Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad
Probably not. SKY 1 has been called SKY 1 since 1989, a good 7 years before SKY launched SKY 2.
|
It was initially called 'Sky Channel'. Not sure when it changed to Sky 1, but it was definately by 1991.
I have often thought that Sky must have intended on naming their channels numerically, but the takeover of BSB and their thematically named channels changed their way of thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocav
...Apparently next year, everyone will have too pay and it won't be with BT Broadband. Currently only 23,000 people think it's worth paying for, if I was a shareholder, I wouldn't be happy.
|
I am and I aren't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry_hitch
It would depend if the shareholders were more interested in the BB take-up, if so, they would probably be somewhat happier. Equally the shareholders must surely be aware that if you offer struggling families something for "free" or a monthly cost of £12/£15 a month, the majority of people will take the "free" option.
I would also think that die-hard football and rugby fans will pay for it next year, as they did with ESPN.
If I were a share holder though, I would be happy to take small amount of money from VM's reasonably large customer base, rather than a larger amount of nothing from none of VM's customer base.  |
Absolutely.
It isn't just the financial side either. I personally aren't bothered about watching BT Sport, but many people are.
I know many lads/men that aren't just into football or class themselves as fans. They live and breathe it, it's their life and it's as if they need football to survive.