BSkyB Announces 3rd Quarter Results - Page 5

TheBlueRaja · 10-05-2007, 08:04

Mod edit (Gavin): inapppropriate picture removed

**Stuart C** · 10-05-2007, 08:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

You know mick? we live in a democracy?
As with television, if you do not like what is showing do not watch.

If you are saying that Mick can ignore this thread if he doesn't like it, well, that's not true. As a member, you have the freedom to do that. As admins, we do not, as we may be required to intervene if something happens on the thread.

TheBlueRaja · 10-05-2007, 09:55

Where are the mockers now i wonder...

Gone awfuly quiet in here all of a sudden.

Chrysalis · 10-05-2007, 10:21

VM are free to not take the channels which they have done, but the people who claim these channels are rubbish why are you maoning they gone? isnt that a good thing for you, keeps your subs down for removing channels you dont need.

If I was sky and they lost the court case I would just remove sky sports from VM and watch VMs customers flock then.

Gareth · 10-05-2007, 10:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

If you are saying that Mick can ignore this thread if he doesn't like it, well, that's not true. As a member, you have the freedom to do that. As admins, we do not, as we may be required to intervene if something happens on the thread.

Oh, I thought he was just participating as a normal user, not in his capacity as a moderator - especially as his responses weren't in bold.

Now I'm even more confused

arcamalpha2004 · 10-05-2007, 10:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

VM are free to not take the channels which they have done, but the people who claim these channels are rubbish why are you maoning they gone? isnt that a good thing for you, keeps your subs down for removing channels you dont need.

If I was sky and they lost the court case I would just remove sky sports from VM and watch VMs customers flock then.

Totally agree that vm are free to not take the channels, but why oh why do they need babysitting all the time?
Forget all the spiel about " for the benefit of the customer " they vm just like any company do not give a toss about the customer.
Steve burch has said they made the right decision, people can either believe him and stay with vm or shift provider, no need for this constant nannying.

themelon · 10-05-2007, 10:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja

Where are the mockers now i wonder...

Gone awfuly quiet in here all of a sudden.

Mockers of what?

That was quite a good set of results taking in to account the loss of the 'oh so fantastic channels from Sky' and Skys aggressive marketing. Only 11000 lost overall.

I would be interested to know how much they spent on that Marketing (I recieved 8 different leaflets which I sent back, paid by them), the amount they have lost from unhappy advertisers, which are not shown in their results. They could have knocked that of the price they were asking, but thats not what Sky are about.

Wasthat is what you are relating to.

---------- Post added at 11:51 ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

If I was sky and they lost the court case I would just remove sky sports from VM and watch VMs customers flock then.

They can not do that by law.

I am almost certain that they would have used that dirty trick to get more customers onto their plaform by now......if they were allowed.

**Mick** · 10-05-2007, 11:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gareth

Indeed...

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Times

<Snip>

Indeed nothing, you had to source the news by a facility that you could class as one sided seeing as its headed by News International, itself owned by News Corporation group, which just happens to be headed by Rupert Murdoch. How bloody convenient.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Totally agree that vm are free to not take the channels, but why oh why do they need babysitting all the time?
Forget all the spiel about " for the benefit of the customer " they vm just like any company do not give a toss about the customer.
Steve burch has said they made the right decision, people can either believe him and stay with vm or shift provider, no need for this constant nannying.

Yes that was the biggest crock of crap, if I ever saw it. Virgin Media customers tied into their 12th month contracts, had a choice until March 31st, to leave their contract early without penalty. So looks like people believed Steve Burch then, where is this MASS exodus you were expecting?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gareth

Oh, I thought he was just participating as a normal user, not in his capacity as a moderator - especially as his responses weren't in bold.

Now I'm even more confused

You have either totally misread what Stuart meant, or are just being deliberately obstructive during the course of this debate.

But if you're still 'confused' - I'll spell it out for you shall I? Participation in a thread and Reading the thread, in other words "Keeping an eye on it', are two different things altogether.

Downloads · 10-05-2007, 11:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick

Indeed nothing, you had to source the news by a facility that you could class as one sided seeing as its headed by News International, itself owned by News Corporation group, which just happens to be headed by Rupert Murdoch. How bloody convenient.

Yes that was the biggest crock of crap, if I ever saw it. Virgin Media customers tied into their 12th month contracts, had a choice until March 31st, to leave their contract early without penalty. So looks like people believed Steve Burch then, where is this MASS exodus you were expecting?

Yeah i think it's pretty much as you were when you look into it. The profit fell by about the amount they spent on advertising. They lost customers, they gained in not paying Sky and the profits were largely unaffected. Sure they fell by a few millions, but that's peanuts to a company who is worth billions. I think both sets of figures from both companies were for the most part, completely uninteresting. Shame.

Gareth · 10-05-2007, 11:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick

Indeed nothing, you had to source the news by a facility that you could class as one sided seeing as its headed by News International, itself owned by News Corporation group, which just happens to be headed by Rupert Murdoch. How bloody convenient.

Sorry if this doesn't suit your agenda, but I actually went to Google News, typed Virgin Media Financial Results as my keywords and clicked on the first link that it provided me with. Unless you're going to suggest that Google is one-sided and is in Rupert Murdoch's pocket somehow, so that any favourable news article about VM is relegated to the lower search rankings...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick

You have either totally misread what Stuart meant, or are just being deliberately obstructive during the course of this debate.

Apparently I have mis-read Stuart's post.

He said, and I quote,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

If you are saying that Mick can ignore this thread if he doesn't like it, well, that's not true. As a member, you have the freedom to do that. As admins, we do not, as we may be required to intervene if something happens on the thread.

So, I interpret what Stuart is saying as you monitor the thread and intervene as necessary if the site's T&Cs are broken. Unless I'm mistaken (which I'm not saying is impossible) the only intervention we've needed during this thread has been to amend some comments relating to a rep someone received - and that was performed by Chris.

To me, this implies that all the posts that you've made have been in your role as a member and not your capacity as a moderator. In which case, you chose to participate, and you weren't obliged to post to ensure the T&Cs were being adhered to. In which case, you could have chosen to ignore the comments if you'd wanted to, and not bother posting, as someone had implied.

I'm really not trying to be obtuse, I just don't see what Stuart's point was as your comments weren't being made as a moderator. I look forward to your response

**Mick** · 10-05-2007, 12:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gareth

Sorry if this doesn't suit your agenda,

I don't have (unlike some) an agenda other than to correct certain facts and anomalies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gareth

Apparently I have mis-read Stuart's post.

He said, and I quote,

[Unless I'm mistaken (which I'm not saying is impossible)

You are indeed mistaken - this thread had to be intervened twice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gareth

To me, this implies that all the posts that you've made have been in your role as a member and not your capacity as a moderator.

If I was posting in a moderator role - I'd be making certain requests. I am purely debating as I am entitled to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gareth

In which case, you chose to participate, and you weren't obliged to post to ensure the T&Cs were being adhered to.

As I have already said, I am engaging in a debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gareth

In which case, you could have chosen to ignore the comments if you'd wanted to, and not bother posting, as someone had implied.

True, but I haven't said I don't like this thread have I? Someone else has said that and you have assumed it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gareth

I'm really not trying to be obtuse, I just don't see what Stuart's point was as your comments weren't being made as a moderator. I look forward to your response

You are still not seeing the point Stu made. Participation in a thread is one thing, that I can do or not do. I have chosen to participate. Reading the thread is another thing, as a member, you can choose to ignore it. What Stu is saying is that, from a team perspective, I cannot ignore the thread, incase something happens and it has and during which course whilst I have been reading it.

Anyway, I could say more but this has nothing to do with the topic.

arcamalpha2004 · 11-05-2007, 10:02

" Yes that was the biggest crock of crap, if I ever saw it. Virgin Media customers tied into their 12th month contracts, had a choice until March 31st, to leave their contract early without penalty. So looks like people believed Steve Burch then, where is this MASS exodus you were expecting?"

Mick, there is only one reason why vm did what they did, they could not have held customers to their contracts given what had happened re the sky spat.
Which brings me to ask what vm are doing with the pots of money saved from not providing a full tv service?

sticka · 14-05-2007, 13:01

Not wishing to go over old ground but I was with Sky for years and I didn't have a problem other than the usual loss of signal in really bad weather.

I moved to a house that had cable. Left Sky for VM (was NTL then) and had trouble every single day with the TV service. Managed to get out of the contract within the 30 days and went back to Sky and haven't had a problem since. Yesterday, during some extremely heavy rain, the picture went a little pixellated for a mo but lasted all of a few seconds and back to normal.

This is my experience of Sky and I have to say, it has been without fault at 2 different addresses. I know the old "VM works even in bad weather" argument but believe me, I'll take Sky working 99.9% of the time over VM's Off-Demand TV service anyday.

What I will say in VM's defence is that I stayed with them for the telephone and have had no problems so far. It was just VM's TV service that was so woeful.

c_r · 18-05-2007, 22:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick

Throwing out that I am a cable loyalist is a pathetic cop out, but if you are going to throw a weak arguement across (as you always usually do) I could stoop myself as low as you and throw out that you are Sky loyalist.

So, the trees must be very high around your vicinity then.

Let's have a look at some facts shall we:

290,000 customers lost. Sky One viewing figures down 34%. Sky not got their own way with Virgin Media. Absolutely no signs of any MASS exodus of customers from Virgin Media to Sky due to loss of Sky's basic crap channels, by the way, yes its Virgin Media, its not ntl anymore, do keep up.

Let's see what else, oh yes - advertisers demanding refunds due to poor audience shares. Sky could be forced to sell its ITV stake as it gets referred to the Competition Commission.

And lets not get started on Sky's absolutely crap broadband service that is about as much useful as a chocolate tea pot, here is a review taken off a certain review site:

Before you come back and throw other weak arguements across about Virgin Media having the same amount of problems with its customers, I know it does, I haven't disputed that but what gets my goat is you and others on here at times painting this wonderful picture of Sky being absolute angels and always being the better service - well the proof is in the pudding, they aren't and nowhere near it.

Well I have Sky's broadband service and I find it pretty good - you must realise that a review taken off a 'certain review site' doesn't constitute anything like reliable opinion?