Virgin Media News

[LiamTG]

just goes to show how much virgin lie to the people that pay their wages.

screw them

[grabbi]

Sir Richard Branson called Sky One programmes 'pretty rubbish'

I like that! Its so true! lol

It should be noted Sir Rich is still gonna be a big shareholder in the company, and still going to have a say, so there isnt a gurantee that the SKY dispute will be fully closed.

[Media Boy UK]

Details of the deal made between Sky and Tiscali TV have been revealed, showing that Tiscali were happy to pay what Virgin Media wasn't for the carriage of Sky's basic channels on the IPTV platform.

Earlier this week, Sky filed its defence at the High Court as part of its legal battle with Virgin Media, after Virgin refused to pay the amount Sky wanted for carrying its basic channels, disputing the cost as "anti-competitive." Sky One, Two, Three, News and Sports have not been shown on the Virgin Media cable platform since the end of February.

The Tiscali deal was agreed on June 27 at a price reported to be "broadly similar" to the offer Sky made to Virgin Media on May 10.

Reports suggest IPTV provider Tiscali paid 81.5p per subscriber, equivalent to £335.7 million annually. This works out slightly more per customer than Virgin Media, as Tiscali has 50,000 customers, while Virgin Media has 3.4 million.

Additionally, Sky has agreed new carriage deals for its basic channels with regional cable operators Newtel, Smallworld and Wightcable. Outside of the Virgin Media network, the operators cover Jersey, the Borders and the Isle of Wight.

Mike Darcey, chief operating Officer, Sky, said: “Sky has always sought to achieve wide distribution for its channels and we’re pleased to extend our relationships with three valued and long-standing partners. All three have recognised the increasing value of Sky’s basic channels and we welcome their decision to invest in bringing their customers the TV they enjoy.”

Info from Digital SPY.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by TV Boy

Details of the deal made between Sky and Tiscali TV have been revealed, showing that Tiscali were happy to pay what Virgin Media wasn't for the carriage of Sky's basic channels on the IPTV platform.

Earlier this week, Sky filed its defence at the High Court as part of its legal battle with Virgin Media, after Virgin refused to pay the amount Sky wanted for carrying its basic channels, disputing the cost as "anti-competitive." Sky One, Two, Three, News and Sports have not been shown on the Virgin Media cable platform since the end of February.

The Tiscali deal was agreed on June 27 at a price reported to be "broadly similar" to the offer Sky made to Virgin Media on May 10.

Reports suggest IPTV provider Tiscali paid 81.5p per subscriber, equivalent to £335.7 million annually. This works out slightly more per customer than Virgin Media, as Tiscali has 50,000 customers, while Virgin Media has 3.4 million.

Additionally, Sky has agreed new carriage deals for its basic channels with regional cable operators Newtel, Smallworld and Wightcable. Outside of the Virgin Media network, the operators cover Jersey, the Borders and the Isle of Wight.

Mike Darcey, chief operating Officer, Sky, said: “Sky has always sought to achieve wide distribution for its channels and we’re pleased to extend our relationships with three valued and long-standing partners. All three have recognised the increasing value of Sky’s basic channels and we welcome their decision to invest in bringing their customers the TV they enjoy.�

Info from Digital SPY.

This will have interesting ramifications for VM's assertion that Sky's stance was anti-competitive.

Originally Posted by TV Boy

Details of the deal made between Sky and Tiscali TV have been revealed, showing that Tiscali were happy to pay what Virgin Media wasn't for the carriage of Sky's basic channels on the IPTV platform.

Earlier this week, Sky filed its defence at the High Court as part of its legal battle with Virgin Media, after Virgin refused to pay the amount Sky wanted for carrying its basic channels, disputing the cost as "anti-competitive." Sky One, Two, Three, News and Sports have not been shown on the Virgin Media cable platform since the end of February.

The Tiscali deal was agreed on June 27 at a price reported to be "broadly similar" to the offer Sky made to Virgin Media on May 10.

Reports suggest IPTV provider Tiscali paid 81.5p per subscriber, equivalent to £335.7 million annually. This works out slightly more per customer than Virgin Media, as Tiscali has 50,000 customers, while Virgin Media has 3.4 million.

Additionally, Sky has agreed new carriage deals for its basic channels with regional cable operators Newtel, Smallworld and Wightcable. Outside of the Virgin Media network, the operators cover Jersey, the Borders and the Isle of Wight.

Mike Darcey, chief operating Officer, Sky, said: “Sky has always sought to achieve wide distribution for its channels and we’re pleased to extend our relationships with three valued and long-standing partners. All three have recognised the increasing value of Sky’s basic channels and we welcome their decision to invest in bringing their customers the TV they enjoy.�

Info from Digital SPY.

I wonder if virgin will give in now then that smaller operators have paid up,
they will save a lot of money if they do a deal out of court.

[Incomplete]

You can't really see how they could claim it to be anti-competitive when all the other regional cablecos as well as Tiscali all paid up.

The whole anti-competitive thing falls on its' face a bit when the rest of the market accepts the pricing. The blatant dissing of the Sky channels along with comments on it being a commercial decision does make me struggle to see how VM expect to win this, however I wonder if they ever expected to win it or if it was just another part of their ongoing PR scrap with Sky.

[Toto]

Originally Posted by Incomplete

You can't really see how they could claim it to be anti-competitive when all the other regional cablecos as well as Tiscali all paid up.

The whole anti-competitive thing falls on its' face a bit when the rest of the market accepts the pricing. The blatant dissing of the Sky channels along with comments on it being a commercial decision does make me struggle to see how VM expect to win this, however I wonder if they ever expected to win it or if it was just another part of their ongoing PR scrap with Sky.

Well, that will depend.

You can't compare the price offered to Tiscalli for their basic channels based on 50K worth of subscribers.

What is quoted in the press and what was actually offered could be completely different. You also have to understand that VM is a competitor to Sky TV, Tiscalli isn't.

EDIT: It is also possible this deal is needed by Sky in order to satisfy disgruntled advertisers who lost a large customer base when Sky pulled (yes, sky pulled) the channels off VMTV.

[Incomplete]

Originally Posted by Toto

You also have to understand that VM is a competitor to Sky TV, Tiscalli isn't.

Umm. Rrright. You are aware Tiscali are currently rolling out IPTV, including Sky's channels, nationwide yes? You are also aware that in Central London there are well over 2 million homes to which Tiscali TV is available. They also offer TV, broadband and phone. Correct me if I'm wrong but that would make them a competitor to Sky?

Yes.... same products... same markets... in competition... a competitor!

What is quoted in the press and what was actually offered could be completely different.

Doubt it. Out and out lying when evidence is in black and white is very stupid. Considering how VM have made sure this stayed in the press as much as possible if what was in the press was inaccurate I'm fairly sure the VM PR department would have made sure we knew.

EDIT: It is also possible this deal is needed by Sky in order to satisfy disgruntled advertisers who lost a large customer base when Sky pulled (yes, sky pulled) the channels off VMTV.

*Sigh* Nice anti-Sky comment, kinda blows trying to discuss something impartially out of the water coming out with something like that though.

[Toto]

Icomplete, I make no claims of impartiality at all. But if you check my post again I was very carefull using words such as:

What is quoted in the press and what was actually offered could be completely different

And

EDIT: It is also possible this deal is needed by Sky in order to satisfy disgruntled advertisers who lost a large customer base when Sky pulled (yes, sky pulled) the channels off VMTV.

I wasn't aware that Tiscalli were rolling out IPTV, but I would hope that they could sort out their ADSL service first though.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

This will have interesting ramifications for VM's assertion that Sky's stance was anti-competitive.

Newtel = 12,000 business, government and residential customers. link
Smallworld (as was WightCable North) = Currently serve about 40,000 homes in Carlisle, Lancaster, Morecombe, Irvine, Troon and Kilmarnock link
WightCable = 5000 customers link (only thing I could find with numbers)
VN = over 3,300,000 customers.

I wonder if the other companies have the same "minimum payment" clause that was proposed to VM?

[Incomplete]

Originally Posted by Toto

I wasn't aware that Tiscalli were rolling out IPTV, but I would hope that they could sort out their ADSL service first though.

Agreed their broadband is dire, but perhaps a bit of research was due in that case before claiming that they were not a competitor?

---------- Post added at 16:13 ---------- Previous post was at 16:10 ----------

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Newtel = 12,000 business, government and residential customers. link
Smallworld (as was WightCable North) = Currently serve about 40,000 homes in Carlisle, Lancaster, Morecombe, Irvine, Troon and Kilmarnock link
WightCable = 5000 customers link (only thing I could find with numbers)
VN = over 3,300,000 customers.

I wonder if the other companies have the same "minimum payment" clause that was proposed to VM?

I am sure all will be made clear in time. Personally though I agree with the commentator who suggested VM stop whinging about what everyone else is doing, especially Sky though also Carphone Warehouse, etc, and get their own house in order in order to more effectively compete through differentiated quality products rather than hoping PR and regulation will do it for them.

To claim that a supplier's goods are of low quality and you don't want them for business reasons then accuse that supplier of being anti-competitive for refusing to supply this low quality product to you at the price you want to pay just doesn't wash for me.

[on in an hour!]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Newtel = 12,000 business, government and residential customers. link
Smallworld (as was WightCable North) = Currently serve about 40,000 homes in Carlisle, Lancaster, Morecombe, Irvine, Troon and Kilmarnock link
WightCable = 5000 customers link (only thing I could find with numbers)
VN = over 3,300,000 customers.

I wonder if the other companies have the same "minimum payment" clause that was proposed to VM?

total 57,000 subscribers,not much clout then when bargaining for a price.if they didnt pay the price sky asked theyd be dead in the water!!! remember,VM annonced cust losses of 47,000 after the removal of the sky basic channels.youd think VM would have some clout when negotiating a price with sky,weve got 3.3m subs,thats a big audience for you to add to your figures and impress your potential advertisers with,wouldnt you want to do business with such a big potential audience??? obviously sky didnt.

[grabbi]

VM was told to pay £260.6m (3p per customer) for the channels and that includes the VoD content and HD content also.

If Tiscalli paid £335.7m, you have to wonder what extra perks Tiscalli are getting...

Either that or Sky werent willing to budge.

I believe, personally, that there wont be any minimum payment clauses for these companies, as they only pose a minor threat to Sky's dominance. Plus, on the PR side of it, it looks good for Sky.

At the end of it all, just because one or two people in the Higher-Ups of VM think Skys Basics are crap, doesnt mean that everyone will think so, even if I do agree with them.

They havent utilised the opportunity to brand their own channels, therefore failed in that text, and the latest offer given to VM (must have been sometime ago now) was satisfactory especially with the HD content and so on.

I believe there is something amiss here. We know about the Minimum price thing, but I think there could be more that is keeping VM from signing this deal.

I wonder if the Carlysle Group would just stump up the cash. or if their lawyers would see why VM wouldnt stump up.

[Downloads]

Originally Posted by Incomplete

Doubt it. Out and out lying when evidence is in black and white is very stupid. Considering how VM have made sure this stayed in the press as much as possible if what was in the press was inaccurate I'm fairly sure the VM PR department would have made sure we knew.

The contracts talked of a minimum figure which worked out more than the per customer figure due to Virgin not having enough customers to fill that condition. I don't know either way, but i wouldn't rule it out actually.

[Toto]

Originally Posted by grabbi

VM was told to pay £260.6m (3p per customer) for the channels and that includes the VoD content and HD content also.

If Tiscalli paid £335.7m, you have to wonder what extra perks Tiscalli are getting...

Either that or Sky werent willing to budge.

I believe, personally, that there wont be any minimum payment clauses for these companies, as they only pose a minor threat to Sky's dominance. Plus, on the PR side of it, it looks good for Sky.

At the end of it all, just because one or two people in the Higher-Ups of VM think Skys Basics are crap, doesnt mean that everyone will think so, even if I do agree with them.

They havent utilised the opportunity to brand their own channels, therefore failed in that text, and the latest offer given to VM (must have been sometime ago now) was satisfactory especially with the HD content and so on.

I believe there is something amiss here. We know about the Minimum price thing, but I think there could be more that is keeping VM from signing this deal.

I wonder if the Carlysle Group would just stump up the cash. or if their lawyers would see why VM wouldnt stump up.

Where did you get that VM figure from?