Only 100 Customers/Day Leaving VM - Page 9

AndyCambs · 05-03-2007, 13:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuestUK

The difficulty here is whether something is significant is subjective rather than objective. A person who never watches Sky One or Sky News would consider their loss insignificant, whereas a person who watches nothing but would consider it very significant. It's something which has to be considered on a personal basis, rather than something you can summarise as not being 'significant changes' for anyone.

It also depends on the service and package people have - the more channels they have, the less significant a reduction it perhaps is. For those with very few channels of which Sky One and Sky News were part of, it is more significant. For example, on analogue for me, losing Sky One and Sky News has been quite significant because there are now only a couple of channels remaining (I know, my fault for not being digital, but in my case I would argue it was a significant loss - especially considering the channel number of Sky One was 7, after bbc, itv, channel four, five and itv2)

And I appreciate the non-digital customers have more to lose. Personally, if there is a cable, then I think VM should prioritise the upgrade to those areas as soon as possible.

Is there a reason why (apart from money) they've not been done before?

GuestUK · 05-03-2007, 13:28

Digital is available in my area (it seems) as I just did a check, although I've never really had anything from NTL or Virgin about it directly, and to be honest, I've never really needed it as until recently I've been quite happy with analogue - I had sky one, uk gold, discovery, news 24 and the standard channels, and was pretty happy. As a non-serious television watcher, just watching it in my spare time when I get the chance, but wanting to make sure what I watch is what I enjoy, I was happy.
Therefore, losing Sky One was quite significant for me, hence why I wanted to disagree with your previous message

AndyCambs · 05-03-2007, 13:35

I had analogue, and moved to digital some years ago. Some friends stayed on analogue until recently, and their choices gradually reduced with the numbers of channels anyway.

**Hugh** · 05-03-2007, 13:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

The end of the day the contract is a piece of paper, not the bible as some on here would have believed.
People who want to leave any company should know that a contract can be contested.
You cannot be held to a contract if you think that contract is unfair.
In my opinion VM did make significant changes to their package, therefore if they do not let people out of the contract, which in fairness they are doing, then they can be rightly taken to task, as can any company.

Yes, you can - the final decision is that of a court, not an individual; whilst your opinion is important, it is the law that would decide if a contract is unfair, not you (or me); you may wish to contest that a contract is unfair, but just stating that it is unfair does not make invalid (no matter how many times you say it

).

AndyCambs · 05-03-2007, 13:41

And talking of unfair contract terms - there's the contract between Sky and Virgin for the Virgin TV Channels:

http://pressoffice.virginmedia.com/p...203&highlight=

Quote:

- In January, despite a 15 per cent per cent increase in the viewing share of Virgin Media TV's channels over the last three years in Sky homes, Sky forced Virgin Media to accept an 85 per cent reduction in the price it pays for the channels

**Hugh** · 05-03-2007, 13:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

And talking of unfair contract terms - there's the contract between Sky and Virgin for the Virgin TV Channels:

Quote:

- In January, despite a 15 per cent per cent increase in the viewing share of Virgin Media TV's channels over the last three years in Sky homes, Sky forced Virgin Media to accept an 85 per cent reduction in the price it pays for the channels

http://pressoffice.virginmedia.com/p...203&highlight=

Does that mean that VM can cancel their contract with Sky?

That looks like a "significant change" to me - Sky should be taken to task.

btw, it could get interesting now, according to that press release
"Virgin Media has formally advised Sky that it will pursue action in the high court if their carriage disputes are not resolved within 30 days"

D0gleg · 05-03-2007, 13:46

Nice to see some real figures out there for a change!

AndyCambs · 05-03-2007, 13:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Does that mean that VM can cancel their contract with Sky?

That looks like a "significant change" to me - Sky should be taken to task.

Perhaps Sky might given them until then end of March to cancel without penalty??

GuestUK · 05-03-2007, 14:04

To me, there seems to be something odd in the way the flextech and sky deals were done. From an interesting interview in the guadian with Murdoch

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Murdoch

Our Sky Basics deal was originally due to expire simultaneously with the Flextech deal. But they asked us if we would be willing to extend that deal by three months - we did not understand it at the time. But we did it - losing some money - because we figured they had just done the merger and had not got their act together. But maybe it was because they wanted it to come up right after their relaunch.

Edit: Also of interest - seems Sky offered Virgin the ability to retail their channels themselves with full control and profits, although Virgin turned it down

Quote:

We operate an open platform. We prepared for them, prior to the renewal of their retail carriage agreement, a whole open access package that would have allowed them to retail their Flextech channels. They did not want to do that, perhaps because they did not want to take the risk. We offered to do the same deal with our channels on Virgin.

It seems odd that they would put themselves in such a position, as well as taking the cuts that they did, unless there was something happening in the bigger picture - or perhaps I'm reading too much into it.

Downloads · 05-03-2007, 14:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuestUK

Edit: Also of interest - seems Sky offered Virgin the ability to retail their channels themselves with full control and profits, although Virgin turned it down.

I don't blame them either, NTL nearly went completely under after spending a tonne of money in laying cable which is a superior technology. Getting access to satellite in return is hardly a fair exchange.

Stuart · 05-03-2007, 14:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downloads

I don't blame them either, NTL nearly went completely under after spending a tonne of money in laying cable which is a superior technology. Getting access to satellite in return is hardly a fair exchange.

Virgin could get into satellite relatively easily anyway. Sky don't own the satellite, they just rent transponders on it. Anyone (with enough cash and an uplink facility) can approach SES (who do own Astra).

GuestUK · 05-03-2007, 14:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downloads

I don't blame them either, NTL nearly went completely under after spending a tonne of money in laying cable which is a superior technology. Getting access to satellite in return is hardly a fair exchange.

I can see what you are saying, I think, unless I misunderstood though, it would be something more in addition rather than exchange? Virgin gains access to satellite, while still having (if they wanted - and they do) full control over its cable network?

Gareth · 05-03-2007, 14:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

And talking of unfair contract terms - there's the contract between Sky and Virgin for the Virgin TV Channels:

http://pressoffice.virginmedia.com/p...203&highlight=

Quote:

In January, despite a 15 per cent per cent increase in the viewing share of Virgin Media TV's channels over the last three years in Sky homes, Sky forced Virgin Media to accept an 85 per cent reduction in the price it pays for the channels

I presume you mean unfair as in unlawful? If so, how is this unlawful?

Notwithstanding the fact that none of us are privvy to the terms of any contract between VM and BSkyB, I don't see how one company bargaining with another is unlawful. It may be unfair, as in unjust, for VM considering the price paid in relation to the value of the product, but I don't see why you consider it unlawful.

I'm not trying to be funny here... I'm a neutral by-stander as I am a customer of both companies. I have no interest in either of them "losing out" as I will stand to lose on both counts. They're both going to recoup any incurred losses from their customers, so it'll be a double-whammy for me.

AndyCambs · 05-03-2007, 14:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuestUK

I can see what you are saying, I think, unless I misunderstood though, it would be something more in addition rather than exchange? Virgin gains access to satellite, while still having (if they wanted - and they do) full control over its cable network?

Apart from the free carriage of Sky programmes

Downloads · 05-03-2007, 14:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Virgin could get into satellite relatively easily anyway. Sky don't own the satellite, they just rent transponders on it. Anyone (with enough cash and an uplink facility) can approach SES (who do own Astra).

That's what i thought the case was, so what were Sky offering then? I don't understand? Anyone enlighten me?