vote please Sky's basic Channels back on Virgin Media?

[info4u]

I have made a lengthy post on here which does go in depth as to why we shouldnt be too concerned about the channel loss.

Yes I enjoyed watching the simpsons and futurama and just started to watch bones occasionally

But, there is loads of other stuff like Paramount Comedy etc to go by

To read the post I made go to SKY CHANNELS

Why pay out extra £10 a year for these channels (Sky News, Sky Sports, Sky Travel) when you can view them online for nothing and are also available on freeview, the only true channel you would be paying for is Sky 1

In the above post you will see the links to watch Sky Sports News online and Sky News as for travel channels there is plenty

www.wwitv.com Click here for UK channel List
www.television.bg

Plenty of alternative choices.

Lost, Nic Tuk, Battlestar Galactica, Bones, 24 etc etc will more than likely come in time to Virgin Media once legal contracts to broadcast them on demand have been drafted up with the producers of these programmes, since it will be more than likely on demand it can affect DVD and VHS sales.

[valor]

I miss my daily Stargate fix, also the latest Stargate weekly series both SG1 and Atlantis.

[Taf]

Appease Murdoch just to get Stargate, Stargate Atlantis and a couple of others back?

No thanks... I'll wait for the DVD boxsets.

[GuestUK]

Originally Posted by info4u

I have made a lengthy post on here which does go in depth as to why we shouldnt be too concerned about the channel loss.

Yes I enjoyed watching the simpsons and futurama and just started to watch bones occasionally

But, there is loads of other stuff like Paramount Comedy etc to go by

There are other channels, but everyone is different and has different tastes of what they would like to watch. As a science fiction, in particular Star Trek and Stargate fan, Sky One was pretty much the exclusive broadcaster of these series on any regular basis, as well as having new episodes, there isn't really any replacement for that. Virgin substitutded Hallmark for Sky One, but it's no substitute for me, unfortunately.

To read the post I made go to SKY CHANNELS

Why pay out extra £10 a year for these channels (Sky News, Sky Sports, Sky Travel) when you can view them online for nothing and are also available on freeview, the only true channel you would be paying for is Sky 1

Apparently Sky News and Sky Sports News are not going to be on Freeview much longer, depending on Sky's plans to move to premium content on DTT instead. Furthermore, the non-official video streams if I recall correctly are put up by third parties and could easily disappear, go wrong, be shut down and the legality is questioned.

In the above post you will see the links to watch Sky Sports News online and Sky News as for travel channels there is plenty

www.wwitv.com Click here for UK channel List
www.television.bg

"TELEVISION.BG is neither affiliated with the broadcasted channels nor responsible for their content. "
Again, there is questionable legality here. These are broadcasts made by people with the channels streaming them to the internet, and as I mentioned above, they could disappear, be shut down, break and again there are the legal issues. They may be up for now, but like TVU viewers (another streaming television system) found, the channels can easily disappear and not return when the person broadcasting them stops or has problems.

Some people have no problems downloading or viewing content from the internet for free and think it is fine despite the moral or legal implicaitons, however, not everyone takes such a view. Some people would like to legally view the channels they would like, from their television, reliably.

Plenty of alternative choices.

Lost, Nic Tuk, Battlestar Galactica, Bones, 24 etc etc will more than likely come in time to Virgin Media once legal contracts to broadcast them on demand have been drafted up with the producers of these programmes, since it will be more than likely on demand it can affect DVD and VHS sales.

This is fine for the popular series perhaps, but what about the less popular things that the channels showed? It seems to be Virgin's stance that there were only a couple of things worthwhile on Sky One, so if they put them on On Demand, everyone will be happy - I beg to differ. Part of what I liked about Sky One was that it was varied and broad and had a lot of programming, not just the most popular series.

There's also the fact that this is going to be after everyone else (who has Sky) has watched the episodes. Watching them when they are repeated months later is quite different. All the discussions between episodes have finished, you get it spoiled for you because other people have seen it, you're basically watching it after it's gone "stale" to an extent. I can't speak for other people, but I quite love the discussions after each live episode, talking to others about it, speculating what will happen next and such, and this isn't really possible here. Plus the fact by the time it hits on demand may be when it's on DVD already, and as I don't have digital myself, I have gathered you are not able to record on demand content, so you can watch it then it's gone, wheras if you get the DVDs you keep it forever. If each episode costs, which I imagine it will (or have unskippable adverts - there has to be some revenue to compensate the series costs, which loses part of the advantage of VOD anyway) then it may be better value just to get the DVDs anyway. Meanwhile, the next new series has probably started on Sky and they would be missing it again.

Not to mention the fact that if people are concerned about having to pay more for Sky, what about having to pay more for all the new VOD content Virgin are going to be trying to purchase - to offer anything like what Sky One offered is going to be very expensive and no doubt the costs will be pushed on to customers to fund the new expenditures. And if Virgin wants to compete with Sky, which it seems is their stance at the moment, it's going to be very costly. Not to mention unlikely they'll get any exclusivity deals due to the fact that the audience with Virgin is significantly smaller, (and those that can receive VOD moreso).

To conclude, for the people that actually liked the Sky Channels, there isn't much compensation or reason to stay. Perhaps for the occasional viewer, but not for people that liked the choice to watch what they wanted, including Sky programmes. Not to mention legally questionable low quality internet streams or downloads to get the content the customers want, the content provider is providing, yet Virgin as the person in the middle is denying.

Appease Murdoch just to get Stargate, Stargate Atlantis and a couple of others back?

No thanks... I'll wait for the DVD boxsets.

As a Stargate fan myself, I unfortunately missed Season 2 of Stargate Atlantis when it aired on Sky having only got into Stargate Atlantis after it aired. So I waited for the box set and it has been more than half a year of waiting! When my friends have already seen it, discussed it and enjoyed it, when you have to stay clear of Stargate forums because you can't join in the discussions and risk getting it spoilt for you, for me, it's just not the same. For others maybe it's something worth losing "to get back at Sky", and I could even understand it if it seemed like it was for a good reason or the channel was stopping alltogether, but as far as I can see, the loss of the channels is due to two squabbling companies.

Originally Posted by Taf

Appease Murdoch just to get Stargate, Stargate Atlantis and a couple of others back?

No thanks... I'll wait for the DVD boxsets.

Absolutely, these programs have been hugely popular, in the past, but SG-1 finishes on Tuesday & I've already seen the Atlantis series 3 finale, due here on Wednesday

I haven't 'got into' 24 (still have season 1 boxset to watch), got bored with Lost, which leaves Bones & BSG as the only ones I miss - and boxsets, etc, will be available for those, as you say.

I think Sky overestimated the demand for their programs, especially Lost, which cost a huge amount of money, only to see viewing figures fall, compared to what was achieved on Ch4.

[Saneboy13]

Originally Posted by GuestUK

... For others maybe it's something worth losing "to get back at Sky", and I could even understand it if it seemed like it was for a good reason or the channel was stopping alltogether, but as far as I can see, the loss of the channels is due to two squabbling companies.

So you are telling me that as a customer, you would be willing for VM to pay almost £40million extra on top just to keep a few channels?

[countbathory]

voted no, stuff sky and murdoch, i hope they lose millions.

[GuestUK]

Originally Posted by Saneboy13

So you are telling me that as a customer, you would be willing for VM to pay almost £40million extra on top just to keep a few channels?

I have no idea what the exact amount to may was, so I can't comment on that directly, but I am sure that some reasonable deal between the two could have been met with a little negotiation, but Virgin left the negotiations and began its PR campaign instead.

There would always be another couple of possibilities too. Make the sky channels premium channels (eg. like the Disney channel used to be, for example, £5 a month, or like Sky One used to be, £1 a month). That way, those that want Sky could pay, those that didn't wouldn't need to.

There's also the offer Sky gave, which was to handle the feed directly and market it to customers, and deal with the costs themselves, thus relieving Virgin of having to handle the costs.

I get the impression that with a little negotiating from both sides, the entire situation could have been resolved. It might be the wrong view, but from following the developments as they happened, it seemed like Sky was working hard to adapt their offer, throw in new channels, and striving to reach a deal, wheras Virgin gave their deal, walked away, and refused to negotiate - take their deal or nothing. Of course, this could be easily mistaken and there's much in the background we just don't know. I personally wonder if Virgin hoped that if they gave the flextech channels to Sky for cheaper, Sky would do the same to them, thus enabling them to cut costs and tout how their service was better and try to get more people to switch to cable - only it backfired, and they ended up losing money on the flextech channels to Sky, and getting nothing back, and now they're trying to find a way out.

[James79]

Well, what can I say? I voted "Yes" to this poll!

To be honest, I would like to see the Sky Channels return to the Virgin Media Platform.

Why, I hear many of you ask!!

Well, not too long ago, this site and other forums (that are concerned with what are now Virgin Media services) were full of posts demanding this channel and that!!

We had demands for carriage of the Horror Channel, FX, and many more. On the majority of these cases, NTL/Telewest brought them onboard. The reasoning for wanting these channels - better value for money!!

Considering that the Sky Channels have now been removed and that there are no plans to implement an overall reduction in the subscription fees for their services, I believe that Virgin Media has now become a poorer service, and is no longer as good value for money as it once was (if it ever was).

I for one will not be contacting Virgin Media to demand a reduction in my bill, after all, WHEN the Sky channels return, this reduction will more than likely be taken away, and there will probably be some increase in the monthly subscription fee. Think of the complaints that will be made!!

Bottom line - Bring back the Sky Channels and enhance the Virgin Media's Value For Money!!

[Saneboy13]

Originally Posted by GuestUK

I have no idea what the exact amount to may was, so I can't comment on that directly, but I am sure that some reasonable deal between the two could have been met with a little negotiation, but Virgin left the negotiations and began its PR campaign instead.

There would always be another couple of possibilities too. Make the sky channels premium channels (eg. like the Disney channel used to be, for example, £5 a month, or like Sky One used to be, £1 a month). That way, those that want Sky could pay, those that didn't wouldn't need to.

There's also the offer Sky gave, which was to handle the feed directly and market it to customers, and deal with the costs themselves, thus relieving Virgin of having to handle the costs.

I get the impression that with a little negotiating from both sides, the entire situation could have been resolved. It might be the wrong view, but from following the developments as they happened, it seemed like Sky was working hard to adapt their offer, throw in new channels, and striving to reach a deal, wheras Virgin gave their deal, walked away, and refused to negotiate - take their deal or nothing. Of course, this could be easily mistaken and there's much in the background we just don't know. I personally wonder if Virgin hoped that if they gave the flextech channels to Sky for cheaper, Sky would do the same to them, thus enabling them to cut costs and tout how their service was better and try to get more people to switch to cable - only it backfired, and they ended up losing money on the flextech channels to Sky, and getting nothing back, and now they're trying to find a way out.

The cost was just shy of £40million extra sky wanted for VM to carry those channels. As for your quote about sky offering to carry the feed themselves, I don't know where you get that from, but it's total rubbish.

The bottom line to this is that sky wanted, no needed the extra money to keep that channel cost effective. They are making a huge loss on it themselves and saw VM as an easy target. Don't forget, Sky started the PR exercise first, telling VM customers to ring the call centre and tell the people that they wanted VM to keep sky one.

If you look at the costs sky have with sky one you then start to better understand the whole situation. With Nip/Tuck, Bones, Stargate, 24, Lost for them to purchase that lot by season you are looking at many millions of pounds (tens of millions in fact). That was and is sky's main reason for wanting to hike up the prices. 3p per customer per day does not sound much until you work it all out and it comes to near the £40 mil I said earlier.

I know it's an inconvenience to some people, but what do you want? do you want strong competition or do you want VM to say "Yes Mr Murdoch, how much more do you want us to give you today"?

[mdwh2]

Originally Posted by RedDragon

Maybe, just for those whose life depends on 24 and the Simpsons, VM should buy Sky 1 at the asked for price then put it out as a stand alone premium channel so that only those who want it ,pay for it, and the rest of us won't have to subsidise the few.

That would be good (or perhaps say put it on the L/XL packages but not the M one, or something) - but I don't think that was an option, supposedly the deal was all or nothing.

---------- Post added at 16:22 ---------- Previous post was at 16:21 ----------

Originally Posted by Taf

Appease Murdoch just to get Stargate, Stargate Atlantis and a couple of others back?

No thanks... I'll wait for the DVD boxsets.

Which even for just a few programmes, will likely work out an order of magnitude more expensive than the price Sky were asking for.

Of course, there is a cheaper way to get hold of the programmes...

---------- Post added at 16:27 ---------- Previous post was at 16:22 ----------

Originally Posted by Saneboy13

3p per customer per day does not sound much until you work it all out and it comes to near the £40 mil I said earlier.

I'd say that's looking at it backwards - £40m sounds a lot, until you realise it works out at 3p per customer per day. Quoting £40m is meaningless when you don't know how many customers VM have, or what revenues they have, not to mention comparing viewers/price for other channels.

Also, surely 3p was the _new_ price, and not the increase?

In answer to your qu, no I wouldn't mind it if 90p per month of my bill went to Sky. I realise that not everyone is okay with that, but then everyone has different tastes. But for everyone, the question is what that money will be spent on instead.

[Saneboy13]

---------- Post added at 16:27 ---------- Previous post was at 16:22 ----------

I'd say that's looking at it backwards - £40m sounds a lot, until you realise it works out at 3p per customer per day. Quoting £40m is meaningless when you don't know how many customers VM have, or what revenues they have, not to mention comparing viewers/price for other channels.

Also, surely 3p was the _new_ price, and not the increase?

In answer to your qu, no I wouldn't mind it if 90p per month of my bill went to Sky. I realise that not everyone is okay with that, but then everyone has different tastes. But for everyone, the question is what that money will be spent on instead.[/quote]

I am fully aware of the situation as I work for VM, so the quote of an "Extra 3p per customer per day, equating to an extra £40million a year" is factual. They wanted the £40mil on top of the deal that was there. So for an instance if VM were paying £40million to carry these channels, Sky wanted to double the cost of it being there! Fair? no chance

[Nilrem]

I would like them back, but can quite easily live without them (would have been a nice additional option for the poll "I'd like them back, but don't mind if they don't" )

[GuestUK]

Originally Posted by Saneboy13

The cost was just shy of £40million extra sky wanted for VM to carry those channels. As for your quote about sky offering to carry the feed themselves, I don't know where you get that from, but it's total rubbish.

I apologise, poor choice of words on my part, I was referring to Sky's offer to Virgin to directly retail and transmit the channels to Virgin customers over the Virgin network at no cost to Virgin.

The bottom line to this is that sky wanted, no needed the extra money to keep that channel cost effective. They are making a huge loss on it themselves and saw VM as an easy target. Don't forget, Sky started the PR exercise first, telling VM customers to ring the call centre and tell the people that they wanted VM to keep sky one.

While if I recall correctly Sky did begin by broadcasting messages on its channels that Virgin customers may lose channels if an agreement wasn't reached which Sky claim was to let customers know what was going on, Virgin began with the campaign saying they were going to lose the channels and that Sky had stopped negotiating, which Sky claimed was untrue, and that they were surprised Virgin took to the press and withdrew from negotiations. While I agree that Sky's actions were questionable, Virgin's leaps to the press and big press announcements with their own twists seem moreso, although what really was happening behind the scenes we don't know.

If you look at the costs sky have with sky one you then start to better understand the whole situation. With Nip/Tuck, Bones, Stargate, 24, Lost for them to purchase that lot by season you are looking at many millions of pounds (tens of millions in fact). That was and is sky's main reason for wanting to hike up the prices. 3p per customer per day does not sound much until you work it all out and it comes to near the £40 mil I said earlier.

Sky have invested in expensive programming and helping to make their channel more attractive, and as a result the costs for ccarriage of the channel may increase. Surely it is only reasonable that Virgin would need to pay more for a channel with more investment and more expensive content?

I know it's an inconvenience to some people, but what do you want? do you want strong competition or do you want VM to say "Yes Mr Murdoch, how much more do you want us to give you today"?

I am all for competition, but I think the way this has been handled by both sides very badly. I agree with the NCC which stated that they believed what had happened to not be in the best interests for customers, plus the deeper issues in the market which this disagreement highlighted.

Originally Posted by NCC

Our concern is that this dispute may expose a more fundamental flaw in the digital television market, and the extent to which it is competitive for consumers.

The National Consumer Council will be examining these questions as a matter of urgency, with a view to deciding whether to exercise our statutory powers under the Enterprise Act. If necessary, we will refer this market to the regulator using our power to bring a ‘supercomplaint’. In the meantime, we urge the two companies to put consumers first, by reaching a speedy solution and being crystal clear about customers’ rights.

For those that don't like the channels, it's meaningless, and to some who aren't keen on the channels, it is perhaps inconvenience, but to those that really like the channels in question and signed up to Virgin to receive those channels it is a pain. I've read the majority of messages on the fairplay "message board" Virgin put up, and there was a resounding view that the majority of people liked the channels and want them back. I'd argue that this is more than a minor inconvenience.

As for competition, is it good for competition that Virgin have total control over their network and nobody else can have acces to it, thus if Virgin want to block a channel they can. If a channel may compete with a venture they are working on, they can deny them access, if they dislike the company makiing the channel, they can deny it, if they have personal reasons regardless of consumer interests, they can deny it, unlike Sky who have an open platform.

[mdwh2]

Originally Posted by Saneboy13

---------- Post added at 16:27 ---------- Previous post was at 16:22 ----------

I'd say that's looking at it backwards - £40m sounds a lot, until you realise it works out at 3p per customer per day. Quoting £40m is meaningless when you don't know how many customers VM have, or what revenues they have, not to mention comparing viewers/price for other channels.

Also, surely 3p was the _new_ price, and not the increase?

In answer to your qu, no I wouldn't mind it if 90p per month of my bill went to Sky. I realise that not everyone is okay with that, but then everyone has different tastes. But for everyone, the question is what that money will be spent on instead.

I am fully aware of the situation as I work for VM, so the quote of an "Extra 3p per customer per day, equating to an extra £40million a year" is factual. They wanted the £40mil on top of the deal that was there. So for an instance if VM were paying £40million to carry these channels, Sky wanted to double the cost of it being there! Fair? no chance

I never said that wasn't factual - indeed, my point was that it was factual, i.e., it's 3p per customer per day. Whether or not it is fair to VM is a separate question to whether a particular customer would choose to pay it.

But can I clarify - was it an _extra_ 3p, as so far I've only seen people saying that was the new price?