Besides, it is actually Sky that is the inferior platform, it just lacks content (even more today!) and high-definition channels. Virgin actually has proper video-on-demand services, whereas with Sky's (which hasn't launched yet) you have to wait for a "selection" of programmes to be downloaded and stored on the hard drive overnight.
Well, not really. Both have their advantages and neither is really inferior.
Childish? Perhaps, but then if you take the view as Virgin have that "Sky have taken their ball and gone home", then why not?
I wonder, if this dispute doesn't get settled, how long it will be until we see new Virgin channels other than Virgin Central (which doesn't interest me at the moment, btw)? I can see "Virgin Travel" being a realistic possibility.
I imagine "Sky Snooze" has really impressed Sky and if anything, is a bit unprofessional!
BBC News 24 last night was overjoyed at telling viewers that Sky News had gone from cable viewers since they were 'one of their competitors' and welcomed them.
Very childish of Virgin for doing the above.
Shows how much of a professional company they really are.
Serves Cable customers right anyway - it's their own fault for choosing an inferior service.
I just feel sorry for Richard Branson. Those idiots at (what was) NTL:Telewest are really dragging the Virgin name through the mud
Rubbish!
Why should my cable sub go up by £5 to cover the cost of carriage for Sky?
I watch more Living than Sky One.
Is that it? That's what all this is about? £5. My god.
My point in the above post that they were being incredibly childish in the way they are handling it. A professional company would have simply removed the channels and provided information as to why. Instead they've reverted to these playground tactics.
I'm quite surprised that they haven't changed the Sky EPG information on Virgin Media channels to read 'Sky's got cooties and they smell like poo'. It'd be on par with what they've done already
I wonder if Sky Sports and Sky Movies will be withdrawn at a later date? I remember a similar argument happened with ITV Digital; sky were demanding a lot of money for their channels, but ITV had no choice but to pay because those were the channels people wanted to see.
Of course this time, it could be different. If Virgin get their act together and can provide genuine competition and a similar, popular offering to Sky One, they could actually fight back.
Very childish of Virgin for doing the above.
Shows how much of a professional company they really are.
Serves Cable customers right anyway - it's their own fault for choosing an inferior service.
I just feel sorry for Richard Branson. Those idiots at (what was) NTL:Telewest are really dragging the Virgin name through the mud
Rubbish!
Why should my cable sub go up by £5 to cover the cost of carriage for Sky?
I watch more Living than Sky One.
Is that it? That's what all this is about? £5. My god.
My point in the above post that they were being incredibly childish in the way they are handling it. A professional company would have simply removed the channels and provided information as to why. Instead they've reverted to these playground tactics.
I'm quite surprised that they haven't changed the Sky EPG information on Virgin Media channels to read 'Sky's got cooties and they smell like poo'. It'd be on par with what they've done already
I don't really think it's unprofessional. Virgin have pretty consistently had a more informal tone in their promotional bumf, and it easily seems more than justified here.
Very childish of Virgin for doing the above.
Shows how much of a professional company they really are.
Serves Cable customers right anyway - it's their own fault for choosing an inferior service.
I just feel sorry for Richard Branson. Those idiots at (what was) NTL:Telewest are really dragging the Virgin name through the mud
Rubbish!
Why should my cable sub go up by £5 to cover the cost of carriage for Sky?
I watch more Living than Sky One.
Is that it? That's what all this is about? £5. My god.
My point in the above post that they were being incredibly childish in the way they are handling it. A professional company would have simply removed the channels and provided information as to why. Instead they've reverted to these playground tactics.
I'm quite surprised that they haven't changed the Sky EPG information on Virgin Media channels to read 'Sky's got cooties and they smell like poo'. It'd be on par with what they've done already
I don't really think it's unprofessional. Virgin have pretty consistently had a more informal tone in their promotional bumf, and it easily seems more than justified here.
You could say the same about Sky - and they've not done anything silly.
Very childish of Virgin for doing the above.
Shows how much of a professional company they really are.
Serves Cable customers right anyway - it's their own fault for choosing an inferior service.
I just feel sorry for Richard Branson. Those idiots at (what was) NTL:Telewest are really dragging the Virgin name through the mud
Rubbish!
Why should my cable sub go up by £5 to cover the cost of carriage for Sky?
I watch more Living than Sky One.
Is that it? That's what all this is about? £5. My god.
My point in the above post that they were being incredibly childish in the way they are handling it. A professional company would have simply removed the channels and provided information as to why. Instead they've reverted to these playground tactics.
I'm quite surprised that they haven't changed the Sky EPG information on Virgin Media channels to read 'Sky's got cooties and they smell like poo'. It'd be on par with what they've done already
I don't really think it's unprofessional. Virgin have pretty consistently had a more informal tone in their promotional bumf, and it easily seems more than justified here.
You could say the same about Sky - and they've not done anything silly.
I don't think you could say the same. Sky's promotions have always been pretty straight-forward and, well, corporate.
Virgin has always been a bit cheeky in the way they do things, and I think it's more than reasonable in the circumstances, good on them.
Sky's direct counterpart in Australia, Foxtel, has the pay TV market completely stitched up - it's a total monopoly - so that the only way you can see Foxtel-produced or -owned channels is through Foxtel or a non-competitor (like regional areas).
Fortunately in the UK Sky has a reasonable amount of competition from the likes of Virgin and Freeview, however in Australia the only competitor SelecTV - a tiny company with ~20 channels not owned by, or signed to Foxtel exlusively - channels like Sky News Australia, Fox Sports, UKTV...
Thanks very much for all of you who got in touch with me regarding this. One forumer in particular getting quite a bit of coverage as a result.
If anyone is particularly disgruntled or has a strong opinon on this matter, take a look at the Five News homepage to read about "Your News". And of course if anyone has anything else on this matter they would like to raise, do drop me a PM.
They claim to be