Originally Posted by colin25 (Post 35569928)

I thought that this is bad news for virgin viewers, as they lose ESPN. Looks like BT are gunning more for virgin then sky

Originally Posted by Henkesghost (Post 35569932)

Pfffft! Virgin will come out all water pistols blazing

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35569946)

Well that might be your spin on it but perhaps you need a new spin doctor old boy.:D

Originally Posted by colin25 (Post 35569951)

Please tell me the good news for Virgin customers from this?

Originally Posted by colin25 (Post 35569951)

Please tell me the good news for Virgin customers from this?

Originally Posted by Jameseh (Post 35569940)

This is CableForum. ESPN is free on Virgin, BT Sport is not.

Simples.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35569955)

But people are making assumption based just on what has happened today and that's a unwise thing to do in my humble opinion.

Originally Posted by coulsontom (Post 35569961)

Yes and I pay £114.55 for Virgin at the moment, but with a mixture of Sky and BT can pay £97.20 (ignoring the fact that BT is free for 6 months, and Sky are doing 50%off offers).

In case you're not aware 97 is less than 114, by a distance.

BT Sport is effectively free. You just have to transfer your supplier.

It's like gas and electric. It's all the same, no matter what the supplier is but you go with the cheapest, unless you're stupid.

Originally Posted by Jameseh (Post 35569963)

Don't want a dish and my street isn't fibre enabled and won't be for some time.

4mb is 15x less than 60mb and 2 tuners is less than 3, unless you're stupid.

Plus are Sky going to offer me a recordable multiroom box free for the life of my contract?

Originally Posted by Jameseh (Post 35569969)

My estimated speed is 4mb over ADSL, I get 60mb from Virgin.

Originally Posted by coulsontom (Post 35569974)

But in general, Sports fans are not worse off today.

.

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35569976)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22462525

The comments section is an interesting read. A lot of people picking holes in BT's strategy. It seems BT are struggling to win people over with this offer.

Originally Posted by coulsontom (Post 35569961)

Yes and I pay £114.55 for Virgin at the moment, but with a mixture of Sky and BT can pay £97.20 (ignoring the fact that BT is free for 6 months, and Sky are doing 50%off offers).

In case you're not aware 97 is less than 114, by a distance.

BT Sport is effectively free. You just have to transfer your supplier.

It's like gas and electric. It's all the same, no matter what the supplier is but you go with the cheapest, unless you're stupid.

Originally Posted by Top banana (Post 35569981)

Have you got a BT phone line into your house?

Originally Posted by smallclone (Post 35569978)

Again, I just don't see how you can say that. Most sports fans already have sky or virgin.

Sky: prices are going up
Virgin: worryingly left out of the loop

How does that equate with "better off?"

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 35569996)

There's a lot wrong with all packages from Virgin, Sky & BT imo, the one that sticks in many peoples throats is the need to take a landline telephone subscription to get a decent deal on everything else, lets face it, nearly everyone has a mobile phone nowadays and the need for a landline has diminished greatly in recent years, i just wish that the suppliers would build a decent package to meet the needs of the customers instead of the other way about!

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 35569996)

There's a lot wrong with all packages from Virgin, Sky & BT imo, the one that sticks in many peoples throats is the need to take a landline telephone subscription to get a decent deal on everything else, lets face it, nearly everyone has a mobile phone nowadays and the need for a landline has diminished greatly in recent years, i just wish that the suppliers would build a decent package to meet the needs of the customers instead of the other way about!

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 35569996)

There's a lot wrong with all packages from Virgin, Sky & BT imo, the one that sticks in many peoples throats is the need to take a landline telephone subscription to get a decent deal on everything else, lets face it, nearly everyone has a mobile phone nowadays and the need for a landline has diminished greatly in recent years, i just wish that the suppliers would build a decent package to meet the needs of the customers instead of the other way about!

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35569998)

Yes we rarely use our landline but yet every month we have to pay that bloody line rental for hardly no use at all.

Originally Posted by Top banana (Post 35569999)

Virgin are advertising Broadband without a phone line in the papers at the moment

Originally Posted by Lostlam (Post 35570009)

VM have been like that since last year. As far as I am aware, they are the only company that offers broadband by itself, and don't force you to have a landline aswell.

Originally Posted by BexTech (Post 35570016)

Going back many years, I just had broadband and 'free' TV from Telewest and no phone line as I have a VoIP ATA and just paid for the odd few calls I made, with no monthly fee from VoIP provider. Was like that for almost 4 years, only reason now have phone line was moving and taking new services at a discount.

Originally Posted by Lostlam (Post 35570021)

Kl. You must have been an exception mate, as I know when I had VM installed a few years back, you had to have both.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 35570050)

This business with BT over its sports channels is starting to turn to blackmail from BT regarding VM customers. Just read there website and it is quite clear that BT are going on the own with this idea and VM customers are going to be left out.

I was under the impression that BT were having a deal with ITV, don't know how true this is.

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35570055)

At the moment it looks like BT are happy to push on as they are. Wholesale deals are not essential.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35570067)

Bigger fools then l thought they were.

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35570048)

http://www.digitaltveurope.net/54521...gin-talk-talk/

"BT Retail CEO Gavin Patterson said the firm was still open to doing wholesale deals for its forthcoming sports channels with Virgin Media and Talk Talk, but stressed its strategy wasn’t dependent on it.

Speaking at a BT Sport launch event in London this morning, Patterson said that talks were ongoing with Virgin and would “hopefully continue” in the coming weeks, but claimed it was difficult for the cable TV rival to do a “value proposition” until BT was able to announce details of its sport offering.

“We’ve had similar discussions with Talk Talk as we have with Virgin. Philosophically we’re not against, wholesale, we’d be open to it, it’s really about value – what our perception of the value of it is, and what their perception of the value is, and there’s a gap at the moment,” said Patterson.

Asked whether he could imagine a point where BT would simply walk away from wholesale discussions he added: “Our strategy is not dependent on wholesale. It’s not completely within our control – it’s whether or not we can find the right valuation between us and others. We couldn’t rely on it in that respect, so we’ve built a strategy, we’ve built a business plan that doesn’t necessarily depend on us wholesaling this.”


http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2013/...ort-goes-free/

"However, customers of Virgin Media and rival telco TalkTalk may not be able to receive it via their television services."

http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news...ootball-115800

"There are currently no plans to bring the channels to Virgin Media’s cable service."

http://recombu.com/digital/news/bt-s...st_M11546.html

"There's no word on whether Virgin Media subscribers will be able to access the BT Sport channels but it's looking unlikely."

Mmmmm....... Doesn't look great for the likes of Talk Talk, Virgin or Smallworld. Basically any TV provider where BT can't sell directly to the customer.

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35570070)

BT Retail CEO Gavin Patterson said “Our strategy is not dependent on wholesale. It’s not completely within our control – it’s whether or not we can find the right valuation between us and others. We couldn’t rely on it in that respect, so we’ve built a strategy, we’ve built a business plan that doesn’t necessarily depend on us wholesaling this.”

I don't think BT really care about the success of the channels, they want to use the channels as a tool to grow their own phone, broadband and TV base.

This could have major ramifications across all of pay TV for sports fans. I'm amazed they have zero plans to launch on Freeview.

Originally Posted by Top banana (Post 35570085)

Be interesting to see what Gavin says in a few months. They need a hell of a lot of customers to move from Sky and VM to cover the cost of setting up their sports offering. The investment community have given todays announcement a massive thumbs down which has led to a reduction of £6.60 off their share price.

The view is that this is aimed at getting Sky BB customers onto infinity and that the impact on VM will be minimal.

Originally Posted by Top banana (Post 35570085)

The view is that this is aimed at getting Sky BB customers onto infinity and that the impact on VM will be minimal.

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35570070)

I'm amazed they have zero plans to launch on Freeview.

Originally Posted by BexTech (Post 35570104)

What would be the incentive then, if everyone can get it on Freeview and being Freeview means no cost to view. No need to have phone or broadband from BT, just Freeview TV and aerial.

Unless you meant as a subscription channel on DTT?

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 35569934)

Confirmed: No deal done yet for BT Sports on Virgin Media.

BT has confirmed at Virgin Media has no deal yet to carry BT Sport 1*, BT Sport 2* and ESPN* from August 1st.

*Also in HD.

http://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/d...l_tw_sportfaqs

When BT Sport do launch on Virgin Media it will cost £12 to £15 per month.

-£12 per month for the SD Channels only.
-£15 per month with the HD Channels added.

Originally Posted by andy_m (Post 35570096)

I actually don't think it's going to be possible to recoup their outlay, and by their own admission they're well on plan B. Todays announcement makes it clear that they're looking to make the best of a bad situation - they can't use their new product to sell their TV service because the rest of it isn't good enough to compete, so they're going to concentrate on building up the brand and, if they can pick up a few broadband customers along the way then that's a bonus, with the added benefit of being able to showcase their offering to the UK's largest broadband customer base. They're in it for the long haul, and intend to bid again in the next rights auction, but I wouldn't now be surprised if BT Sport doesn't turn up on Virgin.

Originally Posted by Top banana (Post 35570110)

I agree it won't be on VM but will that mean customers will leave VM in droves, probably not

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35570119)

It might actually be a good thing for non-sports fans with XL and VIP. If ESPN drops out, and BT Sports doesn't come to Virgin at all, suddenly Virgin have extra money to play with. What this could mean is:

1. More HD channels
2. More on demand content
3. A dedicated 3D channel
4. Premier Sports
5. SKY Atlantic
6. Etc...... :D

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 35570156)

So you think BT are just starting up Three Sports Channels just to stop the VAT man from getting it?:confused:;)

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35570156)

I'm sure I read that Sky has around 6 million Sky Sports subscribers on its own platform and VM has around 700,000 , they also sell to Talk Talk , Smallworld , BT , UPC Ireland so I realistically can't see BT beating Sky Sports viewing figures. How many of their 5 million BB subscribers will have no interest in sport at all or be without BT TV or Sky TV.

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35570119)

It might actually be a good thing for non-sports fans with XL and VIP. If ESPN drops out, and BT Sports doesn't come to Virgin at all, suddenly Virgin have extra money to play with. What this could mean is:

1. More HD channels
2. More on demand content
3. A dedicated 3D channel
4. Premier Sports
5. SKY Atlantic
6. Etc...... :D

Originally Posted by raefil (Post 35570196)

All this makes me realise that it us, the consumer, that are the mugs here. For me the introduction of BT into the market is the straw thats broke the camels back. enough is enough. "The fatted calf has only so much fat."

I might aswell join the hoards of others and if there is a match i want to see on TV just stream it!

Originally Posted by coulsontom (Post 35570166)

No. Just pointing out that people who are saying that BT somehow can't afford to offer their channels cheaply are wrong.



Sky's record viewing figure was the Manchester Derby last year which peaked at 4.4m. with an average of 4m.

However, they average around 2m viewers per game, some games only 1.5m.

11m peak watched last years FA Cup final on ITV.

United's 2nd leg defeat to Real Madrid averaged 9m.

The point I was trying to make was pretty simple.

If you assume that there are the 6m Sky Sports subscribers, of which on average only 2m ever tune in to watch a game.

And there are 5m BT Broadband subscribers.

It's also sensible to assume that whilst some Sky subscribers may have BT broadband, a lot with have Sky Broadband.

Therefore, you have a hefty chunk of 5m BT subscribers now having access to BT sport channels for free.

You will also get some who move from Sky to BT for BB.

And also some who stay at Sky for BB but still sign up to BT Sport.

So you have BT Sport that will become accessible to at least 5m BT BB users, plus a chunk of the 6m who subscribe to Sky Sports.

Basically, you can envisage BT's matches being available to a wider audience than Sky Sports.

I included ITV's figures because that highlights how people want to watch football but don't want to pay, therefore it's very probable that there's people with BT BB who don't want to pay for sport, but will want to tune in when it's offered to them for free.

If it does bear out that there are higher viewing figures, then BT can extract greater advertising revenue and thereby negate the need to charge.

I highlighted BT's revenue to show that they would only generate in the mid £20m by charging everyone which doesn't cover 10% of the costs of acquiring the rights (let alone paying for "talent").

ie. They're better off trying to get as many people watching as possible and make money out of the advertisements as advertising generates far greater revenue than subscriptions.

Originally Posted by Dash: CF noob (Post 35570198)

Please update your calculator 22.5m per month which is £270m per year.

Originally Posted by andy_m (Post 35570185)

Not if by doing so they don't drive subscriptions to their own products. Take Sky Atlantic. The argument on here is often that viewing figures are low and they'd make more money from advertising revenue by opening the channel up to cable viewers. But that simplistic argument ignores the fact that Sky estimate that Atlantic drives a quarter of new subscriptions to its platform and, by their own admission, that's where the real money lies.

BT cannot hope to recoup their investment in this rights cycle, in my opinion, and certainly not through advertising revenue generated by wholesaling a channel to other operators when it could be better used to drive subscriptions to its broadband product.

FWIW, I think it's a good deal for BT broadband customers, and having once been one of those I can only say that it's about time BT broadband customers had a good deal!

Originally Posted by coulsontom (Post 35570225)

can't be figured out with certainty tho surely?

Originally Posted by smallclone (Post 35570220)

Does anyone know if the State of Origin Rugby League is on Sky Sports or Premier Sports this year?

EDIT: Just found out it's on Premier sports, and so is the highlights package. Absolutely gutted.

Never mind we are all winners as sports fans.

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35570230)

I wonder how long it will take them to realise all they are doing is pushing people in the direction of streaming sites ?

Originally Posted by coulsontom (Post 35570145)

Everyone's saying BT will make losses on the Sport side of things.

It is logical to predict they will have more viewers than Sky Sports. They could therefore market the advertising slots very competitively and charge more than if they had subscribers paying.

Say they had 1.5m paying £15 that's £22.5m
BT is paying £246m per season. Subscriptions wouldn't even scrap the surface anyway.

BT made a profit of £675m last year.

They're not eating into that too much are they?

Originally Posted by smallclone (Post 35570233)

Exactly. They're more popular than ever now these subscription streaming sites. I wonder why.

Originally Posted by coulsontom (Post 35570225)

can't be figured out with certainty tho surely?

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 35570240)

I for one will certainly not be paying for BT Sport, especially as we get ESPN free on VM.

Originally Posted by smallclone (Post 35570243)

How long are you going to get free ESPN on VM?

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35570245)

Good question.

Originally Posted by smallclone (Post 35570247)

I've been emailed to say my subscription expires on July 31st

Originally Posted by smallclone (Post 35570247)

I've been emailed to say my subscription expires on July 31st

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 35570240)

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/...and-users.html

I for one will certainly not be paying for BT Sport, especially as we get ESPN free on VM.

Originally Posted by smallclone (Post 35570252)

Does anybody think that the current price to be able to watch all available Premiership football matches in the UK is "value for money" ?

Originally Posted by andy_m (Post 35570259)

Can I just clarify that you are aware that the ESPN channel package will close at the end of the current football season, and that the only ESPN branded channel remaining in the UK will ESPN America, which you will only be able to view if you have a BT Sport subscription?



*ducks for cover*

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35570228)

If there was no truth in it whatsoever what would be the point of having the channel exclusive on the Sky platform ? Sky are a business and as such are in the game of making money.

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35570260)

Not at all. It's going to get worse in the next few months. Reports suggest that the price of SKY Sports will jump up as much as £3.00 per month in the next couple of months.

Depending on who you get your TV service from, having access to SKY Sports and BT Sports in HD could cost anywhere from £45 to £55 per month.

I can get a full season ticket for my club Rangers or other local teams like Falkirk, Livingston, Dunfermline, Hearts and Hibs for almost half of that price. Even taking into account travel and food on match days I still would be less per year than subscribing to SKY and BT!

Maybe it's time people started going to see live local sport, instead of spending up to £650.00 per year to watch it on TV! In fact if you also have the likes of Boxnation, and Premier Sports, you could be paying almost £900.00 per year for televised sport. Crazy :confused:

Originally Posted by coulsontom (Post 35570264)

not saying that people haven't done that. But not every single customer to Sky will have moved for it.

I mean, have you seen some of the viewing figures?

One Episode of Mad Men had 58,000 viewers and when coupled with re-runs averages 150,000.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35570228)

If there was no truth in it whatsoever what would be the point of having the channel exclusive on the Sky platform ? Sky are a business and as such are in the game of making money.

Originally Posted by coulsontom (Post 35570145)

Everyone's saying BT will make losses on the Sport side of things.

However, they probably expect to for the first few years, and as others have said, prob hope to take more rights and end up in a 50/50 style share situation with Sky (which would result in BT surely then charging, and presumably sky having to lower their prices)

But if BT get a good increase in viewers, which is likely, as they have 5m Broadband subscribers now, plus the inevitable people they entice, plus those who subscribe who used to have ESPN.

It is logical to predict they will have more viewers than Sky Sports. They could therefore market the advertising slots very competitively and charge more than if they had subscribers paying.

Say they had 1.5m paying £15 that's £22.5m
BT is paying £246m per season. Subscriptions wouldn't even scrap the surface anyway.

BT made a profit of £675m last year.

They're not eating into that too much are they?

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 35570263)

IF l am not wrong VM customers using phone lines - the calls goes through a BT Exchange, am l right. where as Sky BB goes via satellite. I may be wrong.

Originally Posted by Lostlam (Post 35570331)

I have just been told by someone who works for BT, that BT Sports will not be coming to VM at all. If this is true, VM could be in for a wake up call.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35570335)

Rest assured he is talking a load of cobblers.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35570335)

Rest assured he is talking a load of cobblers.

Originally Posted by nstokes (Post 35570338)

I agree with you Den

Originally Posted by Lostlam (Post 35570339)

Hope so mate, but VM are slowly losing me. Their only selling point that is keeping me is TIVO, as there prices keep rising.

---------- Post added at 15:13 ---------- Previous post was at 15:12 ----------



I thought so, but the person seemed quite adamant.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35570342)

l am afraid employees have no knowledge of the in and outs of boardrooms and frankly he is just making it up.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35570335)

Rest assured he is talking a load of cobblers.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35570357)

So that would naturally mean your also talking cobblers as you also have no inside knowledge either way , so its not advisable to mislead people asking the question. BenMcr has already provided a link you can register with for updates on the situation , so let VM keep the customer informed rather than making random assumptions without the source to back it up , its not at all helpful.

Originally Posted by paultrademark (Post 35570361)

Wouldn't surprise me at all to see VM miss out on this, maybe for a season anyway.

My contract is due in August again, BT Fibre is due here in July too apparently and one of the main reasons we took XL TV was for Setanta/ESPN.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35570357)

So that would naturally mean your also talking cobblers as you also have no inside knowledge either way , so its not advisable to mislead people asking the question. BenMcr has already provided a link you can register with for updates on the situation , so let VM keep the customer informed rather than making random assumptions without the source to back it up , its not at all helpful.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35566926-post940.html

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35570335)

Rest assured he is talking a load of cobblers.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35570365)

l have never said l knew anything of course but l am just telling people of how l see it and l did not know there was anything wrong with having a opinion on things as there are many here who have their opinions about everything all and sundry and the last time l looked free speech is allowed unless you have suddenly barred it.:)

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35570366)

Apologies Den , I wasn't having a dig of course your entitled to an opinion I'm guilty of speculating myself :D , however on this issue I think people are going to have to be patient and let VM try and negotiate a deal which they'll inform people of via Bens link.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35570371)

l am myself very patient and confident about VM getting BT Sports but of course people have different opinions and l can understand those opinions totally and l like everybody want to know when we will get it and for how much and Bens link is extremely useful as l have signed up to it myself.:D

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35570260)

Maybe it's time people started going to see live local sport, instead of spending up to £650.00 per year to watch it on TV!

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35570297)

which makes the decision to with hold the channels a joke MM as they make lot more money letting others have them

---------- Post added at 14:05 ---------- Previous post was at 14:00 ----------



price will continue only to go up no chance they come down

Originally Posted by coulsontom (Post 35570458)

So you think if BT at the next TV deal negotiations, acquire half the matches = 77 and Sky have 77 also that Sky can still justify charging the same amount, even if BT are charging much less for the same number of games.

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35570459)

both bt and sky will bid more next time to try make sure they get the game packs so prices will go up again not down