Cable Forum - View Single Post

GuestUK · 24-03-2007, 13:50

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?

24-03-2007, 13:50	#385
GuestUK Inactive Join Date: Mar 2005 Services: Ex-NTL: Virgin 4mb internet, Virgin phone, Virgin Digital TV (XL): 1 Pace STB, 1 V+ STB Posts: 245	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?