yet again Virgin Media (Cable TV) escape criticism.... after all they're also responsible for creating this Pay TV culture that everyone seems to hate so much...
Just wish people weren't so obsessed with Sky bashing...
yet again Virgin Media (Cable TV) escape criticism.... after all they're also responsible for creating this Pay TV culture that everyone seems to hate so much...
Just wish people weren't so obsessed with Sky bashing...
I suppose as Virgin is just a carrier, not having it's own channels, it is easier to direct comment at Sky as it has an on screen prescence.
Of course Virgin also encourage HD upgrades, but mainly I find that in the post (then the shredder). not as your watching Sky News (HD), telling you that a game is on Sky Sports 1 HD (it is of course on Sky Sports 1, but it is almost saying, making a less bright person think, that it is on HD only).
No, Sky is fantastic. It is very very very funny when people try to convine themselves that Sky is evil and the only way that they can do it is by posting nonsense on the internet asking other people to agree with them and, when they don't, getting all upset about it, as if it matters what other people think.
i get fed up of Sky taking things I want to watch, not that they take much I want to watch, the latest was the F1 grand prix.
But I don't blame Sky, I blame the other UK channels that will not pay for the content, which is why we end up with 99% rubbish on free T.V, but then I think that sky have a lot of rubbish as well.
I was going to join sky before they changed to having just two basic packages instead of their six mixes, but I am not paying for stuff i don't want just to get stuff which I do want.
The constantly steal (out bid) great TV shows (Prison Break and LOST) so that others who can't afford SKY lose out, or then others illegally downlaod or torrent the show anyway!
All their shows on movies are soo repetative! I mean come on it has been like this since I was a teenager!
Anyone agree? :cool:
You don't need to torrent or download shows these days. You can now stream them.
Sky is a waste of money and slowly becoming a dinosaur.
If it wasn't for Sky TV would still start at 0925 and end at 0030.
and you would never have heard of '24' / Lost / Prison Break etc
As for stealing, dodgy thing to claim in writing ! they may outbid, but that is down to the BBC and C4 etc, who think that Big Brother, Jungle, Kyle, Corrie, and all the reality shows bring in a bigger profit,
Rubbish, I am sure that terrestrial had gone 24 hours independent of Sky. Also you are making the common mistake of equating "Sky" with "satellite TV". Without Sky satellite television would have developed as in other countries where there are a range of companies providing programming without one company controlling distribution by satellite.
They have the un-fair advantage of being able to outbid pretty-much any other broadcaster for any content they want; which is most annoying when they take something successful and popular off a FTA channel and put it behind their own Pay-wall.....
Don't forget that one crazy suggestion from Sky (or one of their sock puppets) was that any programme that became popular on BBC should be sold off to the highest bidder (i.e. Sky). For a period crazy things like that used to appear periodically - when Sky News started Andrew Neil said that BBC should close down their news service because it was no longer needed.
I don't think Sky have ever said they own the satellites! misconception given by the press and others, and some are gullible enough to swallow it, I also thought the Sky+ box was unique to Sky, they sort of invented it, long before all the other companies 'stole' the idea oops, sorry it's only Sky that 'steal' :rolleyes:.
there are not that many hotels that have full sky, they normamly just choose a few of the free options, and most hotel chains have thier own film service
They might not have claimed they owned the satellites but it suits them to let (encourage?) people to talk about the Sky satellite etc as if they owned them.
Tivo was 1999, Sky+ 2001, they just combined a PVR with a STB but sure there would have been other similar devices around in other markets.
The constantly steal (out bid) great TV shows (Prison Break and LOST) so that others who can't afford SKY lose out, or then others illegally downlaod or torrent the show anyway!
All their shows on movies are soo repetative! I mean come on it has been like this since I was a teenager!
Anyone agree? :cool:
Yes, I agree with you totally
But I have to like Sky because all my shows have been taking off FREEVIEW, which annoys me greatly
and the only way to get them back is through Sky only, until Real Digital launches, but they have not confirmed any channels yet
Channels that have been taken off Freeview and only available through Sky
Living in rural Wales having Sky from the start was a revelation as ariel reception was so poor and only four channels one of which was (mostly) Welsh were on offer.Channel Four was not even available here. Virgin is obviously not available either. OK Freesat is now (only recently) but I will be sticking with Sky for the choice that they offer.
But I have to like Sky because all my shows have been taking off FREEVIEW, which annoys me greatly
and the only way to get them back is through Sky only, until Real Digital launches, but they have not confirmed any channels yet
Channels that have been taken off Freeview and only available through Sky
Pick TV+
Sky only Channels at the moment
Quest+
But you love Sky Joshua?! Or at least your other posts would lead us to believe that. If you hate them so much, why do you always constantly buy their latest offering?
I don't hate Sky....they are a business out to make money. They haven't "stolen" anything from FTA TV, they've outbid their rivals, good business. If you can't afford it, you can't afford it....there's things I would like but I can't afford, that's life.
If it wasn't for Sky TV would still start at 0925 and end at 0030.
and you would never have heard of '24' / Lost / Prison Break etc
As for stealing, dodgy thing to claim in writing ! they may outbid, but that is down to the BBC and C4 etc, who think that Big Brother, Jungle, Kyle, Corrie, and all the reality shows bring in a bigger profit,
I think I had heard of Lost it was in Channel 4.
BBC Breakfast Time started in 1983. Sky TV came about in 1989.
As for 24 hour TV would come eventually. Was Sky One 24 hours to begin with? I recall a lot of satellite channels had shopping channels overnight. (some still do).
Shouldn't the competition commission have stopped sky from robbing fans of shows such as Lost and Prison Break?
So, using "Glee" as an argument, C4 secures the rights to the show and at the end of the initial 2 year contract the producers of the show ask for a significant per-episode increase due to the show's worldwide popularity and success in other areas - live arena shows, music, merchandising e.t.c..
C4 baulk at the asking price, Sky agree to pay it.
What part of that is anti-competitive ? And do you really think the show's producers would abide by any ruling from the competition commission to sell the rights to the terrestrial broadcaster at a lower price ?
No, of course they wouldn't. They'd likely just refuse to sell the show to any network in the UK if the government started interfering.
I know there's this absurd notion that Sky have this secret 'war room' where they move chess pieces around with a big stick and say things like "Ok, we'll allow Channel 4 to buy Glee and we'll allow Channel 5 to buy House and then we'll swoop in with our secret show-buying ninjas to grab them!".
Broadcast television isn't a charity. Channel 4 proved with Desperate Housewives that they can retain the rights to a show if they want to. I know i'll be accused (once again) of being a "Sky Fanboy" but I'm really not. This whole notion of Sky "allowing" terrestrial broadcasters to buy the rights to shows and "make them popular" really is so utterly, utterly absurd it just winds me right up
I neither love or hate Sky, overall they just happen to be able to better provide me with the TV services I require. My communications services are with Virgin so I think that's proof i'm no 'fanboy' of either. Now whether Sky are able to do this by underhand practices like charging too much or withholding content is another argument, one I don't much care for really. I'll let regulators sort out issues like that.
If any other provider can match or better them I would leave in a flash. I have had TV from BT and Virgin and both were very good but overall Sky currently provides us with the best TV services for our personal taste and many millions of people seem to agree. Same with Virgin's Broadband, more people seem to prefer their service to Sky's.
I have never understood the blind loyalty some people have to various platforms unless you either work for them or hold stock in them . Listenening to some people you would think Virgin is owned and run by a group of angels, it's ridiculous. I have zero loyalty to any of them much like with any provider of services. Give me the services I want at the right price and i'll switch, simple as that.
So, using "Glee" as an argument, C4 secures the rights to the show and at the end of the initial 2 year contract the producers of the show ask for a significant per-episode increase due to the show's worldwide popularity and success in other areas - live arena shows, music, merchandising e.t.c..
C4 baulk at the asking price, Sky agree to pay it.
What part of that is anti-competitive ?
Because the existence of a company who can outbit ALL other partys means the seller can sell it for a higher price than all others can pay.
Because the existence of a company who can outbit ALL other partys means the seller can sell it for a higher price than all others can pay.
And there is the anticompetitive nature of buying up the FTA rights with no intention of using them - THAT is what some of us balk at.
I have no problem with Sky getting first-run pay-tv rights... but buying up and then sitting on FTA rights is unfair practice. I'll reiterate - what was so wrong about the model that was active when Buffy was on air? Sky has it first, then BBC2 carried it later on. What would be so wrong - if we continue using Glee as an example - with Sky aiting it 2011/2012, and Channel 4 being able to show it FTA a year later?
Or maybe Sky should be compelled to use the FTA rights a year later and air the series on Pick?
Because the existence of a company who can outbit ALL other partys means the seller can sell it for a higher price than all others can pay.
Which would imply collusion with Sky from the outset and make no logical sense.
If the producers of Glee followed that line of reasoning, why would they not sell Glee to Sky from the very start for a higher price than C4 ?
Look at the facts - Glee premiered in the States in May 2009 to huge audiences and reasonable criticial acclaim. Channel 4 didn't acquire the rights to the show until around December that year - plenty of time for Sky's acquisitions department to see how popular the show was so why didn't they buy the rights then ?
Clearly the producers must have had a meeting and asked Channel 4 to step in to "make the show popular for Sky" though ..
They have the un-fair advantage of being able to outbid pretty-much any other broadcaster for any content they want; which is most annoying when they take something successful and popular off a FTA channel and put it behind their own Pay-wall.
Random example:
"I Am Number Four" is on NINE times this week.
I assume that's what he meant
I like the programmes they show but I don't like a lot of their business practices; as outlined above.
I don't think it is an unfair advantage. They bid for programmes- so what? I don't see a problem. They bid for it fairly.
I haven't checked Sky Movies schedule. It always has new films shown on there every year. I am assuming after a couple of weeks on box office - it ends up on sky movies. There are a new films.
Will you complain about Film4 showing the same films every time?
It does steal programmes from people who can't afford or don't want sky..
That doesn't even make sense. Sky has never stolen any programmes. You can't steal a programme.
In the cases of Lost and Prison Break, viewers who had watched season's one and two had devoted about 48 hours of their lives to each programme.
Yes, they watched Lost and Prison Break and... Sky treated these programmes with fair more respect than, say, Ch4, ever did.
And in effect they had payed for them, by soaking up the countless advertising shown before, during and after each episode. If you suffered through those 118 ads, you certainly paid!:D
Ch4 and Ch5 don't show adverts?
I
f you watched seasons one and two, you were a loyal follower who had these shows stolen from you.
Sky should never had been allowed to do that.
Yes, I watched those particular programmes. Prison Break went down after season 2-ish. Lost was good (apart from the ending). Anyway, I never felt sky stolen those shows from me. I don't know where you are coming from.
You are crazy.
Comments
Fortunately modern technology means I can watch everything I want to without lining their pockets
Just wish people weren't so obsessed with Sky bashing...
I suppose as Virgin is just a carrier, not having it's own channels, it is easier to direct comment at Sky as it has an on screen prescence.
Of course Virgin also encourage HD upgrades, but mainly I find that in the post (then the shredder). not as your watching Sky News (HD), telling you that a game is on Sky Sports 1 HD (it is of course on Sky Sports 1, but it is almost saying, making a less bright person think, that it is on HD only).
But I don't blame Sky, I blame the other UK channels that will not pay for the content, which is why we end up with 99% rubbish on free T.V, but then I think that sky have a lot of rubbish as well.
I was going to join sky before they changed to having just two basic packages instead of their six mixes, but I am not paying for stuff i don't want just to get stuff which I do want.
As the majority of BSkyB is owned by UK institutional investors, you'll have to hate yourself a little bit too!!
You don't need to torrent or download shows these days. You can now stream them.
Sky is a waste of money and slowly becoming a dinosaur.
Rubbish, I am sure that terrestrial had gone 24 hours independent of Sky. Also you are making the common mistake of equating "Sky" with "satellite TV". Without Sky satellite television would have developed as in other countries where there are a range of companies providing programming without one company controlling distribution by satellite.
Don't forget that one crazy suggestion from Sky (or one of their sock puppets) was that any programme that became popular on BBC should be sold off to the highest bidder (i.e. Sky). For a period crazy things like that used to appear periodically - when Sky News started Andrew Neil said that BBC should close down their news service because it was no longer needed.
They might not have claimed they owned the satellites but it suits them to let (encourage?) people to talk about the Sky satellite etc as if they owned them.
Tivo was 1999, Sky+ 2001, they just combined a PVR with a STB but sure there would have been other similar devices around in other markets.
Yes, I agree with you totally
But I have to like Sky because all my shows have been taking off FREEVIEW, which annoys me greatly
and the only way to get them back is through Sky only, until Real Digital launches, but they have not confirmed any channels yet
Channels that have been taken off Freeview and only available through Sky
Pick TV+
Sky only Channels at the moment
Quest+
But you love Sky Joshua?! Or at least your other posts would lead us to believe that. If you hate them so much, why do you always constantly buy their latest offering?
I don't hate Sky....they are a business out to make money. They haven't "stolen" anything from FTA TV, they've outbid their rivals, good business. If you can't afford it, you can't afford it....there's things I would like but I can't afford, that's life.
I think I had heard of Lost it was in Channel 4.
BBC Breakfast Time started in 1983. Sky TV came about in 1989.
As for 24 hour TV would come eventually. Was Sky One 24 hours to begin with? I recall a lot of satellite channels had shopping channels overnight. (some still do).
So, using "Glee" as an argument, C4 secures the rights to the show and at the end of the initial 2 year contract the producers of the show ask for a significant per-episode increase due to the show's worldwide popularity and success in other areas - live arena shows, music, merchandising e.t.c..
C4 baulk at the asking price, Sky agree to pay it.
What part of that is anti-competitive ? And do you really think the show's producers would abide by any ruling from the competition commission to sell the rights to the terrestrial broadcaster at a lower price ?
No, of course they wouldn't. They'd likely just refuse to sell the show to any network in the UK if the government started interfering.
I know there's this absurd notion that Sky have this secret 'war room' where they move chess pieces around with a big stick and say things like "Ok, we'll allow Channel 4 to buy Glee and we'll allow Channel 5 to buy House and then we'll swoop in with our secret show-buying ninjas to grab them!".
Broadcast television isn't a charity. Channel 4 proved with Desperate Housewives that they can retain the rights to a show if they want to. I know i'll be accused (once again) of being a "Sky Fanboy" but I'm really not. This whole notion of Sky "allowing" terrestrial broadcasters to buy the rights to shows and "make them popular" really is so utterly, utterly absurd it just winds me right up
If any other provider can match or better them I would leave in a flash. I have had TV from BT and Virgin and both were very good but overall Sky currently provides us with the best TV services for our personal taste and many millions of people seem to agree. Same with Virgin's Broadband, more people seem to prefer their service to Sky's.
I have never understood the blind loyalty some people have to various platforms unless you either work for them or hold stock in them . Listenening to some people you would think Virgin is owned and run by a group of angels, it's ridiculous. I have zero loyalty to any of them much like with any provider of services. Give me the services I want at the right price and i'll switch, simple as that.
Because the existence of a company who can outbit ALL other partys means the seller can sell it for a higher price than all others can pay.
I have no problem with Sky getting first-run pay-tv rights... but buying up and then sitting on FTA rights is unfair practice. I'll reiterate - what was so wrong about the model that was active when Buffy was on air? Sky has it first, then BBC2 carried it later on. What would be so wrong - if we continue using Glee as an example - with Sky aiting it 2011/2012, and Channel 4 being able to show it FTA a year later?
Or maybe Sky should be compelled to use the FTA rights a year later and air the series on Pick?
Which would imply collusion with Sky from the outset and make no logical sense.
If the producers of Glee followed that line of reasoning, why would they not sell Glee to Sky from the very start for a higher price than C4 ?
Look at the facts - Glee premiered in the States in May 2009 to huge audiences and reasonable criticial acclaim. Channel 4 didn't acquire the rights to the show until around December that year - plenty of time for Sky's acquisitions department to see how popular the show was so why didn't they buy the rights then ?
Clearly the producers must have had a meeting and asked Channel 4 to step in to "make the show popular for Sky" though ..
I don't think it is an unfair advantage. They bid for programmes- so what? I don't see a problem. They bid for it fairly.
I haven't checked Sky Movies schedule. It always has new films shown on there every year. I am assuming after a couple of weeks on box office - it ends up on sky movies. There are a new films.
Will you complain about Film4 showing the same films every time?
Yes, they watched Lost and Prison Break and... Sky treated these programmes with fair more respect than, say, Ch4, ever did.
Ch4 and Ch5 don't show adverts?
I
Yes, I watched those particular programmes. Prison Break went down after season 2-ish. Lost was good (apart from the ending). Anyway, I never felt sky stolen those shows from me. I don't know where you are coming from.
You are crazy.
You clearly have nothing constructive to say. You are delusional and paranoid about Sky- it is unbelievable.