Virgin -v- BSkyB
When cable tv was first installed in my home - something around 15 years ago - there were only eight channels provided, one of which was Sky One. My contract then was with "Cable Camden" and since then the bills have been paid to "Cable London", "Telewest", "ntl:Telewest" and now "Virgin Media", though I don't recall ever signing a new agreement with any of those.

So far as I am concerned Sky One is, has, and always will be part of the service I expect and was the prime reason I took cable tv in the first place. The fact that the Murdoch empore wants to almost double the cost to the remaining cable carrier is clearly unreasonable. Virgin Media's spokespeople have said they are happy to pay some increase, even to go to binding independent arbitration, but BSkyB are refusing to budge.

This is basically about commercial muscle. There are now just the two non-terrestrial service suppliers, and they are each looking at their long-term business plans and whether they can increase their margins and reduce their churn.

I have cable here in part because I can't install a dish due to Council regulations, and in part because it is, frankly, a better signal. I won't seek to change to a dish should the cmopanies fail to reach an agreement in the next forty minutes.

I might, though, note that most of the channels I do actually watch when I look at 'live' television are available on the 'Freeview' platform, and that the few programmes I'm interested in which aren't can be easily downloaded as "Torrents".

The only losers here will be Virgin and BSkyB. Viewers realised they have other choices ...