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

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by passingbat

If that's what you think, then you really have missed the point of those wanting access to HBO content.

In the US, HBO is available to many cable/satellite providers; in the UK, it is limited to one. I believe a cable/sat subscription gives you access to HBO GO.

Box sets are way overpriced and take several months to be released. Individual episodes are also way overpriced.

Using services like Now TV is an option for people like myself, because I no longer subscribe to pay TV. But for those who do subscribe to (an already very expensive) pay TV service, an extra seven quid a month is beyond the pale.

Now TV is a very poor HBO service anyway compared to HBO GO, in that back seasons are absent for very long periods of time.

HBO were greedy by doing the deal with Sky in preference to wider accessibility for people in the UK.

I don't do it myself, but HBO deserve all the illegal downloads that they get. When will they learn; give people widely available access to content at a fair price and they will pay.

This is about greater access to HBO content; nothing whatsoever about having a dig at Sky

Great post mate, well said.......

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

No, I didn't mean that, Harry. I was trying to make the point that if you didn't get broadband through VM, other platforms offer broadband, so it's not a problem.

However, other platforms can't offer Sky Atlantic or any of the programmes that are shown on it as 'exclusive to Sky'.

Therefore, the broadband analogy is not the correct one to use.

But who else offers VMs speeds or related reliability. Also you can legally buy HBO content from a variety of places, not just sky.

Unlike VM broadband and their speeds, which are only available for VM customers. Or Netflix, which don't share their exclusive content.

HBO shows can be watched without funding Sky, you just wanna moan about it.

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by passingbat

If that's what you think, then you really have missed the point of those wanting access to HBO content.

In the US, HBO is available to many cable/satellite providers; in the UK, it is limited to one. I believe a cable/sat subscription gives you access to HBO GO.

Box sets are way overpriced and take several months to be released. Individual episodes are also way overpriced.

Using services like Now TV is an option for people like myself, because I no longer subscribe to pay TV. But for those who do subscribe to (an already very expensive) pay TV service, an extra seven quid a month is beyond the pale.

Now TV is a very poor HBO service anyway compared to HBO GO, in that back seasons are absent for very long periods of time.

HBO were greedy by doing the deal with Sky in preference to wider accessibility for people in the UK.

I don't do it myself, but HBO deserve all the illegal downloads that they get. When will they learn; give people widely available access to content at a fair price and they will pay.

This is about greater access to HBO content; nothing whatsoever about having a dig at Sky

Maybe it is. I merely said that I can't help thinking it isn't.

Do cablecos in the US compete in the same geographical areas as each other? It seems to me that hbo's greed in the much different market in the UK has resulted in the pay tv co with the most customers and the biggest reach getting the deal.

More to the point, why does anyone think they're entitled to watch it? Hbo make stuff and are entitled to sell it to whomever they like. Sky buy stuff and are entitled to show it to whomever they like. I have no involvement in either of those actions - so why should I expect to see it on my tv?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by passingbat

If that's what you think, then you really have missed the point of those wanting access to HBO content.

In the US, HBO is available to many cable/satellite providers; in the UK, it is limited to one. I believe a cable/sat subscription gives you access to HBO GO.

Box sets are way overpriced and take several months to be released. Individual episodes are also way overpriced.

Using services like Now TV is an option for people like myself, because I no longer subscribe to pay TV. But for those who do subscribe to (an already very expensive) pay TV service, an extra seven quid a month is beyond the pale.

Now TV is a very poor HBO service anyway compared to HBO GO, in that back seasons are absent for very long periods of time.

HBO were greedy by doing the deal with Sky in preference to wider accessibility for people in the UK.

I don't do it myself, but HBO deserve all the illegal downloads that they get. When will they learn; give people widely available access to content at a fair price and they will pay.

This is about greater access to HBO content; nothing whatsoever about having a dig at Sky

I agree. I think Andy is defending the indefensible. You don't need to rely on exclusivity to differentiate your product.

[telegramsam]

Slightly off topic I know but does anyone know how you can get rid of the `red button` at the bottom right of the screen when watching Sky 5? It was so annoying me when watching Scotland v Ireland match last night!

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

But who else offers VMs speeds or related reliability. Also you can legally buy HBO content from a variety of places, not just sky.

Unlike VM broadband and their speeds, which are only available for VM customers. Or Netflix, which don't share their exclusive content.

HBO shows can be watched without funding Sky, you just wanna moan about it.

Sorry, Harry, I can't agree. VM may have the best broadband speeds at the moment, but there is nothing to prevent other companies investing to provide those speeds. BT are certainly getting there. It is completely the wrong analogy.

I maintain that when you are dealing with a product that is stand alone, such as the Game of Thrones series, there should be a legal obligation to make it available on all platforms without discrimination and at the same price. How the platforms package it is up to them.

I can live with a short six month or even a year exclusivity, but after that I think it is unreasonable.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Sorry, Harry, I can't agree. VM may have the best broadband speeds at the moment, but there is nothing to prevent other companies investing to provide those speeds. BT are certainly getting there. It is completely the wrong analogy.

I maintain that when you are dealing with a product that is stand alone, such as the Game of Thrones series, there should be a legal obligation to make it available on all platforms without discrimination and at the same price. How the platforms package it is up to them.

I can live with a short six month or even a year exclusivity, but after that I think it is unreasonable.

What makes Game of Thrones any different from say Breaking Bad on Netflix ? Last time I looked I could only watch Breaking Bad through a subscription with Netflix the only other option is paying for the DVD or purchasing a digital copy from the likes of iTunes.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by telegramsam

Slightly off topic I know but does anyone know how you can get rid of the `red button` at the bottom right of the screen when watching Sky 5? It was so annoying me when watching Scotland v Ireland match last night!

Press the blue button. Pressing Clear also works on TiVo.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by andy_m

More to the point, why does anyone think they're entitled to watch it? Hbo make stuff and are entitled to sell it to whomever they like. Sky buy stuff and are entitled to show it to whomever they like. I have no involvement in either of those actions - so why should I expect to see it on my tv?

Technically you are right.

But the internet has shrunk the world and people are used to immediacy now and expect it. They don't want to wait 6 months to see an episode that social media has already discussed and therefore 'spoiled' the story line.

Viewing habits have changed drastically and people get frustrated with the old system of content being tied to specific cable or satellite providers, when they know that the wherewithal is there to give global access via the web to all who want to pay for it. There is a rapidly growing number of Cord-Cutters who are frustrated at the limitations that the old system, by it's very nature, imposes.

The music industry finally learned, giving rise to Napster becoming legal, followed by the likes of Spotify. The announcement of HBO re an online service next year is a great sign. We just need the roots of the old system to stop strangling the progress of the new direction. The people want it, so eventually the content providers will have to get on board.

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I agree. I think Andy is defending the indefensible. You don't need to rely on exclusivity to differentiate your product.

You don't need to. But you should be allowed to.

---------- Post added at 04:48 ---------- Previous post was at 04:45 ----------

Originally Posted by passingbat

Technically you are right.

But the internet has shrunk the world and people are used to immediacy now and expect it. They don't want to wait 6 months to see an episode that social media has already discussed and therefore 'spoiled' the story line.

Viewing habits have changed drastically and people get frustrated with the old system of content being tied to specific cable or satellite providers, when they know that the wherewithal is there to give global access via the web to all who want to pay for it. There is a rapidly growing number of Cord-Cutters who are frustrated at the limitations that the old system, by it's very nature, imposes.

The music industry finally learned, giving rise to Napster becoming legal, followed by the likes of Spotify. The announcement of HBO re an online service next year is a great sign. We just need the roots of the old system to stop strangling the progress of the new direction. The people want it, so eventually the content providers will have to get on board.

Fair comment I'd say. Particularly about social media driving the necessity for immediacy.

[telegramsam]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

Press the blue button. Pressing Clear also works on TiVo.

Thanks for that mate. Never thought of pressing the blue button!

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Sorry, Harry, I can't agree. VM may have the best broadband speeds at the moment, but there is nothing to prevent other companies investing to provide those speeds. BT are certainly getting there. It is completely the wrong analogy.

I maintain that when you are dealing with a product that is stand alone, such as the Game of Thrones series, there should be a legal obligation to make it available on all platforms without discrimination and at the same price. How the platforms package it is up to them.

I can live with a short six month or even a year exclusivity, but after that I think it is unreasonable.

You can get G.O.T elsewhere too. It is not just available on Sky or NowTV. It is a fair analogy. When I had Sky BB, it was far inferior to VM's BB and cost me more than I pay VM. You can watch G.O.T from other providers whose offering is inferior to Sky's and ultimately costs more.

No-one has ever said what Sky are doing is fair, but they have every right to do it. No legal obligation to make the content available should be set up. Netflix would be pretty stuffed as a company if they were forced to give Sky and VM their exclusive content.

[telegramsam]

How can I actually tell how cheap my broadband is with Virgin when they bundle it all in with the tv package? When I was with Sky their broadband was only 7 pound 50 p and worked just as good as Virgins.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by telegramsam

How can I actually tell how cheap my broadband is with Virgin when they bundle it all in with the tv package? When I was with Sky their broadband was only 7 pound 50 p and worked just as good as Virgins.

Its odd you ask that, considering you have the info on what you paid Sky.

That being said, it was over 5 years ago now, but I managed to find a break down of bundle costs before I joined VM. My bill is lower now than is was then too. I was paying Sky more, whilst receiving less MB's from Sky BB - even though we had a new deal from Sky.

[telegramsam]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Its odd you ask that, considering you have the info on what you paid Sky.

That being said, it was over 5 years ago now, but I managed to find a break down of bundle costs before I joined VM. My bill is lower now than is was then too. I was paying Sky more, whilst receiving less MB's from Sky BB - even though we had a new deal from Sky.

Yes I know I have the cost of broadband from sky was just wondering whether one could get a breakdown of the cost of my broadband from virgin? The reason I ask is I am mulling over whether it would work out cheaper to get my broadband and phone line rental elsewhere but keep my tv package with virgin