Virgin Media to drop Sky One

Lady_K

I dont watch any of the programs on sky one that people seem to be going to miss so much. I watched 1 program of lost and couldnt believe it. I couldnt bare to watch it its sooo bad, cringingly bad. Simpsons is ok but I get sick to death of seeing it on tv almost as much as friends. I wont miss any of them

AMO

MFewings wrote:

I just wonder about the long term effects of changing over to Sky.

Once they realise how important these channels are to customers and knowing there is no other source to get them will they start putting prices up really high?

The reason why the cost of Sky is going up is because Sky believe that some of their non-premium channels, e.g. Sky One & Sky Sports News & Sky News should be sold as a semi-premium package. This is the reason why they are charging Virgin Media more for it and withdrawing some channels from Freeview.

The problem is that many people really like 24, Lost, Battlestar Galactica etc and will move to Sky. This will start to cripple Virgin Media which already has a lot of debt and is Sky's only main competitor and will give control of TV to Sky.

Whilst Sky has done a lot to bring more channels to the U.K. let's not forget that in the simplest terms, Sky saw that the British public were getting their TV too cheaply, bought rights to primary viewing of major films and sports and then made us pay more for the same stuff spread over hundreds of channels.

AMO

dc

Lady_K wrote:

what are skys own channels then apart from the obvious ones? Whos is E4 and does that mean ITV1 aswell then as I dont have an aerial so will use my sky box for whatevers on there once the subscription ends later this month

Dont worry, if it doesn't have the words Sky in the channel name, then it is not Sky's channel, just a part of their selling tequniques, ie packages.

E4 is part of Channel 4, ITV is owned by Granada, and so nothing to do with Sky, apart that Murdoch or Jnr bought 19% of ITV to stop richard Branson buying ITV and thus having a programme buying channel that could compete with Sky.
Murdoch became an American citizen so he could buy up the US media, so that is the kind of guy he is. :rolleyes2

theowl_2

I found this article quite interesting and thought I would share...

When Sky's the limit


Branson has built an empire by crying wolf. But in Murdoch he faces a genuine big game hunter

Tom Bower
Saturday March 3, 2007
The Guardian

Challenging Goliaths has always been Richard Branson's formula to increase his fortune. Protesting loudly about unfairness while stepping hard on the toes of established businessmen has richly rewarded Britain's favourite tycoon. Whatever the business - airlines, music, Virgin Cola, the lottery or financial services - Branson always poses as the people's champion against profiteers. But eventually his true motive surfaces. He single-mindedly pursues self-interest to increase his own wealth. His latest onslaught against Sky is no different than dozens of previous battles, except that Branson v Murdoch promises more bloodshed than usual and a painful finale.

The first casualties are subscribers to Virgin Media. Branson's new corporation offers a package of mobile telephones, broadband links and multi-channel satellite TV. Caught in the crossfire, Virgin's subscribers have lost Sky's basic programmes and popular series such as 24 and Lost. Their disgruntlement will cost Branson. Weighed down by huge debts, Virgin Media desperately needs new subscribers. The withdrawal of Sky's programmes endangers the newcomer's profits.

In previous battles - against British Airways, Camelot, Coca-Cola and the City - Branson's campaign relied on posing as the underdog or the victim of dirty tricks. But in his battle with Murdoch, his championship of any public interest has not been established. His wealth (estimated at over £3bn) and recent gimmicks (offering prizes to beat global warming while pocketing profits from his airline) have diminished public sympathy. His supporters are unlikely to attach much importance to the rights of broadcasting American TV imports. Sceptics would rightly suspect that Branson is less interested in improving Britain's television and more concerned with snatching a chunk of Sky's profits.

Branson's desperation is highlighted by a daily blitz of insults directed at Sky. Today's battle may be about the fees Virgin should pay for Sky programmes, but Branson's real agenda is to become Britain's alternative broadcaster to the BBC, and secure Sky's lucrative rights to Premiership football. At the age of 56, Branson believes the defeat of Murdoch would be his passport to the elite. After years of robust rebuffs, he could become a real player in America.

In theory, defying Murdoch should attract praise. The Australian's domination of British media is considered unhealthy by many. Yet Branson's challenge fails to evoke sympathy among Britain's anti-Murdoch brigade: too often Branson's methods have been questionable and his promises unfulfilled.

Pertinently, Branson's many commercial failures occurred because Virgin could not compete in the marketplace. Ventures into clothes, drinks, energy, financial services, cars, wine, publishing and back into music (after the sale of Virgin Music in 1992) were damp squibs. His real profits since 1992 have come by securing quasi monopolies from state regulators. Virgin Airline's success depends on maintaining a cosy cartel at Heathrow and aggressively preventing British Midland and other airlines flying across the Atlantic; Virgin Radio was secured by seducing a susceptible regulator; and Virgin Trains' profits depend on huge government subsidies. Branson's catastrophe came in the shape of his failed bid for the national lottery. Dame Helena Shovelton, the regulator. injudiciously telephoned Branson, giving Camelot the opportunity to successfully challenge her impartiality in the high court. Branson's loss denied him vast riches.

In victory and defeat, Branson leaves victims; Lord King of British Airways, Guy Snowden of Camelot and Randolph Fields, the architect of Virgin Atlantic, rank among the corpses. But Murdoch's scalp is Branson's dream trophy.

His battle with Sky has followed a familiar pattern. A bid for ITV was rejected as too low. As usual, Branson demanded a bargain and the snub hurt. More outrageous, in Branson's view, was James Murdoch's unexpected strike, paying top dollar for an 18% stake in ITV. Worsted by a deft but legal manoeuvre, Branson performed his familiar sob stuff and cried foul. Rushing to the government - Branson's telephone calls to politicians are answered immediately - he demanded action. Alistair Darling obliged. Sky's stake in ITV is to be investigated by Ofcom under competition rules. Now, unwilling to pay the market rate to transmit Sky programmes on Virgin's channel, he again screams "outrage" and demands government intervention.

Help will take months to materialise, and the stakes are uneven. With seemingly unlimited wealth, Murdoch is entrenched - while Branson finds his fate precarious. Virgin Media's lifeblood is new subscribers, and they are dwindling. In the poker game, Branson is matched against a player whose fortune was built on bluff and the bones of men just as accomplished as Branson. For once, the popular scavenger crying wolf risks becoming a genuine victim of a big game hunter.

· Tom Bower is the author of Branson

compmad1

Having said that cable customer support is good, I could not get through yesterday at all and tried this morning. I was in the phone queue for an hour then I got cut off. Not very amused. Has anybody else got through OK?

thor

Lady_K wrote:

I watched 1 program of lost and couldnt believe it. I couldnt bare to watch it its sooo bad, cringingly bad. Simpsons is ok but I get sick to death of seeing it on tv almost as much as friends. I wont miss any of them

Lost is one of those shows that you either hate or love. For me it is the best thing on tv but then I despise the Simpsons and hate 24 for the one trick pony that it is. There is no doubt that the plot of Lost is being made up as they go along and I seriously doubt that they will be able to tie up the ends at the end but then that will follow a long line of programmes that have had very dodgy endings, i.e. Twin Peaks, Quantum Leap, X Files etc

AMO

theowl wrote:

Branson has built an empire by crying wolf. But in Murdoch he faces a genuine big game hunter

The article is quite extremist. If you imagine a poker game analogy, think about it - the best players win by knowing when to bluff. Branson's a good poker player.

The reason why it appears he cries wolf is in many cases because he challenges points of fairness and gets the backing of the people. But yes, the article is completely right in that Branson is looking for a bargain when buying ITV. Branson builds empires of value for the consumer and often targetting students - he isn't going to do that by overpaying for companies.

Still there are some valid points in the article, but its one sided. Certainly, Bransons in a bit of trouble - or rather Virgin Media is. Branson, although a large shareholder isn't in much trouble as he gets paid for the Virgin brand to be used. This move is good for Branson and less good for consumers as they are paying for a brand when they didn't need it as they subscribed prior to the Virgin brand.

AMO

darwin-rover

The article is also factually incorrect -

Branson's new corporation offers a package of mobile telephones, broadband links and multi-channel satellite TV

No mention of home phone . And satellite TV ? Think you'll find its cable TV .

Branson's loss denied him vast riches.

Branson said from day 1 , his idea for the lottery was to run it as a non-profit organisation , with all the profits going to good causes , not shareholders .

And thoughout the whole article it describes Vigin Media as a "new venture" and a "newcomer" . Its still the same NTL , with just a name change . Virgin only obtained the 17% share of NTL by swapping it for Virgin Mobile .

pollyskettle

My take on all this (which is entirely personal opinion which no-one has asked for but I'm going to give you anyway lol) is that BOTH sides have played this very cleverly. By releasing very few, if any, facts about the actual intricacies of the argument they are relying on the pre-conceived opinions in peoples minds about the 2 big players in this, Branson and Murdoch. Branson, being British and portrayed in the majority of the media as a cunningly minded, hard-working, vivacious and above all consumer-minded business-man, is hoping that the portrayal of Murdoch in the media as a foreign, profiteering bully will prevail. Murdoch is rather hoping that consumers will remember that he has provided an alternative to terrestrial tv for a couple of decades and that a fair few of Bransons enterprises have ended in tears and/or sell-offs for him (Virgin Radio and the Camelot palaver off the top of my head), whereas Murdoch is here to stay. Like someone else here said, I don't put too much emphasis on the involvement of Branson here anyway as it is merely his name being used in the re-branded ntl:telewest, I'm not sure of the proportion of VM he owns, but I remember it being around 11% of ntl.

The rather annoying thing is that VM never notified it's customers of this change, let alone offered them the extra channels as an extra or premium service. VMs tv guides were printed without the Sky channels in for this week and Sky had full page adverts in the national media on Thursday (which would have been produced before midnight on Wednesday) about the loss of the Sky channels on VM. It very much seems to me that both companies have what they wanted. Branson and Murdoch's long running dispute goes back to the ITV fiasco and the thought of them doing business together after that is laughable.

What it does all boil down to is the personal opinion of the customers as to whether they will stay with VM or go to Sky. This argument between consumers is exactly what both parties aimed for.

Probably.

Personally I think they are as bad as each other, and that the bullying tactics have been used on both sides (one more subtly than the other). Until Thursday I was a VM customer. I called and cancelled my package citing a significant change in the provison of my tv services thus saving me £75 a month which will be used towards a 7.5 tonne truck which I need to move to a non-cable area in early April :A

daymo

dc wrote:

Well sorry daymo, but,..............more shenanigans........... you will only have it till July when Sky are pulling ALL their channels on Freeview, and replacing them with Pay Per View subscription channels. Seems like Freeview is hurting them too.

Bully Murdoch is really turning the screw, lets hope he gets egg on it, preferably raw.

I think you mis read my post..I have been with sky for the last 3 months,If Nthell
didnt prove to be so useless,I would probably have been with them now...although possibly not now considering the sky1 issue.
Remmber at the end of the day it is still Nthell but with a new coat of paint!