Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetman11
So Sky pay £125 million more for this new deal over the one they signed in 2010 and don't have has good a terms.........can't really see that if I'm honest , just wishful thinking in my opinion.
|
I did say the deal I wrote about was unlikely.
.
However, I am still waiting to see any evidence of Sky having exclusive on-demand rights. Whenever you wish to show me it, I will eat humble pie. If my unlikely scenario were to happen, there is no reason why Sky customers could not still enjoy the HBO on-demand content through Sky as part of their existing package, As you state, Sky have paid HBO much more than previously, and perhaps the additional SKy costs account for potential lost revenue from the possible (and probably unlikely) launch of HBO on-demand. I am sure HBO are happy for customers to pirate their back catalogue even though they could make money from it though.
I fail to see why you will not acknowledge that HBO
could not try to extract every ounce of income it can from a vast potential audience in the UK that do not currently or do not want to subscribe to Sky.