lower price in a deal with Virgin, they could save face and use this process?

I'm not making any bold statements here, just trying to understand further...

I just think they are batting a dozen here and this might disillusion people further, who wants football on Sky One?? I'm a footy fan, yet i feel there is enough content out there already, this will right hack some women off who hate it as it is!

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Look I'm 25 this year and from Motherwell i bet i know you boy.

Virginmedia Vs Sky:
 

Copy of E-mail I sent Virginmedia & I think we should get rid of all Sky Channels & keep selling our channels/services/programes/shows to: BT-Vision, Top Up Tv, Homechoice, Sky, Freeview, 4OD, & other tv companies.

Dear,
Sirs/Madams,
at Virginmedia, I here Sky are playing unfair & Dirty & want to get rid of Sky-One, Sky-News, Sky-3, & loads more.
I say as an Ex-Telewest customer & now with Virginmedia it's new name. Let's get rid of Sky altogether on your Virginmedia Network.

It's time Virginmedia brought digital tv, with recording more than 2 channels, hundreds of films, music, ect. Set up more of your onw channels like Bravo, Living Tv, cheap channels/packages, ect.

Sky do not own all the past, present & future Simpsons, Lost Series 3, Futurama, Malcom In The Middle, Dead Like Me, & loads more.

Virginmedia already own channels like Living Tv, Bravo, Trouble Tv, ftn, challenge, & so on.

Just invent a few more channels like the above ones, but show programes like:

The Simpsons,
Lost,
Futurama,
Malcom In The Middle,
Dead Like Me,
Nip Tuck,
Bones,
24,
Stargate,

& loads more shows/programes that Sky-One show.

But Sky & Sky-One do not out right own the above shows/programes, there's nothing stopping Virginmedia buying/purchasing programes/shows like the above one's that Sky & Sky-One show on there networks.

By buying direct from companies like HBO, Fox, & other companies that produce:

The Simpsons,
Lost,
Futurama,
Malcom In The Middle,
Dead Like Me,
Nip Tuck,
Bones,
24,
Stargate,

Virginmedia could then sell these extra channels or certian channels/shows/programes to:

Top Up Tv: (http://www.topuptv.com/channels.html)

BT-Vision: (http://www.btvision.bt.com/btvision)

Homechoice: (http://www.homechoice.co.uk)

Freeview Run by BBC & BSKYB: (http://www.freeview.co.uk)
The Organisation
Freeview is managed by DTV Services Ltd, a company owned and run by its five shareholders - BBC, BSkyB Channel 4, ITV and National Grid Wireless. Launched in October 2002, the Freeview service provides free-to-air digital TV channels, radio stations and interactive services through an aerial.

By doing this your create Competitive Digital Tv Market & stop Sky & Sky-One buying Virginmedia to by channels/programes/shows which are over the odd/over priced.

Here's an exsample you could invent Virginmedia-3 channel & sell it to:

Top Up Tv: (http://www.topuptv.com/channels.html)

BT-Vision: (http://www.btvision.bt.com/btvision)

Homechoice: (http://www.homechoice.co.uk)

Freeview Run by BBC & BSKYB: (http://www.freeview.co.uk)
The Organisation
Freeview is managed by DTV Services Ltd, a company owned and run by its five shareholders - BBC, BSkyB Channel 4, ITV and National Grid Wireless. Launched in October 2002, the Freeview service provides free-to-air digital TV channels, radio stations and interactive services through an aerial.

& Virginmedia-3 Channel would show:

Futurama,

Family Guy,

Cheers,

Bob & Maraget (http://snowdenfine.awn.com/bobmarg.html)

& other shows/programes & so on 24-7 365 days a year & you sell Virginmedia-3 Channel to everyone including Sky, then you do a Virginmedia-1 Channel & only sell it to:

Top Up Tv: (http://www.topuptv.com/channels.html)

BT-Vision: (http://www.btvision.bt.com/btvision)

Homechoice: (http://www.homechoice.co.uk)

& NOT Sky & this Virginmedia-1 Channel would show programes/shows like:

Brand New Simpsons,
Past & Present & Future Simpsons,
Malcom In The Middle,
Past & Present & Future Malcom In The Middle,
Futurama,

& loads of over programes/shows like Lost, ect, that run 24-7 365 days a year & only avliable with Virginmedia, BT-Vision, Homechoice, Top Up Tv, & NOT Sky.

This way everyone wins, people on Freeview could have a new channel that's free & runs 24-7 365 days a year & aviable on Freeview, Homechoice, BT-Vision, Sky, Top up Tv, & loads more & this channel would be known as Virginmedia-3 Channel.

& then another type of channel could be known as: Virginmedia-1 Channel & only aviable to:

Top Up Tv,
BT-Vision,
Homechoice,
Virginmedia,
(Maybe even Freeview),

But NOT for Sky Customers, showing programes/shows like I mentioned:

Brand New Simpsons,
Lost,
Malcom In The Middle,
Dead Like Me,
Futurama,
Cheers,

& so on.

Shows/Programes like: http://play.com/DVD/DVD/campaign/5-/...21&cid=9046656

I would pay extra for these shows/programes/channels & so would companies like:

Top Up Tv,
BT-Vision,
Homechoice,
Virginmedia,
Freeview,
Free-Sat,

& loads more.

http://www.sky.com/portal/site/skyco...ntentid=646110

Re: Virginmedia Vs Sky:
 

ok and so sports/movies? get rid of all sky and there goes the football which has been sold exclusive rights to sky/setanta with setanta getting the lesser of choice of games, i assume sky also has exclusive deals with rugby/cricket/(golf?)/(darts?). getting rid of sky sports would lose vm a lot of customers, not to mention the movies. granted the movies could have rights bought to them but for sports, how often do you see 2 channels showing the same match? (i'll give you the answer, 1, the super bowl)

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

I wouldn't miss Sky-Sports or any Sky Channels, as Sky do not own out right any of there programes/shows.

& under OFT, everyone sould/would be entitled to watch sports/football matches.

Nothing stopping Virginmedia buying sport rights, ect.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

In fact, that is probably the intention, and the reason why Sky wants to strangle any competition - as it realises once it loses the Sports channels - then it doesn't have much to offer.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

I never understood what was so good about Sky Movies (or VM's equivalent movie thingy). The films tend to be available several months after they appear on DVD. And you can rent the latest DVDs from somewhere like amazon.co.uk for half the price the films cost.

Re: Virginmedia Vs Sky:
 

Its not really that simple, providers must bid for each series, you dont just decide to show what ever you want and most production companies will sell exclusive rights as they get more money.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

If someone such as Setanta Sports bought Rugby League (SuperLeague) it would take a chunk out of the Sky Sports viewers. Football would still be the biggest draw though.

Re: Virginmedia Vs Sky:
 

I'm not quite sure exclusivity does always generate the most amount of money. This year by forcing the football to go to at least 2 providers, it generated much more money than when previously bought solely by Sky. Viewing figures hadn't vastly increased to justify the extra cash being pumped in, it was allowing more than one person the chance to own a licence that did it.

I know it' slightly different, you can't have 6 packs for one show, but i wonder what would happen if they allowed 3 licences say, priced at half the price of what they accepted from the top bidder. Would be interesting!

Re: Virginmedia Vs Sky:
 

But you do in a way, that's how CH4 had Lost season 1 & 2, and then Sky got season 3 & 4. Much the same, and in the same way makes it WORSE for the viewer.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Well, apart from money...

Sky is part of the News Corporation (AKA News International). News Corp is probably the largest media company on the Planet, and one of the largest companies on the planet. Rupert Murdoch has decided that he wants control of the media, and sees TV as an important part of that. As such, Sky has access to nearly limitless funding, and he doesn't seem too worried if they make a loss.

This is why Sky have consistently been able to outbid other companies for Sports rights.

Bearing in mind all this, do you *really* think that Sky are going to take renewed competition from Virgin lying down? More importantly, do you really think that Virgin (who, lets face it, as NTL, almost went bankrupt) can afford to do that?

Re: Virginmedia Vs Sky:
 

Scott_1984 - Was that the draft of the email before spell and grammar checking it?

Please tell me "yes"...

Anyway a few points in there for them to think about for a few moments...

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

The way things are going, each football team will end up with it's own TV channel. I don't know how that will work though.

Anyway back to : Sky V's Virgin

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

um, I'm really not that fussed about all the hoo-hah, but I was wondering if anyone else'd noticed this on the main cf page as one of the ads - http://www.dontletskywin.co.uk/virgi...FQvmlAod4i-4xA

Re: Virginmedia Vs Sky:
 

No sadly that E-mail wasn't a draft, I am just really bad at spelling & sometimes I miss type a lot due to my wrist disability & depression.

Take Care & Take It Easy :¬)

Scott :¬)

Re: Virginmedia Vs Sky:
 

Just as a point of order, Sky is part of News Corp, as is Fox and 20th Century Fox etc. Fox owns rights to all past and current (and presumably many future) eps of The Simpsons and Malcolm in the Middle.

In fact if you look at your lists below, I've marked which programmes News Corp owns for you - which can make it difficult to get first run rights for if you're not a friend of News Corp.

Also, some of the shows, whilst not produced by 20th Century Fox, do show on the Fox Network in the US - Bones for example - which could also carry some weight when you're negotiating first run rights on a global scale.


Unfortunately that's not the way rights negotiations work. If Virgin were to create a channel that was sold on to other operators, then it would be likely to add additional cost, thats a given.

But holding the rights to broadcast a programme on your channel does not give you the rights to then sell that show on to someone else's network/platform.

Top Up TV, AFAIK, doesn't have any bespoke programming of note - and neither does it have the customer base that could support it.

BT have been extremely busy getting their own rights deals - I seriously doubt they're going to suddenly get into bed with their long-time telephony rival.

Homechoice, which is now Tiscali TV by the way, again has a very good track record in rights aquisition (one of the reasons it was attractive to Tiscali), but also has (today anyway) a pretty insigificant customer base and only in the M25 area. That will start to change in the future of course, but that's the state of the nation today.

And the whole premise for your considered email to Virgin seems to revolve around taking away these programmes for Sky customers. What have Sky customers done to upset you? I appreicate that many folk don't like Murdoch and his empire, but there's almost nine million households in this country who have Sky and you want to take away the programmes that you'd like to watch on your VM3 channel all day?

That's just playing into the hot-headed discussions from some on here who seem to think they are going to war rather than paying a company to provide them with a service.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

We shouldn't be afraid of Sky & under laws, Sky couldn't own/rule every channel/network, even if it owned all the rights in the first place.

No one in the Uk are going to allow Sky to be bullies, even if they think they own all the programes/shows or rights to shows/programes & channels.

Lost Series 3 was bought by Sky, but remember Channel4/E4 & E4+1 had Lost Series 1 & Lost Series 2 & they even bought Lost Series 2 forward.

Virginmedia & Channel4/E4 & E4+1 could easliy but Lost Series 3, & or out bid for futures programes/shows.

Sky bore me, they are slow, over priced & the dishes are horrible & banned under most estate tenant agreements.

Under my tenants argeement I ant allowed Sky or any sat/dishes.

We are only allowed Freeview, Cable, Homechoice, ect.

Take Care & Take It Easy :¬)

Scott :¬)

Re: Virginmedia Vs Sky:
 

The producers can make more from "almost" exclusivity as you say, but the networks make more from exclusivity because of the huge premiums they can place on advertising from the peek viewing figures they would expect.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Well - It's a big company that replies to mails sent to them!

Big up Virgin Media :tu: and other young sayings... ;)

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

I agree, and I am surprised!

NTL wouldn't have bothered replying, so this is a step in the right direction for Virgin.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

I got an phone call from Sky today asking me to join them. The woman on the phone was talking to me for about 10mins or so. She offers me TWO MONTHS free on Family pack and Sky Sports. When I ask the woman 'Can I keep my Virgin Media phone'? She says 'Sorry you will have to join BT.' Then I told her 'I can't get BT in has I pull a BT line out in 1998. And also I never watch your Sky Basic Channels on Virgin Media anyway.'

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Not sounding good there TV boy, the girl didn't know what she was talking about - you can have Sky and a Virgin Telephone line. Why you'd want to keep the over prices under featured line is a whole other debate. :)

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Did it make you feel good?

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

From Todays Sunday Times

For the full story http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle1496438.ece

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

While it may be technically possible, I doubt that Sky or Virgin will be actively encouraging people to use Sky services on Virgin lines.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

I used to have Sky in. Back in 1989 - 1995 before Cable appeared in Motherwell that how I got an phone call from them on Friday.
THEY look me up. They sent out an Video tape to me back in 1996 asking me to go back to them I found the tape Today.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

More of an advert than a story ;)

Being discussed here due to the mention of VM's upcoming 20mbps service: http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...nd-of-may.html



As for


Completely wrong.


Although that part of the "news story" is talking about moving from Virgin to Sky, it is talking about "Virgin customers who wish to leave for Sky and who only want TV", in which case they would presumably still have (or could have) Virgin broadband & a Virgin phoneline.

You do not need a BT line for Sky Digital - the digibox is quite happy when connected to a Virgin media phone line... all it wants is a phone line, it doesn't care who provides it.


You need a BT line for "Sky Talk" though. And you obviously need one for Sky Broadband (ADSL).

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

The Times may have told lies as they are own by the owners of BSkyB.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

It does care, we want to go on to Vonage for our phone but SKY dont allow (ATM) their STB connected to the Vonage network.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

That's not a "real" phoneline though - well, not a normal fixed landline, anyway, like Virgin/BT.

OK, so a Sky box can't use VoIP, but it *can* use a Virgin Media landline, just as it can use a BT landline.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Oh I agree, although Vonage isnt the same as a fixed line the vonage box allows any phone to be connected to it either Tone or Pulse, its just the data rate that the Sky box does its call back at thats the problem. (anyway enough of my comments time I got back to the pop :beer: )

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Today's (Monday) Grauniad has a section on who's winning - if anyone - between Sky and Virgin Media.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcas...031508,00.html (requires free registration)

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Which I think is pretty much you and I, and a couple of notable others, have been saying all along.

Nice to see it in an impartial paper too...rather than the slightly embarrasing bit in the business section of the Sunday Times yesterday, which was more like an advertorial for Sky than anything else.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Could you check the link, please, Gareth - I have tried linking and I get -
"We haven't been able to serve the page you asked for.
If you typed in a URL, please make sure you have typed it correctly. In particular, make sure that the URL you typed is all in lower case. "

And I can't find the story on the business or technology pages. :(

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Actually, being pedantic, it's probably the fact that the compression most VOIP services uses prevents use of modems (such as that built into the Sky + box) working. Modems use a far wider variety of frequencies than speech, and these compression systems tend to drop any frequencies not used by speech.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Oops, yeah, doesn't seem to work any more... sowwy.

I just found the article again and it now has this url:

Otherwise, you can search for it using the phrase "Branson v Murdoch - who is winning?" and it's in an article called "Media FAQ" dated 12th March.

Sorry for the inconvenience :o:

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Thank you, kind sir - that link works.:tu:

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Just to let you all know that someone finally came and fixed the cable cabinet outside our house today YEAY!!!!!

(still miss my 24's though...has anyone any idea if VM might get it back somehow?)

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

I found this today from 1989

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

TBH I didn't notice the missing content.
The only thing SKY bleat about is Lost. I think that's a perfect description of the plot :rolleyes:

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

:tu:

But if you pay Vonage for a second "fax" line it should work fine - it's £2.99 a month and can be added to your Vonage device in seconds (they all have a second port). :)

For the three services you need a BT line but that's now that you said:

You weren't after the three (or not from your comment above) so The Times is right, you do need a BT line for "See, Speak, Surf" but not for just TV.:erm:

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Arggghhhh!!!!

I can't stop my feet from tapping now. :mad:

What have you done:confused: :confused:

;)

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

he he.

bloomin heck that old astra promo brought back memories of that channel which kept telling about astra.

I had my dish trained from the living room to the astra satalitle. Could move it around to pick up others. It was brilliant but if you got it not just right that freckling would appear.

Today you could never get away with slapping a dish on a wooden block to watch satalite through a double glased window. Bah technology :td: .

I used to love moving to watch 3sat & german football via other satalites. One thing was if you bought your reciever mine was amstrad VHS satelite built in tuner. The trouble you had to get an official genuine sky card without a box. You had to find the local dealer prove/plead to them that all you need is a card. I wonder if its any easier as when cable came out we was one of the very first to be cabled in the country it was then diamond communications.

Even now I get sky hounding me to come back and its well over 10 years.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

A London radio station (LBC) interviewed a media journalist from the Guardian on this subject this morning. At the end of the interview he said he would be very very surprised if VM didn't get the Sky channels back in the end, under some kind of face-saving deal.

I don't care what kind of deal, I hope he's right!

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

After Sky put this ransom on their channels, then stopped their service via Virgin Media, then produced TV and billboard ads telling us things like "Virgin dropped 24, switch to Sky and get Jack back" I've dumped them.
I don't like companies that play dirty tricks and I won't give them any more of my money. Virgin Media is being installed at the end of the month.

If only I could influence a few thousand people to do the same.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

You should ask if Sky is the only one playing dirty tricks.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

I personally don't know if either company is playing dirty tricks.

I suspect Sky is though, mainly because I find it a little conveniant that it happened at the same time as Sky apparently tried to pull their channels from Freeview, and replace them with PayTV channels, and also apparently offered to broadcast to cable subscribers directly, thus cutting Virgin pretty much out of the picture. In both cases, more profit for Sky,

Also, had this (or even if it has) gone Sky's way and a lot of people left Cable to go to Sky, then Sky makes more profit.

In terms of Money, the best that Virgin can hope for is to maintain the Status Quo. At worst, they could (and still can) lose a lot of money.

On the other hand, if Ofcom do actually start imposing restrictions, then who knows what will happen.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Well, if it comes to dirty tricks, then timing is generally everything, and while I can see some dirty tricks from Sky's side, there definitely seems something slightly fishy on Virgin Media' side too.

The Flextech deal was originally set to expire at the same time as the Sky deal, so the two could have been resolved together, perhaps helping to ensure both sides played fair as they both had something to gain, and the deals could be done side by side. Instead, Virgin strangely decided to put the Sky deal off 3 months, and then did a significantly reduced deal for the flextech channels. Seems a bit of a dangerous thing to do. Were they hoping Sky would do the same back as some sort of gentlemans agreement (so they could carry on with their Sky on Virgin is cheaper than Sky on Sky advertisement, or offer their packages cheaper than Sky).

3 months later, the Virgin Media brand is starting to become more established, video on demand is more ready, V+ is gaining ground, the Virgin channels are doing well. The Sky carriage deal falls through. Virgin plays the victim to gain consumer support against "the bully", making Sky look bad, and then encourages people to use its video on demand (something it has over Sky) as a replacement to the sky channels, they even reduce the price to encourage more usage and get more people onto video on demand. With the freed up money they needed, saved from the Sky deal, they can spend that money on other things, like buying new content, starting new channels and sponsoring big brother, which they may not have had the funds to do before. It's known that Virgin benefitted little from carrying the Sky channels, so getting people to move from them to their own, with their new sports channel with their advertising likely, their video on demand services they profit from, it will encourage more revenue to them than they got. Plus they have all the funds saved from the Sky deal to go on and pursue these ventures. Meanwhile, use the entire fiasco to set the law against Sky and persuade an investigation which could possibly damage Sky's position.

Seems to benefit Virgin quite a bit, and the fact it was put off to fit in with the timing of events happening now and the fact that it seems Sky really wants their channels on Virgin while Virgin are focussing on their new goals and aren't too bothered about sorting something out could indicate dirty tricks on their part. The extra money, the publicity, ofcom against Sky, the removal of competitors to their plans (sport news channel, video on demand), it seems to have worked out quite well for Virgin...

Frustrated with VM Sky Sports options
 

Just feeling really frustrated today for Virgin Media not offering the 'Red button' service on Sky Sports channels.

There is crucial game between Srilanka - India today and Sky Sports schedule on their website shows that this is the game they will show on the main channel but, at the last moment, they have switched to an average West Indies / Ireland (no pun intended but, I wonder how many Irish people , who have VM, are really interested in cricket anyway). It might be a negative marketing tactic on Sky's part but, I am still frustrtaed with VM for not providing the service I have paid for. Moreover, while advertising, VM does not say that they do not offer full service even though they charge full price for the Sky Sports package.

It's fair to say I am going to get SKY as soon as I can for as a consumer, I get more from SKY than VM.

K.:mad: :mad: :mad:

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

I think that this issue is going to backfire big time for Virgin, Virgin have the oppotunity to get back at the table, but they are not interested, it the same that happened with Virgin and BA, it ended up in court.
What Sir Richard should have done, was say we will talk, but keep the channels on, so the COMSUMER, (thats us WHO pay Virgin), doesn't get left out, while the 'kids' fight over who is getting the biggest sweet, thousands of customers are losing out, as they cannot get dishes, especially councils, who are insisting that flat occupiers take them down, and therefore depend on CABLE TV, what should happen, is ALL customers, should read there contracts carefully, and see if this problem is ' a breach of contract of failure to provide a service' - l not trying to cause a war, it is about time WE the customer did something as well - l am fed up to the back teeth with the whole mess.:)

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

As far as I know VirgiNTL have always said the channels are subject to change at any time & there's never been a set list of channels that they MUST provide us & if there was it would only include the terrestrial channels & any that they have complete ownership of.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

What opportunity to get back to the table, where did you read that?

Remember though that Virgin Airlines won.

You also need to consider this. Sky WOULDN'T move on its price, but it did offer Virgin the chance to keep the Sky channels going, however it (Sky) would bill VM customers directly, without any compensation to VM for carrying it.

Given those options, how could VM go back to the table?

VM have been upfront with their customers, and they have said that they will not hold any customer to term of contract if they want to switch to Sky, providing they cancel before 31st March this year.

Sky are also removing their basic channels of the free DTT platform, and replacing them with a payed service. This would have been an alternative for those who couldn't get Cable or Sky, OR those who could get cable and wanted to view some of the basic channels, but it looks like Sky have caught on to that. The evidence is therefore pretty clear, Sky want YOU to pay for their basic channels, and you have no choice but to go to them if you want those services.

So you as the customer can do something about this, but its going to cost.

I'll stick where I am thank you very much.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

In one of the news broadcasts with a Sky representative, they mentioned that they did lower the price a few times, as well as offering to throw in extra channels as well as HD content too. It seems like Sky was willing to negotiate to an extent, moreso than it seems Virgin was willing. Virgin walked away from negotiations, not Sky.

Originally they were not letting customers out of contracts. It was only after the NCC raised the issue, hit the news, and commented that the least VM could do was allow customers out of contracts. Then Virgin agreed to do so up until the end of March, possible to avoid losing face and the bad PR that would have arisen otherwise.

As for being upfront, the press releases and the messages gave were rather one sided and had a lot of Virgin spin to them, implying Sky withdrew the channels and Sky left the negotiations, and acting as if they are the victim. While I don't know what happened between them precisely, other than the news reports, Virgin's side doesn't really appear to have much to stand on, other than big bad sky was too expensive, but look at our great video on demand service, it's much better than Sky's rubbish channels!

I personally think there is something rather suspicious about the entire ordeal. The flextech deal (for Virgin's channels) and the Sky deal were set to expire at the same time. That way, they could have done the deals together and made sure they were both fair for each other. Instead, Virgin accepted a very large hit in profits, and asked to postpone the Sky deal for 3 months. Sky agreed, and 3 months later, Virgin refuse to pay for the channels and try to make it look like Sky withdrew them (or maybe Virgin was hoping that Sky would return the favour and take cuts for the Sky channels, so they could lower their prices and keep advertising their whole Sky isnt the cheapest place to get Sky ads). Virgin then complain that Sky didn't pay them enough for their channels and abused their monopoly position. Meanwhile, with all the extra cash saved from not buying the Sky channels, Virgin has been quick to start spending money on more VOD content and things like big brother sponsorship, and they have knocked the competition (Sky One) out of the way to Virgin customers, all the while trying to gain public sypathy and challenging Sky in the courts. Seems it worked out quite conveniently for Virgin, without looking like they did anything wrong.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

No matter what happens everybody loses with this situation.

Virgin would be stupid to generate a problem as Sky One and the other channels are popular and Virgin will lose customers who move to Sky.

Sky really couldn't afford to lose the money from Virgin as now they have to get something like 150,000 Virgin customers to defect to make up the lost revenue.

Sky customers are relatively unaffected though they might not like how Sky operates.

Virgin customers lose the Sky Channels but get Virgin Central on Channel 119 instead. If there were hundreds of programmes to chose from then that wouldn't be so bad but 7 or 8 is not enough. I doubt whether Virgin has enough storage space.

It will be interesting to see what happens when Ofcom investigate. I just hope that Sky and Virgin can come to a deal that's in the best interests of their customers.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Well, regardless of the circumstances, the same outcome happened, and Virgin and Sky have both lost out to a point.

Either way, Virgin had to take a gamble - how much were the Sky channels worth to them, and they decided it wasn't worth it. They've publicly commented that they thought the Sky channels were poor and just had patches of good programmes, which they intend to buy themselves and provide via on demand. If they really wanted the sky channels, they could have afforded it, and got extras in the deal too (extra channels), but when it comes down to it they chose not to. Would the majority of customers bbother switching, would the majority of customers miss the Sky channels?

Was it a concern simply that it cost too much and they didn't want to put that cost onto customers (despite having done this many times, and it would have only have been a very small rise if what Sky say is true), or was it so they could have the money to spend on other things (without looking bad by appearing to reject Sky so as to save money, instead make it look like Sky withdrew the channels and they were the heroes spending that money instead to help consumers), trying to get Sky into trouble and making Virgin appear the victim?

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Let's hope Ofcom can find the truth and some answers to the questions you've posed.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

I hope so, and just so I don't appear biased, I don't accept Sky's side too - I feel that there's a lot going on behind the scenes to this diplomacy and deal that neither side is letting on.

Is Sky trying to get full control of their basic channels so they can only be available on Sky Digital? Afterall, their plans to remove their basic channels from Freeview and replace it with a service fully under their control seems to suppose they only want their channels where they have total control over the platform. Then again, they stand to lose a lot of money from advertising revenue from such a move, would it really be worth it? In the short term perhaps not, but if they can get a firm hold on the digital TV market in the UK, perhaps so in the long term. Perhaps they have something else up their sleeve until then, too.

Plus, there's the little matter that Sky keep boasting about the 3p per customer deal they made, but apparently there was a hidden clause in the contract setting a minimum fee which was greater than that, making the 3p per customer thing redundant and useless apart from in PR speak. What was the full story?

I guess we'll just be waiting for the investigation at this point, but I think both Sky and Virgin are plyaing slightly dirty and having their own agendas clouding what should be a simple carriage deal.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

I think you're right...they're both a bunch of you-know-whats...both sides have lied and played dirty with the customers (Virgin's customers) being the ones who have lost out.

However, I am not sure about your allegations of minimum fees, could should provide some additional evidence for these claims please?

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

In addition to my post above, I just wanted to add there's also the issue of Sky taking the chance to try to gain access to the cable network, giving them control over satellite, digital terrestrial and cable, makiing them both rather powerful and rather monopolistic if Virgin let them, or if it is granted by ofcom, which I think Sky is hoping on, or at least trying.

--------------------

Unfortunately, I cant find the original place where I read it, and I'm not sure if its true as it has not been confirmed directly by Sky, however, it is mentioned in numerous news reports by Virgin spokespeople, such as this one and others

Not the best phrasing, but the meaning is conveyed that basically the 3p per customer was nothing more than nice PR speak, the minimum fee was greater than that, and thus that would have been what they paid regardless of it being 3p, 2p or 1p per customer. Such a term, however, is also referred to by Sky here

Confirming that a minimum payment was there but denying it is double th current annual payment. Was it more than the 3p per customer Sky was touting so loudly?

But then again, they also entered into negotiations various times and gave different offers, and even went as far as to offer HD and VOD content for their channels, something which would have only strengthened Virgins position, doesn't sound like they were trying to be overly anti-competitive, especially offering VOD content which Virgin can do much better than Sky presently

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Thanks for providing the info....

I'm not sure either, but it could be right to say that £40m pa would include all the subs for additional Sky channels, such as Sports and Movies.

Whilst I'm sure that Sky weren't exactly shy and retiring in their negotiations, the more I read on this subject the more I think that Virgin went out to remove Sky channels from the line-up and we might well see other channels such as movies as the next target for them. Anyone know when the contract is up?

The only sticking point is sport, as Sky do still have a dominant presence in this arena, but Virgin could easily do movies, in fact I bet more people would use VOD for movies that having traditional broadcast channels.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

I get the impression that it was Virgin trying to get rid of Sky, rather than the other way around. They've been very focussed in their PR to make it look like that wasn't the case, but they don't seem to be doing much about it, which if they were really concerned, they would. As the NCC said, they could have arranged a temporary carriage deal while they worked it out so customers could keep the Sky channels while they came to an arrangement. Virgin didn't. In the end, I think it came down to a simple risk - would Virgin benefit more without the sky channels than with, and they banked on the former and cut the channels, all the whilke making it look like Sky's fault so they could go forward with their plans.

My concern with moving to VOD for movies is that's it's moving to a much more restricted model than Sky Movies provides. No longer will you be able to pay a monthly fee and get access to loads of movies, instead you'll have to pay for each movie with quite high prices, and be unable to record them or archive them to DVD and such, unlike you can with Sky Movies - heading down the much more restricted route, especially when some movies are starting to be HDCP protected and require HDMI, ensuring there's no way to get at the content other than watch it, and pay if you want to watch it again, which I think is a bad thing. Plus, there is something to be said about Sky's model in that you can flick to the channel and get caught into whats on, wheras with VOD, there's a lot of choice and unless you know specifically what you want, it's harder to just get into it, especially when you have to pay too. Plus, Sky's offering will become even better when they group the channels into categories - eg. a sci-fi fan can switch to the channel and watch sci-fi movies all day, some they may find good, some they may find bad, and not have to pay anything extra, and be able to record the ones they like - which wouldn't be possible with VOD.

As for sports, who knows. While Virgin have denied working with Setanta for a sports news channel at the moment, they mentioned they have a good relationship with Setanta and would possibly consider working with them in future ventures. Setanta has come up quite a lot over the years, and if they teamed with Virgin maybe they could pose a risk to Sky.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

I believe it's Sky's own fault forcing people to switch. It's not Sky Sports or Movies so most people will stick to VM.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

maybe "move to virgin" should be added because thats what i've done.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

What? You moved to Virgin becuase they pulled the Sky channels?

Why?

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

because now i'm getting all my services from virgin and saving about 60-70 quid a month, now i've got an upscalling HD box which didn't cost me 300 quid. yes i know theres not much HD content but i wouldn't have got anywhere near HD with Sky's prices.

i also now get the movie channels bundled in and i'm still paying a lot less than i was a month ago.

so i've lost sky one and got sky movies. i will miss the simpsons but thats about it. and as for the other shows i like, two words, box set or blu ray or HD DVD box set. lovely jubblee.

and last of all i can spend my money on whatever i like.;)


have a good one all

delfo:p:

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

Now been added.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

It was meaningless to add an additional poll option - This poll has been open far too long for any additional poll option to have been added. 3rd option removed.

Additionally, the reported posts facility is not to be used to make special requests to team members.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

My question was asking if you moved to Virgin becuase Sky had remove its channels from there.

The answer is clearly simple, in your case no.

The poll question asks what people will do if (it was a long time ago) Sky removed the channels. Just becuase you happened to want to move to Virgin at the same time doesn't mean you did so becuase a few channels were taken away from the line-up.

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media
 

To be honest i was a bit cheesed of with sky for pulling the channels and that was my first reason for leaving but at the time i didn't have all the facts. I no longer know who is to blame.

After getting more facts and realising it may not(or may) be all sky's fault i decided to go ahead with the switch anyway after finding out just what i was getting and how much i would be saving.

Sky and VM should both stop chucking their toys out of their prams because the only people getting hurt at the customers.

And i didn't realise you only wanted a yes/no answer, I appologise.

Have a good one all

Delfo;)

tvboy at least you tried ;)

Re: SKY VS Virgin Media