Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
You would be saying that other providers will be queuing up to inflate their carriage costs had Virgin given into UKTV! I don't see how you make out that by letting UKTV go, this would embolden channel operators! On the contrary, it shows that VM believe that no deal is better than a bad deal. 
Sky was a different ball game, because it was a more important issue than the UKTV issue is. This will blow over, and we will get more channels over the coming months to make up for the loss.
---------- Post added at 14:23 ---------- Previous post was at 14:20 ----------
How do you know the timing was not coincidental? This spat with ITV has been going on for a year now. It should not escape your notice that on demand provision was an important part of the dispute with UKTV. However, a deal with ITV on this has been achieved. This will improve our on demand content considerably.
---------- Post added at 14:28 ---------- Previous post was at 14:23 ----------
Customer discontent from a minority. I think Virgin would have expected that. The number of people viewing these channels on their V6 boxes will have been known to Virgin Media, so they knew there would be a limit to the number of cancellations that would occur.
Such a fuss for channels showing almost endless repeats.
---------- Post added at 14:33 ---------- Previous post was at 14:28 ----------
They were already virtually ready to sign a deal, Richard. Anyway, this is good news, not bad. |
If VM give in to UKTV it will indeed show other channel operators that they are able to put pressure on VM to make things benefit themselves. I've already explained why I think that this is now the least worse option.
I've already explained why I think that the Sky issue and the response by the previous owners was totally different.
If you think that a dispute that had been going on for so long in deadlock and had resulted in an ultimatum by ITV to threaten to weaken the platform even more within days resulted in a satisfactory outcome for ITV within 24 hours was simply a coincidence you must be extremely gullible. Obviously, VM would want as much value from these retransmission fees as possible and negotiated these extras as part of the deal.
VM claim to know how many people watch various channels, yet I was arrogantly told that I never watched them, which didn't go down well with me! Also, this would not be accurate as people often leave their STB switched on for various reasons and, when the STB is switched off, it doesn't actually switch it off, it only kills the video & audio.
In the sense that 43% is a minority and that the cancellation lines are impossible to get through to, attention from Ofcom, legal bods challenging the legalities of their contract, negative attention across the media, many disgruntled customers, the loss of any goodwill built up over the years both now and into the future think I think it realistic to say that VM management totally misjudged the whole situation and, if they could have foreseen everything that's happened, would have (hopefully) handled things totally differently.
Again, I do not believe that they were ready to sign a deal. ITV saw that VM had put themselves in a weak position and fully exploited it. This news is a double edged sword for VM, but they simply had no other option as ITV will have been well aware. This will not have gone unnoticed by the likes of Sky etc.
---------- Post added at 18:48 ---------- Previous post was at 18:45 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
So it’s weak of the broadcaster to take a quick deal?
|
Depends what the deal is. It was obviously acceptable to ITV whereas the previous VM stance on not paying any retransmission fees under any circumstances hadn't been. Seems obvious that VM have backed down.
---------- Post added at 19:01 ---------- Previous post was at 18:48 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben B
Richard it seems to me like you are actually bothered whether or not Virgin has paid re-transmission fees. It's probably not going to have an effect on customers whether or not they have because they have to remain competitive in terms of pricing as otherwise people will just vote with their wallet and leave. The deal covers the entire ITV suite of channels and yes maybe there are details about re-transmission in the terms but this will have probably been on the proviso that Virgin receive 4K etc that they have managed to come to an agreement on (I will highlight this is my subjective opinion before anyone comments with 'were you at the negotiation table?' or similar). In terms of the other PSBs asking for re-transmission fees, the BBC probably won't because of the license fee. Channel 4 and Viacom both have commercial agreements for other channels so it might be brought to the table when negotiating for them but who knows.
With regards to the UKTV channels yes people will leave because they've gone if they don't come back. UKTV saying on Twitter that it's unlikely that the channels will return and pointing people in the direction of other providers could just be to put pressure on Virgin to reach a deal. I don't think Virgin are in that much of a weak position though given not everyone watches UKTV and the fact that they've just signed a multi year deal for BT Sport. Let's face it are sports fans who are Virgin Media customers going to want to spend £27.99 a month and upwards on top of a Sky package?
|
I don't personally think that the traditional cable companies should have to pay retransmission fees, however, my salient point is that the abysmal way that the UKTV issue has been handled has weakened the VM platform and put power into the hands of ITV and other significant channel providers to enable them to push up carriage costs & levy retransmission fees where applicable.
These increased costs, coupled with the other expenses incurred by the UKTV issue, the loss of projected revenue from downgrades/cancellations/loss of future customers is bound to leave a hole in VM finances now and for years to come.
I predict that a deal will eventually be done with UKTV for at least a partial return of the channels, so they can't even offset UKTV carriage costs from this.
I think it likely that customers who remain will be expected to plug the gap, which will further weaken the platform as some people will resist these price increases, though it's true to say that companies do tend to rely on inertia or forgetfulness from customers with regards to price increases.
Putting BT Sport into XL/Full House is certainly a plus for many customers in VM's favour, however, the whole business model relies on many people, whether sports fans or not, paying a little each month within the XL/Full House packs. If enough people downgrade, leave or fail to join, the BT Sport arrangement may become unsustainable.
If VM decided to keep it as a customer attraction tool, it would have to be subsidised, causing a further loss of revenue or price increases. If they decided to get rid of it, I think that would have a further detrimental effect on subscriber numbers as many people only pay for the top package (or are with VM at all) because of this perk.