Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

What has that got to do with Sky denying cable customers access to this channel. As a cable customer who has had this happen twice I feel disinclined to make excuses for them. Sky could have sold this channel to us and made a nice profit but that would have stood in the way of their drive to be a monopoly. Something that is against all of our interests.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

I was merely responding to the post regarding a content owner also owing a platform. I hope that is ok?

How do you feel about UKTV (apparently) denying VM customers access to their HD channels that are 50% owned by VM? Big assumption on my part there. It could be all manner of reasons they choose to provide them exclusively to Sky HD customers.

And do any of us know as fact that Sky are actually denying access to Atlantic?, wouldn't it come under the umbrella of a basic channel that VM announced themselves they have access to, at the wholesale price?. It would appear it could be being withheld but what do we know. It could be down to cost, it could be all manner of reasons. I do not really know.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

So now it's a different tack to make sky's actions seem OK. :)

I don't know why UKTV haven't brought those HD channels to cable but I'm assuming it's not a competition issue. ;)

I do know that people can view them in SD and perhaps it is something to do with them not having a majority holding. As it is not a competition issue it's off-topic anyway. Perhaps you ought to start an other thread about it?

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

I'm not justifying anyone's actions. If I felt that strongly about it I would change provider but I won't, not for that reason anyway.

The simple answer is I don't know why certain basic channels are only available on certain platforms. And I doubt anyone on here knows (as fact) either. It does seem that Sky don't want to offer SSP3 & 4 in HD though as for one they are not regulated to do so, and of course don't class as a basic channel of which VM have said they do have access to under the terms of the VMtv sale.

Maybe VM don't see that the UKTV HD channels or Atlantic offer the best value for their customers or that they fit their own pricing structure, maybe they are being withheld for Sky customers. Maybe they simply don't want to offer them. I genuinely don't know.

Do you?

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

I don't Mersey70. As Sky have stated an intention to keep Sky Atlantic as an exclusive I don't think VM have got as far as deciding if it is worth paying for. I think VM have every channel that registers anything above a very small amount of viewers though. So I have no reason to think that they would not take up an option for this channel also. They have to have all the major channels to keep customers.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

I don't think Sky have said anywhere they a 'keeping' Atlantic as an exclusive, they have said that at launch it will only be available to their own customers which (I assume) could be for all manner of reasons. If you know otherwise please tell us where you got that confirmed as it would be of great interest, certainly to me. Wasnt it previously reported on here by a usually reliable source that VM were indeed in some sort of negotiations about Atlantic (at least for the SD channel) but that no agreement was made. I don't know if that is true but if it is being 'kept' why would they even negotiate? Again, I am assuming there.

I also have not heard VM say that they are not allowed to broadcast Atlantic, I again assume you have seen their press release that I refer to regarding the availability of basic HD channels? If you have read VM confirm they are not allowed to provide Atlantic then again that would be very interesting to read.

'Think' is the pertinent word you use in your post, we can all think what we like, that's what these open forums are all about.

It dosen't make it fact though, but you may well be right. I honestly don't know.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

Well they were advertising the channel as exclusive weeks before it was due to come on air. I'm sure there is even more concrete evidence than that. Like them actually stating their intention to keep it exclusive to "reduce churn". I will try and find a link and get back to you.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

I should imagine they'd (Sky) want it exclusive for a while at least.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

I would probably err on the side of that too, but I honestly don't really know.

What I don't understand is that press release VM made themselves. Maybe you can answer this DF.

Have VM actually got access to ALL Sky's basic HD channels like they said, for an incremental fee. Or haven't they?

---------- Post added at 18:11 ---------- Previous post was at 18:10 ----------

You may well be right but see my question to DF as that's what confuses me.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

As far as I know, VM have access to all Sky's basic channels. Now whether that was just at the time of the deal, I don't know.

The press release seemed to mean all Sky basic channels. Access to and VM wanting to pay the asking price are two different things though! The price may be unrealistic ? :)

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

Exactly.

It would appear from that Press Release that Atlantic isn't being withheld. Unless the press release was just hot air, which I doubt. Let's be clear, around the sae time they actually announced Sky Arts HD was launching, ago, it still hasn't.

That is my point. If VM's 'free HD' pricing structure isn't compatible with offering these types of channels it isn't Sky's fault. What's the point of negotiating access to them if you can't afford to? I like the pricing structure but I am well aware of it shortcomings though. For me it's great but I don't want Atlantic.

Their own customers are expected to pay extra for it, in HD at least.

I think it is simply too expensive, we are not talking about some mickey mouse channel here but again I am assuming.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

This is what the press release say's:

http://pressoffice.virginmedia.com/p...556&highlight=

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

Back to my post saying I would look for links all I can find is many stories from January 5th with Sky saying it is exclusive. This four weeks before it launches with no talk of negotiations with other platforms like VM or BT. I think it was posters on DS saying it was to reduce churn.

I don't understand it the question in your last post. Was that press release before or after Sky Atlantic was announced? I think it was before wasn't it?

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

press release is from 4th June 2010

I wonder if Sky are classing it as Premium? But giving it for "free" to their own customers?

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

That's contrary to VM's press release and DF's comments. It all depends how you read the Press Release but I couldn't possibly imagine VM would negotiate purely on the portfoio of channels available at the time when securing a carriage deal, I would imagine some sort of option for future channels would be included. Or maybe they did, again who knows. I think Sky News HD was around when the deal was done but i'm happy to be correcetd on that.

Do you actually have a BSkyB press release confirming it, not press reports.

Again you may well be right, I don't know.



---------- Post added at 18:41 ---------- Previous post was at 18:41 ----------

Maybe, we will find out when it joins the Variety Pack in the summer.

There is nothing in BSkyB's press releases to suggest that though. A few HD channels are 'bonus' channels on Sky including ITV's.