Virgin Media in talks over bringing back Sky

[foreverwar]

Originally Posted by Sirius

It's Arthurmathics
.....snippety snip snip....
So Arthur its your maths give us an answer please

[Woking User]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

if you had to pay £1.50 for example, for the basic package, that is the price of ONE meal, or a pint or THREE cigarettes,

fags are'nt 50p each yet (it's around £5.65 a packet of 20 at the moment until the nanny state raises the tax on them again)
please correct your statement to ....
"if you had to pay £1.50 for example, for the basic package, that is the price of ONE meal, or a pint or FIVE cigarettes"

it's very difficult for folk to take your views to be of any value if you can't get the fundamentals right


I do agree with others that those basic Sky channels were essentially low brow channels and not worth the inflated Sky charge (and certainly not an extra £1 or so on customer bills).
BUT where I am VERY VERY annoyed is that I pay extra for this so called 'Sky Sports Collection' package which does'nt include Sky Sports News that's even available on bloody Freeview.
Sorry but the VM/Setanta attempt at a dedicated Sports New Channel is no where near the standard set by SSN.
And no I'm not going to install a Freeview box just for SSN.

I hold both Sky and Virgin at fault for this. Sky for being [inappropriate language removed] and not playing fair and include SSN within the Sports package AND VM for being far too quick to place the blame on Sky on removing their basic channels - they should have contested SSN seperately on the basis of the Sport Package subscriptions.

Sky One - the Simpson's repeat channel and dumbed down US tripe (Lost? c'mon grow up people)

[Graham M]

Originally Posted by Woking User

Sky One - the Simpson's repeat channel and dumbed down US tripe (Lost? c'mon grow up people)

*sigh* for a member with a huge total of 6 posts you're not looking to make many friends here are you?

[dev]

anyone want to contact VM and tell them to pay Sky £25m, get the basic channels on. send a letter to every customer and have the option of paying £1 (or w/e the price is) per month to have them added, those who refuse have it paid for them by Arthurgray50@blu?

[Woking User]

Originally Posted by Zeph

*sigh* for a member with a huge total of 6 posts you're not looking to make many friends here are you?

not sure why having only 6 posts means anything here? or do you take more credence on hundreds of low quality spam posts which you see a lot of on web forums

just posting my view and to be honest there are an awful lot of other posters who could'nt give a toss about Sky One either and I don't really want to make 'friends' on a web forum too

Following on from the rather amusing requests for polls and writing letters to VM customers about paying extra for Sky One may I suggest a poll for those who do like Sky One if they think there's a selection strategy for 'Deal or No Deal'.
I for one would heavily object to paying an increased subscription to subsidise the continued dumbing down of tv

[foreverwar]

Originally Posted by dev

anyone want to contact VM and tell them to pay Sky £25m, get the basic channels on. send a letter to every customer and have the option of paying £1 (or w/e the price is) per month to have them added, those who refuse have it paid for them by Arthurgray50@blu?

Sounds reasonable..........

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Sounds reasonable..........

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Just to clarify something, Sky wanted £40. million for the package, that was cuasing all the aggro, BUT don't forget, this was at the same time, of the bitter row ie ITV etc, then Sky were prepared to drop this figure,( to 25m , and l found that out myself ) to allow VM to come back into the talks, and no one is forced into taking packages on VM and you can choose what you want to watch. Sky have a system now where YOU choose the package, that you want, l don't think VM do that, and the monthly fee, that VM would have put the price up would have been £1. per month if they had gone in for the deal, which l would have gladly paid, and to make matters a bit different, l have just received a leaflet, stating that if you go in for a new deal it will only cost you 53p per day or £16.00 per month. Sky and VM have got to get together, and sort the problem out and get the basics back again, even if it would cost £1.00 per month, Just think how much it cost to launch Virgin One, that was ONE channel, now for the same price they could have got about SIX channels for that.

Have you forgotten? Video on demand is the new way to watch TV.

Sky are not able to provide such a service.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Just to solve and argument, which too me is getting a bit outs of hand, cast your mind, back to the bitter dispute, and the deal was, that Jamie Murdoch, stated that he would not budge on any deal with VM, other than the one that was on the table. I believe it was 40million for the basic package. On this forum, other members stated it would only cost ONE POUND extra, for customers to have this package, l contacted Sky, and they told me, that Sky offered VM a reduced deal, too avoid customers losing out, the reduced deal was 25 million, VM turned this down, and stated they would take the matter to court,. I would pay the extra pound per month, to get these extra channels back, especially with all the deals that VM at the moment, some VM customers want the basic's back, and in reference to Sky selecting the channels, you only want to watch, as a package, when l was made redundant, l advised Sky that l would have to cancel, and they told me, tell them what channels you want to watch, and they will cancel the ones you don't watch, and it would save me 20 quid a month. l read these items in the news, and tell fellow members, l also read what fellow members are saying. l am not going itno figure's, l only state what l have read, and does not come from The Sun or The Mirror.

[Mick]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

l am not going itno figure's, l only state what l have read, and does not come from The Sun or The Mirror.

Yes but at least they use paragraphs.

[Jefferson T]

I'm sorry but I just can't 'read' Arthur's posts

I mean that literally my screen reader falls over itself for some reason with them, so I'm afraid it may well have to be in the ignore list with him.

Nothing personal mind.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Isn't there anyone else, that people can make snide remarks about, other than paragraph mistakes, or commer marks, l have a brains, l wasn't brought up as an idiot, l try to put decent threads on this forum, for people to read, and comment on, not for people to take the mick.

[Kevin T]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Isn't there anyone else, that people can make snide remarks about, other than paragraph mistakes, or commer marks, l have a brains, l wasn't brought up as an idiot, l try to put decent threads on this forum, for people to read, and comment on, not for people to take the mick.

Arthur, people aren't 'taking the mick'.

All they are asking is that you separate things into different sections.

Don't worry about the niceties of grammar, just pause after each point you're trying to make.

Insert a full stop and perhaps a carriage return (new line).

Your posts may, or may not, have merit; but people are more likely to make the effort to read them if they are comprehensible...

[joglynne]

Arthur I have never made a snide remark about any of your posts but I have found them difficult to read.

Could you not try to break your posts up a little. I am sure members would be more open to your arguments if they could read them.

[Jefferson T]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Isn't there anyone else, that people can make snide remarks about, other than paragraph mistakes, or commer marks, l have a brains, l wasn't brought up as an idiot, l try to put decent threads on this forum, for people to read, and comment on, not for people to take the mick.

I CAN'T read your posts without causing my screen reader to crash.