SKY VS Virgin Media

[IWKYzerocool]

Originally Posted by macsense

Do you know NTL/Virgin Media cap your download speed if you're using P2P softwares?

I've BT line 2mb max download speed 220kB/s
also NTL/Virgin 2mb max download speed 70-80kB/s

I rang techincal support team and they had told me that they set the limit when users were using P2P.

I did not know that, thanks for the info. green for you.

[Longshot520]

NTL implemented traffic shaping on their service a few months back, not sure if Telewest ever did. Not sure what the current plans are overall although given that the cable network can accomodate speeds significantly higher than 10mb (50mb and 100mb are being trialled) I cant see there being a great need to continue with it on the old NTL side.. Maybe if we see a rollout of higher speeds nationally although that would depend on how many people use the full potential of those speeds. I have a 10mb connection and rarely if ever use the full potential of it as most websites simply cant serve the files that quickly on a consistent basis..

[SnoopZ]

Originally Posted by macsense

Do you know NTL/Virgin Media cap your download speed if you're using P2P softwares?

I've BT line 2mb max download speed 220kB/s
also NTL/Virgin 2mb max download speed 70-80kB/s

I rang techincal support team and they had told me that they set the limit when users were using P2P.

I think that only happens in congested areas at the moment as Cambridge seems to be fine.

[squonkster]

If Sky pull their non-subscription channels from Virgin Media/NTL then frankly there's no competition any more. VM/NTL cannot compete with Sky One at all and without it and the shows that have made Sky One a success, we all might as well get a Freeview box for the amount of choice we'll be offered.
Branson says that VM/NTL supplies Sky with Living TV (his only example) - Big Deal! Compared to Sky One with Battlestar Galactica, Lost, 24, the Stargates, Simpsons, Dresden Files and anything else that Sky either has its fingers in or has exclusivity deals, there is nothing - NOTHING - VM/NTL can offer. Without the Sky package, we would all be better off with Freeview and buying the DVD collections of the series we miss out on - it would ultimately cost all of us a damned sight less.
This entire thing is going to shoot both companies in the foot. VM/NTL offers just 3 million subscribers to add to Sky's 10 million audience, a fair amount, but one I believe that Murdock can do without. Sky maintain that they can attract up to a third of VM/NTL's customers to switch over - that's another million, and if these stations get pulled how long before FX, Hallmark, Sci Fi and others that have the odd gem on their schedules aren't also pulled.

Also, this VM on demand thing is only good if it offers stuff that people WANT to see. NTL's list of stuff it has been offering since I switched to digital is poor and it costs too much money, the free stuff wouldn't interest a dead viewer.

It's time for VM/NTL to pay the piper and absorb the costs, otherwise this huge new launch is going to sink like a stone.

[12noon]

I sort of agree with squonkster a little bit. Cable needs some first run good general entertainment programs like the ones on Sky One and they need them quick.

[Downloads]

Originally Posted by 12noon

I sort of agree with squonkster a little bit. Cable needs some first run good general entertainment programs like the ones on Sky One and they need them quick.

Nobody is going to do anything until the end of the month comes, as like a lot of people have said, it's funny how a lot of deals get brokered at the 11th hour. If the 11th hour does pass then i think we can expect to hear some news fairly soon after with regards to how they intend to compete in the future with additional content or be it with a discount. I don't think the 11th hour and the following hours will pass quietly anyway!

[mdwh2]

Originally Posted by Tod

There is no way 10% of Virgins customers would leave for Sky. 10% might be annoyed about it going, but to go through getting another subscriber and go through the hassle of changing for what is basically one channel amongst 100's - well you would have to have a screw loose to be honest. I know a few people on here will insist it's the case that you will, but can you REALLY be bothered?

Although that option may include people who will leave VM, but not necessarily go to Sky. Unfortunately there wasn't an option for that - but simply cancelling a service is a lot less hassle.

And, well, people don't watch 100s of channels. If you're only interested in a few programmes, which suddenly all get dropped, you'd have to have a screw loose to continue paying for a service you're not interested in.

[Kaychsea]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Sorry kaychsea, the sky+ box is not £299.
The Sky HD one may be.
I have the sky+ box, cost me £89 but I more or less made that money back through the half price tv package for three months.

The comparison was being made between V+,which is HD, and Sky's offering.

[andygrif]

I'd agree with you, I also think the Sky HD box is overpriced too. But then most technology when it first comes out is more expensive, the Sky+ is a good example of that too.

I would think that this would have something to do with potential sub figures - broadcasting HD via satellite is an expensive thing to do, the making, storage and licensing of HD is also more expensive and at present there is a limited customer base to tap into, although of course this is growing pretty rapidly too.

As the technology becomes more mainstream, more HD channels will appear on-air and you start to hit a critical mass when it becomes cheaper.

Virgin have, commendably in my opinion, taken the lower cost option for the box, although it is of course lacking much of the HD content that Sky is broadcasting. Also, they're charging a high figure for swapping out your old box in favour of a new one, £75.

Cable, of course, has the big advantage of being able to deliver lots of HD channels without having to buy additional bandwidth, whereas Sky need to buy expensive satellite capacity for HD.

This will be an interesting battle-ground in the medium term - but not really much to do with the current skirmishes.

[ThePinkRat]

Stay -- anything to thwart a potential Murdoch virtual monopoly!

[andym88]

Hi, (first post),

I had my VM V+ box and broadband installed on Saturday (without any hitch I might add).

We've moved from Sky+, not from any fault of sky's, but a problem with Tiscali not removing their broadband tags from our BT landline for over 2 months - forcing us to go to cable.

Anyway, we had already signed the contract and were awaiting installation when the news broke about VM losing Sky1.

This didn't phase us at all. Sky1 is just simpsons repeats and little else. As for 24 and Lost, well... we'd be buying the dvd box sets anyway!

Going with VM (tv & broadband) is the best decision we've made. We are £50 per month better off (ditched the landline, not bothered with sky movies and sky sports any more). And VM's VOD is AMAZING.

Sky's services are not a patch on VM.

I can't see many people moving from VM to Sky just because of a few channels. And the vast majority of those that stay with VM will only remember that Sky is petty, short-sighted and don't put the customer (viewer) first.

It's not about the channels - it's about the service.

[Media Boy UK]

Originally Posted by andym88

Hi, (first post),

I had my VM V+ box and broadband installed on Saturday (without any hitch I might add).

We've moved from Sky+, not from any fault of sky's, but a problem with Tiscali not removing their broadband tags from our BT landline for over 2 months - forcing us to go to cable.

Anyway, we had already signed the contract and were awaiting installation when the news broke about VM losing Sky1.

This didn't phase us at all. Sky1 is just simpsons repeats and little else. As for 24 and Lost, well... we'd be buying the dvd box sets anyway!

Going with VM (tv & broadband) is the best decision we've made. We are £50 per month better off (ditched the landline, not bothered with sky movies and sky sports any more). And VM's VOD is AMAZING.

Sky's services are not a patch on VM.

I can't see many people moving from VM to Sky just because of a few channels. And the vast majority of those that stay with VM will only remember that Sky is petty, short-sighted and don't put the customer (viewer) first.

It's not about the channels - it's about the service.

Hi and to Virgin Media.

[mcgurty]

both watching and listening to all the rubbish coming from sky i ask those who
are concerned about losing the sky channels how many times per month do you watch the channels concerned my viewing is as follows SKY1 7 TIMES
SKY2 NEVER SKY3 NEVER SKY NEWS 15/20 TIMES SKY SPORTS NEWS 30TIMES SO I FOR ONE WONT MISS THEM WILL YOU

[mertle]

interesting that most people who have commented will miss 24, lost and battlestar. Apart from 24 in the barb Sky One dominated by the simpsons. these shows that are championed by sky seem to be not too popular.

So will Sky drop underperforming programmes from Sky One when they are paying an arm and leg. Those who plan to move to Sky most would have to fork out for multi room not sure what the costs is. One of things cable had over Sky is the ease to have multiple subscriptions in one house. V+ with a £5 extra box charge is very good offer. I understand some just tend to watch Sky Content but when you watch there content from a rival carrier. You will always have that risk agreements will not be made and that service pulled unless its protected by government legislation. I do feel for those who cannot go sky like me and will miss out. People have take stock and context to either staying or going for the sake of possible 2 or 3 programs.

andym88

[Kaychsea]

Originally Posted by mertle

interesting that most people who have commented will miss 24, lost and battlestar. Apart from 24 in the barb Sky One dominated by the simpsons. these shows that are championed by sky seem to be not too popular.

Does The Simpsons dominate because of multiple broadcasts though?