Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky

muppetman11 · 05-01-2011, 19:38

Simple question at first I thought no but I'm having my doubts now , it's obvious Sky wanted Living but what have we seen in return , I believe the sports and movies in HD would of arrived and the basic HD channels at some point anyway.

05-01-2011, 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Simple question at first I thought no but I'm having my doubts now , it's obvious Sky wanted Living but what have we seen in return , I believe the sports and movies in HD would of arrived and the basic HD channels at some point anyway.

In my opinion it would have been much better to keep the channels. On what basis do you say the HD channels would have arrived anyway though? Do you think Sky would have handed them over without being forced? If so why are Sky withholding Sky Atlantic HD and SD? In my opinion the channels would never have arrived on cable so if you want them that is a definite positive to the sale of VM's channels. I'm not bothered about them so so the sale is all negative as far as I am concerned.

jb66 · 05-01-2011, 21:35

Don't care about sky channels, there mostly garbage, I prefer BBC and itv etc so I think it was a good idea so they can invest in the broadband network

HDFootyMan · 05-01-2011, 21:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Where VM wrong to sell channels to Sky.

IMO, no.

I didn't watch any of the VM channels anyway. Loads of cable companies Stateside and in Europe don't own content and do just fine, mainly because they have millions of customers which the content owner wouldn't mind selling content to via wholesale.

How long were people asking for Sky HD content? Without the deal, we would most likely still be asking for them for god knows how long.

In a parallel universe, this thread asks:

Quote:

When are we gonna get Sky Sports HD?

lawe · 05-01-2011, 22:04

IMO best thing Virgin did.

Taf · 06-01-2011, 08:39

It's not so much the channels, but the content.

I don't think Virgin customers will ever get to see the series of Lost that Sky denied them during the Sky/Vm spat.

Wicked_and_Crazy · 13-01-2011, 13:11

i still believe that a company that owns channels should not be allowed to own a delivery mechanism. Regardless of whether your cable, satelite or freeview you should be able to subscribe to the same channels.

weesteev · 13-01-2011, 13:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wicked_and_Crazy

i still believe that a company that owns channels should not be allowed to own a delivery mechanism. Regardless of whether your cable, satelite or freeview you should be able to subscribe to the same channels.

And this is the perfect comment... the lines of content and delivery have been completely blurred over the years and with BSB's impending "merger" with News Corp, it really doesnt bare thinking what the results could be!

Virgin selling the channels (imho) was the best idea, it allows the company to concentrate on delivery and now has a good chunk of cash that it can re-invest into network upgrades and maintenance. 2011 looks like another good year!

mersey70 · 13-01-2011, 15:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wicked_and_Crazy

i still believe that a company that owns channels should not be allowed to own a delivery mechanism. Regardless of whether your cable, satelite or freeview you should be able to subscribe to the same channels.

Does that apply to the BBC and ITV too?

They own Freesat.

And let's be clear here, Sky's platform is far less discriminatory than VM's who have complete and total control over who is broadcast on their network, less the must carry provisions of course.

I am not aqainist or in favour of the argument that a channel provider shouldn't own a platform but it must apply to everyone.

It was VM who wanted rid of VMtv which was a hangover from the Telewest days, the NTL side of the company never really bothered much channel wise.

Sky couldn't have bought it otherwise. Maybe we should be asking what they are going to sepnd the money on.

whizzard · 13-01-2011, 15:26

At the moment it probably feels that Sky "got one over" on VM, but while Sports Interactive and Sky on demand content is yet to appear, it's a fair trade off as far as I'm concerned. Granted there won't be Sky Atlantic at it's launch but I don't see that as such a biggy unless you are an avid follower of all the shows that are going to be on that channel to be honest.

mersey70 · 13-01-2011, 15:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by whizzard

At the moment it probably feels that Sky "got one over" on VM, but while Sports Interactive and Sky on demand content is yet to appear, it's a fair trade off as far as I'm concerned. Granted there won't be Sky Atlantic at it's launch but I don't see that as such a biggy unless you are an avid follower of all the shows that are going to be on that channel to be honest.

But as staff have confirmed on here that is because VM (and Sky) are working on it, the network isn't capable of providing red button just yet and they are also working on upgrading the OD side of things.

windy · 13-01-2011, 15:41

What ever we all think its all done and dusted now..lets move on.

13-01-2011, 15:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by mersey70

Does that apply to the BBC and ITV too?

They own Freesat.

And let's be clear here, Sky's platform is far less discriminatory than VM's who have complete and total control over who is broadcast on their network, less the must carry provisions of course.

I am not aqainist or in favour of the argument that a channel provider shouldn't own a platform but it must apply to everyone.

It was VM who wanted rid of VMtv which was a hangover from the Telewest days, the NTL side of the company never really bothered much channel wise.

Sky couldn't have bought it otherwise. Maybe we should be asking what they are going to sepnd the money on.

The BBC and ITV have yet to restrict channels to viewers of certain platforms. Only Sky do that to the best of my knowledge. As far as I know the BBC and ITV try to make their channels accesible to everybody and don't play silly games with them.

muppetman11 · 13-01-2011, 15:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by mersey70

But as staff have confirmed on here that is because VM (and Sky) are working on it, the network isn't capable of providing red button just yet and they are also working on upgrading the OD side of things.

I think Virgins work on upgrading the OD network is all to do with Sky Sports REd button , contention and the increase in OD content plus TIVO.

mersey70 · 13-01-2011, 16:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahardie

The BBC and ITV have yet to restrict channels to viewers of certain platforms. Only Sky do that to the best of my knowledge. As far as I know the BBC and ITV try to make their channels accesible to everybody and don't play silly games with them.

That is a totally different argument, I agree it isn't great when Sky (and UKTV for that matter, who owns 50%?) only provide some of their own channels to a particular platform. I am talking about content providers owning platforms. ITV and BBC do now. And VM do (for now).

Freesat and the Sky platform have an non discriminatory access policy and that is a fact, VM don't seem to although I accept it is a quite different infrastructure.

---------- Post added at 17:02 ---------- Previous post was at 16:55 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetman11

I think Virgins work on upgrading the OD network is all to do with Sky Sports REd button , contention and the increase in OD content plus TIVO.

So that would explain its absence then , it isn't Sky's fault.

It's coming, we will just have to be a bit patient.