Sky makes £160m bid for VM channels

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by tvtimes

Just what we need another miss-informed troll on the forums

indeed... I think it's best to ignore "da troll"

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

indeed... I think it's best to ignore "da troll"

What was that is there an under bridge dweller about

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by Sirius

What was that is there an under bridge dweller about

seems so "unda da bridge!"

[tvtimes]

I think it's Arthurs cousin!

[MrGiles2]

If VM do sell of their channels to Sky so that they can concentrate on their broadband, and mobile services, as well as TV On Demand, does that mean that our subs will increase even more?

Over the years, buying and selling by companies NEVER, NEVER EVER benefits the customer, only the shareholders and managers. And with incomes continuing to shrink (apart from the managers and the shareholders of course) it might mean that more and more people are going to find it much harder to meet their ever increasing bills.

In any case, I thought that with Sky buying these channels from VM is supposed to be anti-competitive.

[gadge]

Originally Posted by skyisdabest

sky should say to virgin we will give you 2 pence for dem make virgin sell them for nothing

How old are you young man our 5 year olds sentences make more sense.

[skyisdabest]

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

indeed... I think it's best to ignore "da troll"

Originally Posted by Sirius

What was that is there an under bridge dweller about

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

seems so "unda da bridge!"

Originally Posted by gadge

How old are you young man our 5 year olds sentences make more sense.

yous only have a problem cos yous no im rite so yous have 2 react like this u are

i am 15 years young not that dat matters

---------- Post added at 08:42 ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 ----------

u are just scared cos sky is gonna kill virginity media :P

Originally Posted by skyisdabest

i am 15 years young not that dat matters

Fifteen? I must admit I had you down as being a bit younger. Perhaps because I've got a 13 year old grandson who is a lot more mature than you.

Please stick to the topic, and remember that baiting any member is likely to get you warnings.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by skyisdabest

[/COLOR]u are just scared cos sky is gonna kill virginity media :P

Not scared at all.. I think it's a bad thing, but that's only because its competition that forces companies to innovate with new services and channels and to keep prices down.

Both Sky and Virgin have some nice things that the other doesn't operate (either at all or as well), such as On Demand (Virgin wins here) and all the red button stuff (Sky wins here). Do you *really* think that would happen if one TV provider was in the market? No, it wouldn't. What would happen is that they would charge what they want and offer what services they want. They could, after, all, get away with it. If they wind the customer up, who is the customer going to go to?

If you want to see a restricted but extremely expensive service, carry on, support Sky. If you want the prices to stay low, and keep Sky (together with the cable companies) innovating to improve services and reduce prices, then we need someone (not necessarily VM) who can challenge Sky.

[tvtimes]

Some people won't be happy till they see Vm gone, they'll soon change their views when an un-challenged sky put the prices up.

---------- Post added at 17:41 ---------- Previous post was at 17:39 ----------

Originally Posted by MrGiles2

If VM do sell of their channels to Sky so that they can concentrate on their broadband, and mobile services, as well as TV On Demand, does that mean that our subs will increase even more?

Over the years, buying and selling by companies NEVER, NEVER EVER benefits the customer, only the shareholders and managers. And with incomes continuing to shrink (apart from the managers and the shareholders of course) it might mean that more and more people are going to find it much harder to meet their ever increasing bills.

In any case, I thought that with Sky buying these channels from VM is supposed to be anti-competitive.

Vm can not afford tp put the subs up. They do every year inline with sky and inflation. In fairness to Virgin at least when the subs go up we are seeing additions to our services.

[skyisdabest]

Originally Posted by ahardie

Fifteen? I must admit I had you down as being a bit younger. Perhaps because I've got a 13 year old grandson who is a lot more mature than you.

why

---------- Post added at 19:37 ---------- Previous post was at 19:36 ----------

Originally Posted by tvtimes

Some people won't be happy till they see Vm gone, they'll soon change their views when an un-challenged sky put the prices up.

---------- Post added at 17:41 ---------- Previous post was at 17:39 ----------



Vm can not afford tp put the subs up. They do every year inline with sky and inflation. In fairness to Virgin at least when the subs go up we are seeing additions to our services.

they cant put money up bcos people will just go to sky and virgin wont have any people left which means no money

---------- Post added at 19:38 ---------- Previous post was at 19:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul M

Please stick to the topic, and remember that baiting any member is likely to get you warnings.

thankyou av a beer from me

[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by skyisdabest

thankyou av a beer from me

You're not old enough to buy him one

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by skyisdabest

sky should say to virgin we will give you 2 pence for dem make virgin sell them for nothing

A nice concise post and straight to the point, as to what point, I have no idea due to it being rather in the style of text speak.

Originally Posted by MrGiles2

If VM do sell of their channels to Sky so that they can concentrate on their broadband, and mobile services, as well as TV On Demand, does that mean that our subs will increase even more?

Over the years, buying and selling by companies NEVER, NEVER EVER benefits the customer, only the shareholders and managers. And with incomes continuing to shrink (apart from the managers and the shareholders of course) it might mean that more and more people are going to find it much harder to meet their ever increasing bills.

In any case, I thought that with Sky buying these channels from VM is supposed to be anti-competitive.

I would have thought if sky continue to buy everything up and being more of a monopoly then they already are, surely the EU would get involved eventually,does anybody know what it would take for the EU to look into anti competitive behaviour .?

Of course ever increasing bills could be remedied by cancelling services and going to freeview,though how much of that will be left if sky gets their mits on a pay DTT service.

Although i would still keep vm broadband.

It looks like everyone has stopped trying to compete with cash rich sky and hoisted the white flag, and just want to sell to them,and without proper regulation so it will continue.

---------- Post added at 13:51 ---------- Previous post was at 13:42 ----------

Originally Posted by skyisdabest

yous only have a problem cos yous no im rite so yous have 2 react like this u are

i am 15 years young not that dat matters

---------- Post added at 08:42 ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 ----------

u are just scared cos sky is gonna kill virginity media :P

Who is "virginity media" a porn channel perhaps.