Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2011) Vol. I.

[Chad]

That's a great article Muppetman, thanks for the link.

The future doesn't look great for stand alone TV channels on Virgin. TIVO also appears to be a few months away.

I'm not really that fussed about "The Digital Experience" I like TV and having great broadband. Once the Digital Economy Act begins to be enforced, I'm not sure as many Virgin customers will be needing 50Mb or 100Mb broadband.

I'm tossing my hat firmly in the "Virgins going down the wrong path" ring.

[LexDiamond]

Originally Posted by ahardie

I haven't ever heard anyone say that Sky is a monopoly. The fear is that they will eventually become a monopoly. Sky has so much money that if they decide to squeeze other platforms by denying them content then there is nothing to stop them. At least when VM owned some channels they had some leverage over Sky. Now they have nothing. VM used the sale of the channels to gain some of Sky's exclusive channels to give them a fighting chance to compete against them. Look what has happened. Sky has bought loads of content that they could have put on their existing channels and put it on a new exclusive channel. How any customer would say that is not a bad thing is beyond me. The different platforms should be competing on price and level of service not channel exclusivity.
If Sky were split up they would still have the incentive to make money that any company has. It's not going to happen though. What we need is for Ofcom to take a stand on this blatant anti-competitive and anti consumer behaviour but Murdoch has too much political influence for that to happen.

But if Sky is split it wouldn't really have the same incentive as it does now.

Why would Sky release Atlantic HD just for the sake of it as a platform provider if the release does not specifically strengthen Sky's own position? The argument to split is all good and well except that it would actually leave Sky customers worse off.

I really do find it strange that some people say Sky should be asked to split. So basically people would want a situation where Virgin make no investment in actual channels whereas Sky do but Virgin have all the benefits of that channel investment that Sky have made.

Sky hold a strong market position because they are the ones that put their hands in their pockets and made the risky decisions to invest. Virgin have washed their hands of any kind of such investment and taken a low risk strategy of being a platform provider only.

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

But if Sky is split it wouldn't really have the same incentive as it does now.

Why would Sky release Atlantic HD just for the sake of it as a platform provider if the release does not specifically strengthen Sky's own position? The argument to split is all good and well except that it would actually leave Sky customers worse off.

I really do find it strange that some people say Sky should be asked to split. So basically people would want a situation where Virgin make no investment in actual channels whereas Sky do but Virgin have all the benefits of that channel investment that Sky have made.

Sky hold a strong market position because they are the ones that put their hands in their pockets and made the risky decisions to invest. Virgin have washed their hands of any kind of such investment and taken a low risk strategy of being a platform provider only.

to make more money from ad revenues and subs? Exclusive channels don't benefit the consumer.

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

But if Sky is split it wouldn't really have the same incentive as it does now.

Why would Sky release Atlantic HD just for the sake of it as a platform provider if the release does not specifically strengthen Sky's own position? The argument to split is all good and well except that it would actually leave Sky customers worse off.

I really do find it strange that some people say Sky should be asked to split. So basically people would want a situation where Virgin make no investment in actual channels whereas Sky do but Virgin have all the benefits of that channel investment that Sky have made.

Sky hold a strong market position because they are the ones that put their hands in their pockets and made the risky decisions to invest. Virgin have washed their hands of any kind of such investment and taken a low risk strategy of being a platform provider only.

I don't actually think they should be split. I think there should be regulation to protect us customers. When Sky took the basic channels off cable they lost something like 60 million pounds a year in advertising. This on top of what they are making from their own customers. That shows how much incentive there should be to sell on their channels to other platforms. Why is it that they wont settle for that kind of money? Because they want to force customers of other platforms over to their platform. That is why we customers need protection. Monopolies are never a good thing and channels exclusive to one channel only harm the customer. I really don't know why any customer would defend this practice.

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by passingbat

I'm saying I don't know the details of the Sky Atlantic and Virgin TV channels sale negotiations. And because I don't, I can't say who's fault it was/is.

And unless you were in those negotiations or know the details of them, you can't can't say who's fault it was either.

So, how can you say VM aren't to blame and it's Sky's fault? Unless of course, you're biased?

Can you keep the discussion to VM please and stop being personal?

[LexDiamond]

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

to make more money from ad revenues and subs? Exclusive channels don't benefit the consumer.

But as a platform provider only, what is Sky's incentive to actually pay HBO for exclusivity and then make one channel that is then the home of HBO? As a platform provider only, Sky would have to put their hands in their pockets and make the investment only for other platforms to get the benefits without taking any of the risk. This is obviously something Virgin aren't willing to do.

And in the end Sky Atlantic will almost certainly be on Virgin anyway. So VM consumers will be better off (although IMHO Sky Atlantic will just end up being a load of hot air anyway - but it seems that I am the minority and most people are interested in this channel). It is just initially Sky will go through the motions of making a huge deal about this channel making people think it is something it is not.

Originally Posted by ahardie

I don't actually think they should be split. I think there should be regulation to protect us customers. When Sky took the basic channels off cable they lost something like 60 million pounds a year in advertising. This on top of what they are making from their own customers. That shows how much incentive there should be to sell on their channels to other platforms. Why is it that they wont settle for that kind of money? Because they want to force customers of other platforms over to their platform. That is why we customers need protection. Monopolies are never a good thing and channels exclusive to one channel only harm the customer. I really don't know why any customer would defend this practice.

The only problem with the argument of regulation is that VM have gone ahead and sold Sky channels in an open market situation. It is actually VM's stance for the market to be this way. It is unfair for regulation on behalf of other platforms when VM are actually selling Sky channels at the same time.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

But if Sky is split it wouldn't really have the same incentive as it does now.

Why would Sky release Atlantic HD just for the sake of it as a platform provider if the release does not specifically strengthen Sky's own position? The argument to split is all good and well except that it would actually leave Sky customers worse off.

It wouldn't be "for the sake of it", it'd be for the same reasons it does now, providing content, driving subscriber numbers, and raising revenue.

There's an argument that they'd have MORE incentive as a stand alone content provider, more potential revenue from both subscriptions and advertising. The potential audience for a non-sky exclusive channel is many times that of a sky exclusive one, this drives revenue, increases profits, and makes shareholders happy.

Businesses always have to look at how to strengthen their offerings, so new channel launches would always happen. There's no reason why a separate channel provider would allow their product line up to stand still.

[muppetman11]

Superior it may be, but the high speeds are just an enabler. What is "game-changing",
says Berkett, is Virgin Media's new internet-enabled cable TV box, which
will be available to all of its cable TV customers in a few months. TiVo,
currently available to Virgin's premium customers, features a range of
iPad-style apps, from gaming to news to social networks.

Am I missing something how's it available to premium customers. I thought it was just 500 VM staff .

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

Can you keep the discussion to VM please and stop being personal?

I'm not being personal, I'm stating facts. To make a statment that Virgin aren't to blame for not getting Sky Atlantic from launch and Sky are, when you weren't involved in the negotiations and therefore don't know the facts, must be bias.

I wasn't being offensive and didn't intend any offense; I was just stating the natural conclusion.

[LexDiamond]

Originally Posted by TheDon

It wouldn't be "for the sake of it", it'd be for the same reasons it does now, providing content, driving subscriber numbers, and raising revenue.

There's an argument that they'd have MORE incentive as a stand alone content provider, more potential revenue from both subscriptions and advertising. The potential audience for a non-sky exclusive channel is many times that of a sky exclusive one, this drives revenue, increases profits, and makes shareholders happy.

Businesses always have to look at how to strengthen their offerings, so new channel launches would always happen. There's no reason why a separate channel provider would allow their product line up to stand still.

I would have thought it would be just for the sake of it.

The truth behind Sky Atlantic HD is that the sale of Virgin channels to Sky has merely lead to a rearrangement of content to other channels. Sky just closed some channels, made a new one and then added HBO content into this one channel whereas they could just have signed an HBO deal and added the shows to existing channels.

It is just a marketing excercise where VM customers feel worse off and Sky customers feel better off. In a few months both will probably be about the same again.

But the point is that Sky customers do feel better off. Sky used their initiative to make this happen. And this happens specifically because Sky have an incentive to do so through the way they currently operate.

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

But as a platform provider only, what is Sky's incentive to actually pay HBO for exclusivity and then make one channel that is then the home of HBO? As a platform provider only, Sky would have to put their hands in their pockets and make the investment only for other platforms to get the benefits without taking any of the risk. This is obviously something Virgin aren't willing to do.And in the end Sky Atlantic will almost certainly be on Virgin anyway. So VM consumers will be better off (although IMHO Sky Atlantic will just end up being a load of hot air anyway - but it seems that I am the minority and most people are interested in this channel). It is just initially Sky will go through the motions of making a huge deal about this channel making people think it is something it is not.



The only problem with the argument of regulation is that VM have gone ahead and sold Sky channels in an open market situation. It is actually VM's stance for the market to be this way. It is unfair for regulation on behalf of other platforms when VM are actually selling Sky channels at the same time.

Sky aren't investing here though. They aren't really producing anything, they are just buying up rights/out bidding.

VM had HBO on demand, so put their hands in their pockets at that point, also for other VOD deals, such as Warner TV, Universal, MTV, Bio, ITV, BBC, 4oD, plus more to come.

---------- Post added at 17:58 ---------- Previous post was at 17:54 ----------

Originally Posted by passingbat

I'm not being personal, I'm stating facts. To make a statment that Virgin aren't to blame for not getting Sky Atlantic from launch and Sky are, when you weren't involved in the negotiations and therefore don't know the facts, must be bias.

I wasn't being offensive and didn't intend any offense; I was just stating the natural conclusion.

I have taken offence from the post you made, but thank you for this.

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

I would have thought it would be just for the sake of it.

The truth behind Sky Atlantic HD is that the sale of Virgin channels to Sky has merely lead to a rearrangement of content to other channels. Sky just closed some channels, made a new one and then added HBO content into this one channel whereas they could just have signed an HBO deal and added the shows to existing channels.

It is just a marketing excercise where VM customers feel worse off and Sky customers feel better off. In a few months both will probably be about the same again.

But the point is that Sky customers do feel better off. Sky used their initiative to make this happen. And this happens specifically because Sky have an incentive to do so through the way they currently operate.

What makes you think in a few months time things will be better? If there isn't regulation to protect the customer what's to say things wont get worse to the point where we eventually onl have one choice of platform. How can that possibly be to our benefit?
Ofcom have said that they are looking in to make it easier to be able to swap platforms. I'm hoping channel exclusivity will be part of that investigation.

[mattboothers]

Quote me the price on this but how much exactly did Virgin Media get for selling the Virgin Media Entertainment channels to Sky. I know it was a six figure sum but what the hell did Virgin Media do to it all. Surely we should have all the Sky SD and HD channels by now with that money. Or have Sky just ripped us off.

Surely Tivo and Sky HD premiums dont cost six figure sums.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by passingbat

I'm saying I don't know the details of the Sky Atlantic and Virgin TV channels sale negotiations. And because I don't, I can't say who's fault it was/is.

And unless you were in those negotiations or know the details of them, you can't can't say who's fault it was either.

So, how can you say VM aren't to blame and it's Sky's fault? Unless of course, you're biased?

sky has made it plain from start it a sky exclusive in the millions they spent on the adverts so hows that VM fault they want it all to themself they only want one thing a monopoly sooner people see this the better

Originally Posted by mattboothers

Quote me the price on this but how much exactly did Virgin Media get for selling the Virgin Media Entertainment channels to Sky. I know it was a six figure sum but what the hell did Virgin Media do to it all. Surely we should have all the Sky SD and HD channels by now with that money. Or have Sky just ripped us off.

Surely Tivo and Sky HD premiums dont cost six figure sums.

I believe as well as investing in the TV they paid of a bit of their not inconsiderable debt but i could be wrong.