Quote:
Originally Posted by zantarous
Of course they will get part of the HD sub, Living is a pay TV channel it is not going to broadcast as free to air. Even ESPN which you have to pay a separate sub for still requires you to pay the HD sub to see the HD version.
I agree with using it as leverage, but to get the Sky Basics surely they need just more then Living, their case would be much stronger with Bravo and Virgin 1 HD.
And surely the number of viewers does matter, if only a handful of people are watching the HD version would still make sense to keep paying for HD masters?
|
There's a huge difference between a consumer having to pay the HD sub to receive a channel, and the channel provider actually getting a share in it. I'd be willing to put money on the fact that ESPN for example don't recieve any of the £10/month HD sub. The very fact that more and more HD channels get added without the sub rising supports this, if the HD sub was being shared amoung channel providers it would have to increase as more channels were added.
I can pretty much gaurentee that they only people that get money from the Sky HD sub are sky themselves, the other HD channels will simply be providing the channels as part of a standard carriage deal for a marginal increase (if any at all) on what they were paid for the SD varient.
The amount of people watching is only important in so much that you have an audience to justify the additional expense of producing or aquiring HD content. VM will likely feel that the HD audience on VM alone is enough to justify it, especially as it adds upsell opportunities for them.