Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

Mostly press reports, no press release, but they are quoting Sky management. One quote :-

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

I read TechRadar every day but the adverts say all of that anyway.

Where does it say that BSkyB are actually witholding it from other platfoms?

It dosen't, if you can find something from Sky that does I would genuinely be interested as it would then prove than VM's press statement must hold certain caveats, perhaps the agreement was only for the portfolio of channels when the deal was done.

I fear you will be looking for a needle in a haystack though, I have looked with a keen eye and can't find anything.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

What does exclusively for sky customers and all the Sky adverts saying the same mean then? Everybody has been reading that as meaning you have to be a Sky customer to view the channel. Try as I might I can see no other way of interpreting it.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

Groundhog day here now but it could mean anything, it obviously means it will only be on Sky but it dosen't say why.

Maybe other platforms simply cannot afford to offer it. DF's comments were interesting on that point.

I have nothing further to add, if you indeed find evidence it is being withheld I am really interested to know as it will clear up all sorts of misunderstandings about THAT press release.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

I would imagine Sky are making it hard for Virgin to carry the channel by asking to much.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

I really don't know where you are going with this Mersey. If you believe that Sky are not deliberately keeping the channel as an exclusive then you are the only one I have seen in any forum who thinks that. In fact you might be the only one in the country. :)
If they are negotiating then Stuart Murphy shouldn't be announcing it as an exclusive weeks before the channel starts broadcasting. The adverts wouldn't be saying exclusive. Also Sky would be saying what they said during the Sky basics dispute "we are still negotiating". Even on twitter Sky are telling cable customers it's not going to launch on VM.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

---------- Post added at 19:25 ---------- Previous post was at 19:21 ----------

I know it isn't going to launch on cable, but I don't know, and you don't know, why.

You have failled to provide proof it is being withheld simply because there is none.

That really is my last comment until you prove otherwise, 100 house points if you can.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

Mersey is right Sky can keep whatever they want as exclusive however most people know Sky use there Market position to stomp on everyone else.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

skys track record on the issue is proof enought why aint sky sports 3+4HD allowed on VM it because it being withheld from sky same as atlantic look at skys track record at doing this that should be more than proof enough sky only want a monopoly

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

Because SSP 3 & 4 HD are premium channels and were not part of OFCOMS consultation.

VM stated that they have access to ALL Sky's basic HD channels.

That's what is confusing, did it mean only existing channels or included an option to future launches.

I genuinely do not know. even DF didn't.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

Agree they are premium channels however Sky definately withheld them or made them too expensive for a reason hence all the advertising watch all the sky sports channels in HD only on Sky.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

i think sky are setting price too high so they know they dont have to give the channels and trying to get people to move to sky as they want a monolopy just IMO hope im wrong and some deals can be done would love to be able to have the channels

PS if goverment let murdoch have full control of sky it only gonna get worse

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

That is roughly my train of thought.

Let's be clear though, setting the price too high and withholding them are two completely different situations.

I can see no evidence whatsoever that Sky are actually withholding any of their basic channels and I base this on VM's own press release. If they don't fit in with VM's 'free HD' pricing structure then that again is a different matter altogether.

Maybe it's time for OFCOM to look at the pricing of the basic channels, maybe it's time for VM to reconsider their pricing structure. Maybe the deal is for the existing channels only.

I simply don't know.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

According to The Independent last week: