Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad
We are consumers of their content, not customers of their content. The one who buys the product is the customer, the one who uses the product is the consumer.
The prices we pay are set by Virgin. The prices we pay for SKY HD have apparently been set by SKY, but in reality if Virgin thought SKY was being unreasonable and the prices where too high for us their customers they wouldn't have completed a deal to bring SKY premium HD to Virgin.
Whatever we have access to just now is down to agreements reached between Virgin and SKY with and without the help of Ofcom. Are SKY really withholding services or are Virgin not offering enough to have access to them? Everything in business has a price, Virgin just need to offer enough to make SKY's head turn.
Actually come to think of it, don't SKY customers pay more than us for SKY Sports plus HD? It may only be in the region of about 75p. If that is accurate, SKY's customers are getting bloody good value for their money. 5 SKY Sports HD channels, SKY Mobile, SKY Player. Maybe Virgin should be reducing their pricing a little to reflect the gap in the service they provide to us when compared to SKY.
|
Ah thats OK then. It's OK for VM customers to pay full wack for Sky channels and not get a full service. Nice defence of consumer rights there. On pricing you do know that Ofcom has said that Sky are charging other platforms too much for reselling the channels. They have come to the same conclusion as you about Sky platform customers getting a good deal but strangely are blaming Sky whereas you seem to think it is VM's fault based on no facts at all. You seem determined to say that nothing is Sky's fault it is all their competitors fault.
The only defence for Sky, which isn't much good for us customers/consumers, is that any company would act like this if they were in Sky's dominant position. That just shows that we customers/consumers need protection from companies that have achieved this dominance.