General : Coming soon to Virgin TV 2014

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It will be encrypted on satellite so unavailable on Freesat, just Sky. The website does not state it will be broadcast online but I would expect this to happen and be the best way for viewers out of the area to watch it though some bought-in content may not be available online.

---------- Post added at 11:18 ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 ----------


That seems quite likely, the two others that come to mind are BlinkBox and Wuaki.

I have tried to find out if it will be broadcast FTV or FTA on satellite , but keep getting contradictory information. Even the channels owners don't appear to know the difference between Free to View and Free to Air!!

Re: On-line availability. Thanks for this, but I'm looking to watch it on television (watching TV on a computer, tablet etc doesn't appeal to me).

If I can't access the channel via an off EPG VM set up and it is FTV on satellite, it looks like i'll have to buy a London based Sky card. I despise this company and hate the thought of giving them any amount of money

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by howardmicks

Complication of hbo on demand??? Have I missed something

Whilst there is no concrete evidence of HBO on demand being exclusive to Sky, some feel that because Sky have exclusive first run broadcast rights, this deal negates any further deals HBO could make make with other broadcasters with regards to on-demand programming. IMHO, HBO could have held Sky over a barrel with regards first to run rights (i.e pay this price or don't have it) and then told them we are still going to sell our back catalogue as too many people as we can because too many people are now pirating our shows. To pacify Sky in this possibly deal, all they have to do is keep the most recent series off of HBO on demand until the rights Sky have bought expire.

I appreciate this deal may be unlikely, but it could still happen. Sky boxed themselves into a corner when they took exclusive rights from HBO. HBO now have the upper hand over Sky and can do with their programming as they wish.

[muppetman11]

So Sky pay £125 million more for this new deal over the one they signed in 2010 and don't have has good a terms.........can't really see that if I'm honest , just wishful thinking in my opinion.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

So Sky pay £125 million more for this new deal over the one they signed in 2010 and don't have has good a terms.........can't really see that if I'm honest , just wishful thinking in my opinion.

Sky still have the upper hand if we can only see those shows through PPV rather than on subscription.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Whilst there is no concrete evidence of HBO on demand being exclusive to Sky, some feel that because Sky have exclusive first run broadcast rights, this deal negates any further deals HBO could make make with other broadcasters with regards to on-demand programming. IMHO, HBO could have held Sky over a barrel with regards first to run rights (i.e pay this price or don't have it) and then told them we are still going to sell our back catalogue as too many people as we can because too many people are now pirating our shows. To pacify Sky in this possibly deal, all they have to do is keep the most recent series off of HBO on demand until the rights Sky have bought expire.

I appreciate this deal may be unlikely, but it could still happen. Sky boxed themselves into a corner when they took exclusive rights from HBO. HBO now have the upper hand over Sky and can do with their programming as they wish.

Let's hope that this is the case.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Sky still have the upper hand if we can only see those shows through PPV rather than on subscription.

People were talking about back catalogue subscription rights or at least thats what seems to be being suggested the PPV rights have always been available to the likes of Blinkbox , Google , iTunes etc so nothing has changed there.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

So Sky pay £125 million more for this new deal over the one they signed in 2010 and don't have has good a terms.........can't really see that if I'm honest , just wishful thinking in my opinion.

I did say the deal I wrote about was unlikely. .
However, I am still waiting to see any evidence of Sky having exclusive on-demand rights. Whenever you wish to show me it, I will eat humble pie. If my unlikely scenario were to happen, there is no reason why Sky customers could not still enjoy the HBO on-demand content through Sky as part of their existing package, As you state, Sky have paid HBO much more than previously, and perhaps the additional SKy costs account for potential lost revenue from the possible (and probably unlikely) launch of HBO on-demand. I am sure HBO are happy for customers to pirate their back catalogue even though they could make money from it though.
I fail to see why you will not acknowledge that HBO could not try to extract every ounce of income it can from a vast potential audience in the UK that do not currently or do not want to subscribe to Sky.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

I did say the deal I wrote about was unlikely. .
However, I am still waiting to see any evidence of Sky having exclusive on-demand rights. Whenever you wish to show me it, I will eat humble pie. If my unlikely scenario were to happen, there is no reason why Sky customers could not still enjoy the HBO on-demand content through Sky as part of their existing package, As you state, Sky have paid HBO much more than previously, and perhaps the additional SKy costs account for potential lost revenue from the possible (and probably unlikely) launch of HBO on-demand. I am sure HBO are happy for customers to pirate their back catalogue even though they could make money from it though.
I fail to see why you will not acknowledge that HBO could not try to extract every ounce of income it can from a vast potential audience in the UK that do not currently or do not want to subscribe to Sky.

Well, I think one thing that we can assume is that Sky have paid much more this time because that was the going rate for them to maintain exclusive access to their existing HBO rights and/or the price increased because it included other rights, such as On Demand, to block off the possibility of others competing with Sky by offering HBO content in a different format.

[theone2k10]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

People were talking about back catalogue subscription rights or at least thats what seems to be being suggested the PPV rights have always been available to the likes of Blinkbox , Google , iTunes etc so nothing has changed there.

I'm actually thinking when HBO on demand was mentioned to me for a VM launch, maybe my source did actually mean HBO content via Amazon/Blinkbox. Come to think about it that does seem more likely.

[howardmicks]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Whilst there is no concrete evidence of HBO on demand being exclusive to Sky, some feel that because Sky have exclusive first run broadcast rights, this deal negates any further deals HBO could make make with other broadcasters with regards to on-demand programming. IMHO, HBO could have held Sky over a barrel with regards first to run rights (i.e pay this price or don't have it) and then told them we are still going to sell our back catalogue as too many people as we can because too many people are now pirating our shows. To pacify Sky in this possibly deal, all they have to do is keep the most recent series off of HBO on demand until the rights Sky have bought expire.

I appreciate this deal may be unlikely, but it could still happen. Sky boxed themselves into a corner when they took exclusive rights from HBO. HBO now have the upper hand over Sky and can do with their programming as they wish.

Cheers bud thanks for the explanation

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

So Sky pay £125 million more for this new deal over the one they signed in 2010 and don't have has good a terms.........can't really see that if I'm honest , just wishful thinking in my opinion.

It's all about perception. Sky get to keep up the idea of an exclusive channel full of hbo content. I'm with you, I don't think it's what's happened, but once you have a product that is performing well you can easily see how Sky would be prepared to pay more for less to maintain the illusion of the status quo. And since Atlantic is so important in driving Sky subscriptions the conspiracy theorists are at least right in one regard, hbo really do hold the upper hand in negotiations.

[vincerooney]

Originally Posted by andy_m

It's all about perception. Sky get to keep up the idea of an exclusive channel full of hbo content. I'm with you, I don't think it's what's happened, but once you have a product that is performing well you can easily see how Sky would be prepared to pay more for less to maintain the illusion of the status quo. And since Atlantic is so important in driving Sky subscriptions the conspiracy theorists are at least right in one regard, hbo really do hold the upper hand in negotiations.

Morning all

Is Atlantic a factor in pushing sky subscriptions tho? Majority of people who get sky I find is price. I've never found anyone I know say "it's for the hbo content" I think it's a nice thing for sky to brag and act smugly about in adverts but I don't think hbo content is the line they use to catch customers just another sweetener

As I said most people say it's price and sport coverage/hd

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by vincerooney

Morning all

Is Atlantic a factor in pushing sky subscriptions tho? Majority of people who get sky I find is price. I've never found anyone I know say "it's for the hbo content" I think it's a nice thing for sky to brag and act smugly about in adverts but I don't think hbo content is the line they use to catch customers just another sweetener

As I said most people say it's price and sport coverage/hd

Last year Sky's own research suggested Atlantic drove a quarter of all new subscriptions. Let's face it, spending a shed load of money for exclusive access to something just to feel a bit smug isn't really worth doing. Sky are better at business than that.

[Media Boy UK]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Looks good to me
I would be tempted to name it something like "Channels Virgin Media may get when existing deals with the owners renew" in place of "Virgin Media's Deals with broadcasters." to make its purpose as clear as possible.

(Sorry - I always have an opinion on such things! )

Set to do some work on my blog at somepoint today I think I will go with "Channels Virgin Media may get when existing deals with the owners renew".

---------- Post added at 12:01 ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 ----------

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Looks ok.

Originally Posted by passingbat

Looks good.

Originally Posted by gba93

Fine by me as it's still readily available to those who want it

Good to see I have doing somethings right - but I will not remove 'No News' from my list.

Next list update is set to be on April 1st.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by theone2k10

I'm actually thinking when HBO on demand was mentioned to me for a VM launch, maybe my source did actually mean HBO content via Amazon/Blinkbox. Come to think about it that does seem more likely.

Yes, and that would be a good thing. I'm not too concerned about missing out on an initial exclusivity period, I'm about 8 months behind with all the recordings I've made as it is! If the back catalogue contains the first few series of Boardwalk Empire and Game of Thrones, that will do nicely for me if it's on subscription.

That will still enable Sky to promote their 'exclusive' SA channel and 'exclusive' first run HBO shows.

If streaming services containing earlier HBO series are available elsewhere, there's absolutely no reason why VM can't offer the same with the TIVO.

Having said all this, the continuing silence in respect of the negotiations with Sky that were starting in the autumn is intriguing. I've not read anywhere that there has been a big falling out between Sky and VM over this. As they say, though, no news is good news...