General : Sky Sports pricing dispute: appeal ruling looms

[gj4009]

I think you're always gonna get the people that will be forever blame sky for virgins shortcomings. Doesnt matter what they read what a tribunal says, jesus, neil berket himself could come out and admit it but these people will still blame Sky, they're dominant market position, for the fact that virgin are missing a few HD channels, and virgin customers have to be little pirates and download G O T or any other decent show on Sky Atlantic. I really dont get it, its like these little hippy kids you get after the first year at uni think they know it all about how the world should work and how we should still feel sorry for coal miners and the tories are the devil. Thats how i see SOME (deffinitely not all) of the people on this forum. Why dont you just bite the bullet get that lovely little mini dish installed, and believe in better that way you can all stop moaning about missing channels, murdoch, and everything else you decide to blame sky for.

Get over it virgin didnt want to play ball and now have been exposed as the liars they are, putting it out as skys fault for a long time when in reality its virgin who you can all blame for the lack of HD and other channels you dont have. Notice how there isnt an official press release from Virgin, wondering what line to feed there ever loving fanboys next i guess...

[LexDiamond]

Originally Posted by denphone

Its alright and fine to do business but the problem is that one side is asking for ridiculously high carriage fees knowing full well that any sane company would never agree to those high carriage rates to start off with.

And to think you actually accuse other people of wearing rose tinted glasses

Re-read the report. It CLEARLY states that the cable company and Sky entered negotiations and it is the fault of the cable company that there was no conclusion to the negotiations. Despite what you keep on saying, the reason for the breakdown in negotiations was not price. It was the Cable company's lack of willingness to do business.

Despite what you might say, the actual evidence is that VM do not carry these channels because they do not wish to do so. Instead, VM have made it a habit of running to OFCOM crying about Sky when in fact the evidence suggests that this is a negotiation tactic by VM in itself, by forcing Sky to do business or face an unfair regulator in OFCOM.

[gj4009]

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

And to think you actually accuse other people of wearing rose tinted glasses

Re-read the report. It CLEARLY states that the cable company and Sky entered negotiations and it is the fault of the cable company that there was no conclusion to the negotiations. Despite what you keep on saying, the reason for the breakdown in negotiations was not price. It was the Cable company's lack of willingness to do business.

Despite what you might say, the actual evidence is that VM do not carry these channels because they do not wish to do so. Instead, VM have made it a habit of running to OFCOM crying about Sky when in fact the evidence suggests that this is a negotiation tactic by VM in itself, by forcing Sky to do business or face an unfair regulator in OFCOM.

Well said, deffinitely a few to many people on here with an oppinion, that haven't read the report. mind-boggling really.

[Telly_]

Surely even OFCOM are going to struggle to open yet another un-needed investigation into Sky.

Sky should be looking at opening a harassment complaint against OFCOM if this continues.It would also be interesting to see who provides Paytv services to OFCOM staff. Could you imagine if they were a majority of Virginmedia customers lol.

Originally Posted by Telly_

Surely even OFCOM are going to struggle to open yet another un-needed investigation into Sky.

Sky should be looking at opening a harassment complaint against OFCOM if this continues.It would also be interesting to see who provides Paytv services to OFCOM staff. Could you imagine if they were a majority of Virginmedia customers lol.

I doubt now wether OFCOM will launch another pay tv review the last one took the best part of three years,and i cannot see them wanting to do so at the moment.

Of course the real losers in some ways are consumers as if they want said product they have a restricted choice of where to get it from.

[Telly_]

Originally Posted by richard1960

I doubt now wether OFCOM will launch another pay tv review the last one took the best part of three years,and i cannot see them wanting to do so at the moment.

Of course the real losers in some ways are consumers as if they want said product they have a restricted choice of where to get it from.

I agree, if I want TiVo I'm restricted to Virginmedia, If I want 100Mb broadband I'm restricted to Virginmedia. Never mind maybe next time they will force VM to open up.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by richard1960

I doubt now wether OFCOM will launch another pay tv review the last one took the best part of three years,and i cannot see them wanting to do so at the moment.

Of course the real losers in some ways are consumers as if they want said product they have a restricted choice of where to get it from.

so true

[Emel]

Originally Posted by Telly_

So there you go, you can have Premier sports but you can't afford it(nothing to do with Sky),Virginmedia have been free to buy in ITV2,3,4HD for over a year(nothing to do with Sky) you could have Atlantic and Skysports 3/4 in HD but can't afford it.

You give HD for free, Sky charge £10.25, if Virginmedia had a HD fee then they would be able to afford the extra channels. It Virginmedias choice to offer HD inclusive in XLtv. If that leaves their pockets a bit short then blame VM's bean counters for making a bad decision.

This report has really given the customers good information.

---------- Post added at 09:55 ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 ----------




If you had of read it you would see your "Sky withhold channels" argument you've been spouting out for years has just been blown out the water.


Virgin customer have the right amount of content at the price point they pay, more premium content is out there but they may have to pay more.

Sorry Telly but my pocket disagrees with your arguments.

I will be paying more for Sky Sports while not getting SS3, SS4, SSN and SF1 in HD. (Smallworld's owner says Virgin need to charge that much) I don't get HD for free, I pay for the XL pack and I pay £7 for just two HD Sky Sports channels.

It seems to me that I am paying through the nose for limited Sky content, I am sure things would be much worse without OFCOM.

[Telly_]

Originally Posted by Emel

Sorry Telly but my pocket disagrees with your arguments.

I will be paying more for Sky Sports while not getting SS3, SS4, SSN and SF1 in HD. (Smallworld's owner says Virgin need to charge that much) I don't get HD for free, I pay for the XL pack and I pay £7 for just two HD Sky Sports channels.

It seems to me that I am paying through the nose for limited Sky content, I am sure things would be much worse without OFCOM.

Yes but you get TiVo and upto 100Mb broadband, Virginmedias chosen road map many years ago was the UK's fastest widely available broadband which they have achieved and should be applauded for. TiVo is a fantastic product thats only going to get better, I'm told VM's ondemand puts Skys effort to shame, Your Tv pack includes ESPN.

So included in your price is all the above, You're getting fantastic value for money and you do get SS3 SS4 SSN SSF1 and you can enjoy those channels. You're not missing anything apart from a few pixels.

Sky chose to buy content, create content, invest in new channels, Virgin sold its channels to get more content in deal both sides were very happy with.

Virgin has achieved its goal of fast broadband, Sky has achieved its goal of great content. Its no good spitting your dummy out now. I'm not Anti VM my view like it or not is balanced and fair.

[alwaysabear]

Originally Posted by richard1960

I doubt now wether OFCOM will launch another pay tv review the last one took the best part of three years,and i cannot see them wanting to do so at the moment.

Of course the real losers in some ways are consumers as if they want said product they have a restricted choice of where to get it from.

The consumers are always the ones who take the hit.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by alwaysabear

The consumers are always the ones who take the hit.

yes and it not going to change that

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by Telly_

Sky should be looking at opening a harassment complaint against OFCOM if this continues.It would also be interesting to see who provides Paytv services to OFCOM staff. Could you imagine if they were a majority of Virginmedia customers lol.

Interestingly, Michael Blair QC who was assisting the Tribunal President disclosed at one of the earlier case management sessions that he was a VM customer who subscribed to the sports package. Sort of shoots your assertion in the foot somewhat.

Cheers

Grim

[Telly_]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Interestingly, Michael Blair QC who was assisting the Tribunal President disclosed at one of the earlier case management sessions that he was a VM customer who subscribed to the sports package. Sort of shoots your assertion in the foot somewhat.

Cheers

Grim

My "assertion" was in jest, the people on the tribunal are there due to professionalism and excellence. Who gets their £50 a month really is a mute point.

[Emel]

Originally Posted by Telly_

Yes but you get TiVo and upto 100Mb broadband, Virginmedias chosen road map many years ago was the UK's fastest widely available broadband which they have achieved and should be applauded for. TiVo is a fantastic product thats only going to get better, I'm told VM's ondemand puts Skys effort to shame, Your Tv pack includes ESPN.

So included in your price is all the above, You're getting fantastic value for money and you do get SS3 SS4 SSN SSF1 and you can enjoy those channels. You're not missing anything apart from a few pixels.

Sky chose to buy content, create content, invest in new channels, Virgin sold its channels to get more content in deal both sides were very happy with.

Virgin has achieved its goal of fast broadband, Sky has achieved its goal of great content. Its no good spitting your dummy out now. I'm not Anti VM my view like it or not is balanced and fair.

You are missing the point Telly.

I am a Sky customer, via Virgin which I prefer for the reasons you state. What I am saying is that the product I am buying, indirectly, from Sky is begining to seem a poor value purchase.

I am not throwing a dummy anywhere, I am considering spending my money in a different way.

As has been said previously, this is all bad news for the consumer.

[Telly_]

Originally Posted by Emel

You are missing the point Telly.

I am a Sky customer, via Virgin which I prefer for the reasons you state. What I am saying is that the product I am buying, indirectly, from Sky is begining to seem a poor value purchase.

I am not throwing a dummy anywhere, I am considering spending my money in a different way.

As has been said previously, this is all bad news for the consumer.

Well its your choice where your money goes, if you feel virginmedia no longer offer value for money due to a couple of missing SSHD channels then do what you think is right. You could move to Sky but you'll pay more and won't get ESPN, not sure its worth it for 4 channels you already get just not in HD.