Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Could you perhaps quote the part of that article that you think is relevant? Bear in mind, while doing so, that it is a year old, and it is reasonable to conclude that nothing came of the talks with VM that it mentions. 
The issue here is that ITV apparently thinks its additional channels are worth more than the market thinks they are worth. It has lost a tonne of advertising revenue over the last few years and it thinks it can plug the gap by getting a bit of the pay-TV action. It has managed to achieve a deal with Sky because Sky feels threatened by Freesat. It is in Sky's interests to make its basic subscription line-up as compelling as possible when compared with the free alternative. Sky is therefore willing to pay whatever stupid amount ITV has asked for.
On the other hand, VM is pursuing a strategy based around TV on demand. It has little to gain by paying over the odds for channels whose original content is largely confined to cycling and the bits of BGT that are so crap even ITV1 won't show them. If carrying those channels in HD doesn't benefit VM's business, then VM won't pay, and we are left with ITV2, 3 & 4 exclusive to Sky. For what it's worth. |
Take time and read your first post were you state ITV have an exclusive deal with Sky for the ITV HD channels
Now read the following
ITV was in talks with other providers, Crozier said, including Virgin Media, but the deal was exclusive to Sky among satellite platforms.
But hey what does Adam Crozier know
The same old tired lines , every company wants to much.