# Sky 1, 2 and 3 to be dropped from NTL / TW / VM- Official (for now)



## Gavin (Jan 1, 2003)

Hi

See

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6389015.stm or

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2019718,00.html (free to day, after a few dqys it goes subscription)

Sky wanted a lot more money, NTL / TW / VM said no. Unless there is some 11th hour agreement Sky 1, 2 3, and Sky Sports news (the Sky Basics package) will be dropped on the 1st of March.

I hope they'll sort it out, but I doubt it, I'll be calling Sky to move sometime soon, all we really watch on cable is the stuff on Sky one.


----------



## =CM= (Feb 22, 2005)

It could be brinkmanship but looking less & less likely. Shows up cable for ongoing lack of programming innovation (and in my case sheer abuse of contractural terms by one of the pre-Virgins - brought to you by the letters C and W).


----------



## OzSat (Feb 15, 2001)

This happened with History a year or so back on TW - lots of threats and then it went away - but soon came back.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

So, Sky want a lot more money for their bouquet of channels, but somehow talked Virgin Media - _not_ NTL/Virgin as Sky insist on calling them. Gee. They can't even get the company name right  - into cutting the cost of Sky carrying _their_ channels (the ex-Flextech ones) by 75%.

Rather stupid of VM, of course, but I'm sure they weren't given much choice 

For the first time ever, I actually emailed Sky and asker for their response to VM's Press Release.

You can read it here

Here's the _really_ funny bit:
"Unlike the open satellite platform, NTL/Virgin's cable network is closed. The only way Sky's channels can be available to cable viewers is if NTL/Virgin chooses to carry them."

The satellite system might well be 'open' but Sky's channels certainly aren't. Is it me or is that hypocrisy of the highest calibre?


----------



## Gavin (Jan 1, 2003)

cwaring said:


> Is it me or is that hypocrisy of the highest calibre?


Course it is, and VM and sky are both spinning this for all it's worth. There each blaming each other as the caase. To be honest I don't care, cable has been a bit cheaper for me over the years and I've stuck with it.

Fact remains I'll lose Sky one next week, and shortly afterwards VM will lose a customer.

I looked at the much touted on demand stuff last night, and I must have a bad signal, all I saw was old stuff, Nip tuck was being pushed but they only have series one on there, and no sign of anything new. Everything was a few years old and already out on DVD.

Could there be a last minute deal maybe, but I'm doubtful.


----------



## ColinYounger (Aug 9, 2006)

Does anyone have the list of subscribers for both companies?

What I'm thinking here is that if Sky make SkyOne, etc only available to satellite, is the number of viewers on cable disappearing going to make the advertisers think? What about the contracts they've negotiated which I presume are based on coverage?

Am I wrong in thinking that ad revenue still counts?


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Doubt it, Colin.

There's only about 3m cable subscribers and, as I understand it, Sky could very easily drop _all_ advertising and still make a nice profit.

I suppose the irony is that, if they did that, then they'd get _everyone_ subscribing  Then, of course, they double the price anyway


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Surely Virgin Media is likely to take an official complaint over this to Ofcom for adjudication.

Sky is quite blatantly behaving anti competitively to try and make everyone move to Sky given its incredible decision at the same time to try and take Sky News, Sky Sports News and Sky Three off Freeview (obvious sour grapes on its part) and replace them with a pay per view football and movie service aimed at spoiling the embryonic business plant of Setanta and TopUpTv Anytime.

Hopefully on this occasion Ofcom may take tough action to stop Sky's attempt to withhold its channels from all other broadcasting platforms. If not it and its overpaid civil servants might as well all be fired.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

I would hope so too but I'm not going to hold me breath, as they say


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> I would hope so too but I'm not going to hold me breath, as they say


If I was Virgin Media I would tell customers to flood the Sky customer complaint lines and/or to email [email protected] and with cc to [email protected] to express my unhappiness at this anticompetitive move by Sky.


----------



## Chris T (Oct 30, 2002)

I can't remember the last time I watched a Sky channel so no great loss to me but I cant help thinking this could be very dangerous for Sky. 

A few governmental bodies (not just Ofcom) have been long been calling for the reduction of Skys virtual monopoly of pay TV in this country by making Sky split into a separate distributor and broadcaster. It has been said in the past that this hasnt come to anything in the past because Sky have offered their cannels to cable for a reasonable price.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> If I was...


Don't go giving me ideas, Pete


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Chris T said:


> I can't remember the last time I watched a Sky channel so no great loss to me but I cant help thinking this could be very dangerous for Sky.
> 
> A few governmental bodies (not just Ofcom) have been long been calling for the reduction of Skys virtual monopoly of pay TV in this country by making Sky split into a separate distributor and broadcaster. It has been said in the past that this hasnt come to anything in the past because Sky have offered their cannels to cable for a reasonable price.


And Sky are also trying to replace their Sky News, Sky Sports News, and Sky Three channels on Freeview with pay sports and movie so they appear to be totally and utterly deaf to the argument that they are a blatantly monopolistic and anticompetitive organisation. They seem to rely on the fact that Ofcom does precisely what it is told by Tessa Jowell and her New Labour colleagues and if being nice to father Rupert and son James means positive praise for New Labour at the next election in The Sun and The Times then Ofcom does precisely what they are told to do so long as their CEO can reckon that he is in line for a knighthood and then a peerage down the road. And to hell with what it says in the Communications Act 2003 about Ofcom's principle duty being to protect the best interests of the UK citizen consumer. 

You can associate the OFT with stands of principle but Ofcom can only be associated with blatant bias and repeatedly keeling in to the interests of big business cronies.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> Don't go giving me ideas, Pete


As if I would.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

I seem to remember that for some channels Sky is obliged to make them available for a "market rate" to any platform. However I don't think Sky One was one of them.


----------



## mikerr (Jun 2, 2005)

As a cable subscriber, if they do lose SkyOne I'll be on the phone to get a meaty discount out of them - they have always been quite flexible with pricing once you threaten to leave, and compare thier prices with others.

All the best content of skyone is readily torrented anyway:
BSG, Heroes, Lost...


----------



## katman (Jun 4, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> They seem to rely on the fact that Ofcom does precisely what it is told by Tessa Jowell and her New Labour colleagues and if being nice to father Rupert and son James means positive praise for New Labour at the next election in The Sun and The Times then Ofcom does precisely what they are told to do so long as their CEO can reckon that he is in line for a knighthood and then a peerage down the road.


I wonder what the true meaning of the acronym OFCOM is under New Labour  

*Official Funding Comes Off Murdoch*  

The sooner $KYs monopoly gets broken the better. The marketing people are ery clever at building the diferent packages in such a way that you have to subscribe to nigh on everything to get a decent selection of channels even though you may only watch a few of them.

Was looking at the different mixes the other night and realised that we watch 1 or 2 channels from each mix but even if we paid £1 month each for every channel we watch it would still be cheaper than out current extortion ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H subscription


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

mikerr said:


> All the best content of skyone is readily torrented anyway:
> BSG, Heroes, Lost...


Heroes is SciFi not Sky One, and is coming to the BBC later in the year.

(Bloody good it is too...)


----------



## gazter (Aug 1, 2001)

katman said:


> I wonder what the true meaning of the acronym OFCOM is under New Labour
> 
> *Official Funding Comes Off Murdoch*
> 
> ...


But Sky is only a monopoly because it worked very hard to become one. It lost a **** load of money for most of its time, it was close to all going pete tong early on its life.

It has succeded because it understands what its customers want, unlike the BBC, ITV and most other media companies.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

gazter said:


> It has succeded because it understands what its customers want, unlike the BBC, ITV and most other media companies.


I think you mean it knows how to sell customers its product regardless of whether it is actually any good or not and has created a marketing illusion that a household is missing something if it does not have Sky.

Sort of a latter day Ratners really and a bubble that is just as easily burst by the imminent arrival of both mainstream broadband tv and BBC/ITV free satellite HDTV.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

gazter said:


> It has succeded because it understands what its customers want, unlike the BBC, ITV and most other media companies.


Show me one "Sky" channel that _regularly_ has more viewers than either the BBC or ITV


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> I think you mean it knows how to sell customers its product regardless of whether it is actually any good or not.


No-one can do that; at least, not more than once. And 8.5m households buy Sky's product every month, time and time again.

I accept you don't like Sky Pete, but can't you accept that more than a third of the country do, and their not under some kind of hallucination due to their weak minds?


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

cwaring said:


> Show me one "Sky" channel that _regularly_ has more viewers than either the BBC or ITV


Sky's strategy is not to have one blockbuster channel which s No 1 in the ratings, but many niche channels which appeal to what smaller groups want.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Sky's strategy is not to have one blockbuster channel which s No 1 in the ratings, but many niche channels which appeal to what smaller groups want.


The reason they don't have a blockbuster channel of their own is simply because they don't have enough quality UK based programming to achieve it. If they could achieve their own BBC One viewing numbers without breaking the bank they would be only too happy to do so.

On the whole Sky doesn't actually make any programs. They merely buy them from other people and stick them on a channel that has their name. The only exception is Sky News and Sky Sports News.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> No-one can do that; at least, not more than once.


Yes I agree that like Ratners Sky probably won't be able to do it more than once so the growth of Freeview and the imminent growth of broadband tv are very bad news from their point of view.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> The reason they don't have a blockbuster channel of their own is simply because they don't have enough quality UK based programming to achieve it. If they could achieve their own BBC One viewing numbers without breaking the bank they would be only too happy to do so.
> 
> On the whole Sky doesn't actually make any programs. They merely buy them from other people and stick them on a channel that has their name. The only exception is Sky News and Sky Sports News.


And Sky Sports 1, 2, 3...

But yes, they mainly buy stuff in their headline shows. So?

Sky's strategy of multiple niche channels has been extremely successful. A third of all people in this country pay for it!

With Sky One they do make a reasonable proportion of their own stuff, although it doesn't compete with the BBC for quality, with the occasional exception like Hogfather. But that's a criticism you could level at Channel 4 and Five as well; their low budget reality stuff is home grown, but they import Lost, ER etc to headline.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Yes I agree that like Ratners Sky probably won't be able to do it more than once so the growth of Freeview and the imminent growth of broadband tv are very bad news from their point of view.


You misunderstand. They "do it" 12 times a year for each of those 8.5m households. If the product was a con as you suggest, they'd have cancelled. Seems a third of the country doesn't share your view. Sky have added many millions of subscribers since Freeview launched; they believe it helps them by giving people a taste of multi0channel digital TV beyond the regular four or five channels.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

TCM2007 said:


> 8.5m households buy Sky's product every month, time and time again.


I think you may be overstating it a bit there 

8.5m households_ fail to cancel_ their $ky sub every month - some, no doubt, because they like the product and think they're getting excellent value for money, some because they feel they have no alternative to get the TV they want, but most I suspect, out of sheer inertia.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

blindlemon said:


> I
> 
> 8.5m households_ fail to cancel_ their $ky sub every month - some, no doubt, because they like the product and think they're getting excellent value for money, some because they feel they have no alternative to get the TV they want, but most I suspect, out of sheer inertia.


There's no substantive difference between the first two, if you are prepared to pay for it must therefore constitute value for money. We're not talking water or electricity here; if you're prepared to pay out for it you must have calculated it was worth the cash, by definition.

I'm sure there's some inertia - but at £500 a year I'm not sure many would carry on paying for something which was a marketing trick as Pete suggest.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

Sorry, I should have quoted more of your post as my first two examples were in response to


TCM2007 said:


> I accept you don't like Sky Pete, but can't you accept that more than a third of the country do [...]?


You say that a third of the country _likes _$ky - I suspect it's a lot less than that. Just because people are willing to pay for something doesn't mean they endorse it or like it _per-se_. I pay 85p per litre for petrol, but I don't _like _doing so - I just have no convenient alternative.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

I think petrol is a poor example as I would classify that as an essential, where you would indeed resent being forced to pay high prices. Pay TV is a luxury which no-one needs; they will only pay for it if they believe the benefit to be worth the cost. 

No one "likes" paying anything for anything.

I wasn't suggesting that 8.5m people love Rupert and want to have his babies, but they do want/like his service and believe it offers value for money or they would not buy it, by definition.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> I'm sure there's some inertia - but at £500 a year I'm not sure many would carry on paying for something which was a marketing trick as Pete suggest.


Well it seemed to work for Gerald Ratner until he was foolish enough to admit that all his products were "crap".

You seem to fail to allow for the highly anticompetitive marketing arrangements which Sky has been allowed to operate by for instance not providing a CAM to receive channels encrypted by Sky but not produced by Sky (eg pretty outageously Channel 4, Five, Five US, Five Life, E4, More4) in satellite boxes not made to Sky's specification or even in Windows Media Centre Edition PCs etc. Also the fact that Sky has had the only multi channel tv platform available in every home until recently due to the artificial decision to prevent multi channel television being delivered by the phone line network for 15 or so years and to instead force the cable companies to build their own separate and therefore extremely expensive fibre optic networks.

Until recently Sky has been the only game in town in many UK homes to have pay multi channel tv and until the launch of Freeview in late 2002 there was no non subscription multi channel tv alternative. Also due to a blatant failure to educate the public by the regulator many Sky customers are still wholly unaware that their Sky Digiboxes will continue to deliver a large number of television channels even if they do desubscribe. Many of them wrongly think they have to throw the box away or hand it back if they desubscribe.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> You seem to fail to allow for the highly anticompetitive marketing arrangements which Sky has been allowed to operate by for instance not providing a CAM to receive channels encrypted by Sky but not produced by Sky (eg pretty outageously Channel 4, Five, Five US, Five Life, E4, More4) in satellite boxes not made to Sky's specification or even in Windows Media Centre Edition PCs etc. Also the fact that Sky has had the only multi channel tv platform available in every home until recently due to the artificial decision to prevent multi channel television being delivered by the phone line network for 15 or so years and to instead force the cable companies to build their own separate and therefore extremely expensive fibre optic networks.


Sure, the CAM issue is a disgrace and the Government should force their hand. But it's only an issue because Sky's service is actually desirable for many millions of people, not a marketing trick.

You can't have it both ways on this one Pete; either Sky providing channels people want is a mass hallucination caused by cunning marketing and in fact its a load of crap. Or Sky is a valuable service which it disgraceful that they limit the distribution of to their own platform. The two positions are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> I think petrol is a poor example as I would classify that as an essential, where you would indeed resent being forced to pay high prices. Pay TV is a luxury which no-one needs; they will only pay for it if they believe the benefit to be worth the cost.


Ahem. Excuse me but didn't Test Cricket and most major Premiership football games used to be shown on FTA analogue television before Sky Digital bought up the rights. The same is also true of most other major competition sports with the glorious exception of Formula One Motor Racing.

Most people who go for the £37 per month and upwards Sky packages do so because they want to watch Footie or Test Cricket or some other major sport live and such is the addiction of the male population in this country to football that many football fans do consider this to be almost as essential as petrol or electricity, gas and water. And the other stuff like the kids tv and the movies is basically thrown in for next to nothing given the way that Sky choose to price their sports tv packages.

It is the manipulative way in which Sky has been allowed to acquire most of the major pay sports tv rights in the UK and then has been able to distribute it on a platform that could be easily installed in about 95% of UK homes (and can now be installed easily in 99% of them following Sky's new Free Sky Dish communal tv system offer for small private flat conversion blocks) while its main pay competitor was available in less than 50% of UK homes that explains Sky's success. It has little to do with outright quality and a lot more to do with massive commercial muscle and undue infliuence by Sky with the present government. regulatory apparatus. A government that to this day continues to receive unduly favourable coverage from the news apparatus of Rupert Murdoch. :down:


----------



## gazter (Aug 1, 2001)

cwaring said:


> Show me one "Sky" channel that _regularly_ has more viewers than either the BBC or ITV


Inertia.

If ITV was on sky, without its terrestial position, it would get about as many viewers as paramount comedy.

ITV is fat, smelly, useless organisation, living off its terrestial bandwidth.

The most abusive market player in the UK is without a doubt the BBC, its total media dominance dwarfs anything else. For those who watch Futurama, the BBC likes to think of itself as auntie, but it is much more like Mom, from Moms robot company, behind a nice public facade, we have a ruthless anti competitive machine


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

gazter said:


> The most abusive market player in the UK is without a doubt the BBC, its total media dominance dwarfs anything else. For those who watch Futurama, the BBC likes to think of itself as auntie, but it is much more like Mom, from Moms robot company, behind a nice public facade, we have a ruthless anti competitive machine


Yes you aren't far from the truth there.

The BBC has in particular exhibited its total contempt for the license payer in its repeated failure to get rid of its highly unpopular 0870 Contact Centre numbers which are run for it by important New Labour Croneys and peerage beneficiaries Capita.

The use of 0870 numbers by a non profit making public sector organisation is against guidances for government contact centres issued by the Central Office of Information but the BBC has been prepared to engage in 101 different forms of untruthfulness about the real cost of calling these numbers and about the true nature of its telecoms deals with Capita and Cable & Wireless in the face of repeated enquiries from campaigners such as myself involved in the www.saynoto0870.com web discussion forum.

The BBC suffers from overweaning arrogance and total contempt for its customers the general public.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

gazter said:


> ITV is fat, smelly, useless organisation, living off its terrestial bandwidth.


Yet it still manages to commision/produce/show more UK-made content (aside form Sport) than Sky.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> Yes you aren't far from the truth there.


Except that he is 



> The BBC has in particular exhibited its total contempt for....


Yeah. The BBC can only be contacted by an 0870 number and no-one else in the UK uses them  I can't remember the last time I contacted the BBC via anything other than their web site.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Most companies have an alternative to their 0870 numbers listed at www.saynoto0870.com. The BBC went to the lengths of instructing their call centre staff in Belfast to no longer put customers through who rang the Belfast BBC offices that the Capita 0870 call centre is based in on their geographic number.

Yes I also no longer telephone BBC Information because it is a complete waste of time. I usually email the Producer and Director of the program and copy in Mark Thompson the Director General and the Controller of the appropriate BBC radio or tv station if I actually want to try to make my view heard.

Not all UK companies have 0870s. My camera maker Olympus uses 00 800 (International Freephone), my credit card firm MBNA uses 0800 for everything and my bankers Nationwide use geographic phone numbers for all their branches. I actively try to avoid giving my business to companies who do not provide an alternative to their 084/7 numbers whenever I have a choice. Oh and my car makers Toyota only use 01/02 numbers at their dealerships.

Often one is forced to use the telephone when the company does not respond to one's preceding email and has the arrogance to claim that it has never received it.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

cwaring said:


> Yet it still manages to commision/produce/show more UK-made content (aside form Sport) than Sky.


Yes, but it's not very good!


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Ahem. Excuse me but didn't Test Cricket and most major Premiership football games used to be shown on FTA analogue television before Sky Digital bought up the rights. The same is also true of most other major competition sports with the glorious exception of Formula One Motor Racing.
> 
> Most people who go for the £37 per month and upwards Sky packages do so because they want to watch Footie or Test Cricket or some other major sport live and such is the addiction of the male population in this country to football that many football fans do consider this to be almost as essential as petrol or electricity, gas and water. And the other stuff like the kids tv and the movies is basically thrown in for next to nothing given the way that Sky choose to price their sports tv packages.
> 
> It is the manipulative way in which Sky has been allowed to acquire most of the major pay sports tv rights in the UK and then has been able to distribute it on a platform that could be easily installed in about 95% of UK homes (and can now be installed easily in 99% of them following Sky's new Free Sky Dish communal tv system offer for small private flat conversion blocks) while its main pay competitor was available in less than 50% of UK homes that explains Sky's success. It has little to do with outright quality and a lot more to do with massive commercial muscle and undue infliuence by Sky with the present government. regulatory apparatus. A government that to this day continues to receive unduly favourable coverage from the news apparatus of Rupert Murdoch. :down:


Sports coverage is an addiction so it should be regulated like an essential like water? Pretty tenuous.

Re: quality, I would rather watch Sky's coverage of sport than the BBC's. any day, and ITV's is near unwatachable.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Sports coverage is an addiction so it should be regulated like an essential like water? Pretty tenuous.
> 
> Re: quality, I would rather watch Sky's coverage of sport than the BBC's. any day, and ITV's is near unwatachable.


Do you own shares in Newscorp by any chance 

Personally I would rather watch the collective output of BBC, ITV, C4 and Five on most evenings than the American soaps and over priced sports over on Sky. One of the few Sky channels that contains program content I find interesting and that is often not transmitted on Freeview/Freesat channel in the end is National Geographic channel.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

American soaps?


----------



## ericd121 (Dec 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> Ahem. Excuse me but didn't Test Cricket and most major Premiership football games used to be shown on FTA analogue television before Sky Digital bought up the rights.


No, they didn't.

The Premier League started with the 1992-93 season.

Sky were the first to show live Premier League matches, with a deal for the first 5 years.
There have been various deals since, with Sky losing its monopoly rights to the Premiership, but never, I believe, having no rights to show live matches.

ITV didn't start showing live Premier League matches until 1999.

In other words, Sky were the first to show live Premiership football games, and have continuously been doing so for 15 years.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

ericd121 said:


> The Premier League started with the 1992-93 season.
> 
> Sky were the first to show live Premier League matches, with a deal for the first 5 years.


Even as someone with a truly passionate dislike of football (I have by choice never been to a game at a ground despite quite a few offers to do so in University days) and all it represents about the tribal chanting mob like nature of human kind I do take time to know my enemy and to keep an eye on the small number of changes made to the game's rules and the organisational structure of the clubs in this extremely dreary game (the words "the Opiate of the masses" spring to mind for some reason although I think that was originally send about music).

Forgive me if I have missed something but the Premiership was merely a rebrand of what was previously known as Division One with just a slightly smaller number of clubs and of course the deal with Murdoch and Sky to try and make people pay a fortune to watch this still very tedious game.

Thus the purpose of the Premiership was to make the masses pay a fortune for watching what they sometimes previously watched for free on terresrial television, although Sky obviously made it possible to watch somewhat more live matches than before.



> In other words, Sky were the first to show live Premiership football games, and have continuously been doing so for 15 years.


As I said the Premiership is only the top clubs in Division One by another name with even more excessive salaries for their players and directors.

The dreary game that is football has not changed one significant jot as a result of the creation of the money making marketing system that is known as the Premiership.


----------



## ndunlavey (Jun 4, 2002)

Nice chip


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

ndunlavey said:


> Nice chip


Isn't that a golfing term.


----------



## ericd121 (Dec 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> Forgive me if I have missed something but the Premiership was merely a rebrand of what was previously known as Division One with just a slightly smaller number of clubs and of course the deal with Murdoch and Sky to try and make people pay a fortune to watch this still very tedious game.
> 
> Thus the purpose of the Premiership was to make the masses pay a fortune for watching what they sometimes previously watched for free on terresrial television, although Sky obviously made it possible to watch somewhat more live matches than before.
> 
> As I said the Premiership is only the top clubs in Division One by another name with even more excessive salaries for their players and directors.


Pete, I can only respond to what you write on this board; it's not my fault if the terms you are using are imprecise.

However, my point remains true.

You stated 
*"most major Premiership football games used to be shown on FTA analogue television before Sky Digital bought up the rights."*.

This is incorrect.

Are you now saying 
*"most major Division One football games used to be shown on FTA analogue television before Sky Digital bought up the rights."*?


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

It's semantics I know but he is, in principle, correct.


----------



## ericd121 (Dec 12, 2002)

Who? Me or Pete?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

ericd121 said:


> Who? Me or Pete?


I think Carl is saying I am correct in underlying factual terms on this matter. Or is he saying Eric is right but only in Semantic terms. 

To say that games on the Premiership are not basically precisely the same kind of footbal games involving the same teams that were previously in the old Division One is I think what is known in the trade as nitpicking.  

A bit like saying that Virgin Media and NTL and Telewest services are not precisely the same thing currently apart from a rebrand and a changed pricing tariff would be nitpicking.


----------



## ericd121 (Dec 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> To say that games on the Premiership are not basically precisely the same kind of footbal games involving the same teams that were previously in the old Division One is I think what is known in the trade as nitpicking.


Which post in this thread stated that Premiership games are not the same as Division One games?

My point stands:
to say live football league games (labelled either First Division or Premiership) "*used to be shown on FTA analogue television before Sky Digital bought up the rights*" is totally wrong.

My memory of television from 15 years ago backwards (i.e. into the past!) is not perfect, but I do not believe that First Division matches were ever broadcast live.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

ericd121 said:


> My memory of television from 15 years ago backwards (i.e. into the past!) is not perfect, but I do not believe that First Division matches were ever broadcast live.


I think that parts of them were shown live, although often not the whole games due to limited air space.

Also I seem to recall that due to restrictions imposed by Sky even Match of The Day disappeared from BBC One for a year or two. And there definitely always used to be Match of The Day every Saturday evening before Sky and the Premiership came along.

I should know as I always had to change channel to something else.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

D'oh! I should try and wake up before posting in future 

I meant Pete was right that, as far as I can remember, there was always live footy on BBC1 during Grandstand in the days pre-Premier League.

Of course, I'm fast-approaching the age of 40 so my memory could well be failing


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> Of course, I'm fast-approaching the age of 40 so my memory could well be failing


No more than my memory or Eric's memory is failing I'm sure as we are all of a similar age.

And at least we can remember that far back unlike those young 18 year old whippersnappers who know nothing of what it used to be like in the good old days in our youth when there were only 3 channels to choose from and you had to watch the program right now if you wanted to see it.


----------



## ericd121 (Dec 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> I seem to recall that due to restrictions imposed by Sky even Match of The Day disappeared from BBC One for a year or two. And there definitely always used to be Match of The Day every Saturday evening before Sky and the Premiership came along.


Match of The Day did disappear for a few years, due to the restriction of the BBC not bidding as high as ITV, who won (or rather bought) the rights to highlights of The Premiership, which they did, in a show called...err...The Premiership.

Highlights programmes have always been available on FTA analogue television.

However, Pete, I will say this:
You are right and I am wrong.

My research has discovered this page:-
*http://www.le.ac.uk/snccfr/resources/factsheets/fs8.html*
which contains a table which states that live matches were shown in the 1980's.

I can't recall it myself: maybe I was out on demos, trying to overthrow the established order.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

ericd121 said:


> However, Pete, I will say this:
> You are right and I am wrong.


Surely not.  

I concede I was wrong to not adequately appreciate the lovelyness of your own Lovely Themes. 



> My research has discovered this page:-
> *http://www.le.ac.uk/snccfr/resources/factsheets/fs8.html*
> which contains a table which states that live matches were shown in the 1980's.
> 
> I can't recall it myself: maybe I was out on demos, trying to overthrow the established order.


I have strong memories of watching many a Formula One Grand Prix on BBC Two only for it to cut away for half an hour to go and show us some live football game or other. Or if not football the Open Golf or whatever else they used to show on Sunday Grandstand.

As to the established order I think I was helping to get the forces of Thatcherism re-elected back in those days. Its only in my old age that I have turned into a sort of anarchist revolutionary.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

I think you're being harsh to yourself Eric; that link shows that there were indeed live top div games on the BBC - but only a handful of them. Roughly one game every five weeks! So Pete's calim of "most major Premiership football games" is definitely incorrect.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> I think you're being harsh to yourself Eric; that link shows that there were indeed live top div games on the BBC - but only a handful of them.


Any live football game that was shown by the BBC in place of some other preferred regular program was undoubtedly so traumatic that it now seems in my memory as though nearly all of daytime terrestrial television at the weekend was consumed with live football games.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> American soaps?


OK American made tv Series then. I don't know what else you call The Simpsons, Battlestar Galactica and numerous variants and spin offs of the Star Trek series. And those are just for starters.

How many original British made first run tv series has Sky ever shown by comparison? Most of those are over on Channels BBC1 to Five.


----------



## ericd121 (Dec 12, 2002)

TCM2007 said:


> I think you're being harsh to yourself Eric; that link shows that there were indeed live top div games on the BBC - but only a handful of them. Roughly one game every five weeks! So Pete's calim of "most major Premiership football games" is definitely incorrect.


I know; but it was worth it just to give Pete a heart attack! 

All I can remember of Grandstand is interminable games of Rugby.
(I'm losing you now, I can tell...  )

I do remember when Sky started showing live matches, football fans complained about having to "pay to watch our teams".

As Danny Baker pointed out at the time, "you always have had to pay to watch your team".

Fans somehow saw this increase in the amount of live matches on TV as being held to ransom, whereas, if they'd carried on watching the highlights programmes and going to matches, there would be no material difference.


----------



## ndunlavey (Jun 4, 2002)

I'd very much like to see the protectionist embargo on the 3pm Saturday games removed.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

ericd121 said:


> I know; but it was worth it just to give Pete a heart attack!


Wishful thinking Eric. I'm still alive and kicking.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

ndunlavey said:


> I'd very much like to see the protectionist embargo on the 3pm Saturday games removed.


Are any Premiership games still played at 3pm on Saturday?

Actually IIRC it was the lower divisons who didn't want live Premiership games clashing with their matches.


----------



## ericd121 (Dec 12, 2002)

ndunlavey said:


> I'd very much like to see the protectionist embargo on the 3pm Saturday games removed.


Hhmm, I wonder if anyone would go to the games?

Mind you, given the amount that each club receives (and will receive next season), they could afford to drop prices for televised live matches, to encourage a good-sized crowd.

For those that don't know, from next season each Premiership club will receive £50 million per season.

Mind you, Man Utd's ground holds c75,000 for an average of £30 per seat: that's £2.25 million per match!


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

ericd121 said:


> For those that don't know, from next season each Premiership club will receive £50 million per season.


Even if they lose them all 6-0!  :down:


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

TCM2007 said:


> With Sky One ... they import Lost, ER etc to headline.


As soon as Sky see a popular series on a terrestrial channel, they are capable of massively out-bidding for the next series, because of the large number of customers that they expect to gain or retain. However, the alternative of (illegal) file-sharing is likely to gain ground, if they make themselves too expensive.

There is so much available through the terrestrial channels nowadays; even more with a dual-tuner freeview recorder (Windows MCE or dedicated), and with a lot of programmes repeated at convenient recording times. With too little time to watch it all, it will become difficult to persuade people to subscribe for just a couple of series, which they could probably download without too much trouble. Only those who insist on watching live football, or have trouble finding something to spend their money on, are likely to find it difficult to move.

Since they downloaded new software last year, my digibox is continually locking up. I have failed to record the last two weeks of both 24 and Lost because of lockups. While I know that I could easily persuade them to replace the box, I have no desire to lock myself into another contract, which I'm sure that would entail. Once I have received my second Xbox extender for my Freeview-based Vista MCE setup, my digibox is almost certainly going to end-up as Free-To-Air, Free-To-View, or Free-To-Lockup. And, unfortunately, my TiVo is likely to end up for triple-conflicts only.

To me, Sky's mistake was not just in not supporting integral tuners for the TiVo, but also in not supporting integral tuners for Windows MCE or other dedicated hardware, where these also have programmers who actually know how to design a PVR, and can persist series recordings over more than a couple of weeks and a powercut or two. I think that Sky are going to have a rude awakening when they try and push NDS boxes to the TiVo-savvy Americans.

I don't know whether I'm going to stretch out my cancellation call to Sky to get more pleasure out of it, or cut it short when I realise that they are making more money out of the call.


----------



## OzSat (Feb 15, 2001)

There are usually six 3pm Premiership games on a Saturday.

Its a European tv rule that stops football being shown in a nation where that nation has football active in the afternoon - but the FA for that nation can decide to allow the matches to be screened.

There was some live Division One football on BBC/ITV before the days of the Premiership - but all Premiership (until now) has been on Sky in the UK.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

iankb said:


> I don't know whether I'm going to stretch out my cancellation call to Sky to get more pleasure out of it, or cut it short when I realise that they are making more money out of the call.


You could always call on the working 0800 number for Sky customer services currently listed on the www.saynoto0870.com website:- *0800 0512595* That way you can spin out the call and also have it cost Sky money. :up: 

You need to be quick though as Sky often close down the 0800 numbers listed on the www.saynoto0870.com website after a few weeks, although another one is usually found as their retailers and installers simply refuse to pay to call an 0870 number.


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

Pete77 said:


> You could always call on the working 0800 number for Sky customer services currently listed on the www.saynoto0870.com website ...


Thank, I'll try that again. When I cancelled Sky sports, I couldn't find an 0800 number that would accept my call. I went through the usual cancellation cycle of an Indian call-centre ("How's the weather?", etc, etc), a transfer to the less-intelligible Scottish call-centre ("How's the weather?", etc, etc). Only the fact that the call dropped, and they had to 'phone me back at their expense, made them finally speed up the process.

In my comments above, I presumed that most popular programmes could be downloaded off the internet. However, I suppose that those are mostly US series, and not British football matches. If you want to watch overpaid men who like hugging each other whenever they get excited, then I suppose Sky have you by the proverbial pig bladders.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

iankb said:


> If you want to watch overpaid men who like hugging each other whenever they get excited, then I suppose Sky have you by the proverbial pig bladders.


Indeed they do have you by the proverbials in that case I would imagine.

But fortunately neither you or I seem to be afflicted with this strange enthusiasm for seeing teams of 11 or 15 men kick each other in the shins (football) and/or slam each other to the ground (on the whole Rugby but does also include football at times) on cold and muddy stretches of grass.

The Sky 0800 number was working today and seemed to have options to connect to most departments as far I could tell. So far as I know Customer Services are capable of closing an account as they have already done so twice with me on Sky Month by Month without too much complaint. Just make it clear you aren't interested in any of the special offers they have and simply want to stop paying for the time being.

If you make it sound like its just because you are going away on business for 3 months or don't subscribe in the Summer as you like gardening or something they are less inclined to give you the third degree to try and retain your business. Theykey thing is to give the impression you are only leaving them temporarily. I believe in that case they also keep you in the total subscriber numbers they report to Ofcom, even though they are not, for the time being, getting any revenue from you.

By the way if you say to them you have a problem with your Digibox and are thinking of cancelling for that reason I understand they will arrange to give/install another one (perhaps you could even suggest you need a new dish and LNB) free of charge and without making you commit to a further 12 months contract or anything. Or at least they won't if you say you aren't prepared to commit to a further lock in period. You can then ring up and cancel the following month with a fully working problem free Sky Freesat system in situ.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> By the way if you say to them you have a problem with your Digibox...


You see. There'd be none of this with cable. "Faulty box, sir. We'll get an engineer out for you." (Okay, it might be a week or more, but that's not the point )


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> You see. There'd be none of this with cable. "Faulty box, sir. We'll get an engineer out for you." (Okay, it might be a week or more, but that's not the point )


But that's why you never own the box and they take it away from you if you sever both the television and phone contracts with them. You can't have it both ways really.....


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Well no, you can't. I would think that the two business models are mutually exclusive. That's called a no-brainer, Pete


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

Pete77 said:


> The key thing is to give the impression you are only leaving them temporarily. I believe in that case they also keep you in the total subscriber numbers they report to Ofcom, even though they are not, for the time being, getting any revenue from you.


Presumably, I would still be able to use PPV in that case.



> By the way if you say to them you have a problem with your Digibox and are thinking of cancelling for that reason I understand they will arrange to give/install another one (perhaps you could even suggest you need a new dish and LNB) free of charge and without making you commit to a further 12 months contract or anything. Or at least they won't if you say you aren't prepared to commit to a further lock in period. You can then ring up and cancel the following month with a fully working problem free Sky Freesat system in situ.


Definitely something to try first. My new Grundig digibox failed soon after installation, and the engineer replaced it with an older model, which was probably refurbished. Sounds like a good reason for free replacement.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

iankb said:


> Presumably, I would still be able to use PPV in that case.


Yes you definitely can as long as your viewing card is still active on their system (i.e. still lets you watch FTV channels like Ch4, Five, Five US and Five Life).

They only cancel the viewing card if you actually tell them you want them to or if you admit to them that you sold it with your old Digibox on Ebay as selling the viewing card to anyone else actually breaches their terms and conditions.


----------



## Gavin (Jan 1, 2003)

Pete77 said:


> But that's why you never own the box and they take it away from you if you sever both the television and phone contracts with them. You can't have it both ways really.....


Yes and no.

I called NTL as most of the stuff we watch off NTL is on Sky One. Said I wasn't happy with them losing it, didn't lie and say I was off was honest and told them what I was looking for, and said we already have a discount deal with them.

I wanted the prices of the services so I could decide if I wanted to go to sky or if they lost sky one and we couldn't be bothered to go to Sky we'd get freeview. I said if they lost sky one I would certainly be cancelling the TV, but not sure about phone and broadband.

The complication is we have no active bt line, theres one into the house but it's not been used in the ten years I've owned the place so may not work, and I don't want to get the BT line re-instated to find I have a lot speed broadband line (Chicken and egg really there but thats another story)

Anyway the bloke on the other end seemed understanding left my 4mb BB at £12.50 a month, but moved the free phone rental from the TV pack to the broadband, so we'd keep the phone line and lost the TV, then he said they do a freeview type package and as I have a phone line I can have it too, so they did that.

Anyway the point I'm rambling towards is I don't have a TV deal but I retained the box. I gues they hope I'll be tempted to come back to NTL or will use the on demand, and I'm more likely of it's already there than phone up and get a box installed.

The "quirk" is If they don't lose Sky One it's in the freeview pack anyway, so we've saved £20 a month. If they do lose Sky One, we're going to leave it a month and see if we notice the loss then decide what to do.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Gavin said:


> Anyway the point I'm rambling towards is I don't have a TV deal but I retained the box. I gues they hope I'll be tempted to come back to NTL or will use the on demand, and I'm more likely of it's already there than phone up and get a box installed.


I hate to be a point-pooper, but you _do_ have a TV package. It's their "TV Size:M" pack which is (as he said) free when you take a phone line.


----------



## mikerr (Jun 2, 2005)

SkyOne is gone from 12 midnight tonight!


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Unless there's a last-minute deal. Where's a 'fingers crossed' smiley when you need it


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> Unless there's a last-minute deal. Where's a 'fingers crossed' smiley when you need it


Perhaps it will be more like those gas pipelines from Russia to Europe across the Ukraine. Switched off for a couple of weeks and then switched back on again after some tough talking.

Unlike a short term strike by BA staff a short term switch off to NTL customers only costs a very modest amount of money compared to the amount Sky may make in the end by forcing Virgin to give in and pay full price. Of course may be Branson has something up his sleeve in terms of offering channels that Sky doesn't own like National Geographic or British Eurosport in his free package instead.


----------



## mikerr (Jun 2, 2005)

or buying up rights to the programmes on skyone to show on virign-one, or stream on teleport


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

I wish, mike  Unfortunately (apart form VOD; maybe) I believe most of the best US shows on SO have been purchased so they are "exclusive" to that channel.


----------



## AMc (Mar 22, 2002)

Sky used to buy 1st run non-terrestrial rights to most of the US series they ran. Some could be open to negotiation to purchase 1st run VOD rights depending on how the contracts are worded. As Sky don't have that technology available to a STB (as Sky by Broadband is Windows only) a rights holder could potentially negotiate both deals without breaching exclusivity but I wouldn't hold my breath.

I believe Virgin will drop Sky and start an all out war. Both parties are lining up against each offering for offering and SKy moving into terrestrial is only going to make the field more muddy for Virgin.

My guess - the race for VOD by broadband is about to start in earnest.


----------



## mikerr (Jun 2, 2005)

with microsoft also about to offer broadband VOD via the xbox
http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/07/xbox-live-video-hands-on
albeit in the US, things could get interesting.

Microsoft had a 23% share in Telewest:
http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2000/jul00/telewestpr.mspx
Not sure how that translates into the virginmedia company...


----------



## ColinYounger (Aug 9, 2006)

I'm not sure Virgin starting a war would be in their interest. It would only serve to annoy VM customers - I can't see Sky customers wanting to defect due to a lack of channels on the VM platform.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Virgin may be prepared to risk it for a couple of months and see what happens. They could always cut prices further below Sky to try and incentivise customers to stay.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

I personally can't see how Sky will ever be able to match VM for VOD; the technology is simply not up to it. This of course, is good for VM, assuming they get the content.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> I personally can't see how Sky will ever be able to match VM for VOD; the technology is simply not up to it. This of course, is good for VM, assuming they get the content.


You forget about the deal they have with Easynet for all those ADSL2+ enabled exchanges and then they are covering the rest using ADSL Max in conjunction with BT Wholesale/Openreach. At the moment they aren't doing anything with VoD and don't have the boxes out there to use it but they will in due course.................


----------



## Gavin (Jan 1, 2003)

Pete77 said:


> Virgin may be prepared to risk it for a couple of months and see what happens. They could always cut prices further below Sky to try and incentivise customers to stay.


Given they are not cutting prioces after losing the sky basics, and they are saying how the VOD is wonderful and has lots of shiney programs, (it's not if I wanted old repeats I'd watch UK Gold), do you really think they'll reduce prices.

They may say virgin on the logo, but it seems to have got ntl mentality running through the company. If they were serious they'd reduce prices for all rather than discounting anyone who wants to leave and actually calls.

I apprecate they are a buisness but if they reduced prices they may not get so much per user (which seems to be the golden driver these days) but gain more users so increasing total profits.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> You forget about the deal they have with Easynet for all those ADSL2+ enabled exchanges and then they are covering the rest using ADSL Max in conjunction with BT Wholesale/Openreach. At the moment they aren't doing anything with VoD and don't have the boxes out there to use it but they will in due course.................


I hadn't forgotten 

Is that fast enough to actually stream at the required resolution (specially HD content) and speed for _actual_ "on demand" programming as opposed to the current Sky "download it to your hard drive first" Anytime thing?



Gavin said:


> Given they are not cutting prioces after losing the sky basics, and they are saying how the VOD is wonderful and has lots of shiney programs, (it's not if I wanted old repeats I'd watch UK Gold), do you really think they'll reduce prices.


VM's Virgin Central has only just lauched so give it a bloody chance  You do know that they've just signed deals with (among others) HBO and Disney for content?

Also, I have read (on the DS Forums) but have not confirmed officially that VM _are_ going to be giving everyone some sort of refund; arond £10 per month for six months _I think_. Again, this is NOT confirmed! Personally, I'd rather they kept the money to pay for content to rival Sky


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> Also, I have read (on the DS Forums) but have not confirmed officially that VM _are_ going to be giving everyone some sort of refund; arond £10 per month for six months _I think_. Again, this is NOT confirmed! Personally, I'd rather they kept the money to pay for content to rival Sky


Perhaps Virgin are thinking of taking a big legal case saying that Sky should not have exclusive rights to show of these US Series and that this is anticompetitive.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Wouldn't think so as it's not really, is it. it's actually good business sense


----------



## ColinYounger (Aug 9, 2006)

...and refunding customers perpetuates the 'caring company' image they're trying to sell.

Compare open letters about the issue between Sky and VirginMedia. Who's trying to be your friend the most?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> Wouldn't think so as it's not really, is it. it's actually good business sense


Oh its good for monopoly profits I will grant you but its not good for consumer choice and lowest possible price for the consumer, especially when Sky have Significant Market Power (ie near monopoly) in the pay tv marketplace. Those with SMP need to have their activities more heavily regulated.


----------



## Gavin (Jan 1, 2003)

cwaring said:


> VM's Virgin Central has only just lauched so give it a bloody chance  You do know that they've just signed deals with (among others) HBO and Disney for content?


I know but we got a glossy brochure with our last bill (or by itself) , we have blah blah blah on VOD, and when I looked they did, true they had these shows, but all series ages ago. The shows they are touting, Spooks, Nip/Tuck, Alias are all old series's, nothing is new. Will they get new stuff maybe, but for the forseeable future (at least till autumn when most US shows come to the end of a season and may come up for rights renewal) the rights to show them in the UK will be with Sky.

As I said if I want repeats I had UK Gold, as has been mentioned elsewhere, why would people wait 6 months for stuff like Lost on VOD, when it will be out on DVD by then. Not to mention if your technically savvy you've seen it via a p2p download.



cwaring said:


> Also, I have read (on the DS Forums) but have not confirmed officially that VM _are_ going to be giving everyone some sort of refund; arond £10 per month for six months _I think_. Again, this is NOT confirmed! Personally, I'd rather they kept the money to pay for content to rival Sky


I hope I'm wrong for the people left on VM but I doubt it, as I said it's still Ntl under the hood, and they were never exactly the most customer focused company. Sky's probably no better but changing the name doesn't change the underneath.

Looking another way if the reason the Sky channel are going is because Sky want to charge about a pound a month for the sky basics, rather than give customers a £10 refund a month why not just pay the £1, and put the £9 in the profits jar. Makes no sense to me.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Gavin said:


> Looking another way if the reason the Sky channel are going is because Sky want to charge about a pound a month for the sky basics, rather than give customers a £10 refund a month why not just pay the £1, and put the £9 in the profits jar. Makes no sense to me.


But its all a game of bluff and double bluff isn't it. Like a threatened major airline strike.

Just because the channels go off tonight doesn't mean Sky won't eventually settle with Virgin paying them 75p per month next Tuesday. To my mind the people who get the most negative publicity out of this are Sky who are quite prepared to see loyal viewers of their channels cut off just as they are also prepared to do so on Freeview. For the new Virgin Media brand the whole thing really represents a huge amount of free publicity where they are seen to be different from NTL by daring to take on and stand up to the hulking and monopolistic Sky monolith.

Of course if the channels stay off Virgin permanently it would be bad for Virgin but I very much doubt this will be the final outcome. Meanwhile everyone gets to hear about the new Virgin brand on news bulletins and so visits the website to see what exactly they are offering that is different to NTL........................


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> Oh its good for monopoly profits I will grant you ...


Never said Muddy didn't know how to run a business 



Gavin said:


> Looking another way if the reason the Sky channel are going is because Sky want to charge about a pound a month for the sky basics, rather than give customers a £10 refund a month why not just pay the £1, and put the £9 in the profits jar. Makes no sense to me.


Don't disagree, just reporting


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

cwaring said:


> I personally can't see how Sky will ever be able to match VM for VOD; the technology is simply not up to it. This of course, is good for VM, assuming they get the content.


Match, maybe not, but there's 140Gb of space on my Sky+ box they can send stuff too then charge me to see VOD-style.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

.....and there they go  No more Sky channels on VM. At least for now; I hope


----------



## davisa (Feb 19, 2002)

Anyone know - will TiVO handle the loss of SkyOne, or do I need to remove the channel?


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

I have removed the channels and the SPs


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> I have removed the channels and the SPs


They might all be back again by the weekend though.


----------



## Chris T (Oct 30, 2002)

I can't help thinking good riddance Sky!


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> They might all be back again by the weekend though.


Quite possibly. However, it would only take a couple of mins to add them back.

Oh, and no-one likes a smart-arse 



Chris T said:


> I can't help thinking good riddance Sky!


I sort-of agree. It actually amazed me when I realised that only a quarter of my viewing was on channels not available on Freeview. I thought it was a lot more than that 

Some programmes (eg 'Bones', 'Las Vegas') I'll miss for a while then find something else to watch. Others, like "24" and "SG:A", I will have to get _somehow_. Boxsets maybe, or 'other' means  (Which, of course, makes me a complete hypocrite as I always moan about people downloading stuff illegally )

That said, assuming the channels don't re-appear in short order, some of those shows might well appear on VM VOD at some point. (He said hopefully )


----------



## ...coolstream (Dec 10, 2005)

ex Telewest here:

I just checked my VM guide and see that 120 SkyOne is now listed as a new Virgin-on-demand channel with no programme information and a status of 'currently unavailable'

602 SkyNews has been replaced in the guide with 'SkySnooze'  

It's always good to see a sense of humour, but who are VM really having a laugh at?

SkySportsNews is showing a message from VM with a link to their fairplay page and as such is the only one of the three that does not require user intervention by pressing the OK button.

Because of this, I have removed all three stations from 'Channels I receive' but I see that programmes scheduled to be recorded on SkyOne are still listed in my 'ToDo' list.

Will the tivo eventually realise that it will be unable to make these recordings and automatically remove them from the list, or will I have to cancel the SP)?


----------



## Gavin (Jan 1, 2003)

...coolstream said:


> 602 SkyNews has been replaced in the guide with 'SkySnooze'
> 
> It's always good to see a sense of humour, but who are VM really having a laugh at?


If you were in Sky's shoes woudn't something like this just get your back up. VM make snide comments about your channels and then want a further discount to show the said channels.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

...coolstream said:


> Will the tivo eventually realise that it will be unable to make these recordings and automatically remove them from the list, or will I have to cancel the SP)?


The latter, I think.


----------



## mikerr (Jun 2, 2005)

...coolstream said:


> It's always good to see a sense of humour, but who are VM really having a laugh at?


Exactly. Given that many people are thinking of/going to leave virginmedia to go to sky over this, silly jokes like that are a further smack in the face from virginmedia.

I'm not moving yet, but might at some point.


----------



## Automan (Oct 29, 2000)

Or changeover to Sky if a dish is permitted where you live.


> If you can't beat em, join em


Some of us have no option but a dish

Automan.


cwaring said:


> The latter, I think.


----------



## aerialplug (Oct 20, 2000)

Comparing the two open letters linked to above, I think Sky's letter come off looking really arrogant. I think they could have written a far better open letter if they didn't want to appear like the bullies that they obviously seem to be.

Not that I have a choice - no cable in my area and not likely to ever be either.


----------



## AMc (Mar 22, 2002)

If I were on Virgin at the moment I would cancel the recordings in To Do on the affected channels to prevent "OK required" messages locking the box for other recordings but hang onto the season passes until Tivo remove the channels via a line up change.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

aerialplug said:


> Comparing the two open letters linked to above, I think Sky's letter come off looking really arrogant. I think they could have written a far better open letter if they didn't want to appear like the bullies that they obviously seem to be.


In my capacity as the webmaster of VirginMediaInfo, I emailed OFCOM and the OFT with CC to James M and all three replied. I got a "comments logged" email from OFCOM (a personal one from the director's PA), a "not our problem" one from the OFT and a virtual repeat of the PR from Mr M


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Gavin said:


> If you were in Sky's shoes woudn't something like this just get your back up. VM make snide comments about your channels and then want a further discount to show the said channels.


And you don't think Virgin is entitled to do something like this after Sky ran all those appalling adverts only on their channels feeds to Virgin customers telling them to ring up Virgin and complain that these channels would be going off the air soon.


----------



## alextegg (May 21, 2002)

Like the majority of customers, I'm sure, I really don't care who's fault it is, or who threw their toys out of the pram first, I just want the services  

These companies should not have been allowed to get into this position.  

Either way, this won't be pushing me away from Virgin or towards Sky, if anything they've both succeeded in convincing me to go to freeview, so whoever's master plan it was it didn't work in my case ! 

Given I'm already on the Free Virgin package I may wait till the dust settles.

Bittorrent already engaged for Lost, and nip/tuck - there's nothing else on Sky one I give two watzits about !


----------



## ColinYounger (Aug 9, 2006)

Alex - I agree with your sentiments; I won't miss the Sky channels (but don't tell VM ) and I'm sort-of disappointed with the attitudes of both companies.

Feels like I should step into the middle of them and say 'STOP IT, or no pocket money this week'.


----------



## alextegg (May 21, 2002)

Don't get me wrong, I will miss Sky One, I don't want to have to 'obtain' what are two of my favourite programmes, rather than through a channel I am paying for, but it's all a bit ridiculous and I see no other choice given I'm no way moving to Sky!



ColinYounger said:


> Feels like I should step into the middle of them and say 'STOP IT, or no pocket money this week'.


Perhaps you should try that


----------



## SteveEarp (Aug 7, 2002)

All,

I've been on the phone (43 minutes) to Virgin Media today. I managed to get a ongoing discount of £20.50 per month and a one off refund of £72.50 on the condition that I stay another year. I then logged onto SKY and set-up their basic package £15 per month and free installation for 2-Mixes which include all the channels I've lost. Installed Free next Monday! So I'm £5 a month better off, RESULT!

Right then you lot, am I going to have any problems running both services through my TiVo. From Memory I just need to add it to packages I receive and toggle the relevant channels on / off? Can you forsee any problems?

Steve


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

Two STBs. TiVo doesn't support a dual platform Sky + Cable setup AFAIK.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

SteveEarp said:


> I then logged onto SKY and set-up their basic package £15 per month and free installation for 2-Mixes which include all the channels I've lost. Installed Free next Monday! So I'm £5 a month better off, RESULT!


Its a pity you didn't place your order via www.quidco.co.uk and their website as they would have given you £55 cashback that is normally paid to people like Currys and Comet if you order at one of their stores. There is a a £10 per annum fee for Quidco but that's still £45 back.

Also as others have said Tivo wont' support digital satellite and digital cable together.

You might want to check if you have some cooling off rights to cancel on your Sky order, especially as you don't know that by Monday morning a deal to put Sky One back on Virgin won't have been negotiated. I think you can cancel a Sky order before the installation takes place without penalty.


----------



## ColinYounger (Aug 9, 2006)

That link is dead. http://www.quid.co.uk/ doesn't fare much better.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

ColinYounger said:


> That link is dead. http://www.quid.co.uk/ doesn't fare much better.


Its actually www.quidco.co.uk which I have now corrected above.

The link for the £55 cashback Sky Digital install offer is:-

www.quidco.com/sky-digital/


----------



## RichardJH (Oct 7, 2002)

> There is a a £10 per annum fee for Quidco


Its worth saying that although called a fee there is no up front charge. It is taken from your Quidco earnings so even if you join and don't buy anything it wont cost you.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

RichardJH said:


> Its worth saying that although called a fee there is no up front charge. It is taken from your Quidco earnings so even if you join and don't buy anything it wont cost you.


Yes true but if the only transaction you use Quidco for all year is Sky Digital then it will cost you a tenner out of the £55.


----------



## RichardJH (Oct 7, 2002)

Pete we were both wrong on one thing. The annual fee is only £5 http://www.quidco.com/help/20/

Makes Quidco an even better deal


----------



## SteveEarp (Aug 7, 2002)

Cheers, for the heads-up on QuidCo that's a new one for me, it looks quite good even though I missed the SKY payment.

Does anyone seriously think Virgin and Sky will sort this out by the weekend? I really doubt it myself have spoken to them on the phone. They were very keen to push thier on-demand stuff saying they were currently trying to buy rights to all the missing shows. Although even they admitted it would probably be impossible to buy rights to FOX shows like 24. I hope they do, but I don't see Branson backing down...Not in the short term anyhow.

As for cooling-off on my SKY deal, as I understand it all internet purchases have 14-days don't they? Anyhow I'm yet to see the Direct Debit which is in the post. Who knows it might get lost or there might be nobody in on the installation day. £15 a month is not too bad for a year especially given the discount from Virgin media is ongoing.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

RichardJH said:


> Pete we were both wrong on one thing. The annual fee is only £5 http://www.quidco.com/help/20/
> 
> Makes Quidco an even better deal


It was a tenner when I joined up last year. Good to hear that my renewal will be even cheaper.

Do you know if I can use my Quidco account to order products for one of my relatives of the same surname but different gender and first name?


----------



## RichardJH (Oct 7, 2002)

> Do you know if I can use my Quidco account to order products for one of my relatives of the same surname but different gender and first name?


I've ordered DVDs from CDwow via Quidco for my daughter and the cashback has come to me as far as I know the suppliers link back to you is via the Quidco tracking hence it wont work with ad blocking on. I lost a couple of quid that way with Greasypalm because I forgot to turn it off. Try it for a low value item eg a CD using one the the more reliable suppliers. Quidco are pretty good at telling you who are the best and fastest at confirming the cashback.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

SteveEarp said:


> As for cooling-off on my SKY deal, as I understand it all internet purchases have 14-days don't they? Anyhow I'm yet to see the Direct Debit which is in the post. Who knows it might get lost or there might be nobody in on the installation day. £15 a month is not too bad for a year especially given the discount from Virgin media is ongoing.


Cancel your order and reorder via Quidco is my advice. They can't stop you doing that. You can even call Sky on their Freephone number - 0800 0512595

And assuming of course that the fact that you can't feed both boxes into a single Tivo doesn't put you off you could always buy a second Tivo and network them together, so as to now have a way to record those annoying recording clashes on the other box that isn't recording.

Regarding the cashback sites there is also www.greasypalm.co.uk which doesn't have as high a rate of cashback but covers more retailers.

But wouldn't you be better off to scrap Virgin altogether and go Sky HD if you really must have these missing Sky channels? You would also get a Sky+ box thrown in as part of the Sky HD box features.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> But wouldn't you be better off to scrap Virgin altogether and go Sky HD if you really must have these missing Sky channels? You would also get a Sky+ box thrown in as part of the Sky HD box features.


V+ = £10 or £15 a month (package dependent) and repaired free for life
Sky+ £299 + £10 a month (or premium channels) and repaired free for a year

Hmmm tough choice  

(No doubt Pete77 will tell me how wrong I am in about 2 mins )


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> V+ = £10 or £15 a month (package dependent) and repaired free for life
> Sky+ £299 + £10 a month (or premium channels) and repaired free for a year
> 
> Hmmm tough choice
> ...


Running two PVRs is a good idea in a multi person household if they are in different rooms and a bad idea in a single person household IMHO.

Horses for courses............


----------



## ...coolstream (Dec 10, 2005)

AMc said:


> If I were on Virgin at the moment I would cancel the recordings in To Do on the affected channels to prevent "OK required" messages locking the box for other recordings but hang onto the season passes until Tivo remove the channels via a line up change.


Thanks. It's the need to OK a message that someone has thrown someone's dolly out of the pram that annoys me more I think.

It's bad enough to have a potential recording of a message from VM, but even worse to find that other recordings on non-affected channels could be goosed as well.

Since there is no reply in this thread that there will no tivo notification of loss of channels for the moment (which I had hoped for), I will take your advice and manually cancel recodings in the 'todo' list and review the situation later with a view to removing SPs.

Do other VM users feel it might be worthwhile taking up the arguement of removing the need for an OK press as a reasonable arguement for demanding compensation from VM for potential recorded viewing loss?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

...coolstream said:


> Do other VM users feel it might be worthwhile taking up the arguement of removing the need for an OK press as a reasonable arguement for demanding compensation from VM for potential recorded viewing loss?


Would it also stop recordings on their own 3 tuner HD recorder?


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

AMc said:


> If I were on Virgin at the moment I would cancel the recordings in To Do on the affected channels to prevent "OK required" messages locking the box for other recordings ...


I missed this earlier 

There are no messages requiring an 'ok' at this time, at least in this xNTL area.


----------



## RichardJH (Oct 7, 2002)

Nor here in xTW land


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> There are no messages requiring an 'ok' at this time, at least in this xNTL area.


Obviously not as you actually cancelled your SPs on these channels.


----------



## RichardJH (Oct 7, 2002)

*No Carl is right* even if you sellect one of the channel numbers 120 Sky One 515 Sky Sports News or 602 Sky News you get a Virgin Media announcement page but no requirement to press OK to clear message.
So at the moment even if you left the channels selected in Channels received and had SPs set for those channels all it would mean is that you would get a recording of the VM announcement and then following programmes would record as usual.


----------



## ...coolstream (Dec 10, 2005)

I'm not at home at the moment, so thanks for the reassurance.

Obviously VM have seen the light, because when I checked at 2am, 2 of the 3 affected channels required an OK to free up the box.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

...coolstream said:


> Obviously VM have seen the light, because when I checked at
> 2am, 2 of the 3 affected channels required an OK to free up the box.


I expect they were inundate with complaints from people trying to record programs.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

...coolstream said:


> I'm not at home at the moment, so thanks for the reassurance. Obviously VM have seen the light, because when I checked at 2am, 2 of the 3 affected channels required an OK to free up the box.


Really? Sorry. Didn't know. (Was in bed at that time ) How annoying would that have been


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

Some encouraging news maybe:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6410435.stm


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

"after Virgin Media stopped broadcasting some BSkyB channels." No. BSkyB pulled the feed. Pedantic maybe, but technically different  Other than that, I completely agree


----------



## ...coolstream (Dec 10, 2005)

cwaring said:


> "after Virgin Media stopped broadcasting some BSkyB channels." No. BSkyB pulled the feed. Pedantic maybe, but technically different  Other than that, I completely agree


What really surprises me is that VM have just completed a deal with Sky effectively dropping the cost of the Flextech productions. OK, there's nothing in that bouquet that is anywhere near as lucrative as Sky1, but it does seem strange that the deal was not reciprocated.

As a new entry into the cable market, VM do not seem to have made a favourable impression.

I would rather see newer repeats on Sky1 than the much older repeats available on VM's VOD flagship.

As far as I am concerned Virgin's entry into the cable market is akin to adding a larger ashtray to a car that was already on the market for the same price, but adding that as a consequence, they have had to remove the wheels!!


----------



## ericd121 (Dec 12, 2002)

...coolstream said:


> As a new entry into the cable market, VM do not seem to have made a favourable impression.


They must have done something right as, despite being "a new entry into the cable market", they managed to acquire 3 million subscribers almost instantly... 



> As far as I am concerned Virgin's entry into the cable market...


You have to hand it to Richard Branson; 
he has his telecoms company taken over by a much larger firm, yet it appears he's the one who's in charge (which maybe he is).


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

I do believe he is the majority share-holder; something like a 20% IIRC.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

20% isn't a majority in my maths text book...

I think he is the largest siongle shareholder though.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Yeah, sorry.  That's what I meant. The one with the largest share-holding.


----------



## dragonlord666 (Nov 2, 2005)

ok guys, I've just switched to SKY today and have a nice new shiny amstrad drx 550 digibox
now how do I get this talking to my tivo as I can't find amstrad in the settop box list?

Thanks

Gaz


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

dragonlord666 said:


> ok guys, I've just switched to SKY today and have a nice new shiny amstrad drx 550 digibox now how do I get this talking to my tivo as I can't find amstrad in the settop box list?


Ummm surely Amstrad was about the first manufacturer of Sky Digiboxes and they are definitely in Tivo's code list.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

If I remember correctly, all the Sky boxes can be controlled with code 20016 under Grundig. However, that could be old news as I think a newer one will 'click' the "SKY" button beforehand, thus waking the box from standby if necessary.


----------



## steveroe (Oct 29, 2002)

Grundig 20016 is correct, this sends the "SKY" key first and will correctly control all makes of Sky boxes (not Sky+, there is a seperate code for these)


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

You remember correctly. All Sky boxes use the same remote control, so share the same codes; use Grundig 20016.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> If I remember correctly, all the Sky boxes can be controlled with code 20016 under Grundig. However, that could be old news as I think a newer one will 'click' the "SKY" button beforehand, thus waking the box from standby if necessary.


There is now a code set called Sky Digital and its 20016 under that. This does indeed send the Sky button beforehand.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Well if I can get Stuart and Steve to agree on something, that's a good night's work  So good-night


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

cwaring said:


> If I remember correctly, all the Sky boxes can be controlled with code 20016 under Grundig. However, that could be old news as I think a newer one will 'click' the "SKY" button beforehand, thus waking the box from standby if necessary.


Grundig 20016 has the extra click, 20006 hasn't.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

iankb said:


> Grundig 20016 has the extra click, 20006 hasn't.


Its also now listed as Sky Digital code 20016. I imagine this is the same thing.


----------



## DeadKenny (Nov 9, 2002)

cwaring said:


> V+ = £10 or £15 a month (package dependent) and repaired free for life
> Sky+ £299 + £10 a month (or premium channels) and repaired free for a year
> 
> Hmmm tough choice
> ...


You don't own the box remember with VM/NTL. They're only "repairing"* it because they are required to.

With Sky you own the box. Though you can get discounted package deals and essentially get the box free or very cheap, but obviously with a set lock in period.

Of course none of this considers customer service, and there Sky wins hands down. You have to remember that, especially if you're in an NTL area rather than Telewest, when your box is "repaired" it will be an utter nightmare getting anyone to come out, and will cost you a fortune if you have to take time off work to wait for them to not bother turning up.

Worth the cost of a box in my opinion to have someone actually turn up when they say they do, do the job they said they'd do and leave you with a working system (NTL couldn't do that for me in all the years I was with them).

* - They of course don't repair it at all as they just use clueless contractors who just swap the box for another broken one they have in the back of the van just to fob you off and move onto the next call.

Of course not everything is rosy with Sky. It's thanks to them that TiVo is essentially dead in the UK. Though NTL/Telewest and now Virgin have all failed to take up the excellent TiVo platform for their own PVR which would have been strong competition.


----------



## alextegg (May 21, 2002)

I've heard some pretty poor experiences of Sky as well, to be honest.

I'm on ex-TW but I have heard people talk of NT-Hell on a number of occasions 

However, I'd be willing to wager a fair bit that with the Virgin brand behind them that they will soon overtake Sky in terms of customer service, I think that is one of Virgin's strongest points on other Virgin services (except perhaps the trains - I think that will take a bit longer  ).

Will be an interesting battle to watch, especially with the VOD and faster broadband introducing services that Sky customers just can't get, because at the moment Sky really holds the trump cards.

Although the single biggest problem for cable against satellite is the number of people who just can't get it, I suppose! Not much even Branson can do about that


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

alextegg said:


> Although the single biggest problem for cable against satellite is the number of people who just can't get it, I suppose! Not much even Branson can do about that


Yes there is. He just plans to supply his television service by Broadband TV instead using BT OpenReach in his non cabled areas.


----------



## alextegg (May 21, 2002)

Really, wouldn't have thought there was the bandwidth in non cable areas?

That's the thing the cable gives you, I thought, he can do (real) 20Mb broadband and VOD as he has the fibre optic cable network, broadband over ADSL just can't deliver that.

I haven't seen his plans in detail but that would have to imply a 2 tier Virgin Media service, I guess...


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

alextegg said:


> Really, wouldn't have thought there was the bandwidth in non cable areas?
> 
> That's the thing the cable gives you, I thought, he can do (real) 20Mb broadband and VOD as he has the fibre optic cable network, broadband over ADSL just can't deliver that.
> 
> I haven't seen his plans in detail but that would have to imply a 2 tier Virgin Media service, I guess...


Then how do you explain www.btvision.bt.com/btvision/


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

I've yet to see it in action, but they claim BT Vision will work on a 2mbps line. Now even if they achieved the full 2mbps (and they wouldn't) that's not going to be a very good picture...

And when Jonny upsatairs starts surfing the web while you're watchng a streaming programm, I predict much complaining


----------



## alextegg (May 21, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> Then how do you explain www.btvision.bt.com/btvision/


Marketing Hype ?


----------



## ColinYounger (Aug 9, 2006)

Update to this story from DS


----------

