Virgin Media has submitted documents to the High Court accusing Sky of abusing its monopoly position, despite that monopoly only being in Pay-TV - an area not previously considered an industry in its own right. According to reports in The Guardian the 33-page complaint accuses Sky of engineering the breakdown in negotiations …
Two months in...
...and I can say with some certainty that I don't miss the Sky Channels removed from my Virgin service in the slightest.
In fact I would go so far as to wish Sky every success in this case in the fervent hope that it will prevent me from ever having the chance to see "BRAND NEW! World's Wildest Filler Material" or a repeat of the Simpsons pulled from a pool of 20 of the worst episodes, ever again.
Now Virgin aren't paying for Sky...
... perhaps they can concentrate on the notoriously bad customer service NTL had.
Virgin on the ridiculous
Surely all the money that is to be spent fighting Sky probably would have covered the cost of the increase.
Virgin never mention to its customers that sky had offered additional HD content, so far all we have is BBC HD which is a trial, I'd welcome the extra HD channels like Nat Geo and Sky 1 HD ect. but I would expect to have to pay any more for them, we already pay an additional £10 for the HD box of tricks.
Note to all Virgin customers:
Check your bill
I was paying around 70-80 per month for TV, BBand and phone, offers on there website undercut this by half. (3 for £30 ect) so as we are all under no contractual obligation (Virgin said that it will let customers cancel due to the loss off sky 1 with no fines) you can switch to a cheaper package.
Shot themselves in their own foot
I was a United Artists/Cableinet/Telewest/NTL/Virgin (whatever they want to be called now-a-days) customer for a good 10 years with the TV/Phone/Net package.
I've now moved the TV package over to Sky and I'm actually £10 a month better off. Go figure.
Frustrating thing is, Virgin claimed (in their gushy drivel recorded phone message) that they were acting on their customers behalf. Who gave them the right to assume that customers did not want to pay a bit more to keep Sky?
The poll they ran on their site suggested almost 3/4 were willing to pay more for it, either by switching to Sky (like I did) or by paying for it as a premium channel.
Sky 1 was by far the only reason I actually had Cable TV - the other reason was for the digital switchover.
Shot themselves in the foot there me thinks!
Virgin vs Sky
I can't see Virgin getting public sympathy on this one, as they did in the past against BA. I don't think they've realised they lost their 'plucky little underdog' image around the time they got into trains and mobiles phones.
Perhaps they need to recast it as Titan vs Tyrant. King Richard the Beard of England carrying the banner of free (well, oligarchical at least) media in the UK, versus Lord Emperor Murdoch of the USA.
Freeview is Changing the Market
There are now more Freeview installs than Sky, the largest UK pay TV provider. I have recently moved over to Freeview and will shortly drop my basic Virgin TV package costing me 5.50/month. I like the Freeview channels, its very well done.
As others have said, one does not miss those Sky 1 premier shows in fact I now welcome the loss as I have more free time to do other things. Both Cable and Sky will be losers as Freeview takes hold.
I say good riddance to sky, its 90% re-runs 10% american rubbish.
Far too expensive, They have re-named the movie channels again, but the content remains the same,as do the high prices.
Virgin have a new release film for 1 penny, this week its Mission Impossible 3, along with the Virgin Central options, i'll stick with Virgin, i hope the competitions commission give Murdoch a good hiding, Greedy Pay to view with adverts to boot.
Sky vs NTL
For one thing, don't be fooled by the rebranding shenannigans, it is still NTL who have cable, they just paid to use the Virgin brand name. Secondly, I think that cable have scored a huge own goal, I think they were looking for public sympathy like Branson got against BA etc and it has severely backfired. For one thing, NTL's customer service is absolutely shocking, no amount of rebranding will change the fact it is still as bad and will continue to be. Another point is that when NTL started using the Virgin name your bill went up by an extra £5 per month, so in effect you were paying for the rebranding and indeed this would have covered the cost of the extra Sky wanted to charge.
Personally I have had enough of cables poor service, have switched to Sky and have just switched to a BT line and am in the process of getting ADSL, my account was so bad that NTL were giving me basic digi tv, telephone (unlimited calls anytime and international discount and mobile discount too)and broadband for £19.99 a month, I'm so fed up with it I dont mind paying the extra just to get rid of them. Never again. And no, I'm not a fan boy of any of these companies, they all want your cash end of story, but I have to say that Sky is a better customer experience in my opinion with better content and a very reliable service. But I do think NTL have a cheek fighting Sky, they got an extra £5 per month when they rebranded from everyone without their consent and they still have Sky Sports and Movies.
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? Why can’t I walk past Maplin without buying stuff I don’t need?
- Review 'Mommy got me an UltraVibe Pleasure 2000 for Xmas!' South Park: Stick of Truth
- The land of Milk and Sammy: Free music app touted by Samsung
- Privacy warriors lob sueball at Facebook buyout of WhatsApp