[pedg]

Originally Posted by [LEFT

andygrif[/left];34230699]I think you're underestimating the

inteligence

and broadness of the people who use this site. But I do understand where you are coming from.

I am not saying that Virgin have called up a thousand subscribers to ask them, but I am saying that I would not assume that they have.

Even if they have, there will be a percentage of customers that will change their supplier if what has been suggested comes to pass; how many customers can Virgin afford to lose before

cashflow

is seriously compromised?

If 15% is 1/2 million subs and £21m per month income, then 10% is 1/3 million and £14m per month lost, 5% is 167,000 and £7m per month (£84m a year).

If the sums being banded around earlier of

carraige

fees of £45m pa for these channels are correct, then you can see the predicament that Virgin are in for yourself.

I'd hazard an educated guess that the 15% we see on here might not be too far off the money; taking into account the channels in question, viewing figures are as follows:

20% of digital homes watch Sky One at some point during an average week, 10% Sky Two, 10% Sky News and 15% for Sky Sports News. These stats include

Freeview

, where Sky One and Two don't appear of course.

So the average for these channels is not a million miles from the 15% on here. Could just be a coincidence, I'm no statistician.

But what you are implying is that 75% of people who watch sky one at some point in the week will feel its loss is enough for them to go through the hassle of changing to sky. Personally I would be surprised if, when push comes to shove, less than 10% moved. As things like the convenience of VOD kick in its not just a change to sky can only be positive as you get the sky channels back, you also lose the convenience of VOD. The experience in the states i believe is that VOD has tended to reduce the amount of churn of customers and from near daily use of VOD I would miss that more than I would miss sky one.