General : ESPN, BT, Euro, Premier and Sky Sports news

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by passingbat

Where on earth did you get that from? The only service I use that could be classed as Premium is HBO content, and I pay for it.

And I'm sorry, but in my mind, you were clearly talking about the competition between Sky and VM when you were referring to the status quo.

Well said.......

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by passingbat

Where on earth did you get that from? The only service I use that could be classed as Premium is HBO content, and I pay for it.

And I'm sorry, but in my mind, you were clearly talking about the competition between Sky and VM when you were referring to the status quo.

The post was a reply to the two of you, and said so - the premium content line was aimed at Old Boy's issue with the price of sport.

And I don't care what you thought I was referring to, the status quo means the current state of things. It's really not for you to decide what I mean when I say things.

---------- Post added at 17:37 ---------- Previous post was at 17:34 ----------

Incidentally I wasn't the first to mention the status quo, so I couldn't say how it was meant when first brought into the conversation. But my use of it has been correctly, and as stated.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by andy_m

the premium content line was aimed at Old Boy's issue with the price of sport.

.

Anyone who doesn't have an issue with the price of sport, after the outrageous price hike in the last PL rights sale, clearly has way more money than sense IMHO. Customers will end up paying for it one way or another.

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by passingbat

Anyone who doesn't have an issue with the price of sport, after the outrageous price hike in the last PL rights sale, clearly has way more money than sense IMHO. Customers will end up paying for it one way or another.

Ok, I have a problem with the advertised price of Sky Sports, and I won't pay it. But, I recognise the right of Sky, Virgin and others to charge those prices and accept that it is for me to decide whether or not I pay them.

Your point that most people are unhappy with this arrangement is not evidenced by the fact that these companies still feel able to charge these prices, and subscriber numbers remain high - albeit a minority are cord cutting.

My point is this. Because Sky and Virgin offer differing products within the same market place th consumer is able to play them off against each other to his advantage. I, for example, was able to get a good deal with Virgin for Sky Sports because they recognised that I could move to Sky if they didn't do their best to keep me. If both companies offered exactly the same product then it wouldn't work in the way you think it would. It wouldn't mean that they would compete on price. It would mean that they would set their prices at a similar level and stop offering discounts on the basis that there wouldn't really be anywhere else for you to go. We know this because that is what has happened in every industry where there is no differentiation. It would mean Sky would have no reason to experiment with 3d because it wouldn't gain them custom. It would mean Virgin wouldn't try to continually improve their broadband speed because it wouldn't put them ahead of the competition.

Companies must be allowed to innovate, because that's when the consumer really benefits, and the only way to incentivise that is to allow them to earn from their unique aspects without being required to share them with the largest competitor.

Nobody is forced to take their products, nor is anybody entitled to receive them.

[harry_hitch]

Andy_m - well said throughout these last couple of pages. It really is up to the consumer to pay for the channels (or not) as the case maybe. I agree the status quo is fine, I can not express my thoughts any better than you have yours.

PB. Anyone who does have an issue about the price they pay for sports and then continues to pay it after it increases, and still complains after it goes up, clearly has more money than sense IMHO. And yes, the longer customers continue to pay for it, the longer they will continue the price rises. They are perpetuating their own problem.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by andy_m

Ok, I have a problem with the advertised price of Sky Sports, and I won't pay it. But, I recognise the right of Sky, Virgin and others to charge those prices and accept that it is for me to decide whether or not I pay them.

Your point that most people are unhappy with this arrangement is not evidenced by the fact that these companies still feel able to charge these prices, and subscriber numbers remain high - albeit a minority are cord cutting.

My point is this. Because Sky and Virgin offer differing products within the same market place th consumer is able to play them off against each other to his advantage. I, for example, was able to get a good deal with Virgin for Sky Sports because they recognised that I could move to Sky if they didn't do their best to keep me. If both companies offered exactly the same product then it wouldn't work in the way you think it would. It wouldn't mean that they would compete on price. It would mean that they would set their prices at a similar level and stop offering discounts on the basis that there wouldn't really be anywhere else for you to go. We know this because that is what has happened in every industry where there is no differentiation. It would mean Sky would have no reason to experiment with 3d because it wouldn't gain them custom. It would mean Virgin wouldn't try to continually improve their broadband speed because it wouldn't put them ahead of the competition.

Companies must be allowed to innovate, because that's when the consumer really benefits, and the only way to incentivise that is to allow them to earn from their unique aspects without being required to share them with the largest competitor.

Nobody is forced to take their products, nor is anybody entitled to receive them.

I am pleased that you are so happy, Andy. But if everybody thought like this, nothing would ever change.

There is a better way, and just because a product is the same wholesale price to all suppliers does not mean that providers cannot differentiate their service from their competitors. You can use different price structures, choose which channels you will make available and even create new channels using programmes that exist on a number of different channels that are available elsewhere.

You may be happy to pay higher prices and have less choice, or to go without if the price is too high, but for me that is definitely not good enough. I think many would subscribe to that.

But as long as you are happy, Andy, hey!

---------- Post added at 12:25 ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 ----------

Originally Posted by andy_m

In response to passingbat and Old Boy, but in no particular order...

Status quo means " the existing state of affairs". The existing state of affairs is that streaming services exist. Using them is hardly a " way around the problem" either.

And since you haven't done the sort of extensive market research that Sky, Virgin, Netflix et al have, I don't see how you can so confidently say that your view is that of "most people".

I'd also question your use of the word "needs", because you mean "wants", and we can't always have what we want, but I reckon you probably have enough of what you need.

We also have the highest quality free to air programming of anywhere in the World, imo.

I'm sorry that you begrudge paying premium prices for premium content, but I've had half price Sky Sports for the last 6 months because differentiation works for the consumer.

I didn't say that I begrudged paying more for premium content, because I don't. But I certainly begrudge paying the highest price in the world because of the greed and divisive practices of certain companies.

[denphone]

Sky and BT prepare for battle.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/...er-league-bids

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by denphone

Sky and BT prepare for battle.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/...er-league-bids

prices up and up only certainty

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I am pleased that you are so happy, Andy. But if everybody thought like this, nothing would ever change.

There is a better way, and just because a product is the same wholesale price to all suppliers does not mean that providers cannot differentiate their service from their competitors. You can use different price structures, choose which channels you will make available and even create new channels using programmes that exist on a number of different channels that are available elsewhere.

You may be happy to pay higher prices and have less choice, or to go without if the price is too high, but for me that is definitely not good enough. I think many would subscribe to that.

But as long as you are happy, Andy, hey!

---------- Post added at 12:25 ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 ----------

I didn't say that I begrudged paying more for premium content, because I don't. But I certainly begrudge paying the highest price in the world because of the greed and divisive practices of certain companies.

No, this isn't a case of I'm alright, Jack, so you should stop moaning. I want a better deal for the consumer, but without wishing to be too unkind, and I may be wrong, I think my understanding of product differentiation as a business concept is a bit better than yours, and your way simply won't achieve what you want it to.

Either way I think we're probably well past the stage where we should agree to disagree so I'll leave it there with sincere thanks to all involved for an interesting debate.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by andy_m

No, this isn't a case of I'm alright, Jack, so you should stop moaning. I want a better deal for the consumer, but without wishing to be too unkind, and I may be wrong, I think my understanding of product differentiation as a business concept is a bit better than yours, and your way simply won't achieve what you want it to.

Either way I think we're probably well past the stage where we should agree to disagree so I'll leave it there with sincere thanks to all involved for an interesting debate.

Don't be moody, Andy, it's just a discussion. I am quite happy for us to agree to disagree, I respect your opinion. I just want things to change and I don't subscribe to the view that because things operate in a certain way, it has to stay like that.

[andy_m]

I'd be genuinely interested to hear if anyone else thought that post was appeared "moody"?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by andy_m

I'd be genuinely interested to hear if anyone else thought that post was appeared "moody"?

But you did say that this was beyond agreeing to disagree. Sounded moody to me, but glad to see you are cool. Didn't mean us to fall out, so sorry if I upset you

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

But you did say that this was beyond agreeing to disagree. Sounded moody to me, but glad to see you are cool. Didn't mean us to fall out, so sorry if I upset you

I said we were "beyond the stage" where we should agree to disagree - it's quite clear we're not going to win each other round, so I didn't see much point in continuing. I don't think the discussion descended into anything other than respectful debate and when I offered sincere thanks for the discussion I meant it.

The irony of the piece is that the news of the latest price increases have spurred me into action, and I have a deal in place with another provider that to be honest better suits what I want at a price I'm happy with and a superb cash back referral. Ideally I'd be cutting the cord, but I tried unsuccessfully to convince the Mrs this time last year and not much has changed. I'm hoping that after the 18 month contract is finished I'll be able to make a convincing case for relying on a mix of streaming services, but we'll see.

So after everything in the last few pages I'll be phoning Virgin tomorrow to give them them a choice between fighting for my business or cancelling my services with them. I contacted them earlier and was offered TV M for free on top of broadband and phone, keeping the TiVo as effectively a smart(ish) freeview+hd box - but actually their broadband is a good £10 or so more expensive than other providers in my area and I'd be spending another £10-15 on streaming services so wouldn't actually see that much of a saving. Now that I finally have FTTC in my area, I have options outside of the big two, which hasn't always been the case.

Shame as I've enjoyed being a Virgin customer, but TiVo no longer holds the pull for me it once did when suggestions was still a working feature and I stand by what I've said earlier in this thread - you can't complain about what private companies charge for their services, because they're not necessities - you either pay it or you don't.

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by andy_m

I'd be genuinely interested to hear if anyone else thought that post was appeared "moody"?

Moody? nah don't think so mate, you just come across as a friggin know all!

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Moody? nah don't think so mate, you just come across as a friggin know all!

That's me!