In this day and age if you are NOT a content provider you have no hand to play.
We all know Sky & BT would prefer to get the extra revenues from their channels being on VM.
However when sat round the negotiating table these providers absolutely have the upper hand as they know full well many, many VM customers would walk away and find alternatives if BT/SKY channels were no longer on the VM platform.
VM had a good chance of gaining ground with TIVO. But this clunky, slow piece of kit never set the world alight like it had the potential to. It made the once superior VM On Demand content a pain in the backside to watch.
And now SKY have just as much (if not more) OD content with a better, quicker box with exclusive content and linear channels. VM are sadly lagging behind once again.
I'm very interested to see the new TIVO box when it (eventually) comes out.
Maybe that will change things. But for now VM are a company losing customers and beholden to others for content.... it's not a great situation to be in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenMcr
Have no say again no.
Any channel agreement is exactly that. Sky are not obligated to offer most of their channels (except the regulated Premiums), and are also under no obligation to tell a competitor about their future channel plans.
Virgin Media could only get the agreement for which Sky were prepared to agree to. If Sky did the deal know that they had plans to launch Sky Atlantic, then fair play to them.
But if Virgin Media hadn't done the deal and 'held out' then this forum would have been full of complaints that VM didn't have Sky HD channels, which was happening in 2010
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35...-post1119.html
Since the launch of Sky Atlantic, it's not Virgin Media's decision as to whether the terms that Sky may be offering the channel are at a level that Virgin Media see to be of value to their customers. Currently, if Sky are offering it to VM, then it's not see as worth it. |