virgin media are saying its sky who have taken away the service of sky 1 and so on but sky are sayin its virgin media who do you believe and how do i make it work to my advantage?
2007-02-28 23:55:16 · 11 answers · asked by zerocool 3 in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
speedball you seem to be informed where are you getting your information from?
2007-03-01 00:17:35 · update #1
according to virgin media i have just spoken to em and they say they dunno what they are going to do
2007-03-01 00:39:43 · update #2
bobblehead thats ,ore than i got we weren't even told that they were changing and seing as my contact is with ntl not virgin media then i shouldnt have to pay for it?? its just a thought and as far as i know it basic contract law
2007-03-01 04:43:22 · update #3
Sky have put up the price that Virgin media have to pay to transmit Sky 1 so Virgin media have refused to pay the new price.
Seems to me to be a ploy to get people to sign up for Sky and leave Virgin media. If you are living in a cable area you have the choice but I live in a non cable area and freeveiw is very poor because of hills in the way of the transmitter so if I want digital I have to subscribe to Sky.
2007-03-01 00:01:59 · answer #1 · answered by stevehart53 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Okay, the main culprit in this all is Sky. Sky have been dominant in this area for many years now, and they see Virgin as a major competiitor, hence the fact that M
Anyway, when the negotiations started for the renewal of the Sky programme contracts, Sky asked for 3p per customer per day. That is up from the 1.3p per customer previously agreed. Now with 3.3 million TV customers, thats a hell of a pay hike (get your calculators out) But its around 38million from a previous 17million that Telewest/NTL paid under that name. To meet that demand, Virgin would have had to put the prices up on their TV packages, which the consumer would not have accepted - so they dumped the channels. which the consumer is not happy about. So they couldnt win with the customer, but what they have shown is that companies dont just have to jump when Sky say so.
And its not just Virgin, Sky are pulling the four channels from Freeview as well.... nice of them.
With the savings that Virgin make, they are in negotiations with HBO to get the programmes that people want. And with the loss of 17 million that sky have made, they are aggresively campaigning to make something like 180,000 customers to make up for it.
Hows that?
2007-03-08 22:32:22 · answer #2 · answered by Dizzy Bizzle 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Virgin are willing to pay the old price for sky1 sky2 sky news and sky sports news.
The ratings of all these channels are falling.
Sky wants Virgin to pay a new price which is approximately twice the old price.
Virgin have discovered that if they did not replace the package they would loose hundreds of customers, and loose some money.
But if they paid the new price, they would loose even more money. Its not worth paying, doesn't make business sense to pay that much.
That's why Virgin want to go into arbitration, that way a third party can agree that the price rise is not in line with the benefits that the package can offer to Virgin and is not in line with any inflation the company may have encountered.
2007-03-01 00:06:02 · answer #3 · answered by speedball182 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is probably not lies, but both are giving out their view.
A sky representative on BBC radio 4 yesterday said all they were asking was 3p more per customer of Virgin Media, per day. That is about £99,000 per day, £36,135,000 a year extra.
3p doesn't sound much, but I would love 3p from every Virgin media customer.
When a virgin spokesman was on the same programme earlier in the week, he said that Sky lowered the cost if they could put their promotions onto the channels.
Sky spoke about putting interactivity onto the channels. What Sky sees as an improvement, is seen negatively by Virgin.
For me Sky asking for just 3p extra per customer, told me roughly how much extra they wanted, and I didn't want to pay £10.95p extra per year for channels I would hardy watch.
As to how you can make it work to your advantage, why not wait for the satellite system being sponsored by the BBC in order to ensure everyone can get there channels without needing to pay a private company. That satellite company if it is approved, will never ask for subscriptions.
2007-03-01 01:18:39 · answer #4 · answered by Sprinkle 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it is Sky who is to blame.
On the news this morning it is reported that you can get a discount from Virgin or even cancel your contract without penalty.
2007-03-01 00:19:15 · answer #5 · answered by ann n 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they are like kids arguing over sweets,virgin media wont pay sky a large amount of money for sky 1,2 etc,but its the customers that suffer,do they care? no as long as they both profit, their happy.
2007-03-01 00:01:29 · answer #6 · answered by Jaz 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i have just got letters from NTL telling me that they are virgin media now and that is the name on my direct debit account
2007-02-28 23:58:55 · answer #7 · answered by bobbleheado5 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I really couldnt care less who it it, they are both pretty faceless to me. What I do care is that I am paying for a service that I am not receiving. This shsould have been a done deal ages ago.
2007-02-28 23:59:42 · answer #8 · answered by The Real Mrs Incredible 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think they both are not being upfront and there is some other issues going on in the board rooms. I think we the consumers are being used as pawns
2007-03-01 00:09:10 · answer #9 · answered by brianac2004 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i think its sky, but could nto rule out virgin as well.
2007-02-28 23:58:08 · answer #10 · answered by Ashish 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋