Sky Pulls out of Virgin

[Whipped]

Sounds like the start of a bad joke, but who's got some comments about the fact that anyone who was happily watching 24 or Lost on Sky One, are now fucked if they have any company bought by Virgin Media.

The only thing that made me chuckle was that they've renamed the Sky News channel, "That Old Sky Snooze Channel", or something to that effect.

This makes interesting reading. I love the fact that HBO shows are going to be availble, but the answers to some of their own questions leave a lots to be desired.

So what are we going to do?
At Virgin Media we stand up for our customers, making sure you get a better deal and giving you more.

Very nice. But doesn't really tell me what you are going to do.

Also, I don't think losing Sky Three from my freeview box will have quite the same impact as losing Sky One from a pay-to-view service.

 

[Furr]

Will blow up in Sky's face. They are fighting tooth and nail against internet delivered TV and Virgin is quite a large corporation that will no doubt do as much as it can to piss them off.

 

[rynnor]

Its corporate politics overcoming good sense on Sky's side - they will lose a lot of advertising and channel fees for no good purpose really.

I dont think many people will go through the massive hassle of switchin to sky just for the crap on sky one - specially when a lot of folk pre-download half the series.

 

[Ch3tan]

Well apprently both companies have had loads of complaints and the industry regulator may get involved to slap some wrists. I hope they force some sense into both companies.

 

[Skyler]

I don't see a problem here.

If some people are retarded enough to change to Sky just for a few Sky channels which aren't even very good anyway, then whatever.

The Virgin on Demand stuff is going to knock the stuffing out of Sky and I can't wait for it to do so.

I will enjoy watching Virgin compete with Sky.

Virgins only weakness is coverage, and they are working on deals with LLU providers to give them a strong footing in the non cable areas by way of internet delivered TV.

Those Virgin on Demand channels are more appealing to me already and they don't even have the amount of content they could have.

Great TV when you want it with no adverts.. What are Sky going to answer that with? Lost Season 4 on Sky One first?.. oh please..

I advise anyone considering a switch to wait a bit, Sky under pressure is only a good thing.

 

[Gray]

I dont know if its coincidental or not, but ive noticed that the sound on the Sky Sports channels have completely gone, all other channels are fine but Sports 1, 2 and 3 have all been affected.

Erk.

[Im on NTL/Virgin]

 

[Skyler]

Call Virgin then, hopefully it'll be Sky's doing and we can have more drama

 

[Tom]

I'm not quite sure I see the big issue here.

Their contract is up. So Sky say "this is what it will cost you for our channels".

Virgin say "Thats too much money".

Sky say "Sorry you can't afford it then can you?".

Virgin say "How horrid of you, we're going to slag you off because we can't afford your channels"

Sky say "Whatever."


Why make a big song and dance about it all? Virgin are being a bit silly tbh.

 

[pez]

I'm sure i read somewhere about Sky possibly being made to let other providers show Sky 1 etc due to with holding it being an uncompetitive practice. Or is this the fall out from that?

 

[nath]

Why make a big song and dance about it all? Virgin are being a bit silly tbh.

Seems to me like it's more like Sky didn't want the competition so they put the price up to the point where it wasn't feasible for virgin to have it anymore. Monopoly tactics, monopolies are bad.

 

[Tom]

Why shouldn't they have a monopoly on their own channels?

 

[Whipped]

Why shouldn't they have a monopoly on their own channels?

Because that seems like a silpery road to go down to me. I guess it's the same as Channel 4 pulling all broadcasting and setting up their own broadcasting system that required you to pay a brand new subscription and have another peice of hardware in your front room.

Ok, not quite the same, but I think you can see my point. I want the ability to watch any channel, without the requirement that I have to choose from one service or another.

 

[leggy]

Why shouldn't they have a monopoly on their own channels?

Because it doesn't benefit the customer. This will be the stance that the regulator takes also.

 

[Tom]

Sorry, but I don't understand where you're coming from.

These are Sky channels. They are made by Sky. Owned by Sky. With Sky content.

If customers want access to them, they can pay Sky for them, or they can pay another supplier with whom Sky have a deal.

I don't see why Sky should be forced to supply anybody with their content.

If the only way to receive a television signal of any kind was to purchase a Sky system, then that would be a monopoly - but I don't think the commission would insist that Sky supply their content to anybody for free. I think it more likely they would insist that Sky allow other broadcasters to use their network, for a fee overseen by the commission. Thats a very different proposition to forcing Sky to sell their intellectual property to other companies. I don't see how that could possibly be enforced.

As things stand, to receive cable television you don't need a Sky contract.

 

[dysfunction]

You are quite right Tom.

Doesn't change the fact that Sky are shites though...

I believe this is a tactic to disrupt virgins operations just like the way they prevented them from obtaining ITV...

 

[throdgrain]

I couldnt care less, Sky 1 is crap anyway, I only watch 24 on it, and I download that anyway

 

[gmloki]

Sorry, but I don't understand where you're coming from.

These are Sky channels. They are made by Sky. Owned by Sky. With Sky content.

If customers want access to them, they can pay Sky for them, or they can pay another supplier with whom Sky have a deal.

I don't see why Sky should be forced to supply anybody with their content.

If the only way to receive a television signal of any kind was to purchase a Sky system, then that would be a monopoly - but I don't think the commission would insist that Sky supply their content to anybody for free. I think it more likely they would insist that Sky allow other broadcasters to use their network, for a fee overseen by the commission. Thats a very different proposition to forcing Sky to sell their intellectual property to other companies. I don't see how that could possibly be enforced.

As things stand, to receive cable television you don't need a Sky contract.

That isn't necesarrily the issue though is it. Sky have a track record of paying absolutley over the odds in order to be the exclusive provider of certain shows such as 24, Lost etc. In some cases three or four times as much as any other bidder. Making it pracitcally impossible for other providers to bid on a fair playing field. Nobody pays a subscription for the Sky Channels, they pay for the content on them. They are quite entitled to put a massive price tag on their channels. Vm are quite entitlted to tell them to Fuck Right off as well. Sky banked on Vm buckling and they didn't.

I don't really see the issue about the channels going off air tbh. Sky one has two shows I watch, Lost & 24. Lost will be going onto Vm without the adverts later in the year. SS News great for those with bad memories as the content is repeated hour after hour until they have another exclusive from the world tiddlywinks championship. Skynews is good but there are other quality news providers out there. Sky two and three is a rehash of Sky One. In the bigger scheme of things its not a big deal

 

[Draylor]

Im not sure which is more surprising: the fact that people care for Sky1 (wall to wall crap/repeats) and Sky News (unwatchable) or the fact that so many people are willing to accept NTL/Virgins desperate PR spin.

 

[dysfunction]

Im not sure which is more surprising: the fact that people care for Sky1 (wall to wall crap/repeats) and Sky News (unwatchable)

Its this option.

Sky is shit. And its a pity not that many people realise this.

I never watch Sky News even though its on freeview. Their professionalism and Journalism is on a par with "The Sun" newspaper.....the lowest of the low

 

[DaGaffer]

Sorry, but I don't understand where you're coming from.

These are Sky channels. They are made by Sky. Owned by Sky. With Sky content.

If customers want access to them, they can pay Sky for them, or they can pay another supplier with whom Sky have a deal.

I don't see why Sky should be forced to supply anybody with their content.

If the only way to receive a television signal of any kind was to purchase a Sky system, then that would be a monopoly - but I don't think the commission would insist that Sky supply their content to anybody for free. I think it more likely they would insist that Sky allow other broadcasters to use their network, for a fee overseen by the commission. Thats a very different proposition to forcing Sky to sell their intellectual property to other companies. I don't see how that could possibly be enforced.

As things stand, to receive cable television you don't need a Sky contract.

That´s a bit naive Tom, Sky have a long history of creating effective content monopolies, especially in sports, only for the regulator to come along and give them a kicking later. Right now Sky are taking the chance that enough cable customers will make the switch to them because of this; Sky are doing it because they´ve hit the churn wall on subscriber numbers (they´ve been around the 8m households for a while now) and because now they can offer cable customers a full-service offer, which they couldn´t until recently. The reason Sky are doing it now is because the thinking at most of the providers is that full service offers are going to reduce churn and ´lock-in´customers so getting a Virgin customer to switch six months´from now when he has got used to one bill for his phone, telly, mobile, internet etc. will be much harder.

Like most marketing theories I´m pretty sure it won´t work that way because providers will resort to price-led promos to encourage switching and people will put up with a surprising amount of inconvienience to save a couple of quid a month.

Of course the gamble Sky are taking is that the number of switchers will offset the loss in service charge and ad revenue from Virgin; (I´d love to see where the breakeven point on that model is), but I think Sky´s execs still don´t understand what´s really happening in the market and how many people now routinely download stuff; it ain´t just geeks anymore.

 

[rynnor]

Sorry, but I don't understand where you're coming from.

These are Sky channels. They are made by Sky. Owned by Sky. With Sky content.

The big problem with Sky is that they are both a content provider AND a distributor. They are abusing their power as a content provider to help their distributor business.

The competition commision should order Sky to be split into two seperate business'es.

If you look at it another way - it makes no sense as a content distributor to lose a big chunk of revenue from channel subscribers and advertisers.

It only makes sense when leveraging one part of your business to help the other and that is an abuse.

Its like the bit of British gas that controls the supply system saying it wont carry Powergens gas!

 

[Skyler]

That´s a bit naive Tom, Sky have a long history of creating effective content monopolies, especially in sports, only for the regulator to come along and give them a kicking later. Right now Sky are taking the chance that enough cable customers will make the switch to them because of this; Sky are doing it because they´ve hit the churn wall on subscriber numbers (they´ve been around the 8m households for a while now) and because now they can offer cable customers a full-service offer, which they couldn´t until recently. The reason Sky are doing it now is because the thinking at most of the providers is that full service offers are going to reduce churn and ´lock-in´customers so getting a Virgin customer to switch six months´from now when he has got used to one bill for his phone, telly, mobile, internet etc. will be much harder.

Like most marketing theories I´m pretty sure it won´t work that way because providers will resort to price-led promos to encourage switching and people will put up with a surprising amount of inconvienience to save a couple of quid a month.

Of course the gamble Sky are taking is that the number of switchers will offset the loss in service charge and ad revenue from Virgin; (I´d love to see where the breakeven point on that model is), but I think Sky´s execs still don´t understand what´s really happening in the market and how many people now routinely download stuff; it ain´t just geeks anymore.

Spot on I think.

For Sky it was a win win arguably, at least in terms of strategy.

Either they rip off Virgin and get more money from them while having them either absorb stupid extra costs or upset their customers by having to charge more.

Or they pull the channels, take the revenue hit and hope the lure of their big shows (that are only on Sky for now) and the News service people are used to will turn people from Virgin onto Sky.

A lot of it is about getting the equipment into the homes, getting people set up on these multi deals which kind of carry one another. If one aspect of the service isn't up to par, they hope that the bundle as a whole will keep people locked in anyway.

It's purely Sky responding to the threat of Virgin in one of the only ways they can.

 

[Tom]

And I still don't see whats wrong with that. Market economy.

 

[Bodhi]

I'm dissapointed. I thought this thread was going to be about a pornstar called Sky Schlong not doing his job properly.

Boo.




Oh yeah and Sky suck.

 

[Overdriven]

Am I the only one who doesn't hate Sky? Granted, all I watch is Paramount, ABC and Sci-Fi - But, am I the only one who doesn't hate it?

 

[MYstIC G]

Probably not.

I just switched to Sky as Telewest was being shitty (just in general, nothing to do with the channels).

If Virgin sort their act out, I might go back at the end of the year, but I was fed up of paying over the odds for a lower service and Telewest not entertaining a reduction in price.

 

[GDW]

I will never pull out of a Virgin..............ever


































































.........ever ever.....

 

[haarewin]

We've just launched our Virgin Central channel which already lets you watch shows like Nip/Tuck, The OC, Grey's Anatomy and Spooks for free. And we'll be adding even more channels with top shows, too.

We're also doubling the amount of stuff you can watch on demand – going from 2,700 hours to 6,000 by the end of the year. Right now, our on demand service gives you access to a vast library of shows including Ugly Betty, Desperate Housewives and C.S.I., as well as old favourites like Shameless, and award-winning documentaries like Planet Earth. Next month we'll be bringing you The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Curb Your Enthusiasm and more.

Plus, in the coming weeks we'll be offering a selection of great films on demand for free. We'll be in touch soon with more information.

And later this year we'll be bringing you Battlestar Galactica and all 3 series of Lost, so you can watch them back to back – without the ads. We're investing in brand new drama, too. Heroes, the new US show that's attracted more viewers than Lost in the US, will be available soon.

source.
Sky will then only be offering some shit Simpsons repeats.

 

[Draylor]

Um, no.

Sky arent losing those, Virgin just picked up the on-demand rights to show them 6 months later.

So many folks DL those shows thesedays that I cant see too many folks reading this being interested in waiting until October (or beyond) for them, especially since it would mean paying per episode for the priviledge of watching what was previously included in their monthly fee.

 

[Ch3tan]

Did you ignore the part that said for free on purpose Draylor?