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

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by vincerooney

If you love football and you've watched for many, many years and enjoy watching then you can't? i understand the point you're making but for people who do enjoy watching sport and its one of lifes little pleasures then you dont want to cancel?

The point i'm making is costs will continue to spiral both watching at the grounds and on tv because of the lack of controls on our sport at the moment. we have the most expensive league for attending and for tv subscriptions in all of europe. thats a fact.

Things will never ever improve for fairness if we just say "well we can cancel if it gets too much"

I used to love football as well, but the ever increasing cost of it, the wages players are paid and the player attitudes of win at all costs (diving, cheating refs, pressuring refs for decisions) puts me off massively now. As does the large number of foriegn owners, large numbers of average foriegn players stopping the British players, the lack of video technology (more needs to happen and sooner rather than later) and Blatter slowly destroying the game from the very top.

Of course the clubs are going to keep fleecing the fans who go to the matches, why would they not? It's not right, but clubs are businesses now. The owners plough millions of pounds into the clubs, it is obvious they will want to make the most of amount of money they can in return for their investment.

Of course things will improve. If enough people cancel for a long enough period Sky will soon realise they need to charge the customer less and then they will have to spend less money to get the PL rights. Yes, other companies will get the PL rights, but the prices for a football only package of sports will be pretty low.

I love Cricket, Rugby and Golf but I refuse to pay Sky the money they ask for to watch it. It really pains me to miss the Ashes, the England Internationals (golf and rugby) and all the major Golf tournaments, but for me, a line has to be drawn somewhere.

If people choose to keep paying for sports, that is, of course, their right. I waste my money on books, blurays, CD'S, alcohol and good(ish) food.

Just, please don't come on here and moan about the fact that the PL and Sky are trying to make as much money as possible (which as businesses they will do) and that there is nothing you can do about it. You know price rises will happen year in year out, stating the obvious on here is not going to change anything.

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

[/COLOR]So you are quite happy with the status quo and the fact that Virgin Media cannot show Sky Atlantic? That's a strange position for you to take, surely?

Unless, of course, you don't want Sky Atlantic or you are happy for Sky to decide who gets what in relation to Sky Sports channels![COLOR="Silver"]

I'm happy that I have a choice between various providers offering different services, and I'm happy with the choice I've made.

In general I'm also happy for businesses to decide how best to monetise their own products.

That's my position.

[telegramsam]

Originally Posted by Superblade7

You'll not be able to get a specific price on your broadband mate as if you have a triple play bundle then you are charged a bundle price. The advertised price of the bundle is the sum of the component parts minus a bundle discount.

If you want a rough idea the standalone broadband prices can be found here http://store.virginmedia.com/broadba...ex.html#bbonly

Check out the standalone TV prices here (http://store.virginmedia.com/digital...-tv/index.html) too as each time you remove an element of the triple play bundle, the discount reduces. Therefore dependant on your package, you may find that removing certain services doesn't actually reduce you bundle costs as much as you thought.

Hope this helps

telegramsam - although I've answered your question, you may wish to start a new thread if you wish to discuss further as we've taken the thread off-topic (apologies mods)

Thanks yes it does help somewhat

[Superblade7]

Originally Posted by Gavin-D

Breaking: Premier League TV rights to be probed by Ofcom

Ofcom has opened an investigation into how the Premier League sells live TV media rights for Premier League football matches in the UK.

The investigation will be carried out under the Competition Act.

It follows a complaint from Virgin Media, which was submitted to Ofcom in September.

Ofcom investigates where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting an agreement may be intended to prevent, restrict or distort competition.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30095012

Like others have said, it'll probably end up biting us in the bum. Whilst ever they continue to sell packs of games, the consumer will have to pay 2 or more providers to watch all the games.

The only way it would ever be better for the consumer is like it states in the article for both BT and Sky (and any other interested parties) to get access to all the games. This would then give real competition as consumers could choose which provider they want to use to watch the footy and would drive prices down as they compete for business.

[andy_m]

That would eventually force the less successful provider out of the business, leaving just one to charge what it wants, and we'd be back where we started. The current system isn't perfect, but it does allow the consumer choice between a more expensive package with more coverage or a cheaper option with fewer games. That's also a model which allows provider's outlay to be proportionate to its related revenues, something which couldn't be guaranteed if a provider with a smaller number of subscribers was offering effectively the same package as a provider with over ten million.

I have a feeling that the investigation will, rightly, conclude that there is no significant reason to change the status quo, and that that decision will be met with predictable outrage.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by andy_m

I'm happy that I have a choice between various providers offering different services, and I'm happy with the choice I've made.

In general I'm also happy for businesses to decide how best to monetise their own products.

That's my position.

Why should you have to choose between the services when by selecting either major platform you lose out on exclusive programming that you want to see and can only access by choosing both (and paying more for the pleasure)?

It does not make sense and the fact that this can happen quite legally at present doesn't mean the Government can't do anything about changing it. The current position is quite nonsensical and I don't understand why some are defending the status quo.

I hope that we will look back on all this in ten years time and chuckle about how antiquated and absurd the system was in 2014.

---------- Post added at 12:50 ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 ----------

Originally Posted by andy_m

That would eventually force the less successful provider out of the business, leaving just one to charge what it wants, and we'd be back where we started. The current system isn't perfect, but it does allow the consumer choice between a more expensive package with more coverage or a cheaper option with fewer games. That's also a model which allows provider's outlay to be proportionate to its related revenues, something which couldn't be guaranteed if a provider with a smaller number of subscribers was offering effectively the same package as a provider with over ten million.

I have a feeling that the investigation will, rightly, conclude that there is no significant reason to change the status quo, and that that decision will be met with predictable outrage.

Sadly, I have to agree with your conclusion, although I don't believe that anyone will be forced out of business by rectifying the position. It all sounds very fatalistic. Maybe one day we'll see an OFCOM with guts, acting on behalf of the consumer.

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Why should you have to choose between the services when by selecting either major platform you lose out on exclusive programming that you want to see and can only access by choosing both (and paying more for the pleasure)?

I haven't got to do that. If I want all the content I go with Sky and stop paying Virgin. As a result Virgin have to work a bit harder to keep me, which is to my advantage.

The status quo works for an awful lot of people. Your idea of every platform being able to offer all the content would bring lots of unintended consequences that would be to the detriment of the consumer. You've only got to look at the energy industry to see how a small group of companies offering exactly the same product as the other simply hasn't resulted in lower prices or better service. It creates an environment ripe for collusion and price fixing which will ultimately require the kind of government intervention you advocate now. Only now, after a year or two of taking a kicking, are we starting to see them innovate and differentiate in the way that Sky and Virgin have been doing for years.

I don't see the status quo as antiquated, rather I see your position as a backwards step. A strong cable company offering real choice is vital for keeping Sky straight. And vice versa.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by andy_m

The status quo works for an awful lot of people..

I don't think it does. People just put up with it because they know that nothing can be done about it and choose according to which pay TV service best fits their needs, whishing that the parts of the other service that they would like was available to them.

Many people, myself included are dumping traditional pay TV services and are choosing the content that they want via streaming services. That is far from being happy with the status quo in my view.

[Lostlam]

Interesting developments this week. I hope it forces the PL to show more live matches.

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by passingbat

I don't think it does. People just put up with it because they know that nothing can be done about it and choose according to which pay TV service best fits their needs, whishing that the parts of the other service that they would like was available to them.

Many people, myself included are dumping traditional pay TV services and are choosing the content that they want via streaming services. That is far from being happy with the status quo in my view.

Except that the status quo is that we have a system which allows you to do exactly what you've done. You're not tied in to pay tv, you have a choice, and you've chosen. The status quo is working for you, you're just to pessimistic to see it. You are, in your own words, "choosing the content that (you) want". That is really excellent that you can do that, you should be delighted.

But don't fall in to the trap of thinking that because you don't like something you hold the majority view. Ten million Sky subscribers and 4 million Virgin customers aren't just burying their collective head in the sand and praying for the day when something better will come along! You need to give people some credit.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by andy_m

Except that the status quo is that we have a system which allows you to do exactly what you've done. You're not tied in to pay tv, you have a choice, and you've chosen. The status quo is working for you, you're just to pessimistic to see it. .

But surely, the status quo you were talking about was that of the two established premium TV providers (VM and Sky); at least that is what I understood you to be talking about.

That failed my needs due to requiring HBO content along with (in my view) the superior STB and fast BB provided by Virgin. To get what I needed I had to go outside of the established status quo. So this established status quo does not work for everyone. Most people just put up with the limitations of the established status quo and don't really believe that it actually works for them.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by andy_m

Except that the status quo is that we have a system which allows you to do exactly what you've done. You're not tied in to pay tv, you have a choice, and you've chosen. The status quo is working for you, you're just to pessimistic to see it. You are, in your own words, "choosing the content that (you) want". That is really excellent that you can do that, you should be delighted.

But don't fall in to the trap of thinking that because you don't like something you hold the majority view. Ten million Sky subscribers and 4 million Virgin customers aren't just burying their collective head in the sand and praying for the day when something better will come along! You need to give people some credit.

No, Andy, the fact that people have found a way around the problem doesn't necessarily mean they are happy (and passingbat doesn't sound ecstatic to me).

In terms of sport, the present arrangement has succeeded in bringing us the highest prices anywhere in the world. How can you be happy with this?

Something needs to be done, and pronto, because the existing state of affairs does not work for the benefit of the consumer. It's just a huge money making machine that only benefits big business.

I have nothing against big business, but lack of regulation often means that some organisations will take unfair advantage.

[johnathome]

I've just had a survey email.

I did the survey and it was focused on sports packages, it asked a plethora of questions about mixing all 3 service providers up and which packages i'd prefer.

At the end it asked if i'd had any communication from VM about price rises and how much i would deem acceptable.

As i'm soon to be dumping the LL and TV my answers were probably a bit skewed and i was hoping there would be a section at the end for me to put my thoughts down, sadly not.

[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.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by andy_m

I'm sorry that you begrudge paying premium prices for premium content, .

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.