General : ESPN, BT, Euro, Premier and Sky Sports news

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I think that Sky is by far the best concerning cost of their channels.

If they are putting up the average cost by £1.00 for the year, why is VM ripping off customers by charging more.

I would have thought that VM would have reduce prices to accommodating customers.

Sorry it does not make sense when all these customers are figting it out for for the best service. And yet they dont know who to choose.

I am seriusly thinking of going back to Sky and just have the normal service, which would be far cheaper than VM.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by colin25

Virgin add a little bit..seasoning

Oh dear here we go again with the usual gang up to their old tricks.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by denphone

Oh dear here we go again with the usual gang up to their old tricks.

bet your shocked Den mate NOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by denphone

Oh dear here we go again with the usual gang up to their old tricks.

Why is Sky Sports more expensive on Virgin then? Genuine question - I had always assumed Virgin were skimming.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Dave42

bet your shocked Den mate NOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Well you can take horses to water but you can't make them drink from it.

---------- Post added at 17:42 ---------- Previous post was at 17:38 ----------

Originally Posted by andy_m

Why is Sky Sports more expensive on Virgin then? Genuine question - I had always assumed Virgin were skimming.

As we all know Sky charge Virgin a extortionate wholesale rate and thus Virgin have to cover their costs.

[colin25]

Originally Posted by andy_m

Why is Sky Sports more expensive on Virgin then? Genuine question - I had always assumed Virgin were skimming.

Because you can take a horse to water...and if its a virgin customer, you can make them drink it, no matter the price

---------- Post added at 17:43 ---------- Previous post was at 17:42 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

Well you can take horses to water but you can't make them drink from it.

---------- Post added at 17:42 ---------- Previous post was at 17:38 ----------



As we all know Sky charge Virgin a extortionate wholesale rate and thus Virgin have to cover their costs.

Or Virgin is charging you extra, because they know you likee lots

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by colin25

Because you can take a horse to water...and if its a virgin customer, you can make them drink it, no matter the price

---------- Post added at 17:43 ---------- Previous post was at 17:42 ----------



Or Virgin is charging you extra, because they know you likee lots

It's a difficult one, that, because I'm paying Virgin a hell of a lot less than I used to pay Sky for a comparable package, and I've received a much better service to boot.

You will, of course, find Sky customers who have had the exact opposite experience and think they're better off where they.

So what I would say is this - it's useless to say one company is more expensive than the other when the truth is actually that if you sign a contract with either company for a 12 month period that means you have to pay the full headline price every month for the duration of that contract then actually you are an idiot. And you should also always consider the total price paid over the course of the contract, as opposed to the monthly amount, when comparing deals.

---------- Post added at 19:06 ---------- Previous post was at 19:04 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

As we all know Sky charge Virgin a extortionate wholesale rate and thus Virgin have to cover their costs.

Do we know this though? Are Sky actually charging Virgin more wholesale than they are charging their own subscribers retail?

Surely that cannot be the case?

[Chad]

The full SKY Sports package is only £16.00 on Smallworld Cable.

http://www.smallworldcable.com/Cable-TV/Sky-Sports

Are Smallworld taking a massive hit on each customer taking SKY Sports, or do they have a favorable wholesale rate with SKY? £16.00 per month is amazing value!

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Chad

The full SKY Sports package is only £16.00 on Smallworld Cable.

http://www.smallworldcable.com/Cable-TV/Sky-Sports

Are Smallworld taking a massive hit on each customer taking SKY Sports, or do they have a favorable wholesale rate with SKY? £16.00 per month is amazing value!

no HD at all but would good to know if they taking a hit or sky is charging them less than VM

Got to be a massive hit as Sky would want those customers for themselves. If only I lived about 50 miles north.

---------- Post added at 19:22 ---------- Previous post was at 19:21 ----------

Originally Posted by Dave42

only sky sports 1+2 in there chad and no HD

While no HD is correct, it is all 6 channels;

[Gavin-D]

Originally Posted by Chad

The full SKY Sports package is only £16.00 on Smallworld Cable.

http://www.smallworldcable.com/Cable-TV/Sky-Sports

Are Smallworld taking a massive hit on each customer taking SKY Sports, or do they have a favorable wholesale rate with SKY? £16.00 per month is amazing value!

They only have a small customer base when compared to VM so they may be able to cover the costs from other areas of there business? if not they'll be taking a hit for sure it wouldn't be like sky to give something cheap to a rival

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Gavin-D

They only have a small customer base when compared to VM so they may be able to cover the costs from other areas of there business? if not they'll be taking a hit for sure it wouldn't be like sky to give something cheap to a rival

totally agree with that

[andy_m]

If SmallWorld are taking a hit then that suggests that there is at least no contractual reason why Virgin could not lower the price, doesn't it?

I suspect, much like the reason that UPC have more Sky HD channels, the reason lies in Sky wanting to prove to the regulator that they are actually nice people to do business with,

[telegramsam]

Maybe sky see smallworld more as a rival to virgin than themselves and like the idea of helping one of their competitors?

Originally Posted by telegramsam

Maybe sky see smallworld more as a rival to virgin than themselves and like the idea of helping one of their competitors?

Virgin & SM only operate where the other doesn't so it can't be that.