General : Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2012) Vol. 3.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Media Boy

Well done - you was the 1,000 post on this thread.

---------- Post added at 14:22 ---------- Previous post was at 14:08 ----------



Can you put me down for £10?

With your riches l was thinking along the lines of £100.

[Media Boy UK]

Originally Posted by denphone

With your riches l was thinking along the lines of £100.

[Chad]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Probably because their pricing policies differ vastly from Sky , I pay £10.25 a month for HD a VM customer gets it free (the exception being Sky premium customers). Sky are a business not a charity , people expect them to pay billions a year for content , then sell it to a competitor on their terms , BT and Netflix are taking the fight to Sky however it would appear some expect Sky to pay billions for content then have it offered on their terms.

Some really good points.

I think it makes great sense for SKY to withhold SKY Atlantic as it gives them a unique selling point, plus will make NOW TV more attractive once SKY Atlantic programming is added.

That being said, it must be beneficial for SKY to get together with UPC, Smallworld, Virgin, Talk Talk and BT to negotiate some a mutually beneficial deal to have SKY Atlantic available to as many viewers as possible?

There would be some positive benefits to SKY:

1. Extra income from 5 separate TV providers.
2. Extra viewers (allowing extra advertising revenue).
3. More opportunities for them to advertise their product, to rival customers, during advertisement breaks.

Also HBO would be more pleased to see their programming enjoyed by a wider audience, which would undoubtedly have an impact on their DVD boxset sales etc...

SKY are about 20 months into their 60 monthly £150 million deal with HBO. SKY are paying about £30 million per year for the exclusive rights. So what do people think would be a fair amount for each TV provider to pay to get access to SKY Atlantic?

In 2008 Virgin and SKY agreed a carriage for Sky1, Sky2, Sky3, Sky News, Sky Sports News, Sky Arts 1, Sky Arts 2, Sky Real Lives and Sky Real Lives 2. Virgin agreed to pay between £35 and £38 million per year for 3 years for these channels.

I'd say £4.5 million per year for SKY Atlantic would be fair. If Virgin, Talk Talk, UPC, Smallworld and BT all paid £4.5 million each to SKY every year, SKY would be covering £22.5 million of their £30 million per year outlay. SKY could keep SKY Atlantic HD exclusive to themselves, and keep on demand content exclusive to themselves also. Virgin would only have to put their TV prices up by about 10p per month, which is pretty good when you consider the price hikes so far this year.

[Media Boy UK]

Originally Posted by Chad

Some really good points.

I think it makes great sense for SKY to withhold SKY Atlantic as it gives them a unique selling point, plus will make NOW TV more attractive once SKY Atlantic programming is added.

That being said, it must be beneficial for SKY to get together with UPC, Smallworld, Virgin, Talk Talk and BT to negotiate some a mutually beneficial deal to have SKY Atlantic available to as many viewers as possible?

There would be some positive benefits to SKY:

1. Extra income from 5 separate TV providers.
2. Extra viewers (allowing extra advertising revenue).
3. More opportunities for them to advertise their product, to rival customers, during advertisement breaks.

Also HBO would be more pleased to see their programming enjoyed by a wider audience, which would undoubtedly have an impact on their DVD boxset sales etc...

SKY are about 20 months into their 60 monthly £150 million deal with HBO. SKY are paying about £30 million per year for the exclusive rights. So what do people think would be a fair amount for each TV provider to pay to get access to SKY Atlantic?

In 2008 Virgin and SKY agreed a carriage for Sky1, Sky2, Sky3, Sky News, Sky Sports News, Sky Arts 1, Sky Arts 2, Sky Real Lives and Sky Real Lives 2. Virgin agreed to pay between £35 and £38 million per year for 3 years for these channels.

I'd say £4.5 million per year for SKY Atlantic would be fair. If Virgin, Talk Talk, UPC, Smallworld and BT all paid £4.5 million each to SKY every year, SKY would be covering £22.5 million of their £30 million per year outlay. SKY could keep SKY Atlantic HD exclusive to themselves, and keep on demand content exclusive to themselves also. Virgin would only have to put their TV prices up by about 10p per month, which is pretty good when you consider the price hikes so far this year.

Well denphone did post the following (As seen last night on CF)

Originally Posted by Dave42

he said non sky branded channel so that rules atlantic out sky not gonna let anyone have it

Originally Posted by denphone

You're becoming pessimistic again Dave.

Originally Posted by Dave42

being realistic Den mate sky spent millions advertising it as sky exclusive and it gonna stay that way

Originally Posted by denphone

Well only the next couple of months will tell us that because as the old saying goes never say never.

Last one - Good rumour if True.

[BenMcr]

The US Open Tennis that starts on Monday on Sky Sports will have a TiVo Red Button app

[undertakereddie]

Good News! ITV 2 Have Picked Brand New USA Shows 666 Park Avenue Starring Terry o Quinn (Locke From Lost) (ABC), Animal Practice (NBC), Up All Night (NBC) and Ben & Kate (Fox). http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/...tice-more.html

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Probably because their pricing policies differ vastly from Sky , I pay £10.25 a month for HD a VM customer gets it free (the exception being Sky premium customers). Sky are a business not a charity , people expect them to pay billions a year for content , then sell it to a competitor on their competitors terms , BT and Netflix are taking the fight to Sky however it would appear some expect Sky to pay billions for content then have it offered on their terms.

Yes, but the whole scenario is skewed from the getgo, because Sky can outbid all other providers. No one wants Sky to spend billions, they do it because they can in order to have anything they want by outbidding others.

Imagine the outcry if the BBC had spent extra money to keep Mad Men in a battle with Sky.

There is a difference between selling a channel at a fair price based on what you paid for it and setting the price too high because you really don't want to sell it, because you want to keep it exclusive. If they want to keep it exclusive just say so; don't pretend to offer it for sale but have the price so high that no one will buy it. But as I said, I have no evidence for this, it is a theolry based on the fact that no other provider can afford to buy it.

To be fair, I lay a little of the blame for VM not having Atlantic on VM. The negotiators who sold the VM channels to Sky must have been blind if they didn't see a future channel like Atlantic comng and make provision for it in the terms of the sale.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by passingbat

Yes, but the whole scenario is skewed from the getgo, because Sky can outbid all other providers. No one wants Sky to spend billions, they do it because they can in order to have anything they want by outbidding others.

Imagine the outcry if the BBC had spent extra money to keep Mad Men in a battle with Sky.

That's business , why shouldn't they spend money how they see fit , it's all been earned from initial risk taking and with private investment.

[Mobes]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

The US Open Tennis that starts on Monday on Sky Sports will have a TiVo Red Button app

Awesome. Will the channels still have 'normal' red button for it too on TIVO?

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

That's business , why shouldn't they spend money how they see fit , it's all been earned from initial risk taking and with private investment.

That is true to a certain extent, but do you agree that Sky are right to pinch shows like Mad Men and other shows that non pay TV channels have taken a risk on, just because they can? And buy not just the first run rights, but also second run free to air rights, even though they have no intention of using FTA rights, but they want to block them from others?

A company like Sky having too much money can cause distortion in the media market, even though they may have earned it legitamately, and we need an effective regulator to control that. You only need to look at the crazy prices that were paid for football rights to know that something is very wrong in the media buisness.

And, as an aside, did you see the Panorama programme on ITV Digital?

[Mobes]

http://www.virginmedia.com/tvradio/n...es-to-tivo.php

In addition to our already-available tennis app, our new US Open one allows all Virgin Sky Sports subscribers to access up to eight matches at once and has a Multi-View feature, allowing games to be viewed in different formats.

Does that mean the red button matches will be in HD???

---------- Post added at 16:31 ---------- Previous post was at 16:31 ----------

PS Weired that VM biggest rival allows them to have an app for the tennis but the BBC wont do one for Diamons LEague Athletics etc :p

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Mobes

Awesome. Will the channels still have 'normal' red button for it too on TIVO?

What do you mean by 'normal' red button? The TiVo experience will have access to the multiscreen if that's what you mean

[Mobes]

I mean can o go to channel 518, press red and hey presto or do I have to go to the Apps page.

[BenMcr]

Ah, it'll be via press red

[MaverickJesus]

Originally Posted by Media Boy

Well denphone did post the following (As seen last night on CF)









Last one - Good rumour if True.

How is that anything more than mindless optimism? If thats the kind of quality that passes for your 'sources' then god help us all.