General : Virgin TV Anywhere arriving in Autumn 2012

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by andy_m

The streaming rights for a lot of those shows have been picked up by a third party in a deal that has absolutely nothing to do with Sky. Virgin's lack of channels doesn't stop them bidding for content, leverage with Sky has nothing to do with it.

I'm talking linear channels (you're the one that says linear aren't important because you can get it via on demand).If VM still had linear channels with decent new content, we wouldn't be waiting so long to get Atlantic.

[andy_m]

So do you want the content, or only if you can actually watch it on Atlantic?

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by andy_m

So do you want the content, or only if you can actually watch it on Atlantic?

I want the content when available for the first run airing in the UK. Which means via a linear channel. It can be called whatever it wants to be.

[andy_m]

Well then obviously you do need Sky Atlantic. Personally I can wait.

---------- Post added at 21:48 ---------- Previous post was at 21:46 ----------

Its still not right to say Virgin don't have any content just because it isn't specifically what YOU are after, though.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by andy_m

---------- Post added at 21:48 ---------- Previous post was at 21:46 ----------

Its still not right to say Virgin don't have any content just because it isn't specifically what YOU are after, though.

VM have no new, first run rights content. That's what we need to bargain with Sky.

[zantarous]

Originally Posted by andy_m

Well then obviously you do need Sky Atlantic. Personally I can wait.

---------- Post added at 21:48 ---------- Previous post was at 21:46 ----------

Its still not right to say Virgin don't have any content just because it isn't specifically what YOU are after, though.

Content that is on VOD is different from content that you as a provider provide. VM can not use content they have licensed for VOD as a leverage to get something from Sky. And there lies the heart of the matter you can have 1000s of hours of VOD but of that is available all over the place it is hardly a deciding factor.

If VM had Bravo HD, Living HD, Virgin One HD then they may have been able to use that in a bargain to get access to Sky channels. Now it is a case of Sky setting a price and VM don't want to pay it then there is nothing they can do to counter offer.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by passingbat

I'm talking linear channels (you're the one that says linear aren't important because you can get it via on demand).If VM still had linear channels with decent new content, we wouldn't be waiting so long to get Atlantic.

I'd like to have seen VM hold onto their own channels but streamline it down to a few , personally I think Virgin 1 and Living should have been kept with the others sacrificed. VM were doing a decent job with these channels , Living had gone HD and was exclusive so it would have been possible to do the same with Virgin 1 and maybe keep the HD variants exclusive on the VM platform to use as leverage with other platforms , it would have also helped with channels/content on the move like this TV Anywhere product.

[HDFootyMan]

I think people are forgetting what VM got out of selling their channels to Sky: Access to Sky HD channels, Sky VOD AND Sky Red button.

If they hadn't sold those channels, this forum would be full of threads demanding the likes of Sky One HD on Cable, as it was before the sale of VMTV.

All things considered, I think VM were right to sell the channels. Plenty of cable companies around the world do just fine without owning any content. What VM need to do get more out of the content they have, more out of TiVo and more out of their network and Virgin TV Anywhere is a good, if long overdue step in the right direction.

Still think they could be doing a hell of a lot more with TiVo but that's a topic for another thread.

[andy_m]

I was about to point out that you can only use something as leverage once, and that ship as far as Virgin's channels are concerned has long since sailed, but instead I'll just rep hd footy man for what is the best post of the thread.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by zantarous

Now it is a case of Sky setting a price and VM don't want to pay it then there is nothing they can do to counter offer.

Is that called "having a monopoly" and isn't that frowned-upon?

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by zantarous

Content that is on VOD is different from content that you as a provider provide. VM can not use content they have licensed for VOD as a leverage to get something from Sky. And there lies the heart of the matter you can have 1000s of hours of VOD but of that is available all over the place it is hardly a deciding factor.

If VM had Bravo HD, Living HD, Virgin One HD then they may have been able to use that in a bargain to get access to Sky channels. Now it is a case of Sky setting a price and VM don't want to pay it then there is nothing they can do to counter offer.

Originally Posted by muppetman11

I'd like to have seen VM hold onto their own channels but streamline it down to a few , personally I think Virgin 1 and Living should have been kept with the others sacrificed. VM were doing a decent job with these channels , Living had gone HD and was exclusive so it would have been possible to do the same with Virgin 1 and maybe keep the HD variants exclusive on the VM platform to use as leverage with other platforms , it would have also helped with channels/content on the move like this TV Anywhere product.

Exactly what I've been talking about.

---------- Post added at 00:39 ---------- Previous post was at 00:17 ----------

Originally Posted by HDFootyMan

I think people are forgetting what VM got out of selling their channels to Sky: Access to Sky HD channels, Sky VOD AND Sky Red button.

If they hadn't sold those channels, this forum would be full of threads demanding the likes of Sky One HD on Cable, as it was before the sale of VMTV.

They should have held something back or had a copper bottomed clause that handled any future sky atlantic type situations.

Originally Posted by HDFootyMan

Plenty of cable companies around the world do just fine without owning any content.

But are the situations the same in these countries? And out of interest, do they have companies who are both content and service providers, which is the situation with Sky and what is causing the problem?

[RichardCoulter]

I wonder if this could be used to provide some sort of TV service to non cabled areas with Virgin National?

Ages ago, there was talk of VM eventually being able to offer TiVo in non cabled areas.

[zantarous]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Is that called "having a monopoly" and isn't that frowned-upon?

Well in this particular case I would say no as VM sold their channels willingly to Sky. However if the rumours are true about what happened with the NFL talks for this coming season then that is Sky abusing its market position.

If you don't know what happened apparently it has been suggested that Sky told the NFL it would not bid on any packages if ESPN were awarded anything that is why we have the ridiculouse situation with what the BBC are doing.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by zantarous

Well in this particular case I would say no as VM sold their channels willingly to Sky. However if the rumours are true about what happened with the NFL talks for this coming season then that is Sky abusing its market position.

If you don't know what happened apparently it has been suggested that Sky told the NFL it would not bid on any packages if ESPN were awarded anything that is why we have the ridiculouse situation with what the BBC are doing.

If that is the case then it just confirms to the vast majority that far more serious Regulatory action is required to stop what has been a systemic abuse of its monopolistic market position by Sky for the last 10 years.

[carlwaring]

So that's a "yes" then