[theone2k10]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

I have to say that Sky are not doing much wrong in this case. They have spent their money on (imo overrated) exclusive SA content, and are also helping themselves, along with ITV to improve ratings by enticing customers with this latest deal. Like VM, (or anyone else) they want customers to join them or stay with them. Why should Sky pump money into a channel(s) just to offer it to VM (or anyone else) who have not paid a penny for the start-up costs? It could be argued that selling it VM (or anyone else) will re-coup some costs, but if Sky can afford to take the hit, why not please their loyal customers and try and gain more custom?

If VM complete an exclusive deal with an American company and C4 or C5, would that be equally as wrong?

I do disagree with the way Sky operate overall though. The costs of SS and movies for VM customers are ridiculous. I know the same argument about expenditure can be used, but Sky are clearly ripping non-Sky subscribers off. Whilst people are daft enough to keep paying Sky for them though, Sky will keep charging it.

---------- Post added at 19:19 ---------- Previous post was at 19:17 ----------



No rose tinted glasses here Den, I disliked my time with Sky.

Same here as soon as my Sky contract is up i'm out. Although i might have a get out early clause as they declined my cashback with topcashback which might void the contract. I've got someone looking into that for me.