General : Sky Sports pricing dispute: appeal ruling looms

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

The problem is that it is easy to blame Sky and say they won't let VM have a channel. But the evidence actually suggests VM don't always want to do business.

Its convenient to say VM is the victim but it isn't really.

What does make it intersting though is OFCOM ordered sky to let VM have access to sky sports 1/2 in HD in the pay tv review, but made no such order for sky sports 3/4 HD and lo and behold VM do not have them.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

The problem is that it is easy to blame Sky and say they won't let VM have a channel. But the evidence actually suggests VM don't always want to do business.

Its convenient to say VM is the victim but it isn't really.

And what evidence is that dear Lex?.

[LexDiamond]

Originally Posted by richard1960

What does make it intersting though is OFCOM ordered sky to let VM have access to sky sports 1/2 in HD in the pay tv review, but made no such order for sky sports 3/4 HD and lo and behold VM do not have them.

Whats to say VM want them?

---------- Post added at 09:14 ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

And what evidence is that dear Lex?.

Have you actually read the report linked to earlier in this thread?

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by richard1960

What does make it intersting though is OFCOM ordered sky to let VM have access to sky sports 1/2 in HD in the pay tv review, but made no such order for sky sports 3/4 HD and lo and behold VM do not have them.

Point 29 and 36 dispute OFCOM's findings on that

Originally Posted by denphone

And what evidence is that dear Lex?.

Try reading the PDF

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

But the evidence actually suggests VM don't always want to do business.

Depends what you mean by that.

I'm sure, if Virgin chucked enough money at Sky, they could have Sky Atlantic and Sports 3/4 HD. However VM always have to consider what any channel addition may do the cost of subscription, and whether it's worth doing.

Premier Sports is an example of where Virgin Media were quite happy to do business, just not on the terms the channel wanted due to them not thinking it was the best value way for the business and their customers.

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Point 29 and 36 dispute OFCOM's findings on that



Try reading the PDF

Yes they may dispute OFCOMS findings, but the fact of the matter is OFCOM still ordered sky to let VM and others have access to sky sports 1/2 in HD.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Point 29 and 36 dispute OFCOM's findings on that



Try reading the PDF

Oh but l have read it but the trouble is certain posters will put their own rose tinted glasses on and slant it to suit their own biased views on it.

[LexDiamond]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Depends what you mean by that.

I'm sure, if Virgin chucked enough money at Sky, they could have Sky Atlantic and Sports 3/4 HD. However VM always have to consider what any channel addition may do the cost of subscription, and whether it's worth doing.

Premier Sports is an example of where Virgin Media were quite happy to do business, just not on the terms the channel wanted due to them not thinking it was the best value way for the business and their customers.

I agree. VM probably are at optimal levels in terms of the price they charge and channels they offer.

But that is very different to what is being said on this thread regarding Sky not playing game.

Originally Posted by denphone

Oh but l have read it but the trouble is certain posters will put their own rose tinted glasses on and slant it to suit their own biased views on it.

I take it then that you did not actually bother reading it then.

You really need to stop accusing other people. Paragraph 29 clearly states that Sky were more willing to do business than counterparties yet you keep accusing others of lying.

[Telly_]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Depends what you mean by that.

I'm sure, if Virgin chucked enough money at Sky, they could have Sky Atlantic and Sports 3/4 HD. However VM always have to consider what any channel addition may do the cost of subscription, and whether it's worth doing.

Premier Sports is an example of where Virgin Media were quite happy to do business, just not on the terms the channel wanted due to them not thinking it was the best value way for the business and their customers.

So there you go, you can have Premier sports but you can't afford it(nothing to do with Sky),Virginmedia have been free to buy in ITV2,3,4HD for over a year(nothing to do with Sky) you could have Atlantic and Skysports 3/4 in HD but can't afford it.

You give HD for free, Sky charge £10.25, if Virginmedia had a HD fee then they would be able to afford the extra channels. It Virginmedias choice to offer HD inclusive in XLtv. If that leaves their pockets a bit short then blame VM's bean counters for making a bad decision.

This report has really given the customers good information.

---------- Post added at 09:55 ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

Oh but l have read it but the trouble is certain posters will put their own rose tinted glasses on and slant it to suit their own biased views on it.

If you had of read it you would see your "Sky withhold channels" argument you've been spouting out for years has just been blown out the water.


Virgin customer have the right amount of content at the price point they pay, more premium content is out there but they may have to pay more.

Originally Posted by Telly_

So there you go, you can have Premier sports but you can't afford it(nothing to do with Sky),Virginmedia have been free to buy in ITV2,3,4HD for over a year(nothing to do with Sky) you could have Atlantic and Skysports 3/4 in HD but can't afford it.

You give HD for free, Sky change £10.25, if Virginmedia HD a HD fee then they would be able to afford the extra channels. It Virginmedias choice to offer HD inclusive in XLtv. If that leaves their pockets a bit short then blame VM's bean counters for making a bad decision.

This report has really given the customers good information.

The thing though with premier on Vm Telly was this VM offered to have premier sports on as a sandalone channel as per sky,but premier sports wanted to go in the TVXL pack,so it was not VMs fault premier sports turned down the chance to be on cable.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

I agree. VM probably are at optimal levels in terms of the price they charge and channels they offer.

But that is very different to what is being said on this thread regarding Sky not playing game.



I take it then that you did not actually bother reading it then.

You really need to stop accusing other people. Paragraph 29 clearly states that Sky were more willing to do business than counterparties yet you keep accusing others of lying.

Its alright and fine to do business but the problem is that one side is asking for ridiculously high carriage fees knowing full well that any sane company would never agree to those high carriage rates to start off with.

[Telly_]

Originally Posted by denphone

Its alright and fine to do business but the problem is that one side is asking for ridiculously high carriage fees knowing full well that any sane company would never agree to those high carriage rates to start off with.

How do you know? You're assuming.

Maybe other providers want the content cheap to try to under cut Sky? At the price offered they can sell at the same price as Sky and still make some £'s?

Any where there is a reseller or middleman the price often increase to the end user, in this case VM would just be the middleman reselling Sky content. Thats how its works for good or bad.

Then how is it Sky Atlantic is not available to Smallworld or BT?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Telly_

How do you know? You're assuming.

Maybe other providers want the content cheap to try to under cut Sky? At the price offered they can sell at the same price as Sky and still make some £'s?

Given Sky's track record on these things over a period of quite a few years l think you will find that is fact as Sky have a serial track record of doing these things time after time and quite clearly in that process they are abusing their market position and thats a fact as well.

[Telly_]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Then how is it Sky Atlantic is not availabe to Smallworld or BT?

To be fair if Sky do keep just one channel for themselves even you can't begrudge that.

Other wise you just end up with an unfair playing field where all content is the same but every VM customer has the option of 100Mb and Sky's offering may only be 3Mb.

If in VM areas Sky could resell VM cable then I suspect VM would have Atlantic, But Sky need its USP. Just like VM have superfast broadband.

---------- Post added at 10:11 ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

Given Sky's track record on these things over a period of quite a few years l think you will find that is fact as Sky have a serial track record of doing these things time after time and quite clearly in that process they are abusing their market position and thats a fact as well.

What things do they do time and time again? An what is this "track record" you always chat about. The only network I see that 100% withholds access to its services is Virginmedia.

---------- Post added at 10:14 ---------- Previous post was at 10:11 ----------

Sometimes its seems in my opinion virgin want ALL sky content Cheap, to resell BT services, to have exclusive use of TiVo.

But they dont want anyone having access to any of there products or services deliberatly withholding access to its cable network forcing customers to choose VM if they want fast broadband.