Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35683411)

Sorry Vince, why waste money (which subscribers foot the bill for in the end) on 'Tacky, Pointless, Stupid' channels?

---------- Post added at 12:44 ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 ----------



I agree Den, but I think the real reason that VM are focusing on fast BB and streaming content being added to Tivo, is that streaming is the way all content will be delivered in the future. For many of us, the future is now and I believe the number who that applies to will grow sooner rather than later.

Yes, at this point in time, unless you have a large family who are all streaming different things, you don't need 100meg BB. But as streaming grows in popularity, 100meg for a family will not be out of order.

Also being able to advertise that you have the fastest BB is a great thing and will attract customers because even though many people may not need it, they want it anyway, even if it's just for 'Bragging Rights'.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35683421)

You missed the bit about company x wanting what company y has to offer. In your argument, both companies miss out. In my analogy, it's win-win.

In the real case of Sky v Virgin Media, if Sky won't give VM what they want, even if VM are making it conditional on putting Sky Bravo on the platform, then VM will get around that problem in a different way (in this case via streaming content, one presumes, minus the first run shows, which just means a relatively short delay).

But it is a very short sighted proposition to deny VM the ability to upload the older Sky Atlantic programmes (ie not the first run stuff) when VM can access them by other means, thus denying Sky the income. Utterly pointless, actually.

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35683425)

if sky was bothered they would have let others have it long time ago OB sky don't want anyone to have it that's the whole point

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35683426)

I think you are talking about Sky Atlantic Dave. I'm talking about the very same content that is available elsewhere. However, I understand that you are not getting my point. Nuff said.

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35683427)

well all the missing channels OB they wont let anyone have them at all that's the point your missing and yes that includes SA

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35683428)

You are still talking about channels, Dave. I'm talking about streaming content which is already available.

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35683419)

that would be good news if it happens

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35683429)

yes and that cant happen without sky agreeing which they never do OB on the SA content

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35683429)

yes and that cant happen without sky agreeing which they never do OB on the SA content

Originally Posted by theone2k10 (Post 35683432)

Sky have no say whatsoever on the likes of Blinkbox and Amazon should they join Virgin Media. Allthough the HBO content via Blinkbox and Amazon would ofcourse be on a PPV basis but there is nothing stopping Amazon or Blinkbox turning around and saying "we're going to bring out a monthly pass system for our PPV content." such as say pay £10p/m and you can access the ppv content without any extra charge. Unlikely to happen but it could and Sky won't have a say in the matter.

Originally Posted by theone2k10 (Post 35683432)

Sky have no say whatsoever on the likes of Blinkbox and Amazon should they join Virgin Media. Allthough the HBO content via Blinkbox and Amazon would ofcourse be on a PPV basis but there is nothing stopping Amazon or Blinkbox turning around and saying "we're going to bring out a monthly pass system for our PPV content." such as say pay £10p/m and you can access the ppv content without any extra charge. Unlikely to happen but it could and Sky won't have a say in the matter.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35683443)

That's wrong because the service would then become subscription , the movies Blinkbox show are on the service earlier than Amazon Prime , Netflix and Sky Movies for a reason and thats because there PPV.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35683444)

I think we are all agreed that the first run content would be PPV. However, what about when SA have shown those programmes? Others have commented on here that Sky only have exclusive access to the first run content, not to the older series of these shows.

Accordingly, there is no reason why we can't see Game of Thrones series 1-3 on an Amazon Instant subscription, is there? What is the barrier to this happening in your view? I'm not sure I understand why you think this is not possible.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35683449)

I don't need to prove anything I have access to HBO shows but if I were to cancel Sky and decide Now TV wasn't for me could you point me in the direction of a subscription On Demand provider who gives me older HBO shows without having to use smart DNS ?

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35683443)

That's wrong because the service would then become subscription , the movies Blinkbox show are on the service earlier than Amazon Prime , Netflix and Sky Movies for a reason and thats because there PPV not subscription.

Originally Posted by theone2k10 (Post 35683456)

Good point.