Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky

Originally Posted by mersey70

Do you actually have a BSkyB press release confrming it, not press reports.

Mostly press reports, no press release, but they are quoting Sky management. One quote :-

Stuart Murphy, Director of Programmes for Sky 1 HD and Sky Atlantic HD, said of the latest offering from Sky: "Sky Atlantic HD will be such an incredible channel: seminal, world-class, epic TV all in one place. Unlike other broadcasters, Sky won't hide these series in the twilight hours – we feel incredibly proud of this content and feel privileged to air it in peak time, in high definition, exclusively for all Sky customers."


Read more: http://www.techradar.com/news/televi...#ixzz1AwV4pgL0

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by ahardie

Mostly press reports, no press release, but they are quoting Sky management. One quote :-

Stuart Murphy, Director of Programmes for Sky 1 HD and Sky Atlantic HD, said of the latest offering from Sky: "Sky Atlantic HD will be such an incredible channel: seminal, world-class, epic TV all in one place. Unlike other broadcasters, Sky won't hide these series in the twilight hours – we feel incredibly proud of this content and feel privileged to air it in peak time, in high definition, exclusively for all Sky customers."


Read more: http://www.techradar.com/news/televi...#ixzz1AwV4pgL0

I read TechRadar every day but the adverts say all of that anyway.

Where does it say that BSkyB are actually witholding it from other platfoms?

It dosen't, if you can find something from Sky that does I would genuinely be interested as it would then prove than VM's press statement must hold certain caveats, perhaps the agreement was only for the portfolio of channels when the deal was done.

I fear you will be looking for a needle in a haystack though, I have looked with a keen eye and can't find anything.

What does exclusively for sky customers and all the Sky adverts saying the same mean then? Everybody has been reading that as meaning you have to be a Sky customer to view the channel. Try as I might I can see no other way of interpreting it.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by ahardie

What does exclusively for sky customers and all the Sky adverts saying the same mean then? Everybody has been reading that as meaning you have to be a Sky customer to view the channel. Try as I might I can see no other way of interpreting it.

Groundhog day here now but it could mean anything, it obviously means it will only be on Sky but it dosen't say why.

Maybe other platforms simply cannot afford to offer it. DF's comments were interesting on that point.

I have nothing further to add, if you indeed find evidence it is being withheld I am really interested to know as it will clear up all sorts of misunderstandings about THAT press release.

[muppetman11]

I would imagine Sky are making it hard for Virgin to carry the channel by asking to much.

Originally Posted by mersey70

Groundhog day here now but it could mean anything, it obviously means it will only be on Sky but it dosen't say why.

Maybe other platforms simply cannot afford to offer it. DF's comments were interesting on that point.

I have nothing further to add, if you indeed find evidence it is being withheld I am really interested to know as it will clear up all sorts of misunderstandings about THAT press release.

I really don't know where you are going with this Mersey. If you believe that Sky are not deliberately keeping the channel as an exclusive then you are the only one I have seen in any forum who thinks that. In fact you might be the only one in the country.
If they are negotiating then Stuart Murphy shouldn't be announcing it as an exclusive weeks before the channel starts broadcasting. The adverts wouldn't be saying exclusive. Also Sky would be saying what they said during the Sky basics dispute "we are still negotiating". Even on twitter Sky are telling cable customers it's not going to launch on VM.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by mersey70

Groundhog day here now but it could mean anything, it obviously means it will only be on Sky but it dosen't say why.

Maybe other platforms simply cannot afford to offer it. DF's comments were interesting on that point.

I don't really have anything further to add, if you indeed find evidence it is being withheld I am really interested to know as it will clear up all sorts of misunderstandings about THAT press release.

---------- Post added at 19:25 ---------- Previous post was at 19:21 ----------

Originally Posted by ahardie

I really don't know where you are going with this Mersey. If you believe that Sky are not deliberately keeping the channel as an exclusive then you are the only one I have seen in any forum who thinks that. In fact you might be the only one in the country.
If they are negotiating then Stuart Murphy shouldn't be announcing it as an exclusive weeks before the channel starts broadcasting. The adverts wouldn't be saying exclusive. Also Sky would be saying what they said during the Sky basics dispute "we are still negotiating". Even on twitter Sky are telling cable customers it's not going to launch on VM.

I know it isn't going to launch on cable, but I don't know, and you don't know, why.

You have failled to provide proof it is being withheld simply because there is none.

That really is my last comment until you prove otherwise, 100 house points if you can.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by ahardie

I really don't know where you are going with this Mersey. If you believe that Sky are not deliberately keeping the channel as an exclusive then you are the only one I have seen in any forum who thinks that. In fact you might be the only one in the country.
If they are negotiating then Stuart Murphy shouldn't be announcing it as an exclusive weeks before the channel starts broadcasting. The adverts wouldn't be saying exclusive. Also Sky would be saying what they said during the Sky basics dispute "we are still negotiating". Even on twitter Sky are telling cable customers it's not going to launch on VM.

Mersey is right Sky can keep whatever they want as exclusive however most people know Sky use there Market position to stomp on everyone else.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by mersey70

---------- Post added at 19:25 ---------- Previous post was at 19:21 ----------



I know it isn't going to launch on cable, but I don't know, and you don't know, why.

You have failled to provide proof it is being withheld simply because there is none.
That really is my last comment until you prove otherwise, 100 house points if you can.

skys track record on the issue is proof enought why aint sky sports 3+4HD allowed on VM it because it being withheld from sky same as atlantic look at skys track record at doing this that should be more than proof enough sky only want a monopoly

[muppetman11]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...corp-bskyb-bid

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by Dave42

skys track record on the issue is proof enought why aint sky sports 3+4HD allowed on VM it because it being withheld from sky same as atlantic look at skys track record at doing this that should be more than proof enough sky only want a monopoly

Because SSP 3 & 4 HD are premium channels and were not part of OFCOMS consultation.

VM stated that they have access to ALL Sky's basic HD channels.

That's what is confusing, did it mean only existing channels or included an option to future launches.

I genuinely do not know. even DF didn't.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by mersey70

Because SSP 3 & 4 HD are premium channels and were not part of OFCOMS consultation.

VM stated that they have access to ALL Sky's basic HD channels.

That's what is confusing, did it mean only existing channels or included an option to future launches.

I genuinely do not know. even DF didn't.

Agree they are premium channels however Sky definately withheld them or made them too expensive for a reason hence all the advertising watch all the sky sports channels in HD only on Sky.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by mersey70

Because SSP 3 & 4 HD are premium channels and were not part of OFCOMS consultation.

VM stated that they have access to ALL Sky's basic HD channels.

That's what is confusing, did it mean only existing channels or included an option to future launches.

I genuinely do not know. even DF didn't.

i think sky are setting price too high so they know they dont have to give the channels and trying to get people to move to sky as they want a monolopy just IMO hope im wrong and some deals can be done would love to be able to have the channels

PS if goverment let murdoch have full control of sky it only gonna get worse

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by Dave42

i think sky are setting price too high so they know they dont have to give the channels and trying to get people to move to sky as they want a monolopy just IMO hope im wrong and some deals can be done would love to be able to have the channels

PS if goverment let murdoch have full control of sky it only gonna get worse

That is roughly my train of thought.

Let's be clear though, setting the price too high and withholding them are two completely different situations.

I can see no evidence whatsoever that Sky are actually withholding any of their basic channels and I base this on VM's own press release. If they don't fit in with VM's 'free HD' pricing structure then that again is a different matter altogether.

Maybe it's time for OFCOM to look at the pricing of the basic channels, maybe it's time for VM to reconsider their pricing structure. Maybe the deal is for the existing channels only.

I simply don't know.

[nialli]

According to The Independent last week:

The satellite broadcaster yesterday confirmed Sky Atlantic would launch in the UK next month and would be free to its 10 million subscribers. Virgin and BT, which show Sky channels including premium sports through a wholesale arrangement, have held talks over the new channel but have been unable to agree a deal. The broadcasters are hopeful of reaching an agreement, but remain some way apart over terms for the channel