I stand by my earlier statement: I really dislike the Virgin way of doing things; theyâ€™re relying on being the plucky underdog, the cheeky chappy standing up for the rights of consumers against a big bad wolf at the door.
Except Sky is not a big bad wolf. Itâ€™s being greedy, yes, and itâ€™s trying to protect its investment, and itâ€™s being shamelessly capitalist. Virgin is also being greedy, and trying to protect its investment, and itâ€™s trying to hide its capitalism under a veneer of consumerism.
Nor is Virgin a plucky underdog: theyâ€™re also a slick, multi-billion international corporation, theyâ€™re also headed by a single figurehead who has gotten rich by selling things to people that they want to buy, and they also have the same legal obligation to their shareholders to protect investments.
Basicially, both companies are behaving in the same way. Only one is being open about it and the other is hiding it. Which one do you think Iâ€™d be on the side of?
On top of that, if (at some point) I decide to let a Sky contract lapse, I still get a load of free channels through the dish. Not so with Virgin: I stop paying, I stop watching.
Correspondingly, unless Sky1 is back on Virgin quite soon, I think Iâ€™ll have to get round to getting rid of it. Which means taking a day off to get the Sky installation and all that, but thems is the breaksâ€¦