Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

"ChrisM" wrote in message
...

My understanding is that Sky made a large increase in the price they
wanted Virgin to pay for their channels. Virgin refused to pay this
increase (because, they said, they didn't want to have to pass these large
increases onto their customers...), so Sky said 'Fine' and took their
channels away...

On the BBC website the other day it reported that Sky said they only wanted
3p per customer per day. Thats around 90p per month from a Virgin
subscription. I really do not think that is very much in the scheme of
things. Of course that 3p figure may not be true, but if it is it does nto
seem too unreasonable.

Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

In message ,
Beck Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

"ChrisM" wrote in message
...

My understanding is that Sky made a large increase in the price they
wanted Virgin to pay for their channels. Virgin refused to pay this
increase (because, they said, they didn't want to have to pass these
large increases onto their customers...), so Sky said 'Fine' and
took their channels away...

On the BBC website the other day it reported that Sky said they only
wanted 3p per customer per day. Thats around 90p per month from a
Virgin subscription. I really do not think that is very much in the
scheme of things. Of course that 3p figure may not be true, but if
it is it does nto seem too unreasonable.

Yea, if that is true, it doesn't sound like all that much, mind you, is that
a 3p per day increace, or 3p per day total?

90p per month... well, doesn't sound like a lot, but then again:
My TV package costs somthing less that £10 per month, so Sky are asking for
10% of what I pay NTL just to supply 3(?) channels. If it was an INCREASE of
3p/day then it's even more. Seems like quite a large slice when you put it
that way?

Maybe I'm being naive, or missing something, but I can't see how
NTL(/Virgin) can benefit from NOT showing these channels, as all it is going
to do is lose them customers to Sky... So there must be a good reason why
they've made the decision not to show them???


--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

"ChrisM" wrote in message
...
Yea, if that is true, it doesn't sound like all that much, mind you, is
that a 3p per day increace, or 3p per day total?
90p per month... well, doesn't sound like a lot, but then again:
My TV package costs somthing less that £10 per month, so Sky are asking
for 10% of what I pay NTL just to supply 3(?) channels. If it was an
INCREASE of 3p/day then it's even more. Seems like quite a large slice
when you put it that way?

It may have been 3p increase per day. I could have misread it or the
article was not clear enough.

Maybe I'm being naive, or missing something, but I can't see how
NTL(/Virgin) can benefit from NOT showing these channels, as all it is
going to do is lose them customers to Sky... So there must be a good
reason why they've made the decision not to show them???

Well I can only see Virgin missing out on this deal. Many people who
absolutely must have Sky One will inevitably move to Sky to get the channels
back. Maybe its just a case of Virgin standing their ground and not willing
to give in to Sky prices. Ultimately it will only affect them. Thing is,
if Virgin are now selling less of a package then surely their prices should
go down to compensate for it?
Maybe Virgin should pull Living TV from Sky - after all it is wasted space
on my EPG :-)

Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

"Beck" wrote in message
...

"ChrisM" wrote in message
...
Yea, if that is true, it doesn't sound like all that much, mind you, is
that a 3p per day increace, or 3p per day total?
90p per month... well, doesn't sound like a lot, but then again:
My TV package costs somthing less that £10 per month, so Sky are asking
for 10% of what I pay NTL just to supply 3(?) channels. If it was an
INCREASE of 3p/day then it's even more. Seems like quite a large slice
when you put it that way?

It may have been 3p increase per day. I could have misread it or the
article was not clear enough.

Maybe I'm being naive, or missing something, but I can't see how
NTL(/Virgin) can benefit from NOT showing these channels, as all it is
going to do is lose them customers to Sky... So there must be a good
reason why they've made the decision not to show them???

Well I can only see Virgin missing out on this deal. Many people who
absolutely must have Sky One will inevitably move to Sky to get the
channels back. Maybe its just a case of Virgin standing their ground and
not willing to give in to Sky prices. Ultimately it will only affect
them. Thing is, if Virgin are now selling less of a package then surely
their prices should go down to compensate for it?
Maybe Virgin should pull Living TV from Sky - after all it is wasted space
on my EPG :-)

3p (total) doesn't sound like much but when you consider Virgin has ~3.3
million subscribers, then the increase works out at 10's of millions of
pounds per year. With that kind of money, surely they can buy some shows
like 24 or Lost themselves?

Z

Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

"Zimmy" wrote in message
...


3p (total) doesn't sound like much but when you consider Virgin has ~3.3
million subscribers, then the increase works out at 10's of millions of
pounds per year. With that kind of money, surely they can buy some shows
like 24 or Lost themselves?

Costs less for them to buy from a reseller than to do it themselves?
Legal fees, licensing fees, etc would probably bump that figure up
massively.

Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

In message , Beck
writes

"Zimmy" wrote in message news:[email protected]
ews.demon.co.uk...


3p (total) doesn't sound like much but when you consider Virgin has
~3.3 million subscribers, then the increase works out at 10's of
millions of pounds per year. With that kind of money, surely they can
buy some shows like 24 or Lost themselves?

Costs less for them to buy from a reseller than to do it themselves?
Legal fees, licensing fees, etc would probably bump that figure up
massively.


It all depends on what Virgin wants to sell. It knows that Sky can ramp
up the price as long as Virgin says yes, but Virgin probably thinks they
can make more money out of high speed Internet and on demand services
which they are well placed to deliver. They may be deliberately weaning
their customers off Sky One.


--
Julian Barker

There is a coherent plan in the universe,
though I don't know what it is a plan for.
- Sir Fred Hoyle 1915-2001

Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

"Julian Barker" wrote in message
...

It all depends on what Virgin wants to sell. It knows that Sky can ramp
up the price as long as Virgin says yes, but Virgin probably thinks they
can make more money out of high speed Internet and on demand services
which they are well placed to deliver. They may be deliberately weaning
their customers off Sky One.

That is a possibility but they need to replace it with something good
otherwise people will just leave.

Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:29:44 GMT, Julian Barker
wrote:

|!In message , Beck
|!writes
|!
|!"Zimmy" wrote in message news:[email protected]
|!ews.demon.co.uk...
|!
|!
|! 3p (total) doesn't sound like much but when you consider Virgin has
|!~3.3 million subscribers, then the increase works out at 10's of
|!millions of pounds per year. With that kind of money, surely they can
|!buy some shows like 24 or Lost themselves?
|!
|!Costs less for them to buy from a reseller than to do it themselves?
|!Legal fees, licensing fees, etc would probably bump that figure up
|!massively.
|!
|!
|!It all depends on what Virgin wants to sell. It knows that Sky can ramp
|!up the price as long as Virgin says yes, but Virgin probably thinks they
|!can make more money out of high speed Internet and on demand services
|!which they are well placed to deliver. They may be deliberately weaning
|!their customers off Sky One.

Maybe Virgin want to wean customers off TV altogether, and ditching $ky 1
is just a first step. With the quality of BBC and ITV programming being
what it is :-( this would not be too painful to the general public. We
are now down to two *must watch* per *week*.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Compare and contrast
Sharia Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
European Convention on Human Rights http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html
Then sign this petition http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Ban-Sharia

Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

in 226330 20070307 235942 "Beck" wrote:
"Julian Barker" wrote in message
.. .

It all depends on what Virgin wants to sell. It knows that Sky can ramp
up the price as long as Virgin says yes, but Virgin probably thinks they
can make more money out of high speed Internet and on demand services
which they are well placed to deliver. They may be deliberately weaning
their customers off Sky One.

That is a possibility but they need to replace it with something good
otherwise people will just leave.

I have yet to meet a VM customer who is upset at the loss of the Sky channels.

Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
in 226330 20070307 235942 "Beck" wrote:
"Julian Barker" wrote in message
. ..

It all depends on what Virgin wants to sell. It knows that Sky can ramp
up the price as long as Virgin says yes, but Virgin probably thinks they
can make more money out of high speed Internet and on demand services
which they are well placed to deliver. They may be deliberately weaning
their customers off Sky One.

That is a possibility but they need to replace it with something good
otherwise people will just leave.

I have yet to meet a VM customer who is upset at the loss of the Sky
channels.

I know of a couple of people but they are Lost and 24 freaks.

Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 13:17:36 +0000, ChrisM wrote:

In message ,
Beck Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

"ChrisM" wrote in message
...

My understanding is that Sky made a large increase in the price they
wanted Virgin to pay for their channels. Virgin refused to pay this
increase (because, they said, they didn't want to have to pass these
large increases onto their customers...), so Sky said 'Fine' and
took their channels away...

On the BBC website the other day it reported that Sky said they only
wanted 3p per customer per day. Thats around 90p per month from a
Virgin subscription. I really do not think that is very much in the
scheme of things. Of course that 3p figure may not be true, but if
it is it does nto seem too unreasonable.

Yea, if that is true, it doesn't sound like all that much, mind you, is that
a 3p per day increace, or 3p per day total?


Either way, the figure that we need to know, is what Virgin where paying
before. If they where paying say 1p a day, then a change to 3p a day is a
300% increase in costs. It is immaterial if the 3p a day is not much.

JAB.

--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195

Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 13:17:36 +0000, ChrisM wrote:
Beck Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
On the BBC website the other day it reported that Sky said they only
wanted 3p per customer per day. Thats around 90p per month from a
Virgin subscription. I really do not think that is very much in the
scheme of things. Of course that 3p figure may not be true, but if
it is it does nto seem too unreasonable.

Yea, if that is true, it doesn't sound like all that much, mind you, is that
a 3p per day increace, or 3p per day total?

Either way, the figure that we need to know, is what Virgin where paying
before. If they where paying say 1p a day, then a change to 3p a day is a
300% increase in costs. It is immaterial if the 3p a day is not much.

ISTR a recent BBC radio interview (maybe on Wake Up To Money) with a
Virgin Media rep where he said that Sky were demanding a 90% increase
and refusing to budge. The Virgin rep said they'd been seeing falling
viewers for Sky recently. I don't know when the previous prices were
set, but over what period of time has Sky One-Three-News become 90%
more valuable?

I think Murdoch's company was either fantasising or bullying.
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Free Sat FAQ: http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/astefaq
Webmaster/web developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop maker,
Workers co-op @ Weston-super-Mare, Somerset http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

"MJ Ray" wrote in message
...
Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 13:17:36 +0000, ChrisM wrote:
Beck Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
On the BBC website the other day it reported that Sky said they only
wanted 3p per customer per day. Thats around 90p per month from a
Virgin subscription. I really do not think that is very much in the
scheme of things. Of course that 3p figure may not be true, but if
it is it does nto seem too unreasonable.

Yea, if that is true, it doesn't sound like all that much, mind you, is
that
a 3p per day increace, or 3p per day total?

Either way, the figure that we need to know, is what Virgin where paying
before. If they where paying say 1p a day, then a change to 3p a day is a
300% increase in costs. It is immaterial if the 3p a day is not much.

ISTR a recent BBC radio interview (maybe on Wake Up To Money) with a
Virgin Media rep where he said that Sky were demanding a 90% increase
and refusing to budge. The Virgin rep said they'd been seeing falling
viewers for Sky recently. I don't know when the previous prices were
set, but over what period of time has Sky One-Three-News become 90%
more valuable?

I think Murdoch's company was either fantasising or bullying.

Virgin should let other companies sell direct to customers. That way we
would find out how many are willing to pay SKY the price they are asking.
SKY are paying for first broadcast rights of many top US programs. Those
costs are not dependent upon how many Virgin users watch the channel. As a
SKY user I shouldn't be subsidising that cost for Virgin users.

If Virgin are right about the popularity they won't be getting many
complaints!

Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

On 2007-03-10, John Russell wrote:
"MJ Ray" wrote in message
...

I think Murdoch's company was either fantasising or bullying.

Virgin should let other companies sell direct to customers. That way we
would find out how many are willing to pay SKY the price they are asking.
SKY are paying for first broadcast rights of many top US programs. Those
costs are not dependent upon how many Virgin users watch the channel. As a
SKY user I shouldn't be subsidising that cost for Virgin users.

If Virgin are right about the popularity they won't be getting many
complaints!

No, they'll be getting less complaints than they would've last year.

--
David Taylor

Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

On 2007-03-10, John Russell wrote:

"MJ Ray" wrote in message
...
Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 13:17:36 +0000, ChrisM wrote:
Beck Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
On the BBC website the other day it reported that Sky said they only
wanted 3p per customer per day. Thats around 90p per month from a
Virgin subscription. I really do not think that is very much in the
scheme of things. Of course that 3p figure may not be true, but if
it is it does nto seem too unreasonable.
Yea, if that is true, it doesn't sound like all that much, mind you, is
that
a 3p per day increace, or 3p per day total?
Either way, the figure that we need to know, is what Virgin where paying
before. If they where paying say 1p a day, then a change to 3p a day is a
300% increase in costs. It is immaterial if the 3p a day is not much.
ISTR a recent BBC radio interview (maybe on Wake Up To Money) with a
Virgin Media rep where he said that Sky were demanding a 90% increase
and refusing to budge. The Virgin rep said they'd been seeing falling
viewers for Sky recently. I don't know when the previous prices were
set, but over what period of time has Sky One-Three-News become 90%
more valuable?
I think Murdoch's company was either fantasising or bullying.
Virgin should let other companies sell direct to customers. That way we
would find out how many are willing to pay SKY the price they are asking.

But Sky don't want it to be an elective subscription at 3p a day or whatever,
because many people would choose not to subscribe (I certainly would). They
want that 3p as part of Virgin's base pack which everyone has to pay for,
whether they want the channels or not.

Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

"Zimmy" wrote in message
...

3p (total) doesn't sound like much but when you consider Virgin has ~3.3
million subscribers, then the increase works out at 10's of millions of
pounds per year. With that kind of money, surely they can buy some shows
like 24 or Lost themselves?

Z

A little bird tells me that they have taken the option on the next series of
Lost from Sky!

Keith