Originally Posted by TV Boy (Post 34344488)

Details of the deal made between Sky and Tiscali TV have been revealed, showing that Tiscali were happy to pay what Virgin Media wasn't for the carriage of Sky's basic channels on the IPTV platform.

Earlier this week, Sky filed its defence at the High Court as part of its legal battle with Virgin Media, after Virgin refused to pay the amount Sky wanted for carrying its basic channels, disputing the cost as "anti-competitive." Sky One, Two, Three, News and Sports have not been shown on the Virgin Media cable platform since the end of February.

The Tiscali deal was agreed on June 27 at a price reported to be "broadly similar" to the offer Sky made to Virgin Media on May 10.

Reports suggest IPTV provider Tiscali paid 81.5p per subscriber, equivalent to £335.7 million annually. This works out slightly more per customer than Virgin Media, as Tiscali has 50,000 customers, while Virgin Media has 3.4 million.

Additionally, Sky has agreed new carriage deals for its basic channels with regional cable operators Newtel, Smallworld and Wightcable. Outside of the Virgin Media network, the operators cover Jersey, the Borders and the Isle of Wight.

Mike Darcey, chief operating Officer, Sky, said: “Sky has always sought to achieve wide distribution for its channels and we’re pleased to extend our relationships with three valued and long-standing partners. All three have recognised the increasing value of Sky’s basic channels and we welcome their decision to invest in bringing their customers the TV they enjoy.�

Info from Digital SPY.

Originally Posted by TV Boy (Post 34344488)

Details of the deal made between Sky and Tiscali TV have been revealed, showing that Tiscali were happy to pay what Virgin Media wasn't for the carriage of Sky's basic channels on the IPTV platform.

Earlier this week, Sky filed its defence at the High Court as part of its legal battle with Virgin Media, after Virgin refused to pay the amount Sky wanted for carrying its basic channels, disputing the cost as "anti-competitive." Sky One, Two, Three, News and Sports have not been shown on the Virgin Media cable platform since the end of February.

The Tiscali deal was agreed on June 27 at a price reported to be "broadly similar" to the offer Sky made to Virgin Media on May 10.

Reports suggest IPTV provider Tiscali paid 81.5p per subscriber, equivalent to £335.7 million annually. This works out slightly more per customer than Virgin Media, as Tiscali has 50,000 customers, while Virgin Media has 3.4 million.

Additionally, Sky has agreed new carriage deals for its basic channels with regional cable operators Newtel, Smallworld and Wightcable. Outside of the Virgin Media network, the operators cover Jersey, the Borders and the Isle of Wight.

Mike Darcey, chief operating Officer, Sky, said: “Sky has always sought to achieve wide distribution for its channels and we’re pleased to extend our relationships with three valued and long-standing partners. All three have recognised the increasing value of Sky’s basic channels and we welcome their decision to invest in bringing their customers the TV they enjoy.�

Info from Digital SPY.

Originally Posted by Incomplete (Post 34344530)

You can't really see how they could claim it to be anti-competitive when all the other regional cablecos as well as Tiscali all paid up.

The whole anti-competitive thing falls on its' face a bit when the rest of the market accepts the pricing. The blatant dissing of the Sky channels along with comments on it being a commercial decision does make me struggle to see how VM expect to win this, however I wonder if they ever expected to win it or if it was just another part of their ongoing PR scrap with Sky.

Originally Posted by Toto (Post 34344566)

You also have to understand that VM is a competitor to Sky TV, Tiscalli isn't.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 34344499)

This will have interesting ramifications for VM's assertion that Sky's stance was anti-competitive.

Originally Posted by Toto (Post 34344621)

I wasn't aware that Tiscalli were rolling out IPTV, but I would hope that they could sort out their ADSL service first though. :)

Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 34344725)

Newtel = 12,000 business, government and residential customers. link
Smallworld (as was WightCable North) = Currently serve about 40,000 homes in Carlisle, Lancaster, Morecombe, Irvine, Troon and Kilmarnock link
WightCable = 5000 customers link (only thing I could find with numbers)
VN = over 3,300,000 customers.

I wonder if the other companies have the same "minimum payment" clause that was proposed to VM?

Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 34344725)

Newtel = 12,000 business, government and residential customers. link
Smallworld (as was WightCable North) = Currently serve about 40,000 homes in Carlisle, Lancaster, Morecombe, Irvine, Troon and Kilmarnock link
WightCable = 5000 customers link (only thing I could find with numbers)
VN = over 3,300,000 customers.

I wonder if the other companies have the same "minimum payment" clause that was proposed to VM?

Originally Posted by Incomplete (Post 34344606)

Doubt it. Out and out lying when evidence is in black and white is very stupid. Considering how VM have made sure this stayed in the press as much as possible if what was in the press was inaccurate I'm fairly sure the VM PR department would have made sure we knew.

Originally Posted by grabbi (Post 34345861)

VM was told to pay £260.6m (3p per customer) for the channels and that includes the VoD content and HD content also.

If Tiscalli paid £335.7m, you have to wonder what extra perks Tiscalli are getting...

Either that or Sky werent willing to budge.

I believe, personally, that there wont be any minimum payment clauses for these companies, as they only pose a minor threat to Sky's dominance. Plus, on the PR side of it, it looks good for Sky.

At the end of it all, just because one or two people in the Higher-Ups of VM think Skys Basics are crap, doesnt mean that everyone will think so, even if I do agree with them.

They havent utilised the opportunity to brand their own channels, therefore failed in that text, and the latest offer given to VM (must have been sometime ago now) was satisfactory especially with the HD content and so on.

I believe there is something amiss here. We know about the Minimum price thing, but I think there could be more that is keeping VM from signing this deal.

I wonder if the Carlysle Group would just stump up the cash. or if their lawyers would see why VM wouldnt stump up.