No more sky channels for virgin media

[Saracen]

I totally disagree with you Saracen, but you are obviously passionate about the issue and I'm not going to get into a flame war. As I said, your perogative, your choice your opinion.

I don't see a flame war in the cards. But the fact remains that VM jerked customers about with no warning whatever. Their actions speak for themselves.

Beyond that, you see it one way, I see it another. We're both entitled to our views.

[merlin2001]

as a former telewest subscriber that's now just upgraded to VM VIP+ service, I'm personally not bothered by the loss of Sky's std. channels. Sky Sports is the only bit of Sky I care about and it's still there (btw - i think there is an ofcom ruling on Sky Sports that legally requires BSkyB to provide it to other services to prevent anti-competitive behaviour).

ultimately, this is just a bun fight between the old-timer with attitude and the cocky young pretender to the throne. Sky hopes the gain in subscribers will offset the loss of revenue from vm and reduced ad-spend from less viewers. VM hopes the loss in subscribers will be less than cost of providing Sky. Since VM's share price closed last friday at 27.33 and is currently at 26.21 (down 4.1%) and sky closed at 564.75 last week and is now at 551.5 (down 2.3%), it seems the market is betting more on Sky than VM...

[Ruggerbugger]

a bunch of stuff I completely agree with

Well said Saracen. Although I was pissed off, I understood/sympathised with VM`s position (and still do to a certain extent). After seeing the Sky Snooze and Old Sky 2 business, along with various pathetic "letters to customers", I'm going the other way. **** like Virgin Central (and now Virgin Central 2 (in place of Sky 1) doesn't even come close - old Spooks? Whoop de do!
I'm tempted to look on p2p networks for the SG1/SGA/BSG/24 I'm going to miss, but I'm loathe to do so because of (a) the crappy quality of most of my previous p2p experience and (b) the legality of it.

I'm going to register my protest on the VM site. Perhaps an open letter to Branson is somewhere to start.

The interactive doesn't work on my box either, although it does on the one downstairs.

[Ruggerbugger]

Will we get censured for discussing where to download these shows? Don't want to do it if it'll get us banned.

[Spud1]

Will we get censured for discussing where to download these shows? Don't want to do it if it'll get us banned.

Its illegal, so yes. Don't talk about it here, better yet, don't do it..its wrong and you know it.

[Ruggerbugger]

I've found someone to record SG1 at least, two bloody episodes left Branson/Murdoch!

[Nemeliza]

I wonder how long this will all drag out for.

So Sky told VM to bend over, VM refused and as a result have forced their customers to "take one for the team".

I appreciate the point VM is trying to make but I think dropping sky's broadcasts is a mistake that should be rectified - promising to show old re-runs on demand is not rectification. I think VM are on to something here but until they put new programming on here then it wont be seen as the innovation it is.
I also think that although Sky may be over valuing their ‘free channels’, VM are undervaluing them. Why should Sky be forced to undervalue their broadcasts to a serious competitor?
IMO: Like for like Sky’s broadcasting is second to none (why this is doesn’t matter as they can do as they wish)

Besides, Sky aren’t the ones that said VM subscribers can’t have their channels, unfortunately the decision was made without consulting VM’s customers.

As for other companies looking to grow in the broadcasting space (Tiscali / Homechoice and BT) this may be just the sort of thing that could help them get a foot in.

The people I feel sorry for are those that can only receive Sky OR VM and as a result do not really have a choice in this matter.

On a lighter note, I do find these corporate b**** fights rather amusing, bring out the handbags.