Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35461369)

Originally Posted by BenMcr (Post 35461354)

Except, there is nothing stopping Sky investing in their own fibre network to give customers 100Mbit broadband.

However sports rights are a single shot thing. It's impossible for Sky's rivals to offer the same service at the same time as Sky - so they have to buy Sky's channels.

Originally Posted by Telly_ (Post 35461345)

Well when in areas consumers can get Sky and VM the difference in TV channels is minimal, VM get ALL Skys sports channels just not ALL HD.

But in the same areas Sky customers maybe limited to 3Mb BB where as Virginmedia customers may be getting 100Mb, How is that fair?

Virgin should be forced to open the network that passes more than 50% of UK households.

Originally Posted by Telly_ (Post 35461372)

Their is nothing stopping VM investing in Sports/Movie rights like BT. When the rights come up for Auction its an open market. You cant ignore the auction then cry when you didn't get anything. VM invested in TiVo exclusivley, why not EPL?

The same arguments are wearing thinner and thinner.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35461380)

I would have thought that VM just don't have the money to invest in purchasing the rights to show the sports direct at auction when up against the might of Murdochs deeper pockets due to having a larger share of the media market by dint of being first onto the scene..
They simply get outbid so maybe they just can't be bothered and so seek other products to sell to existing and future customers which they can cover cost ways..:shrug:

Originally Posted by Telly_ (Post 35461384)

I'm sure you're intelligent enough to understand Murdoch does not own Sky, and Sky are right now as we speak buying back £500 million in shares mostly from Murdoch.

So soon he won't be a factor,

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35461386)

No his organisation part owned it..and he had a huge influence over it.However that wasn't the point I was making.;)

Originally Posted by Telly_ (Post 35461387)

Yeah but lets not look into some of the owners of VM debt hey,;)

Originally Posted by BenMcr (Post 35461392)

News Corp own 39% of BSkyB

Virgin's largest single investor owns 14%

Originally Posted by Telly_ (Post 35461384)

I'm sure you're intelligent enough to understand Murdoch does not own Sky, and Sky are right now as we speak buying back £500 million in shares mostly from Murdoch.

So soon he won't be a factor,

Originally Posted by andy_m (Post 35461224)

Somewhat surprised that the take up of Sky Sports is so low across the Virgin customer base. Somewhere between 10 and 12%. That can't just be because of price-the difference really isn't that great. I find it slightly surprising that ofcom think Sky's negotiations with several other companies have failed because of the other companies and not the common denominator-common sense tells you thats unlikely-but perhaps the reason why companies like Virgin haven't engaged fully, if that really is the case, is that there's no real incentive for them to do so because there really isn't the clamour for these channels that some would have you believe.

Originally Posted by richard1960 (Post 35461433)

Would think myself that sky sports uptake on VM will be even lower in future now the sky sports collection is £25.75! they have lost me for a start.:(

£4 a month dearer then sky i think and more expensive certainly then smallworld cable sell sky sports for.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35461436)

For £25.75 a month come October one would hope we get the missing Sky Sports HD channels which we currently have not got.