HD : All change for Sky Sports channels & packages?

[theone2k10]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

I was trying to illiustrate with an example from everyday life. Just like everything else in modern business, content gets paid for, not bartered.

Then i apologise for getting the wrong end of the stick.

[japitts]

Originally Posted by vincerooney

What i dont get is what they'll do to fill the channels? A channel dedicated to rugby and a channel to cricket?

Does this mean we'll get more county cricket or more rugby games? I havent heard of any new contracts so im guessing like the f1 channel itll just become channels of old highlights...

Well exactly. This is the flip side of losing scheduling flexibility. Let's say there's 3 cricket games on but no football. Easy - schedule the cricket across SS1-3, you still have 4-5 free for other stuff. Sorry, not anymore. One broadcast, 2 presumably red-button (broadcast-HD quality????) and other channels showing repeats.

[Bananaman_007]

But thinking about it, when now do you see two different live sports matches both broadcast on sky sports for the same sport at the same time? It is very rare if it ever happens.

This did happen with the Champions League but they were always red button for the extra games anyway.

I can't help but think partly the reason behind this move is to get them out of the legal case that said they must provide Sky Sports 1 and 2 at a set wholesale price. They no longer broadcast those channels they can charge what they like to the likes of VM and BT

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Bananaman_007

But thinking about it, when now do you see two different live sports matches both broadcast on sky sports for the same sport at the same time? It is very rare if it ever happens.

This did happen with the Champions League but they were always red button for the extra games anyway.

I can't help but think partly the reason behind this move is to get them out of the legal case that said they must provide Sky Sports 1 and 2 at a set wholesale price. They no longer broadcast those channels they can charge what they like to the likes of VM and BT

You could well be right Bananaman.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by nialli

I don't agree: Virgin Media has audience, something BT Sport is still desperate to attract to justify the inflated prices it has been paying for sport rights. I'd suggest viewing numbers are more important to BT than adding second-tier channels to their own TV offering.
If BT Sport lost its VM viewers it would really, really struggle to justify to shareholders its expenditure on Rights.

totally agree

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by Bananaman_007

I can't help but think partly the reason behind this move is to get them out of the legal case that said they must provide Sky Sports 1 and 2 at a set wholesale price. They no longer broadcast those channels they can charge what they like to the likes of VM and BT

That regulation has been lifted already:
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom.../wmo-statement

Note: "Ofcom continues to monitor the pay TV market closely. Should evidence emerge of practices which we consider to be prejudicial to fair and effective competition, we will quickly reassess the need for regulation"

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I am now trying to get the hang of this problem.

Sky are changing there whole Sports packages. Therefore prices will be going up slightly. IF, VM customers think that there prices wont go up. I think this is a lost cuase.

VM are in the business of making lots of money, on less programming.

If you are with Sky, like a majority of members. Then you have a choice of the sports package.

But, if you are with VM then you don't. You will have to pay extra for it. VM wont give you these channels on the cheap.

I would say with certainty, that VM WILL start charging for BT Sports, especially if they bring out separate channels in the sports field. They are quiet at he moment.

I can see VM going to Ofcom on this. As Sky will want more money because of this. And at the end of the day it will be US that end up paying the bill.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by japitts

Well exactly. This is the flip side of losing scheduling flexibility. Let's say there's 3 cricket games on but no football. Easy - schedule the cricket across SS1-3, you still have 4-5 free for other stuff. Sorry, not anymore. One broadcast, 2 presumably red-button (broadcast-HD quality????) and other channels showing repeats.

Don't forget there is also the Sky Main Event channel and Sky Sports Mix. I'm sure they've figured it out!

---------- Post added at 21:56 ---------- Previous post was at 21:14 ----------

Originally Posted by spiderplant

Have you ever tried going shopping with a basket full of produce from your garden instead of money? I bet it doesn't go down too well in Tesco. It's all about money.


I'll invite you once more to remind us what delights Living brought us when VM did own it...

I see your point, spiderplant. But VM is on the back foot if they don't have exclusive channels to offer. UK Living was not an exclusive channel, of course, but if it had been, I'm sure VM would have benefited from this and similar exclusives.

The current strategy of not owning content but offering subscribers the widest possible choice only succeeds if they can also gain content currently regarded as 'exclusive', i.e. Sky Atlantic, ITV Encore and AMC.

If VM cannot accomplish this, then it needs some equivalent exclusive content of its own.

[pengedragon]

my (very healthy) sky sports discount ends on july 24th, interesting timing given this shake up

think i'll let things settle down before making a decision, increasingly finding sky sports something nice to have rather than essential

much more excited about having a season ticket for my local non league club this year

[denphone]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

That regulation has been lifted already:
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom.../wmo-statement

Note: "Ofcom continues to monitor the pay TV market closely. Should evidence emerge of practices which we consider to be prejudicial to fair and effective competition, we will quickly reassess the need for regulation"

Yep "Ofcom continue to monitor the pay TV market closely" and do nothing generally apart from a tinker here and a tinker there and yet Sky are up to their old tricks again and BT seem to have caught some of the disease it seems as well.

[japitts]

Originally Posted by Bananaman_007

But thinking about it, when now do you see two different live sports matches both broadcast on sky sports for the same sport at the same time? It is very rare if it ever happens.

it's happening for cricket now, it's on SS1 & SS2 with Mix simulcasting.

On European weekends it can happen with rugby-union too, although admittedly that's only a problem for one more season then it's BT's problem.

[theone2k10]

Originally Posted by denphone

Yep "Ofcom continue to monitor the pay TV market closely" and do nothing generally apart from a tinker here and a tinker there and yet Sky are up to their old tricks again and BT seem to have caught some of the disease it seems as well.

Tbf sky and bt are paying for content if vm did the same instead of crying to ofcom all the time.

[Henkesghost]

Has anyone had any contact from Virgin about these price changes? Heard nothing so far.

[RichardCoulter]

Nothing. Last I heard was that VM weren't going to change their Sky Sports packaging.

It would benefit Sky commercially if they could contractually get away with preventing VM from following suit.

[Gavin-D]

Originally Posted by Henkesghost

Has anyone had any contact from Virgin about these price changes? Heard nothing so far.

Nothing is changing on VM bar the new channel names prices will remain the same until summer 2018