VOD : Netflix/Streaming Services

[theone2k10]

Originally Posted by denphone

What else can you expect from a companies who for many years kept mostly all the sports channels to itself until Ofcom intervened and in the last few years has increasingly signed exclusive much have content whether it be the deal with HBO which is mainly on its exclusive Sky Atlantic channel through to its exclusive ITV Encore deal and its huge boxed sets content which it has now and the only way you can see it generally is through their own platform unless you get Now TV and the quality of that is a lot to be desired.

Tbf VM are just as bad they have kept their network to themselves and why not? They built it they should be able to keep it to themselves, same as Sky they've built the channels so they should be able to keep them.

Edit- anyone leaving Sky or VM etc if they wish to move into the online streaming, on demand method of tv i will be more than willing to help in any way i can if you need it.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Write to your politician then instead of banging on about it here every day.

Forums are here for people to voice their views and opinions MM whether some people agree with them or not.

Surely you of all people know politicians don't listen to people.

[mike_gain]

Originally Posted by theone2k10

Tbf VM are just as bad they have kept their network to themselves and why not?

Pretty sure you'll find other providers use VM's network for backhaul capacity.

However I agree that unfortunately Sky have invested heavily in the content and therefore hold all the cards

This strategy doesn't seem to be having any adverse impact on turnover as people keep paying year on year. When people stop paying for the premium content Sky will invest in something else and retain the rights to that..whatever it may be. Until then they know the content they have is in high demand and therefore has a price, which they are free to set.

In the meantime they have played a blinder with NowTV. A few years ago Sky were making no money from me, the cost of movies on VM was too much and I gave up my sports subs. Now I am paying them for movies every few months and throw then £15 each year Game of Thrones starts.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by theone2k10

Tbf VM are just as bad they have kept their network to themselves and why not? They built it they should be able to keep it to themselves, same as Sky they've built the channels so they should be able to keep them.

Edit- anyone leaving Sky or VM etc if they wish to move into the online streaming, on demand method of tv i will be more than willing to help in any way i can if you need it.

Are we comparing eggs with eggs here?

To the best of my knowledge, the cable companies have never deliberately kept any channels to themselves on an exclusive basis. We have only had a few minor channels that were on cable only, but don't forget that Sky were very short of transponder space at one point - so why would they have even wanted to air 'Wire TV' or the like?

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

sadly as an individual there's very little I can do to change things.

It may not be very significant, but highlighting the greed of shareholders, in media companies that choose restrictive (in terms of viewership reach) exclusive deals with single companies as against wider distribution, can't do any harm and can have an on-going influence. Using the maximising of shareholder profit as an excuse, doesn't help the cause at all.

Sadly, it is illegal downloading that will have the most influence on these companies and make them change, as was the case with the music industry.

[theone2k10]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Are we comparing eggs with eggs here?

To the best of my knowledge, the cable companies have never deliberately kept any channels to themselves on an exclusive basis. We have only had a few minor channels that were on cable only, but don't forget that Sky were very short of transponder space at one point - so why would they have even wanted to air 'Wire TV' or the like?

I don't believe i said VM were keeping channels, i said they kept their network to themselves but someone pointed out that others were using vms network for back up, so now i'm wearing my n hat

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by theone2k10

I don't believe i said VM were keeping channels, i said they kept their network to themselves but someone pointed out that others were using vms network for back up, so now i'm wearing my n hat

One of the others using VM's network for back haul, would be Sky

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by mike_gain

Pretty sure you'll find other providers use VM's network for backhaul capacity.

However I agree that unfortunately Sky have invested heavily in the content and therefore hold all the cards

This strategy doesn't seem to be having any adverse impact on turnover as people keep paying year on year. When people stop paying for the premium content Sky will invest in something else and retain the rights to that..whatever it may be. Until then they know the content they have is in high demand and therefore has a price, which they are free to set.

In the meantime they have played a blinder with NowTV. A few years ago Sky were making no money from me, the cost of movies on VM was too much and I gave up my sports subs. Now I am paying them for movies every few months and throw then £15 each year Game of Thrones starts.

Game of Thrones returns with record audience for Sky Atlantic

Link

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Game of Thrones returns with record audience for Sky Atlantic

Link

Wow!

Nearly as many as watched "The Nightmare Neighbour next door" on C5 on Wednesday or "The Clare Balding Show" on BBC2 on Friday.......

[denphone]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Game of Thrones returns with record audience for Sky Atlantic

Link

If it was available to many more platforms it would increase its audience quite considerably.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by passingbat

It may not be very significant, but highlighting the greed of shareholders, in media companies that choose restrictive (in terms of viewership reach) exclusive deals with single companies as against wider distribution, can't do any harm and can have an on-going influence. Using the maximising of shareholder profit as an excuse, doesn't help the cause at all.

Sadly, it is illegal downloading that will have the most influence on these companies and make them change, as was the case with the music industry.

I wasn't disagreeing with you just mentioning these companies are hell bent on profits , it seems the consumer can sometimes be an after thought.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Wow!

Nearly as many as watched "The Nightmare Neighbour next door" on C5 on Wednesday or "The Clare Balding Show" on BBC2 on Friday.......

I'd say those represent pretty good viewing figures for a pay TV channel , it seems to of beat the rest which are available in far more homes , of course if it was available on multiple platforms that figure would be greater still.

Originally Posted by denphone

If it was available to many more platforms it would increase its audience quite considerably.

Agreed , maybe at some point that's what will happen , here's hoping.

[theone2k10]

Originally Posted by denphone

If it was available to many more platforms it would increase its audience quite considerably.

Unless 5 episodes got leaked before being aired... oh wait

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by denphone

If it was available to many more platforms it would increase its audience quite considerably.

Not in my flat it wouldn't!

Originally Posted by muppetman11

I wasn't disagreeing with you just mentioning these companies are hell bent on profits , it seems the consumer can sometimes be an after thought.

I'd say those represent pretty good viewing figures for a pay TV channel , it seems to of beat the rest which are available in far more homes , of course if it was available on multiple platforms that figure would be greater still.

Agreed , maybe at some point that's what will happen , here's hoping.

And if I was taller, richer, and handsomer, I would be tall, rich, and handsome - but I'm not, so I'm not....

Tricky using hypothetical situations re multiple platforms when it's 'exclusive to sky'

btw, I agree with you on the viewing figures, but AFAIK that scenario is not a valid one.

[johnathome]

Originally Posted by theone2k10

Edit- anyone leaving Sky or VM etc if they wish to move into the online streaming, on demand method of tv i will be more than willing to help in any way i can if you need it.

So i've just bought a Fire Tv (i was waiting for the price to drop), i understand i could sideload NowTV onto it but i need a mouse connected to set it up, do i also need a mouse for normal operation? i.e. all the time i want to use it?

Also how much faffing about is there to load XBMC onto it and do i need a mouse to use that as well?

TIA