[theone2k10]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Netflix are prepared to sustain big losses before income generation starts offsetting those costs. I know that Netflix fees would have to go up to pay for this, but they would be separate packages, and less than Sky charge, in my view. The lower comparitive cost and further global reach should enable far more subscribers than Sky get, which would help pay for it.

---------- Post added at 13:20 ---------- Previous post was at 13:13 ----------


Are you talking about content or channels? Sky may offer many channels, that is undisputed, but I don't watch much of the fayre on offer - my recordings are proof of that. There is an incredible amount of rubbish on Sky, and it is only a matter of time now before I stop subscribing to their non premium channels. I'm paying far too much for very little. Unless, of course, Sky is spurred on to do better as a result of the competition, which is always a possibility, I suppose.

However, as for Netflix, I can't see myself getting through even half of their dramas, there is so much on there at a cost that is very competitive indeed.

Netflix already have a huge debt on them over $10billion i can't see them risking going much further into debt to start bidding for live sports, if they go to far into debt then the reality is Netflix will go bang and that is a risk they will not take.