Coming soon to Virgin TV (2012) Vol. 1

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Den, are you a VM shareholder to come out with a comment like that.

Sky is a major broadcaster and has the channels to prove it and are not scared to try new things, bring out new channels when they are there. VM are in a time warp, there customers are crying out for Atlantic, and all VM say is that they are in talks.

With the Premier Sports channel, VM are probably worried about taking the channel as they want it to be a stand alone channel to see if they can make the profit and not the other way round.

VM have to take the battle to Sky with the channels to increase customers, as at the moment, look at this forum with customers ' what new channels and HD channels are coming to the system' what does VM say 'we are in talks'

[alwaysabear]

Originally Posted by PWSPWS

Wonder how much channels like Eurosport get from being in the "bundle"? Suppose a big number times a small amount of money is better than next to nothing times a big price . That's a channel that only gets watched for skiing, but you'd struggle to justify paying £8 a month for on its own! Then again same could be said for Comedy Central & South Park!!

They also cover all the major cycling events in Europe and around the world and a great job they have done for many many years. Cycling is growing year on year and now Sky have there own mainly British team I can only see it getting a bigger following in the UK.

[PWSPWS]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Den, are you a VM shareholder to come out with a comment like that.

Sky is a major broadcaster and has the channels to prove it and are not scared to try new things, bring out new channels when they are there. VM are in a time warp, there customers are crying out for Atlantic, and all VM say is that they are in talks.

With the Premier Sports channel, VM are probably worried about taking the channel as they want it to be a stand alone channel to see if they can make the profit and not the other way round.

VM have to take the battle to Sky with the channels to increase customers, as at the moment, look at this forum with customers ' what new channels and HD channels are coming to the system' what does VM say 'we are in talks'

To me Sky sbuse their position & whilst I think VM should sort the missing non-Sky channels, I think they've been right royally done over by Sky & the events after the OFT ruling show that.

Sky introduce a new channel spookily soon after the VMTV sale, say VM are trying to get it on the cheap & then give it free to all their subscribers!!, now we have the lack of Sky F1 HD - the OFT were keen to ensure the top sport was on SS1 & SS2, which was to be offered to VM & lo & behold we have a new channel for what must be classed as top sport, but not made available to VM.

---------- Post added at 20:18 ---------- Previous post was at 19:56 ----------

Originally Posted by alwaysabear

They also cover all the major cycling events in Europe and around the world and a great job they have done for many many years. Cycling is growing year on year and now Sky have there own mainly British team I can only see it getting a bigger following in the UK.

alwaysabear - don't get me wrong, I think they do an excellent job & have watched the channel from before the Eurosport/Screensport days, I'm just saying I'd struggle to justify paying for it as a standalone channel for just the winter sports which we're keen on. If I wasn't bothered about football & cricket, Sky Sports would be gone!!

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by PWSPWS

Wonder how much channels like Eurosport get from being in the "bundle"? Suppose a big number times a small amount of money is better than next to nothing times a big price . That's a channel that only gets watched for skiing, but you'd struggle to justify paying £8 a month for on its own! Then again same could be said for Comedy Central & South Park!!

A lot of minority channels would fold, or become expensive stand alone channels, without the bundle system. We all have (and pay for) channels that we don't watch, but, the channels that we do watch are similarly subsidised.

The downside to this, is that pay TV operators, in effect, have indirect control over the channels and can make or break them if, for example, they air views that they don't like.

An example of this is the Sky treatment of Current TV.

Originally Posted by PWSPWS

To me Sky sbuse their position & whilst I think VM should sort the missing non-Sky channels, I think they've been right royally done over by Sky & the events after the OFT ruling show that.

Sky introduce a new channel spookily soon after the VMTV sale, say VM are trying to get it on the cheap & then give it free to all their subscribers!!, now we have the lack of Sky F1 HD - the OFT were keen to ensure the top sport was on SS1 & SS2, which was to be offered to VM & lo & behold we have a new channel for what must be classed as top sport, but not made available to VM.

Indeed. Business is business, but Sky take it to a whole new level with their subterfuge and spite.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

.



Indeed. Business is business, but Sky take it to a whole new level with their subterfuge and spite.

Spot on Richard.

[windy]

Coming soon to virgin tv............!!!!!!!!!!

[PWSPWS]

Originally Posted by windy

Coming soon to virgin tv............!!!!!!!!!!

I know, but as we all know, a bunch of what we'd like to be Coming soon to Virgin Media isn't, because of Sky!

[windy]

Originally Posted by PWSPWS

I know, but as we all know, a bunch of what we'd like to be Coming soon to Virgin Media isn't, because of Sky!

You cant blame absolutely everything on sky..

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by windy

You cant blame absolutely everything on sky..

O believe me some on here can

[denphone]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

O believe me some on here can

Now lets get things right l have never blamed Sky for everything but they are at fault with regards to certain things and l think even a wise man like you would admit to that and you have admitted to that somewhat in previous posts if l rightly remember but one will also blame Virgin in certain aspects as well as in my case l will always try to be fair and balanced as much as l can.

[PWSPWS]

Originally Posted by windy

You cant blame absolutely everything on sky..

I'm not, hence the use of bunch of not all!

I'd bet if Sky had their channels & distribution businesses separated though, we'd be getting those channels!

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

If it had a much bigger licence fee (also more widely applied) It can be done!

Do you have to pay the tv licence as a student and if you do how much extra are you willing to pay ?

---------- Post added at 21:13 ---------- Previous post was at 21:12 ----------

Originally Posted by windy

You cant blame absolutely everything on sky..

Well i don't blame Sky for my arthritis

[alwaysabear]

Originally Posted by PWSPWS

I'm not, hence the use of bunch of not all!

I'd bet if Sky had their channels & distribution businesses separated though, we'd be getting those channels!

Only if VM are prepared to pay the going rate. Sky have invested a hell of a lot in new channels and new content, they are the ones taking the risks. Therefore, VM should expect to pay small premium to carry the content.VM obviously decided when they sold their channels to Sky that they were not in the risk taking business.

I think both companies are to blame. When it comes to the sky channels we don't have it might be sky charging over the odds to block virgin or sky offering a fair price and virgin want it cheap but sadly we don't know.

But in relation to non sky channels when they can appear on freesat, freeview, cable in Ireland and sky then there is no excuses virgin need to get act together. The fact premier sports was offering it on xl and vurgin want it as stand alone is maybe an example of how they hold talks

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Do you have to pay the tv licence as a student and if you do how much extra are you willing to pay ?

---------- Post added at 21:13 ---------- Previous post was at 21:12 ----------



Well i don't blame Sky for my arthritis

Most students have to pay the TV licence just like everybody else and receive no concession whatsoever.

There is a loophole where they may not have to buy one if:

- Their parents, who reside at the normal home address of the student, have a valid TV licence.

AND

- The student watches a TV that is powered by batteries only. It must NOT be used to view programmes whilst connected to any mains supply.

This legislation was clearly introduced to deal with portable battery powered TV's, but now, of course, includes laptops.

In the case of a laptop, it would be legal for a student to watch TV on it, but only from power derived from the battery.

If it is plugged in to use and/or charge the battery at any time whilst watching live TV, an offence is committed.

The i-player can be viewed without such restrictions, as use of this does not require a TV licence.

Incidentally, it is in the t&c's of VM that a customer must have a valid TV licence to receive their TV service. If it is discovered that a customer does not have a licence, they may disconnect the TV service.

Also, AIUI, employees of the BBC who are found to be watching their own TV without a valid licence face disciplinary proceedings, with a view to dismissal.