Originally Posted by theone2k10 (Post 35666394)

Barking mad it is.

Originally Posted by theone2k10 (Post 35666394)

Barking mad it is.

Originally Posted by solitaire (Post 35666413)

It would be a "Ruff" deal if we got that channel ;)

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 35666434)

I think some of my chums will watch this......:D

Originally Posted by Tricky Trevor (Post 35666452)

It's been available on the Roku streamer for some time now

http://www.roku.com/channels/#!detai.../dogtv-channel

---------- Post added at 17:10 ---------- Previous post was at 17:09 ----------




So will a PAL of mine :D

Originally Posted by Tricky Trevor (Post 35666452)

It's been available on the Roku streamer for some time now

http://www.roku.com/channels/#!detai.../dogtv-channel

---------- Post added at 17:10 ---------- Previous post was at 17:09 ----------




So will a PAL of mine :D

Originally Posted by kop32 (Post 35666530)

Slow news day eh fella's!!!:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 35666392)

An Dog insider has told me that an broadcaster runs an dog channel in Israel and the USA.

USA: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle...in-the-US.html

Israel: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21719731

Originally Posted by Risco (Post 35666528)

Any chance of F1HD and Sky Sports News HD? :erm:

Originally Posted by theone2k10 (Post 35666544)

Sky sports newshd is supposed to be coming before April along with SkynewsHD according to my source. But i make no promises.

Originally Posted by vincerooney (Post 35666533)

Has been a while. Saddens me

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35666944)

Should really fit into a "Not coming soon" thread and don't want to come across as a troll but it looks like the new ITV Encore channel will be strictly Sky-only like Sky Atlantic currently is. Maybe Liberty Global can bid for the channel in four years' time and make it cable-only?
"ITV plc today announced that it would be launching ITV Encore this year, a new pay channel dedicated to the very best of the broadcaster's great British drama.

ITV Encore, which will be available on Sky's platforms, will be ITV's first brand new channel launch in eight years and forms part of a wider four year partnership with Sky - ITV's biggest ever with a platform operator.

The new channel will be home to some of ITV's most successful drama series of recent years. From 2015, it will also screen original commissions with the ITV hallmark of high quality production values, big name lead actors and compelling narratives penned by some of the UK's best writers."
http://www.itvplc.com/investors/anno...nch-itv-encore

Originally Posted by Adam Crozier (ITV ECO) (Post 35666944)

A key part of our strategy is to become the most watched, most loved and most talked about family of free and pay channels for every household and every advertiser in the UK.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35666951)

Well lets not come to kneejerk reactions as for all we know a deal between LG and ITV might be announced soon for carriage of this new channel.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35666951)

Well lets not come to kneejerk reactions as for all we know a deal between LG and ITV might be announced soon for carriage of this new channel.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35666975)

"Jeremy Darroch, Sky Chief Executive, said: “Our customers love great drama and so we are delighted to bring them exclusive access to a new channel from one of the best loved brands in TV."
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2014/...ay-tv-channel/
Of course, the channel may not be exclusive for ever.

Originally Posted by vincerooney (Post 35666962)

Sky really are the nastiest company ever with how they withhold channels. How the government allows sky to do this is incredible- i know the answer though...money.

In a way i want bt sports just to kick them right where it hurts and give them a taste of their own medicine and withdraw bt sports from the sky platform. Seeing murdoch on tv crying about how unfair it is would be priceless. But BT sport being the dominant football provider would mean...more michael owen. So perhaps i'm being too rash

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 35666977)

Maybe the Sky CE was talking about Satellite - like only on Sky but not on Freesat.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35666944)

Should really fit into a "Not coming soon" thread and don't want to come across as a troll but it looks like the new ITV Encore channel will be strictly Sky-only like Sky Atlantic currently is. Maybe Liberty Global can bid for the channel in four years' time and make it cable-only?
"ITV plc today announced that it would be launching ITV Encore this year, a new pay channel dedicated to the very best of the broadcaster's great British drama.

ITV Encore, which will be available on Sky's platforms, will be ITV's first brand new channel launch in eight years and forms part of a wider four year partnership with Sky - ITV's biggest ever with a platform operator.

The new channel will be home to some of ITV's most successful drama series of recent years. From 2015, it will also screen original commissions with the ITV hallmark of high quality production values, big name lead actors and compelling narratives penned by some of the UK's best writers."
http://www.itvplc.com/investors/anno...nch-itv-encore

Originally Posted by vincerooney (Post 35666962)

Sky really are the nastiest company ever with how they withhold channels. How the government allows sky to do this is incredible- i know the answer though...money.

In a way i want bt sports just to kick them right where it hurts and give them a taste of their own medicine and withdraw bt sports from the sky platform. Seeing murdoch on tv crying about how unfair it is would be priceless. But BT sport being the dominant football provider would mean...more michael owen. So perhaps i'm being too rash

Originally Posted by theone2k10 (Post 35666984)

If itvs recent quality is anything to go by then it's no big loss.

Originally Posted by ocav (Post 35666955)

Seen as Sky are the ones pushing the launch and are probably funding it I feel that it's going to be exclusive.

If it was being launched by just ITV I don't think Sky would make a song and dance about it on their site. This could possibly be a change in plan instead of Sky launching Sky Bravo on their own back.

Originally Posted by theone2k10 (Post 35666984)

If itvs recent quality is anything to go by then it's no big loss.

---------- Post added at 12:03 ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 ----------



Virgin had their own channels and sold them. Sky have treated Living shows like Supernatural, nikita etc like crap quite frankly. VM only have themselves to blame.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35666982)

No, it was a press release so would be written and rewritten several times to ensure there's no misinterpretation. But I too can see this channel being on VM once Sky's initial period is over.

Originally Posted by theone2k10 (Post 35666984)

If itvs recent quality is anything to go by then it's no big loss.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35666989)

In your opinion that is , ITV won channel of the year at the Edinburgh Television festival so clearly not everyone agrees with you.;)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35666990)

I don't think that this deal replaces Sky's plans for their new Bravo channel, which is aimed at a different audience.

Perhaps Sky intends to use ITV Encore as their unique selling point to replace Sky Atlantic, which will be a cheaper option than continuing to fund SA from Sky satellite subscribers alone. This will make availability of SA to VM more acceptable to investors. I wondered how they were going to accomplish that.

Thursday's announcement will be very interesting indeed, possibly!

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35666989)

In your opinion that is , ITV won channel of the year at the Edinburgh Television festival so clearly not everyone agrees with you.;)

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35666996)

dream on OB mate

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35666994)

Can't agree with you on that one, theone! Their drama output has improved latterly, and there's more on ITV than on Sky Atlantic that is worth seeing.

Originally Posted by theone2k10 (Post 35666984)

If itvs recent quality is anything to go by then it's no big loss.

---------- Post added at 12:03 ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 ----------



Virgin had their own channels and sold them. Sky have treated Living shows like Supernatural, nikita etc like crap quite frankly. VM only have themselves to blame.

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 35666995)

Do Sky still own 7.5% of ITV?

Originally Posted by theone2k10 (Post 35666984)

[/COLOR]

Virgin had their own channels and sold them. Sky have treated Living shows like Supernatural, nikita etc like crap quite frankly. VM only have themselves to blame.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35666982)

No, it was a press release so would be written and rewritten several times to ensure there's no misinterpretation. But I too can see this channel being on VM once Sky's initial period is over.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35667002)

But Virgin got a good deal from that sale. I think we would be in a worse position now had they not taken that route.

It was simple maths really. VM did not have a lot of money to play with at the time, and it was obvious that the battle for content was just putting prices up. VM were not in a position to participate in these price wars.

Now bigger players are coming into the picture, I think things will start to change for the better over the coming few years.

Originally Posted by theone2k10 (Post 35667004)

Discovery 3d to launch on VM? First i've heard about this it's come from a unreliable source but could happen i guess.

Originally Posted by harry_hitch (Post 35667015)

For what it's worth, I think this ITV channel will be a Sky exclusive for some years.

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 35667006)

Discovery 3D is not broadcasting on Sky so maybe Discovery 3D will launch as an Virgin Media only channel or Virgin on Demand.

But Virgin can be found in the same 'Family Tree' as Discovery.

Here is that 'Family Tree':

1) Virgin Media is own by Liberty Global.
2) Who Chairman is John C. Malone.
3) Who is also CEO & Chairman of Discovery Holding Company (Discovery Communications).
4) Discovery Communications own Divisions over the world - Discovery Networks International own Discovery Channels in the UK and Ireland.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35667018)

Yes, I think it will be, for the duration of the contract.

However, I don't see why ITV could not launch a channel for Virgin Media under a different name, and just broadcast the same or similar programmes at different times. After all, the exclusivity deal is for the channel, not individual programmes, isn't it?

If that is not possible, why could VM not ask Channel 4 for a similar exclusive channel for them? I'm sure that VM could do more to play Sky at its own game, but maybe they don't like to play as dirty as Sky do.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35667018)

Yes, I think it will be, for the duration of the contract.

However, I don't see why ITV could not launch a channel for Virgin Media under a different name, and just broadcast the same or similar programmes at different times. After all, the exclusivity deal is for the channel, not individual programmes, isn't it?

If that is not possible, why could VM not ask Channel 4 for a similar exclusive channel for them? I'm sure that VM could do more to play Sky at its own game, but maybe they don't like to play as dirty as Sky do.

Originally Posted by nodrogd (Post 35667024)

At the end of the day it boils down to money. Sky doesn't have a huge network to maintain, & doesn't service it's customers equipment, so has more in the pot for making exclusive channel deals. Sky is available to 98% of the population as opposed to VM's 50%, so advertising revenues attracted by a Sky slot would be far higher than with VM.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35667026)

Yes, that's true - Sky's 10m customers compared with Virgin's 3.8m. However, VM could join with others (eg BT) to increase the number of viewers and the money to pay for it.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35667030)

BT has fewer than 1m TV customers so that still would not give much clout. Sky's the number one TV platform at the moment and so is able to do deals like this. In the future, as Liberty Global's footprint grows, it should be able to cut similar multi-country deals.

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 35667006)

Discovery 3D is not broadcasting on Sky so maybe Discovery 3D will launch as an Virgin Media only channel or Virgin on Demand.

But Virgin can be found in the same 'Family Tree' as Discovery.

Here is that 'Family Tree':

1) Virgin Media is own by Liberty Global.
2) Who Chairman is John C. Malone.
3) Who is also CEO & Chairman of Discovery Holding Company (Discovery Communications).
4) Discovery Communications own Divisions over the world - Discovery Networks International own Discovery Channels in the UK and Ireland.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35667033)

I think some of that information is out of date but it doesn't invalidate your argument. Malone is just a Discovery director these days but he still holds a 30% voting stake. The holding company roles ceased in 2008 when the company was floated off from Liberty. Malone's Liberty Media and Liberty Global commitments are enough at the moment!
http://corporate.discovery.com/leadership/john-malone/
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...million-604849

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 35667040)

My information for my early post was base on Wikipedia.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35667063)

Which can be very good especially for controversial matters that companies may not want to mention. In terms of who's who at a company, the company's own website tends to be most up to date. If you see the Wikipedia section below, you will see it puts confirms the Discovery holding company which John Malone used to have those roles at no longer exists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Holding_Company

Originally Posted by devilincarnate (Post 35667072)

renewal of the carriage deal for ITV 2, 3 and 4 HD and ITV catch up and archive VOD on the Sky+ HD platform, including an extended range of high quality TV box sets*

When did VM get ITV2,3,4 HD ? As it says from 2015 for the new channel. But this part is interesting?

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35667032)

The new channel will be available via NOW TV too.

Originally Posted by bamav (Post 35667087)

Does anyone know if there is a limit to the number of exclusive channels Sky can have? Just wondering if the new ITV channel might supercede Atlantic, freeing that up to other providers? I would imagine there must be some parameters around this, otherwise Sky could just keep negotiating exclusives to dominate the market.

Originally Posted by JustaBloke (Post 35667093)

No limit. It's a free market. Sky will try to negotiate exclusives, as will their competitors.

Originally Posted by bamav (Post 35667087)

Does anyone know if there is a limit to the number of exclusive channels Sky can have? Just wondering if the new ITV channel might supercede Atlantic, freeing that up to other providers? I would imagine there must be some parameters around this, otherwise Sky could just keep negotiating exclusives to dominate the market.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35667098)

Nope this is no limit at all and hypothetically sky could have 30 exclusive channels and nowt could be done unless Ofcom intervene and as well as we all know they bark but have no bite l am afraid.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35667098)

Nope this is no limit at all and hypothetically sky could have 30 exclusive channels and nowt could be done unless Ofcom intervene and as well as we all know they bark but have no bite l am afraid.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35667119)

Here we go again !!!!!!

Why should OFCOM have to do anything ?

It seems just about any company can have exclusive deals the exception being Sky according to some on here , how on earth people come to the conclusion Sky are withholding this channel when the channel actually belongs to ITV.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35667119)

Here we go again !!!!!!

Why should OFCOM have to do anything ?

It seems just about any company can have exclusive deals the exception being Sky according to some on here , how on earth people come to the conclusion Sky are withholding this channel when the channel actually belongs to ITV , nobody forced them to take Sky's money.:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35667119)

Here we go again !!!!!!

Why should OFCOM have to do anything ?

It seems just about any company can have exclusive deals the exception being Sky according to some on here , how on earth people come to the conclusion Sky are withholding this channel when the channel actually belongs to ITV , nobody forced them to take Sky's money.:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by JustaBloke (Post 35667130)

Indeed. I am fascinated by the psychology behind this. People seem to align themselves behind one supplier and see another as the enemy (the dark side is often quoted here). It's like they pick a football team and support it for life.

But Sky people do it, BT people do it, even FreeView/Sat people do it too.

I wonder why? :confused:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35667134)

Its not about aligning behind any one supplier but just stating the cold hard facts of how Sky continually use nefarious tactics in the market and if some people can't see that they obviously have very large rose tinted glasses on.:)

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35667127)

Oh dear the defender of the faith strikes again part 505 ;):D because as we all know Sky have a considerable amount of finances at its disposal and as such is able to wield that power in making exclusive deals with certain companies and thus this is not at the benefit of most customers but its own monopolistic position in the market and thus it abuses and distorts for its own ends again and again and again.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35667134)

Its not about aligning behind any one supplier but just stating the cold hard facts of how Sky continually use nefarious tactics in the market and if some people can't see that they obviously have very large rose tinted glasses on.:)

Originally Posted by harry_hitch (Post 35667151)

I have to say that Sky are not doing much wrong in this case. They have spent their money on (imo overrated) exclusive SA content, and are also helping themselves, along with ITV to improve ratings by enticing customers with this latest deal. Like VM, (or anyone else) they want customers to join them or stay with them. Why should Sky pump money into a channel(s) just to offer it to VM (or anyone else) who have not paid a penny for the start-up costs? It could be argued that selling it VM (or anyone else) will re-coup some costs, but if Sky can afford to take the hit, why not please their loyal customers and try and gain more custom?

If VM complete an exclusive deal with an American company and C4 or C5, would that be equally as wrong?

I do disagree with the way Sky operate overall though. The costs of SS and movies for VM customers are ridiculous. I know the same argument about expenditure can be used, but Sky are clearly ripping non-Sky subscribers off. Whilst people are daft enough to keep paying Sky for them though, Sky will keep charging it.

---------- Post added at 19:19 ---------- Previous post was at 19:17 ----------



No rose tinted glasses here Den, I disliked my time with Sky.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35667134)

Its not about aligning behind any one supplier but just stating the cold hard facts of how Sky continually use nefarious tactics in the market and if some people can't see that they obviously have very large rose tinted glasses on.:)

Originally Posted by MaverickJesus (Post 35667184)

There is nothing nefarious about platform exclusivity - everyone does it, including Virgin Media. Get a grip and stop with the ridiculous hyperbole every other post.

Originally Posted by MaverickJesus (Post 35667184)

There is nothing nefarious about platform exclusivity - everyone does it, including Virgin Media. Get a grip and stop with the ridiculous hyperbole every other post.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35667209)

So basically you are saying that Sky don't use insidious and underhand tactics when all the evidence of the last 10 years would suggest otherwise but alas as always the mere suggestion when someone mentions it gets the usual quick denials and lack of acceptance of the real truth of how Sky abuse their monopolistic position.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35667209)

So basically you are saying that Sky don't use insidious and underhand tactics when all the evidence of the last 10 years would suggest otherwise but alas as always the mere suggestion when someone mentions it gets the usual quick denials and lack of acceptance of the real truth of how Sky abuse their monopolistic position.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35667209)

So basically you are saying that Sky don't use insidious and underhand tactics when all the evidence of the last 10 years would suggest otherwise but alas as always the mere suggestion when someone mentions it gets the usual quick denials and lack of acceptance of the real truth of how Sky abuse their monopolistic position.

Originally Posted by ocav (Post 35667283)

SORRY TO BREAK SOME BAD NEWS

SKY have just extended their exclusive Sky Atlantic deal with HBO through to 2020 and will be making 'exclusive shows' with them. VM don't stand a chance now.

SOURCE: http://www.sky.com/tv/channel/skyatl...article/hbo???

Originally Posted by vincerooney (Post 35667284)

Sky have been panicking big time signing long term contracts! I don't know whether this means less or more chance of VM getting Atlantic. If sky are paying more in this deal then they may want to cash in and sell the channel to VM. If they're being vindictive and defensive then yeah probably won't sell.

Originally Posted by ocav (Post 35667283)

SORRY TO BREAK SOME BAD NEWS

SKY have just extended their exclusive Sky Atlantic deal with HBO through to 2020 and will be making 'exclusive shows' with them. VM don't stand a chance now.

SOURCE: http://www.sky.com/tv/channel/skyatl...article/hbo???

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35667292)

Sky Atlantic is the best advert for illegal downloads the UK has ever seen. I can't believe the number of my friends and acquaintances who have seen Game of Thrones, despite not having Sky or a large DVD collection.

I don't understand Sky's strategy here. The evidence surely shows that exclusive offerings like this simply don't pull in the punters. The movement of telly addicts to Sky back when their Basics package vanished from VM for a period of months was negligible; Sky was forced back to the negotiating table due to viewing figures that had been slashed and angry advertisers who pointed out that they weren't going to keep paying the same amount to reach only two thirds of the viewers.

It looks to me as if they are simply locked into a mindset now and don't know what else to do.

---------- Post added at 08:53 ---------- Previous post was at 08:49 ----------



This is not necessarily bad news for VM customers. The deal relates to exclusive carriage of HBO shows on Sky Atlantic, not exclusive access to Sky Atlantic by Sky subscribers only.

If Sky does see the light and realise it has nothing to gain from channel exclusivity, there is nothing in this deal with HBO that I can see that would prevent Sky making the channel available on cable before 2020.

Originally Posted by ocav (Post 35667311)

Sky came back to VM because Sky purchased the VM Channels and the return of Sky Basics was part of that deal, not that Sky came back to the table.

Originally Posted by JustaBloke (Post 35667316)

I've just been shopping in ASDA. They wouldn't accept my Tesco Clubcard. They said Tesco say they can't accept it. How nasty can Tesco be? And I couldn't buy Sainsburys bacon there either! Vindictive, I call it...

Originally Posted by Gunslinger (Post 35667322)

Not a true analogy.

If you had said 'I went to Asda to buy some Weetabix but they wouldn't sell me any because Tesco have an exclusive deal.....'

Competition is supposed to work in the interest of consumers. In the case of TV content, it just forces up costs and/or forces customers into binary choices.

Originally Posted by Gunslinger (Post 35667322)

Not a true analogy.

If you had said 'I went to Asda to buy some Weetabix but they wouldn't sell me any because Tesco have an exclusive deal.....'

Competition is supposed to work in the interest of consumers. In the case of TV content, it just forces up costs and/or forces customers into binary choices.

Originally Posted by theone2k10 (Post 35667328)

Not coming soon but a bit of good news for WWE fans - Sky sports have agreed and signed a 5 year deal from 2015 with WWE, to show all 12 ppvs and raw, smackdown and main event.

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35667333)

no real surprise there

Originally Posted by JustaBloke (Post 35667325)

Hands up. You're quite right, it's not a true analogy. However Weetabix (for example) will often provide a 50% extra free pack exclusively to ASDA or one of the others. ASDA (or McDonalds, or anyone) will also seek to sign exclusive deals with suppliers such as farmers wherever they can so as to exclude their competitors. It's the way of the world.

I sound like I'm a Sky fan. I'm not, I just have no reason to hate them. I want SA on VM as much as anyone. But I can understand why it's not, and it's nothing to do with nastiness and everything to do with sound business practice.