Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 35429323)

Sorry my point is supplier - be that any one- has the right to market products in anyway they see fit. Hence Tesco`s value will never be sold in your local independent shop or for that matter ASDA. Using your reference to Domestos. If unilever choose not to supply ASDA, I think they are within there rights, daft but with in them.

So why do posters here think that SKY has to place its products in rivals "shop". Virgin gave up the idea of buying TV shows,in favor of being a conduit.
I do not like it but if SKY or for that matter any other supplier choose not to use Virgin as a conduit so be it. Perhaps if they supplied it via Free-view at a cost, then perhaps I could see a case ( not a strong one but still ). As I see it there are two choices live with it or move. :shocked:

Originally Posted by andy_m (Post 35429439)

If Virgin was struggling to create it's own channel in order to compete with Sky then market dominance might be an issue, but Virgin had channels and sold them. There's no case to answer here, Virgin have chosen not to complete in this area.

Originally Posted by andy_m (Post 35429543)

Virgin do compete with Sky, in some areas such as broadband and on demand they are arguably ahead. They've chosen not to compete on linear channels. I understand the need for regulation when competition can't be achieved, but two companies who choose to operate in different ways shouldn't be bought together by regulation just because one of them doesn't have access to a particular channel - you end up with 2 companies offering near identical products competing solely on price. That just results in cuts to quality.

Originally Posted by andy_m (Post 35429543)

Virgin do compete with Sky, in some areas such as broadband and on demand they are arguably ahead. They've chosen not to compete on linear channels. I understand the need for regulation when competition can't be achieved, but two companies who choose to operate in different ways shouldn't be bought together by regulation just because one of them doesn't have access to a particular channel - you end up with 2 companies offering near identical products competing solely on price. That just results in cuts to quality.

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35429482)

VM not got money to compete with sky as no one else has either thats why sky got a near monopoly

Originally Posted by LexDiamond (Post 35429565)

VM had good channels with good shows :confused:

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35429551)

Tell me.What do you think of the BBC?:)

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35429583)

yes but could not afford to keep them sadly and had to sell them to get acces to sky premium HD channels they never have got them otherwise

Originally Posted by andy_m (Post 35429592)

If you genuinely want to know, I think their news output is dreadful, but that some of their drama and documentaries are world class, and I think I player is excellent. I am, in general, against what I consider to be a tax imposed on everybody, regardless of whether they use the end product, albeit I am personally quite a heavy user. However, I am able to temper this by thinking of my elderly grandmother and contenting myself with the thought that she has access to simple, world class television for free.

In terms of the discussion, both Sky and Virgin are doing well in tough economic times despite the presence of a state funded broadcaster which provides 8 TV channels, numerous radio stations as well as online content, so it's hard to argue it has any impact on competition.

---------- Post added at 22:08 ---------- Previous post was at 22:05 ----------



Exactly, they had a choice. They chose to only be a platform rather than a content provider. I don't understand why, having made the choice not to compete in this area they should now be given a helping hand to acquire channels they' chosen not to compete against.

Originally Posted by andy_m (Post 35429592)

Exactly, they had a choice. They chose to only be a platform rather than a content provider. I don't understand why, having made the choice not to compete in this area they should now be given a helping hand to acquire channels they' chosen not to compete against.

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35429550)

there can't compete on channels as sky pay very big money to make sure no one esle can compete with them

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35429779)

Spot on Dave.

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 35429815)

Next you will asking for a share of the license fee:erm:

I really can not understand why people here think its their god given right to access SKY channels. Via Virgin , why not via the BBC I player or ITVs net player. Come on lets start asking for all SKY channels on top up TV.

No other supplier of goods ( & that`s what it is) is told to whom they must supply. It is not that you can`t not get them, it is that you choose NOT to get them.

Perhaps I can access ASDAs goods via my local CO-OP (its closer to me). Sorry its time people started to get real. I do not like, not having the full range of SKY channels via Virgin, but there are a whole lot more that are the same & very few people complain about that ( Think news channels on freeview for a kick off -not on Virgin) :D

However I still choose Virgin over SKY - Why they cost about the same, both have plus & minus points, the reason I do is for the same sort of cost per month I get a box(es) & Modem I do not have to worry about:p:
If that model changed that so would I.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35429829)

I will say this ONLY ONCE...I do not expect or demand to see Sky channels on VM.I also think that the OP doesn't expect that either.