No more sky channels for virgin media

[Grey M@a]

Thing is us Virgin media lot are paying £85 for the premium package and we are losing channels left right and centre. We going to see any discounts for this?

To be honest I would quite happily switch to Sky and BT after the crap I've had with virgin. Since the new virgin packages have come on the market, my 10mb line that was pushing close to 1100kb/s is now getting somewhere near 23kb/s and thats the max the line hits, the new V boxes lockup, reset and the picture and sound jumps and clicks all the time. All you get out of them is "We can't see any problems this end"

They have sent engineers round and all you get it "can't see a problem so not doing anything about it" despite the fact that he is sitting there watching me get 800ms pings to BY's own servers and file downloads from the BY gamefiles pushing no more than 20kb/s

Since Telewest/BY merged with NTL it started to go downhill now the joint venture with Virgin its crumbled even more.

[Spud1]

I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned this yet..but I think that Sky are 100% justified from doing this.

Think about it from their point of view. Before the NTL/Telewest merger (for the sake of argument lets call it a merger), Sky were getting two lumps of additional income for selling the basic Sky channels - one lot from NTL and one lot from Telewest.

Now the two companies are operating as one - so naturally Virgin would expect to be paying just ONE rate to Sky. So Sky are suddenly losing out on approx HALF of their current revenue stream that they get from selling the ky basic channels to other providers.

So obviously they will expect Virgin media to pay more - the combined price of what NTL and Telewest were paying. This is perfectly understandable - sky don't want to lose revenue, and its not unfair to Virgin as Virgin have the same number of customers as NTL and telewest did together...so the net cost is still the same.

Its Virgin media thats screwing you guys on cable over - NOT sky...

[nichomach]

Nah-uh. Sorry. NTL and Telewest didn't pay a flat fee each regardless of the number of viewers; they paid a proprtion of their revenue from the service. Consequently, Sky's revenue didn't magically halve; they got exactly the same as they did before, since there was exactly the same revenue stream. What Sky are trying to do is more than double the proportion of that revenue stream that they get.

[Lee H]

That said, I'll miss Jeff on Sky Sports Soccer Saturday BIG TIME.

=(

If your missing him that much get yourself a 'freeview' PC Card or USB2 stick and watch skysports news on your PC instead as these are getting cheaper and cheaper all the time

[DerbyJon]

Does anyone actually want BSkyB to succeed long term? I certainly don't. Foreign owned, foreign sourced tat in the main. The only valuable and vaguely home-grown product they have is the football. When the sad armchair fans eventually lose interest, BSkyB will be in deep trouble.

[robbo]

i like this thread. many different opinions.
the only angle that i do not think has been covered is

are virgin guilty of breach of contract

if yes there are options to follow.

robbo

[Moby-Dick]

I suspect they are not as I'm sure there is a line somewhere saying that channel packages are subject to change etc.

you might be able to get out of your contract early but thats your lot.

[robbo]

that may be the case.

but if enough people complain who knows they may come up with a deal.

i am virgin customer and am just going to e mail richard.

i wonder if i will get a reply.

robbo

[spiral out]

Would the customers of virgin been happy to pay more money because of Sky's new price?

[[GSV]Trig]

If you get a reply from richard can I have his email address please, i have sometihng to say to him about the people he uses on his credit cards

[Spud1]

Nah-uh. Sorry. NTL and Telewest didn't pay a flat fee each regardless of the number of viewers; they paid a proprtion of their revenue from the service. Consequently, Sky's revenue didn't magically halve; they got exactly the same as they did before, since there was exactly the same revenue stream. What Sky are trying to do is more than double the proportion of that revenue stream that they get.

Fair enough if thats how it works, it still seems logical to me though that sky would lose money on NTL/Telewest merging..and I'm still 100% behind sky staying strong with its prices. Just because they are a big business doesn't mean they should be treated harshly - their prices are their own business, if they want to charge more, thats their choice. If Virgin don't want to pay then thats their problem (and consequently their customers problem).

[fat jez]

If your missing him that much get yourself a 'freeview' PC Card or USB2 stick and watch skysports news on your PC instead as these are getting cheaper and cheaper all the time

Only for as long as it's on Freeview. Sky are looking at moving their channels onto Topup TV (source BBC News article, although I forget which one - their site has been awash in Virgin Sky stories recently ).

Cheers,
Stephen

[McMav]

Yup sky are moving sky three sky new and sky sports new off of freeview and onto topup tv in the summer.

you can get The Gillete score program on sky sports 1 not much use if you dont have the sports pack but it is there on a Saturday afternoon.

[Ruggerbugger]

I've not read anywhere how much Virgin were paying before, and what the increase was. I think Sky's tactics at getting new customers stink, and I won't be switching to them, but I'm pissed off at Branson as well. If you read the comments on the virgin media website it seems as though most customers are pretty unhappy about losing their channels, did Virgin ever ASK us what we actually wanted? I'm not referring to Sky's "ad" campaign either.

[Corzair]

just ordered VM package really wanted to see lot of sky one scifi shows

Oh well hope SciFi channel turns more into it US ver

and I cant stand sky's tactics they've already taken too much footy of normal tv over the years

everyone in the world can watch cheap premiership footy!

be interested to know how VM responds look like they're up for a fight which is good finally some real competition for murdock's mayhem!

[Saracen]

Mine have gone too, and I work for VM (Employees have not been kept in the loop) But when it comes to making a stand against BSB, I'm behind VM all the way! I am sick of BSB gazumping shows like 24 and lost over terrestrial channels that do not have the blank cheque books that the aforementioned satellite broadcaster has. TV should not be monopolised.

Oh well, life sucks sometimes, actually I think its healthy NOT to watch massive amounts of TV! Looking back on it wifey and I watched too many Simpsons repeats ( amongst others) just because they were on...... its too easy to fall into that trap! The only shows I will miss are SG-1 and Battlestar but I will buy them on DVD....Or (shock horror!! download them)

We already have loads planned to make up for the (Naff!/Great?) TV shortfall! Sky one does not rule our lives! Lol!

I have no love for Murdoch or his empire but I was paying for NTL TV almost exclusively for Sky 1. Anything else was icing on the cake.

What's more, I have no love for NTL either. Over a long period, I've been jerked about by them over and over and over again.

So ..... as far as NTL/VM are concerned, no Sky 1 = no TV subscription from me, and if I have to go elsewhere for that, I'll go elsewhere for most or all of the rest of the services I want, too.

I may have no love for Murdoch, but I'll treat NTL/VM in exactly the same way as they've treated me. In other words, with clinical disregard, bordering on contempt. I want the service I was paying for, and if NTL can't or won't provide it, I'll get it elsewhere. And I'd be as happy, or happier, to make a stand against NTL as I would BSB. After all, I object to Murdoch on principle. With NTL, it's personal!