Quote:
Originally Posted by theone2k10
In gimmicks and broadband yes not content whereas you have say for example BT who are investing heavily both in broadband and content.
Guess it's just one of those things you win some you lose some i really hope VM does become the great content provider it once was but it is being left behind by the likes of Sky and BT.
|
LGI is currently evaluating whether it is worth being a content provider. There was an interesting article in the FT (paywalled) which I summarised here.
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/10...-telecoms.html
One element of their analysis is that it is better to own the infrastructure than the content as you don't own the content and have to bid for it regularly. In contrast, the infrastructure is yours permanently.
---------- Post added at 21:29 ---------- Previous post was at 21:22 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter
|
LGI had to sell the channels as a condition of acquiring Ziggo.
---------- Post added at 21:35 ---------- Previous post was at 21:29 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute
He who has content to provide holds more power at the bargaining table.
|
To quote Charlie Bracken, LGI's CFO, it remained to be seen who benefited from the demand for content. “Is it going to be Wayne Rooney, programme producers, Hollywood . . . or is it going to be an equitable share?” he said. “If we bet the ranch [on content], we’re changing the risk profile of the business.”
Source:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a20527f4-c...#axzz3WBasJfrY (registration needed)