Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

Simple question at first I thought no but I'm having my doubts now , it's obvious Sky wanted Living but what have we seen in return , I believe the sports and movies in HD would of arrived and the basic HD channels at some point anyway.

re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

In my opinion it would have been much better to keep the channels. On what basis do you say the HD channels would have arrived anyway though? Do you think Sky would have handed them over without being forced? If so why are Sky withholding Sky Atlantic HD and SD? In my opinion the channels would never have arrived on cable so if you want them that is a definite positive to the sale of VM's channels. I'm not bothered about them so so the sale is all negative as far as I am concerned.

re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

Don't care about sky channels, there mostly garbage, I prefer BBC and itv etc so I think it was a good idea so they can invest in the broadband network

re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

IMO, no.

I didn't watch any of the VM channels anyway. Loads of cable companies Stateside and in Europe don't own content and do just fine, mainly because they have millions of customers which the content owner wouldn't mind selling content to via wholesale.

How long were people asking for Sky HD content? Without the deal, we would most likely still be asking for them for god knows how long.

In a parallel universe, this thread asks:

re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

IMO best thing Virgin did.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

It's not so much the channels, but the content.

I don't think Virgin customers will ever get to see the series of Lost that Sky denied them during the Sky/Vm spat.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

i still believe that a company that owns channels should not be allowed to own a delivery mechanism. Regardless of whether your cable, satelite or freeview you should be able to subscribe to the same channels.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

And this is the perfect comment... the lines of content and delivery have been completely blurred over the years and with BSB's impending "merger" with News Corp, it really doesnt bare thinking what the results could be!

Virgin selling the channels (imho) was the best idea, it allows the company to concentrate on delivery and now has a good chunk of cash that it can re-invest into network upgrades and maintenance. 2011 looks like another good year!

:)

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

Does that apply to the BBC and ITV too?

They own Freesat.

And let's be clear here, Sky's platform is far less discriminatory than VM's who have complete and total control over who is broadcast on their network, less the must carry provisions of course.

I am not aqainist or in favour of the argument that a channel provider shouldn't own a platform but it must apply to everyone.

It was VM who wanted rid of VMtv which was a hangover from the Telewest days, the NTL side of the company never really bothered much channel wise.

Sky couldn't have bought it otherwise. Maybe we should be asking what they are going to sepnd the money on.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

At the moment it probably feels that Sky "got one over" on VM, but while Sports Interactive and Sky on demand content is yet to appear, it's a fair trade off as far as I'm concerned. Granted there won't be Sky Atlantic at it's launch but I don't see that as such a biggy unless you are an avid follower of all the shows that are going to be on that channel to be honest.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

But as staff have confirmed on here that is because VM (and Sky) are working on it, the network isn't capable of providing red button just yet and they are also working on upgrading the OD side of things.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

What ever we all think its all done and dusted now..lets move on.;)

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

The BBC and ITV have yet to restrict channels to viewers of certain platforms. Only Sky do that to the best of my knowledge. As far as I know the BBC and ITV try to make their channels accesible to everybody and don't play silly games with them.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

I think Virgins work on upgrading the OD network is all to do with Sky Sports REd button , contention and the increase in OD content plus TIVO.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

That is a totally different argument, I agree it isn't great when Sky (and UKTV for that matter, who owns 50%?) only provide some of their own channels to a particular platform. I am talking about content providers owning platforms. ITV and BBC do now. And VM do (for now).

Freesat and the Sky platform have an non discriminatory access policy and that is a fact, VM don't seem to although I accept it is a quite different infrastructure.

---------- Post added at 17:02 ---------- Previous post was at 16:55 ----------

So that would explain its absence then , it isn't Sky's fault.

It's coming, we will just have to be a bit patient.

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.

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:

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

Put simply Sky are asking to much to keep it exclusive on there own platform.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

As I said earlier it wouldn't appear that Sky are withholding it, rather that it is maybe too expensive. Same result for us though I guess.

Although I accept that is merely a press report.

Let's remember though their own customers have to pay extra for it in HD, it dosen't look like a cheapo channel so maybe BT and VM's pricing structure simply cannot support it. Again, who knows.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

wouldnt sky get more money having a sensible price for vm and getting more from advertisers

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

There is no evidence that they are asking any price and them advertising the channel as exclusive weeks before it starts tends to prove that is indeed their intention. also their director of programmes stating that it is a Sky exclusive.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

For an established channel like Sky One, then yes - as the whole Sky Basics debacle showed. That channel lost a big chunk of its viewers while it was off the air in VM homes and the threat of reduced ad revenue was partly what forced Sky back to the table.

That was a rare example of Sky overplaying its hand though. It is normally pretty shrewd and it knows its own market well. It is very good at playing on exclusivity and high-profile scalps, which is why I have long believed that new US programmes that otherwise would have gone on Sky One are going to start popping up on Sky Atlantic.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

Quite but they had just given away some of the channels like Sky 1 HD that set them apart from cable. They wanted something exclusive to replace them.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

Anyhow, let's stick to the topic please. There's an Atlantic/VM thread elsewhere. ;)

As regards whether VM were right to flog off their channels, well, what they've done is bet the family silver on the belief that On Demand is going to continually increase in popularity and linear broadcasting is going to decrease. They didn't believe they had the expertise to run channels as well as they need to be, but they do believe their technology gives them a massive lead over the opposition when it comes to VOD. They are positioning their business in accordance with that belief.

Only time will tell whether they have got it right.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

back on topic if it was only way to get sky sports and movies HD channels was to sell the few vmtv channels then they did the right thing IMO as thats the channels everyone wanted the most for sky

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

If they wanted rid of them I don't think they were wrong to sell them, it is who they sold them to that appears to have been the problem. It seems very shortsighted and somewhat crazy to have sold them to their single biggest threat but not to have safe guards in place to ensure closer relationship between the Sky content division on future deals seems a rocky error

On the first page there was mention that Sky is a open platform in that if you pay you can go on the Sky EPG. I have always been surprised that Virgin haven't worked a profitable way of offering a similar option for broadcasters to make themselves available.

If all the FTA/FTV channels are willing to pay Sky why would then not want to pay Virgin.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

As far as I am aware FTA broadcasters buy a EPG slot (much like with Freesat) but also pay a 'platform contribution' fee. It was reported the BBC pay around £10m a year but that is for all of their many services but that also includes some EPG regionalisation that they need for their channels too. FTV channels also have to pay NDS for encryption.

Both categories of course have to rent transponder space, this could be directlly from SES Astra or Eutelsat and they would also pay for the associated transmission costs, of course they could come to an agreement to sub lease capacity from the likes of Sky too.

I don't know why many are not on VM too.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

sky customers are not paying any extra for this channel in HD the cost for HD is still £10

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

I mean they have to pay extra full stop to view it in HD, it is £10.25 a month extra to be exact!

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

Right? Wrong? How about absolutely bloody stupid? Unless the people who made the decision to sell those channels were in nappies the last time Sky MOD edit:Virgin they should be fired right now & replaced with single cell Amoeba that could do the job just as well.

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

Re: Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky
 

Sorry!