| RichardCoulter |
10-08-2013 14:20 |
Re: Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2013) Vol. 4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad
(Post 35608022)
Probably not. SKY 1 has been called SKY 1 since 1989, a good 7 years before SKY launched SKY 2.
|
It was initially called 'Sky Channel'. Not sure when it changed to Sky 1, but it was definately by 1991.
I have often thought that Sky must have intended on naming their channels numerically, but the takeover of BSB and their thematically named channels changed their way of thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocav
(Post 35608035)
...Apparently next year, everyone will have too pay and it won't be with BT Broadband. Currently only 23,000 people think it's worth paying for, if I was a shareholder, I wouldn't be happy.
|
I am and I aren't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry_hitch
(Post 35608051)
It would depend if the shareholders were more interested in the BB take-up, if so, they would probably be somewhat happier. Equally the shareholders must surely be aware that if you offer struggling families something for "free" or a monthly cost of £12/£15 a month, the majority of people will take the "free" option.
I would also think that die-hard football and rugby fans will pay for it next year, as they did with ESPN.
If I were a share holder though, I would be happy to take small amount of money from VM's reasonably large customer base, rather than a larger amount of nothing from none of VM's customer base. :)
|
Absolutely.
It isn't just the financial side either. I personally aren't bothered about watching BT Sport, but many people are.
I know many lads/men that aren't just into football or class themselves as fans. They live and breathe it, it's their life and it's as if they need football to survive. |
