# The "Official" "It was a Vigin Media conspiracy" thread



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

To keep other threads on topic, you can post all of your "Virgin Media forced TiVo to orphan the S1s" theories, pro and con, here.

And you can blame someone from the former colonies who hasn't got a dog in this fight* for starting this one if it'll help keep the peace amongst all you UK denizens.



*Unless this foreshadows an eventual kicking to the curb of US S1s.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Oh please 

Forum topics have *always* gone off at a tangent occasionally. It has even happened on here in the past. But now it's suddenly completely "not on"? 

I mean, seriously? Even the title of the thread is misleading. It would be more accurate if it were "You can *try* to submit a claim against TiVo (UK) Ltd for loss of service, but good luck 'cos it might take some time and cost you more than the LT sub and you still might not win".


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

How did I know that Carl would be the first to jump in here and offer neither a pro nor con theory, but something that's off-topic from this thread's topic?


----------



## laurence (Jun 17, 2007)

unitron said:


> How did I know that Carl would be the first to jump in here and offer neither a pro nor con theory, but something that's off-topic from this thread's topic?


And I think you only started the thread to win that bet.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Well seeing as I've already stated my position on this elsewhere it seemed pointless to repeat it.


----------



## SolidTechie (Dec 11, 2002)

cwaring said:


> Well seeing as I've already stated my position on this elsewhere it seemed pointless to repeat it.


Really? Can we have that in writing?

Oh wait....


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

SolidTechie said:


> Really? Can we have that in writing?


Yes. There is no conspiracy.


----------



## BrianHughes (Jan 21, 2001)

cwaring said:


> Yes. There is no conspiracy.


Ah but you would say that if you were trying to cover up the conspiracy.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

And round and round we go......


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

cwaring said:


> Well seeing as I've already stated my position on this elsewhere it seemed pointless to repeat it.


And yet here you are.


----------



## dmeldrum (Jan 3, 2002)

As with any topic of this nature, the onus is on those who believe there is a conspiracy to present their evidence and arguments.

In order to prove the conspiracy one has to not only demonstrate that the agreement between the Virgin Media and TiVo prevented TiVo from continuing the series 1 service, but also that element of the agreement was put in at the request and insistence of Virgin Media.

At the same time, one has to ignore the alternative and much more plausible explanation, that TiVo had been waiting for some time for an opportunity to exit a small and unprofitable service, and took the first opportunity to do so that did not result in all of their customers being without the opportunity of an alternative TiVo service.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

unitron said:


> And yet here you are.


Well someone did ask; even if it was a little sarcastically. However, this is a new thread specifically on the subject so I thought would be fair enough.

I'm polite like that. Unlike some people


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

cwaring said:


> Well someone did ask; even if it was a little sarcastically. However, this is a new thread specifically on the subject so I thought would be fair enough.
> 
> I'm polite like that. Unlike some people


If you aren't here (in this thread) to state your position, pro or con, on the alleged Virgin Media conspiracy, then why are you here, in this thread?


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

I could ask you the same thing, seeing as you haven't posted anything relevant yet either. All you've done is had a go at me. At least I've answered the question


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

cwaring said:


> I could ask you the same thing, seeing as you haven't posted anything relevant yet either. All you've done is had a go at me. At least I've answered the question


I'm here because I created this thread so as to separate the Virgin Media conspiracy thing from the legal claim against whichever version of TiVo it turns out be thing.

You popped in, said nothing about the conspiracy theory, and started in complaining about the title of the other thread.

When that off-topic-ness was pointed out you claimed to have already addressed the topic of this thread elsewhere.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

unitron said:


> I'm here because I created this thread so as to separate the Virgin Media conspiracy thing from the legal claim against whichever version of TiVo it turns out be thing.


No. As I explained, threads go OT all the time with (usually) no problems. However, you put on a Mod's hat (that you don't own) and unilaterally made a decision that no-one else asked you to.

There's a big difference.



> You popped in, said nothing about the conspiracy theory, and started in complaining about the title of the other thread.


Threads go OT all the time, especially when the subject of the thread has already been discussed to death in other threads.



> When that off-topic-ness was pointed out you claimed to have already addressed the topic of this thread elsewhere.


Which is perfectly true. As has Pete77 and a some other people.

Of course, you would know this already if you were in the UK and therefore a regular poster to the UK-specific forums. But you aren't. You just come in here and take over by making pointless threads then telling people how and what to post in them.

Incidentally, I notice that, in this thread that you have created to discuss the 'conspiracy', you have yet to state *your* position on it.

So you're a hypocrite too.


----------



## dmeldrum (Jan 3, 2002)

16 posts in this thread so far, only 2 have been on-topic. Can we please stop trolling each other and get back to debating the topics in hand?

Nobody has posted any evidence or theories yet related to the subject, so I assume that there aren't any, and that everyone has now accepted that Virgin had nothing to do with the TiVo Series 1 service being discontinued.

Of course, the two parties who can really solve this matter are the two least likely to.

Virgin are unlikely to make a statement that their agreement with TiVo had nothing to prevent Series 1 service continuing.

TiVo are unlikely to make a statement that they would have liked to continue the Series 1 service if only Virgin had allowed it.


----------



## DX30 (May 22, 2005)

dmeldrum said:


> everyone has now accepted that Virgin had nothing to do with the TiVo Series 1 service being discontinued


While I don't think there was a conspiracy I wouldn't go that far. I lean more towards a c**k-up theory as I doubt that the fate of some 10 year old S1 users was on the radar of either Virgin Media or that of the TiVo Inc team negotiating the deal.

I can see that Virgin would want to avoid other people shipping a competing *new* TiVo and so ask for an exclusivity clause in the contract, and indeed from press releases that seems to have been the deal reached. It doesn't seem likely that TiVo Inc would have insisted on an exclusivity clause if Virgin didn't want one.

Given the numbers of S1 users involved I doubt TiVo Inc would have raised the issue of exempting S1 users from the exclusivity clause with Virgin, even if they thought about it. They would just be desperate to do the deal.

So in summary my version of the conspiracy is that while Virgin Media asked for exclusivity the demise of the UK S1 was just unintended collateral damage.


----------



## dmeldrum (Jan 3, 2002)

DX30 said:


> I can see that Virgin would want to avoid other people shipping a competing *new* TiVo and so ask for an exclusivity clause in the contract, and indeed from press releases that seems to have been the deal reached. It doesn't seem likely that TiVo Inc would have insisted on an exclusivity clause if Virgin didn't want one.


I agree, I'm sure Virgin were keen to ensure that TiVo would not sell their boxes to Sky, and wanted to avoid BT or others offering a Freeview alternative.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

dmeldrum said:


> 16 posts in this thread so far, only 2 have been on-topic.


One of which was mine; and I'm the one being chastised for going OT. Oh the irony 


> Nobody has posted any evidence or theories yet related to the subject, so I assume that there aren't any, and that everyone has now accepted that Virgin had nothing to do with the TiVo Series 1 service being discontinued.


Sounds about right to me.


DX30 said:


> So in summary my version of the conspiracy is that while Virgin Media asked for exclusivity the demise of the UK S1 was just unintended collateral damage.


That sounds reasonable enough to me.


----------



## Steve_K (May 5, 2001)

DX30 said:


> While I don't think there was a conspiracy I wouldn't go that far. I lean more towards a c**k-up theory as I doubt that the fate of some 10 year old S1 users was on the radar of either Virgin Media or that of the TiVo Inc team negotiating the deal.
> 
> I can see that Virgin would want to avoid other people shipping a competing *new* TiVo and so ask for an exclusivity clause in the contract, and indeed from press releases that seems to have been the deal reached. It doesn't seem likely that TiVo Inc would have insisted on an exclusivity clause if Virgin didn't want one.
> 
> ...


I'd buy that summary

TiVo have always been 'good' at **** ups. Brilliant technical design but useless at business plans and PR.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Steve_K said:


> I'd buy that summary
> 
> TiVo have always been 'good' at **** ups. Brilliant technical design but useless at business plans and PR.


So TiVo is too stupid to put together the conspiracy on their own, but that doesn't let Virgin off the hook, or are they as stupid as TiVo?


----------



## dmeldrum (Jan 3, 2002)

unitron said:


> So TiVo is too stupid to put together the conspiracy on their own, but that doesn't let Virgin off the hook, or are they as stupid as TiVo?


What have Virgin done that was stupid?


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

dmeldrum said:


> What have Virgin done that was stupid?


I don't know that they have, but if Tivo's defense is being too stupid to put together a conspiracy, that still leaves the question of whether Virgin came up with one on their own, and whether it could be argued that the reason they didn't was that they too were too stupid to have done so.

Of course if there was no conspiracy, all of that is moot.

I don't know that there was one, but I can certainly see why some might think so.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

unitron said:


> Of course if there was no conspiracy, all of that is moot.


By jove, I think he's got it 



unitron said:


> ...if Tivo's defense is being too stupid to put together a conspiracy....


Tivo hasn't stated a defence. That was someone else in this thread. Now who was that?


----------



## dmeldrum (Jan 3, 2002)

unitron said:


> I don't know that they have, but if Tivo's defense is being too stupid to put together a conspiracy, that still leaves the question of whether Virgin came up with one on their own, and whether it could be argued that the reason they didn't was that they too were too stupid to have done so.


Last time I checked, you need at least two parties to have a conspiracy, unless someone has changed the definition recently.

I think this thread is rapidly reaching a conclusion.


----------

