SD : Could Virgin lose the right to offer Sky Sports 1 & 2?

[RichardCoulter]

This article refers to BT TV, but the removal of the 'Wholesale Must Offer Obligation' affects all competitors to Sky:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...aps-rules.html

[denphone]

Nothing will happen for several years as Virgin and Sky signed a contract a while back but when it ends then one suspects prices could rise quite a bit.....

[RichardCoulter]

Good job that VM had the foresight to sign a contract.

[denphone]

Its what might happen when the contract ends which will be interesting to see.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by denphone

Its what might happen when the contract ends which will be interesting to see.

Probably exactly the same as now , it's a completely different market now with the launch of BT Sport.

It's all about viewers and keeping people interested in subscribing , Sky Sports need VM just as VM need Sky Sports

[nialli]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

This article refers to BT TV, but the removal of the 'Wholesale Must Offer Obligation' affects all competitors to Sky:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...aps-rules.html

This thread's title is incorrect and misleading. Ofcom's press release on the ruling quite clearly says that

"The only supply arrangement for Sky Sports 1 and 2 under Ofcom's wholesale must-offer regulation is with BT for its YouView service." http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2015/wmo-statement/

So the ruling has nothing to do with Virgin's carriage terms for Sky Sports, which includes not just Sky Sports 1 and 2 but 3, 4, 5 and F1 too, all in HD

[neilo]

Brilliantly dramatic headline.

[Anypermitedroute]

Originally Posted by neilo

Brilliantly dramatic headline.

Well it's not like he hasn't had previous of being over dramatic or overstating the truth

[arcimedes]

Originally Posted by nialli

This thread's title is incorrect and misleading. Ofcom's press release on the ruling quite clearly says that

"The only supply arrangement for Sky Sports 1 and 2 under Ofcom's wholesale must-offer regulation is with BT for its YouView service." http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2015/wmo-statement/

So the ruling has nothing to do with Virgin's carriage terms for Sky Sports, which includes not just Sky Sports 1 and 2 but 3, 4, 5 and F1 too, all in HD

Not quite true. If you read the Ofcom statement you will find that various appeals are still on going. Virgin is entitled to use the must-offer regulation, it just happens not to as its in Sky's interest to continue to supply all sports to them and others.

[Stephen]

fixed the thread title slightly.

[nodrogd]

One of the reasons Sky relented & added the previously exclusive HD channels to VM's sports offering was due in part to them losing sports subscribers to BT.

[RichardCoulter]

I'm

Originally Posted by nialli

This thread's title is incorrect and misleading. Ofcom's press release on the ruling quite clearly says that

"The only supply arrangement for Sky Sports 1 and 2 under Ofcom's wholesale must-offer regulation is with BT for its YouView service." http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2015/wmo-statement/

So the ruling has nothing to do with Virgin's carriage terms for Sky Sports, which includes not just Sky Sports 1 and 2 but 3, 4, 5 and F1 too, all in HD

Nope, VM will lose the right to carry Sky Sports 1 and 2 when their carriage agreement ends.

Carriage beyond this will be subject to normal commercial negotiation. VM can no longer use the must offer ruling and associated rate card for the fees.

Originally Posted by arcimedes

Not quite true. If you read the Ofcom statement you will find that various appeals are still on going. Virgin is entitled to use the must-offer regulation, it just happens not to as its in Sky's interest to continue to supply all sports to them and others.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by nodrogd

One of the reasons Sky relented & added the previously exclusive HD channels to VM's sports offering was due in part to them losing sports subscribers to BT.

I wonder if the sale of the VM channels to Sky played any part too.

---------- Post added at 02:57 ---------- Previous post was at 02:54 ----------

Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute

Well it's not like he hasn't had previous of being over dramatic or overstating the truth

Examples of your allegation would be useful, as would a more polite posting style in general.

[nialli]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Nope, VM will lose the right to carry Sky Sports 1 and 2 when their carriage agreement ends.

And you know this for certain? Of course you don't. The current Sky carriage deal with Virgin was renewed last year and runs until 2019 (http://gu.com/p/3p679?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other).
Virgin Media is not a threat to Sky's TV content business and, with the exception of the withholding of Sky Atlantic, is its biggest customer in the wholesaling game. Why would Sky not extend existing and profitable agreements that add an audience of 4m homes to their core market? Sky makes more out of each VM Sky Sports subscriber than VM.
BT is different, a threat to Sky because it challenges them on those critical sports rights, pushing up the price at each negotiation and, with the Champions League, winning outright. Virgin is a commercial partner for Sky, BT a commercial threat.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by nialli

And you know this for certain? Of course you don't.

Richard is technically correct that VM will lose the right to carry these channels. But VM have never used that right anyway - they have always negotiated separately for Sky content.

Move along, nothing to see here...

[nialli]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

Richard is technically correct that VM will lose the right to carry these channels. But VM have never used that right anyway - they have always negotiated separately for Sky content.

Move along, nothing to see here...

Agreed. Glad to see the moderator has retitled the thread - no point in alarmist headlines when the current contract has four more years to run.