General : Underhand devious Sky

[hdtvfan]

Originally Posted by denphone

Not sure how many share your experiences of Virgin to be perfectly honest as the vast majority l know are very happy with their services and experience's with Virgin and if you are so unhappy with them then why are you still with them.

Basically I have no choice with respect to internet, its either stick with Cable and all their problems or take an 8mb at best connection from BT.

I have switched my TV package between Sky and Cable every couple of years to take advantage of deals and to get certain channels or services but I am stuck with cable for internet until BT pull their finger out.

I know most people on here are problem big Cable fans but from my experience cable has declined since Virgin took over Telewest. Friends in the same area seem to agree as well, the only people I know who are happy with the switch to Virgin the two exNTL customers I know from work (Apparently Virgin is an improvement over NTL (Which makes me wonder just how bad NTL where)) so maybe it depends on which network you had before Virgin whether you think things have got better or worse.

[Superblade7]

Originally Posted by hdtvfan

Basically I have no choice with respect to internet, its either stick with Cable and all their problems or take an 8mb at best connection from BT.

I have switched my TV package between Sky and Cable every couple of years to take advantage of deals and to get certain channels or services but I am stuck with cable for internet until BT pull their finger out.

I know most people on here are problem big Cable fans but from my experience cable has declined since Virgin took over Telewest. Friends in the same area seem to agree as well, the only people I know who are happy with the switch to Virgin the two exNTL customers I know from work (Apparently Virgin is an improvement over NTL (Which makes me wonder just how bad NTL where)) so maybe it depends on which network you had before Virgin whether you think things have got better or worse.

I'm ex-Telewest and have seen nothing but gradual improvement since they became VM! Guess it just depends on your personal experience!

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by boragthung

Can't believe how big this thread's got! It's sort of evolved from my original moan though.

My opinion on licence fees and subscriptions - I have no problem with paying so I can have advert free quality (well some of it) telly. The licence fee provides a large number of services compared to what is provided by the likes of $ky at a more substantial cost.

Seeing as how the likes of $ky must make a fortune from advertising why should they be allowed to charge a subscription on top of that? This is the reason they have so much money to outbid and control content. Now I know the answer to that would be providing boxes and cards and encryption just like cable. Personally I think there should be no subs for anything if they raise income from adverts (else with subs - no adverts).

I think all media output should just be put out there FTA - if you want it buy the hardware you want. As it is everything is 'closed shop' with allowing only provided hardware and having viewing cards, subscriptions, etc. But my personal revolutionary new world is never going to happen.

The likes of ITV rely purely on income from adverts and although they have considered (or are considering) it, do not gain subscription income on top of that. Not that I watch much of ITV anyway as I think it is full of brainless tat in the main, with only the odd quality programme (Like Scott and Bailey). No subs to watch Ch4 or 5 either although I think these do get a small cut of licence fee to provide public services (and maybe ITV or rather ITN do as well?).

As far as I can work out, subs are a revenue stream for ITV, who have the majority of their hd variants behind Sky's pay wall.

---------- Post added at 18:10 ---------- Previous post was at 18:06 ----------

Originally Posted by Superblade7

I just thought I would add my points to this pretty interesting thread:

Sky have dominance because they took a big risk in the early days and bought the rights to the Premier League and first run movies on tv. This has paid off over the years as the popularity of having the choice to watch these on tv has grown and grown.

At the same time the cable industry was split into different companies all doing their own thing. If VM had been around in the late 80's / early 90's as the company they are today then things may have been different as they may have gone head to head for certain content. Unfortunately they weren't and that is where we are today.

The other advantage Sky have is it's availability as it is available in many more homes than cable and is therefore always going to pull a larger market share and in turn far greater revenue. They then use this revenue to invest in their programming, content and ever improving products and services.

The Sky quality also shows through, for example, the Champions League final last night, I chose to watch it on Sky Sports rather than ITV as I personally believe Sky present their football content far superior to any other channel.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see Sky Atlantic, ITV2/3/4 HD, etc on VM but at the end of the day, it's a business and it has to have a USP to make people choose Sky over it's rivals.

VM currently have superfast broadband and all their advertising is focused on that as that's VM's USP.

I am very happy with my VM services and whilst I would love some extra TV content, to me Sky Atlantic only has had one or two shows that would have been interested in so wouldn't make me switch unless I got a far greater deal which would save me money for similar services.

On the point of the licence fee, I believe the BBC produce some great content, have great services and therefore provide a top class service considering.

My final point to end my post would be that whatever you believe, healthy competition is good for us, the consumer. It is great to have choice, whether you are happy with the FTA range available on Freeview / Freesat or if you want the pay TV content on Sky / VM / BT. It also keeps the prices reasonable as it it were only one big pay TV company, they would probably hike their prices up and you would have to like it or lump it.

Whatever your views, each individual has the right to choose what services are right for them both in terms of what they can afford and what they wish to watch.

Also, wouldnt it be boring if they were exactly the same as forums like this wouldn't be littered with all these interesting posts about pro's and con's and showing that everyone has their own views and where people have problems, others are always willing to help.

Great topic borag!

This thread, in a nutshell. Good post. Repped.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by hdtvfan

Friends in the same area seem to agree as well, the only people I know who are happy with the switch to Virgin the two exNTL customers I know from work (Apparently Virgin is an improvement over NTL (Which makes me wonder just how bad NTL where))

rather like early freeview that had taken a sleeping pill.

Note a lack of comment about us all funding Sky via Virgin.

Originally Posted by Itshim

rather like early freeview that had taken a sleeping pill.

Note a lack of comment about us all funding Sky via Virgin.

Funding Sky through VM surely not.OH Noooooooooo.

I wondred where my sub for all those Sky channels on VM were going.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by richard1960

Funding Sky through VM surely not.OH Noooooooooo.

I wondred where my sub for all those Sky channels on VM were going.

Look back at posts - along the lines that Would not give money to Murdoch s empire. Clearly some people DONT understand that we all ( That watch TV via Virgin) do just that

[carlwaring]

It's what they call a necessary evil, I'm afraid

[DaMac]

The big post about sky isn't entirley true though is it, i seem to remember a company calld BSB that looked like they could more than give sky a run for their money even back then untill $murdoch decided they was too dangerous and the company's ended up merging (Yeaah right) despite a lot of people at BSB's best efforts to keep the wolf from the door, they eventually was trampled all over.. by the government as well and became BSkyB, otherwise known as Sky TV.

Originally Posted by DaMac

The big post about sky isn't entirley true though is it, i seem to remember a company calld BSB that looked like they could more than give sky a run for their money even back then untill $murdoch decided they was too dangerous and the company's ended up merging (Yeaah right) despite a lot of people at BSB's best efforts to keep the wolf from the door, they eventually was trampled all over.. by the government as well and became BSkyB, otherwise known as Sky TV.

BSB had the satellite frequency licences for UK broadcast and was the 'official' satellite broadcaster for Britain. Unfortunately the whole spectrum flog-off was fundamentally flawed - there was nothing to stop Sky from bidding for spectrum allocated to other European countries. Sky won the rights to satellite broadcast spectrum allocated, IIRC, to Luxembourg, and promptly started using it to broadcast its services to the UK instead.

It cut the bottom right out of BSB's market, especially as that company was using a bandwidth-intensive means of broadcast that severely limited the number of channels it could offer. While BSB and Sky were both loss-making concerns at the time of the 'merger', BSB was losing twice as much as Sky.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Chris

While BSB and Sky were both loss-making concerns at the time of the 'merger', BSB was losing twice as much as Sky.

Sky had a 10 year lease on SES transponders to the tune of £50 million , BSB opted to construct and launch it's own satellites (Marcopolo) at a cost of around £200 million also Sky's PAL receivers were also considerably cheaper than BSB's DMAC receivers.

I guess that would be why BSB was haemorrhaging cash at such a rate - they needed more subscriptions, and more quickly, than Sky, just to keep level. It all brings back memories of a Clive James gag ("BSB, a company losing £10 million a year, and Sky, a company losing £5 million a year, are to merge and form a company losing £15 million a year") and who could forget the comedy gold that was KYTV ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWtPEXfQki0

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Itshim

Look back at posts - along the lines that Would not give money to Murdoch s empire. Clearly some people DONT understand that we all ( That watch TV via Virgin) do just that

With out trying to be personal,So apologies if taken that way please look at post 81 to make sense of this comment