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

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Erm, as I much like you attributing this to Andrew, I am afraid the quote is mine. It is a fair analogy, you can get HBO stuff via nowtv as well and back seasons from many other places. So you don't need to go Sky directly. I know NowTV lines Sky's pockets but, it is another option. You can not get the bb speeds VM offer from anyone else (I don't think - happy to be corrected.) You could only get the iPhone on O2 for a long time, so it does happen in other worlds.

Please also tell me where I have said I am happy with the situation or where it is fair? I am simply saying Sky are doing nothing wrong as a business. It's just they are upsetting non-sky customers.

Sorry for calling you Andrew, Harry.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Sorry for calling you Andrew, Harry.

No worries, it happens.

[devilincarnate]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Sorry for calling you Andrew, Harry.

It's ok Bob

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by devilincarnate

It's ok Bob

lol, regards Harry.

[andy_m]

What about when o2 was the only place you could get an I phone? or ee was the only company offering 4g? Or, ahem, Virgin where the only broadband provider offering fibre broadband?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by andy_m

What about when o2 was the only place you could get an I phone? or ee was the only company offering 4g? Or, ahem, Virgin where the only broadband provider offering fibre broadband?

It didn't stop other companies offering it though, did it?

With withheld Sky channels, no platform can offer it, even if they wanted to, except at ruinous prices, and that is the point.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It didn't stop other companies offering it though, did it?

With withheld Sky channels, no platform can offer it, even if they wanted to, except at ruinous prices, and that is the point.

They started Sky Atlantic to enhance their offering on the Sky platform just like VM struck an exclusive deal with TIVO to enhance theirs.

If you want to watch content on Sky Atlantic its simple you either subscribe to Sky or pay £6.99 for a Now TV entertainment pass how is this any different from me wanting to watch the latest season of House of Cards or Breaking Bad by subscription ? My only option here is to subscribe to Netflix and pay £5.99.

Whether you love or hate exclusivity its here to stay in my opinion.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

They started Sky Atlantic to enhance their offering on the Sky platform just like VM struck an exclusive deal with TIVO to enhance theirs.

If you want to watch content on Sky Atlantic its simple you either subscribe to Sky or pay £6.99 for a Now TV entertainment pass how is this any different from me wanting to watch the latest season of House of Cards or Breaking Bad by subscription ? My only option here is to subscribe to Netflix and pay £5.99.

Whether you love or hate exclusivity its here to stay in my opinion.

I don't subscribe to the view that because that's the way it is, that's the way it has to stay.

It is possible that market forces will sort this out sooner or later, but I think regulation is required or I'll be dead before we see any meaningful change.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It didn't stop other companies offering it though, did it?

With withheld Sky channels, no platform can offer it, even if they wanted to, except at ruinous prices, and that is the point.

I was not aware of any other company using VM's BB for their customers. I am happy to be proved wrong if there are companies sharing it for their customers benefit.

It is not difficult to get around it, just subscribe to NowTV for a few weeks whilst the shows you want to watch are on.

I have to agree with MM, exclusives have been and will always be around. It is only a problem for some people now, because a few average (in my eyes) shows are not available on VM. It drives me insane. If VM had done it, everyone would be praising them.

If this is one of the biggest problems people have in there lives, they should be very pleased.

[denphone]

Sky Sports launches special darts channel for the William Hill World Championship.

http://www1.skysports.com/darts/news...d-championship

[Anypermitedroute]

Originally Posted by denphone

Sky Sports launches special darts channel for the William Hill World Championship.

http://www1.skysports.com/darts/news...d-championship

more of a rebrand of sky sport 3 rather than a launch of a new channel

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

I was not aware of any other company using VM's BB for their customers. I am happy to be proved wrong if there are companies sharing it for their customers benefit.

It is not difficult to get around it, just subscribe to NowTV for a few weeks whilst the shows you want to watch are on.

I have to agree with MM, exclusives have been and will always be around. It is only a problem for some people now, because a few average (in my eyes) shows are not available on VM. It drives me insane. If VM had done it, everyone would be praising them.

If this is one of the biggest problems people have in there lives, they should be very pleased.

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.

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It didn't stop other companies offering it though, did it?

With withheld Sky channels, no platform can offer it, even if they wanted to, except at ruinous prices, and that is the point.

Yes. When the iPhone was exclusive with O2 the other companies were stopped from offering it.

---------- Post added at 16:21 ---------- Previous post was at 16:10 ----------

The truth of the matter is that the last thing we as consumers actually want is companies offering exactly the same product as each other. Differentiation, and exclusivity on some things like Atlantic, mean that companies like Virgin have to respond through innovation and price - hence TiVo and some pretty decent retention deals. Anyone who thinks two companies with nothing to compete with each other on other than price would engage in a price war to the benefit of the consumer is kidding themselves. The competition would, in effect, become between pay tv and non pay tv and as we can already see from the UK market, people who have decided to pay for TV will do so regardless of the fact that a pretty decent offering is already available for free. There will be no incentive for Sky or Virgin to innovate, they will simply stand still. What would be the point of Virgin signing deals wit TiVo if Sky would automatically have the same deal? What would be the point of Sky signing a deal with HBO if Virgin would have access to the same programming? If these things had never happened you'd be stuck with V+hd, Sky+hd would never have improved to the extent it has and you'd spend most of your time trying to find HBO content in the early hours on BBC 2, if it even ever came.

These types of deals are good for companies because they are good for the consumer. Trying to open up the market by effectively closing it down and forcing companies to share what they've won the right to through good thinking, good negotiating and good marketing, will just result in there being no point in bothering. In the meantime, there are other, perfectly legal, ways of enjoying HBO shows. Maybe not first run, maybe not directly through your tv platform, but they exist. I can't help thinking if people really wanted to watch the shows on Atlantic they'd have sourced them from elsewhere by now and that, actually, this argument is more just an opportunity to have an unnecessary dig than about a real desire to see the channel arrive.

---------- Post added at 16:23 ---------- Previous post was at 16:21 ----------

That said all of this is off topic!

[alwaysabear]

Originally Posted by andy_m

Yes. When the iPhone was exclusive with O2 the other companies were stopped from offering it.

---------- Post added at 16:21 ---------- Previous post was at 16:10 ----------

The truth of the matter is that the last thing we as consumers actually want is companies offering exactly the same product as each other. Differentiation, and exclusivity on some things like Atlantic, mean that companies like Virgin have to respond through innovation and price - hence TiVo and some pretty decent retention deals. Anyone who thinks two companies with nothing to compete with each other on other than price would engage in a price war to the benefit of the consumer is kidding themselves. The competition would, in effect, become between pay tv and non pay tv and as we can already see from the UK market, people who have decided to pay for TV will do so regardless of the fact that a pretty decent offering is already available for free. There will be no incentive for Sky or Virgin to innovate, they will simply stand still. What would be the point of Virgin signing deals wit TiVo if Sky would automatically have the same deal? What would be the point of Sky signing a deal with HBO if Virgin would have access to the same programming? If these things had never happened you'd be stuck with V+hd, Sky+hd would never have improved to the extent it has and you'd spend most of your time trying to find HBO content in the early hours on BBC 2, if it even ever came.

These types of deals are good for companies because they are good for the consumer. Trying to open up the market by effectively closing it down and forcing companies to share what they've won the right to through good thinking, good negotiating and good marketing, will just result in there being no point in bothering. In the meantime, there are other, perfectly legal, ways of enjoying HBO shows. Maybe not first run, maybe not directly through your tv platform, but they exist. I can't help thinking if people really wanted to watch the shows on Atlantic they'd have sourced them from elsewhere by now and that, actually, this argument is more just an opportunity to have an unnecessary dig than about a real desire to see the channel arrive.

---------- Post added at 16:23 ---------- Previous post was at 16:21 ----------

That said all of this is off topic!

Nice post

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by andy_m

actually, this argument is more just an opportunity to have an unnecessary dig than about a real desire to see the channel arrive.

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