General : Sky Sports pricing dispute: appeal ruling looms

The prices are pretty much the same for Sky and Virgin ok Virgin do not have a few of the channels well the solution is simple switch to Sky and stop moaning

[Emel]

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

The prices are pretty much the same for Sky and Virgin ok Virgin do not have a few of the channels well the solution is simple switch to Sky and stop moaning

Actually the solution is to watch the match at the Gym while exercising instead of at home while eating junk food

Switch to Sky and lose fast broadband and TIVO, how is that a good idea. It seems strange that a Cable forum is full of Sky fans.

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.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Then how is it Sky Atlantic is not available to Smallworld or BT?

Originally Posted by Telly_

To be fair if Sky do keep just one channel for themselves even you can't begrudge that.

Other wise you just end up with an unfair playing field where all content is the same but every VM customer has the option of 100Mb and Sky's offering may only be 3Mb.

If in VM areas Sky could resell VM cable then I suspect VM would have Atlantic, But Sky need its USP. Just like VM have superfast broadband.

---------- Post added at 10:11 ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 ----------




What things do they do time and time again? An what is this "track record" you always chat about. The only network I see that 100% withholds access to its services is Virginmedia.

---------- Post added at 10:14 ---------- Previous post was at 10:11 ----------

Sometimes its seems in my opinion virgin want ALL sky content Cheap, to resell BT services, to have exclusive use of TiVo.

But they dont want anyone having access to any of there products or services deliberatly withholding access to its cable network forcing customers to choose VM if they want fast broadband.

Nice to see consistency in your propositions.....

[muppetman11]

I like Sky's product however agree with many posters on here pay TV is getting very expensive now , for me it's something I can comfortably afford however I do have levels to what I'm happy to pay. My main sports are Rugby League , football , American Football and Ice Hockey however with the current rights acqusitions in 18 months or so time , I would need a sub to four channels (BT Sports , Premier Sports , Sky Sports , ESPN ) which is less than ideal especially when you factor in you need a base tv pack increasing your costs even more. In an ideal world I love to be able to cut Sky/VM/BT out altogether and get a sub to premier league , NFL network , NHL via something like a Roku type box.

[Telly_]

Originally Posted by Emel

Actually the solution is to watch the match at the Gym while exercising instead of at home while eating junk food

Switch to Sky and lose fast broadband and TIVO, how is that a good idea. It seems strange that a Cable forum is full of Sky fans.

It's not, you're just getting an opposing view.

[LexDiamond]

Originally Posted by Emel

Actually the solution is to watch the match at the Gym while exercising instead of at home while eating junk food

Switch to Sky and lose fast broadband and TIVO, how is that a good idea. It seems strange that a Cable forum is full of Sky fans.

The majority of Sky customers here are ex VM customers that used to post here as VM customers before changing.

[dilli-theclaw]

Originally Posted by Emel

Actually the solution is to watch the match at the Gym while exercising instead of at home while eating junk food

Switch to Sky and lose fast broadband and TIVO, how is that a good idea. It seems strange that a Cable forum is full of Sky fans.

Maybe not all of us 'sky fans' started off with sky, I can't get VM where I am and I would if I could.

As it happens I phoned sky to cancel this morning so at the moment I'm looking at getting freesat instead.

But it doesn't mean I'd be leaving CF though.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by Telly_

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.

It doesn't surprise me that when called on your comments they suddenly become made in jest. I agree with some of the things you say, but the cheap jibes and side swipes make you look petty, puerile and narrow minded.

I think the outcome of the Tribunal was not much more than a score draw (intentional sports pun), and doesn’t really clarify the situation. What have we found out: Ofcom do have the right to impose restrictions on Sky, but in this instance they went about it in the wrong way. The argument put forward by VM didn't seem to hold must weight in the eyes of the Tribunal, and if that interpretation is correct then the perception that VM are blameless and the badly done-to party in channel negotiations is wrong. I might be wrong but I’m not aware of VM ever officially saying (other than in the above appeal) that they have been wronged. I will not pass judgement on Sky until I've read the judgement in full, as we've only seen a summary to date so there may well be some criticism of sky in the full document.

Cheers

Grim

[Emel]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

I like Sky's product however agree with many posters on here pay TV is getting very expensive now , for me it's something I can comfortably afford however I do have levels to what I'm happy to pay. My main sports are Rugby League , football , American Football and Ice Hockey however with the current rights acqusitions in 18 months or so time , I would need a sub to four channels (BT Sports , Premier Sports , Sky Sports , ESPN ) which is less than ideal especially when you factor in you need a base tv pack increasing your costs even more. In an ideal world I love to be able to cut Sky/VM/BT out altogether and get a sub to premier league , NFL network , NHL via something like a Roku type box.

Good post!

I guess if I really wanted to I could afford to have Sky for sport and Cable for everything else but it seems such a poor value proposition. I like the base service on Cable so that is where I will stay. I may decide that Sky Sports plus two channels of HD is not good value for money, there are many ways to enjoy life.

By the way I am sitting at the computer smiling, it is other people who use phrases like "throwing your dummy out" and "moaning".

[alwaysabear]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

I like Sky's product however agree with many posters on here pay TV is getting very expensive now , for me it's something I can comfortably afford however I do have levels to what I'm happy to pay. My main sports are Rugby League , football , American Football and Ice Hockey however with the current rights acqusitions in 18 months or so time , I would need a sub to four channels (BT Sports , Premier Sports , Sky Sports , ESPN ) which is less than ideal especially when you factor in you need a base tv pack increasing your costs even more. In an ideal world I love to be able to cut Sky/VM/BT out altogether and get a sub to premier league , NFL network , NHL via something like a Roku type box.

That would be the ideal solution and one I would sign up to straight away.

I see that my suggestion that everyone try to avoid baiting others and keep it civilised hasn't lasted long.

How about discussing the actual topic which is about the dispute between Ofcom and Sky..Not VM and Sky?

Originally Posted by Emel

Actually the solution is to watch the match at the Gym while exercising instead of at home while eating junk food

Switch to Sky and lose fast broadband and TIVO, how is that a good idea. It seems strange that a Cable forum is full of Sky fans.

Excuse me but VM do packs without TV

Sky World HD £65.75
Sky Multi room £10.25
VM 100 meg and talk unlimited £44.40

total cost £120.40

VM 100 VIP £93.25
phone rental £13.90
dunno if HD sports is included? £7

total cost £114.15 or £107.15

so as a virgin customer you get the whole lot cheaper so tha tcovers the few channels you lose but you can go to Sky get them all and only pay 8 quid for it

you have the option to vote with your feet if you so desire

---------- Post added at 12:29 ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I see that my suggestion that everyone try to avoid baiting others and keep it civilised hasn't lasted long.

How about discussing the actual topic which is about the dispute between Ofcom and Sky..Not VM and Sky?

sorry I was spending ages researching my post I hope its ok to leave it?

Ahem!Just this once.

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

The prices are pretty much the same for Sky and Virgin ok Virgin do not have a few of the channels well the solution is simple switch to Sky and stop moaning

What about those that cannot get sky then? or indeed those that have no access to cable.

You make switching sound so easy when in reality its now always so.

But there you are the dispute between ofcom and sky rumbles on in one way or another i guess,whilst consumers are on the sidelines.

[andy_m]

Its a dispute between ofcom and Sky following complaints from Virgin. Ofcom are the middle man, this is about a dispute between Sky and Virgin. Ironically, and the reason I suspect that this thread is full of "Sky fans", its a dispute that most Virgin customers don't care about-only a minority of one in ten even subscribe to the Sports channels, fewer still, I imagine would be prepared to pay for hd channels and the ratings for Atlantic, a channel available to 10 million households, are pathetic no matter how many times we're told that "there's some really good stuff on there". I'm glad Virgin aren't prepared to do a deal on these things, but I do wish they'd admit that this was the case-after all, not paying for channels that the majority of people don't want is not a "shortcoming", its good business sense. Virgin aren't Sky, it should stop trying to be.