General : Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2013) Vol. 2.

[colin25]

Originally Posted by Bananaman_007

By creating Atlantic and not putting the shows on Bravo Sky created some further leverage over Virgin. Virgin should have put some kind of deal in the agreement stating that if Sky launched any new channels in the next year Virgin would be able to carry them at the same rate they were paying for the other Sky channels currently.

That would be stupid by Sky, why in the world would they do that.

Originally Posted by weegiegeek

Gotcha. From the Guardian piece:



Must admit I wasn't aware of this. If anything, I'd have expected the opposite - VM renting backhaul from BT, since large parts of VM's network are currently overloaded.

I'm not a technical expert but I don't think back haul is an issue as it doesn't touch the local network. Something like 70% of all mobile traffic is on VM's network and has no issues.

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by Chad

If Danny Dire ever pops up in an episode of Game of Thrones I'll rip my dish off the wall

lmfao.........

[Bananaman_007]

Originally Posted by colin25

That would be stupid by Sky, why in the world would they do that.

Why would it be stupid? They wanted the old Flextech channels, Virgin were in the driving seat for those negotiations and while they did well on the cash front out of the deal, they did not think of the bigger picture.

They sold Sky the 1 bargaining tool they had in agreeing carriage rights. I would have thought Sky were keen to get them at any cost. Sky would have benifited from the deal, by Virgin having access to the channel for a minimum 12 months, which would have been in Sky's favor when agreeing a renewal deal with Virgin.

[the_pidgeon]

I thought Sky Atlantic was the old Virgin 1 channel.

[Media Boy UK]

Originally Posted by Bananaman_007

I think what MB was trying to say was Bravo closed so Atlantic could launch. In doing this Sky launched a new channel which they did not have to supply to Virgin. If Bravo had continued, i would imagine it would have still been on Virgin.

By creating Atlantic and not putting the shows on Bravo, Sky created some further leverage over Virgin. Virgin should have put some kind of deal in the agreement, stating that if Sky launched any new channels in the next year Virgin would be able to carry them at the same rate they were paying for the other Sky channels currently.

Before it closed, heavy focus was on Bravo, buying in some big US imports, that were pulling good numbers for the channel. All of the new program budget from Challenge was moved into Bravo. Combine this with the female orientated Living which Sky had tried to replicate and failed and they knew they had to buy them up even if it was to close some of the channels to stop anybody else getting their hands on them and building upon the growing Bravo and Living brands.

That what I was meaning - in my own wee way.

[colin25]

Originally Posted by Bananaman_007

Why would it be stupid? They wanted the old Flextech channels, Virgin were in the driving seat for those negotiations and while they did well on the cash front out of the deal, they did not think of the bigger picture.

They sold Sky the 1 bargaining tool they had in agreeing carriage rights. I would have thought Sky were keen to get them at any cost. Sky would have benifited from the deal, by Virgin having access to the channel for a minimum 12 months, which would have been in Sky's favor when agreeing a renewal deal with Virgin.

But you haven't explained why Sky would do it...merely why it would be beneficial for Virgin. There are two in this, so needs to be ok for both.

[bamav]

Originally Posted by jst

How can you say that it's not value for money..........how many football, rugby and cricket games can you watch in a month....away and talk some sense!

I suppose it depends on what your interests are. I personally don't think it's value for money as I don't watch sport all the time. I just watch some football when it's my team, or a European game. So I'm having to fork out the same amount of money as someone who has the channel on every hour of the day.

I feel it's over-priced with far too many adverts, which should really be covering the bulk of their costs.

Sky could quite easily cut quite a considerable amount off their subscription rates for sport and still make a comfortable profit for future investments; ie buying rights, etc. Just because Sky have created an artificially high bidding system for sports does not give them retrospective right to over-charge in the first place.

If the lowered sub and wholesale costs, they would get more subscribers which would give then more power with advertisers. Might even balance out for them in the long term, and they come out looking better for it.

[douglasross]

If all the football watchers cancelled their saubscriptions to sports channels then I reckon Mr Murdock would slash prices and I do not think it would take long but while some people are prepared to pay over the odds then Sky et al will push market forces to the max to increase revenue

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Except those of us who read the first book with tremendous difficulty and couldn't get into the second one despite our friend's assertion it was a terrific set of books.
I can live without Atlantic as most of the stuff that appears on Sky's premier channel will eventually get shown on another channel when either cancelled or no longer watched by the majority of Sky customers.It's happened time and time again when Sky one was their top channel.

I agree. In years to come we may find Game of Thrones on Pick TV

Originally Posted by Media Boy

A) Got updated today from insiders and as of 12.40pm no new channels are set to launch as far as my insiders knows.

B) Only Two channels are not in all areas of Virgin Media right now and you are on the ball - RTE Radio and WRN Radio (Old Telewest areas only).

---------- Post added at 15:43 ---------- Previous post was at 15:41 ----------



Thanks for update Ben B.

I'll try to ascertain what these two "minor" channels are when I next speak to him

[Media Boy UK]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I'll try to ascertain what these two "minor" channels are when I next speak to him

Maybe they are Universal HD and E! HD but that will not happen due them not being ''Minor'' Channels.

Any of the two 'minor' channels may come from:

-The Active Channel (Virgin Media on Facebook confirmed that channel was set to launch on April 9th - No news yet on new launch date.)
-CBS Reality +1
-Fox +1
-Men&Movies
-Information TV
-Showcase TV
-Travel Channel
-Food Network
-Horse & Country TV
-Horror Channel +1
-Sony Movie Channel
-Movies4Men
-Heart TV
-Capital TV
-Chelsea TV
-Premier Sports
-Premier Sports Extra
-Trace Sports
-CCTV News
-RT
-RT HD
-CNC World
-UCB TV
-EWTN TV
-JML Direct
-High Street TV
-Jewellery Channel
-QVC Beauty
-Thane Direct
-Rocks & Co 1
-STAR Plus HD
-ARY Qtv
-ARY Oneworld
-Sahara One
-Al Jazeera Children's Channel

[johnasimmons]

Originally Posted by Media Boy

Maybe they are Universal HD and E! HD but that will not happen due them not being ''Minor'' Channels.

Any of the two 'minor' channels may come from:

-The Active Channel (Virgin Media on Facebook confirmed that channel was set to launch on April 9th - No news yet on new launch date.)
-CBS Reality +1
-Fox +1
-Men&Movies
-Information TV
-Showcase TV
-Travel Channel
-Food Network
-Horse & Country TV
-Horror Channel +1
-Sony Movie Channel
-Movies4Men
-Heart TV
-Capital TV
-Chelsea TV
-Premier Sports
-Premier Sports Extra
-Trace Sports
-CCTV News
-RT
-RT HD
-CNC World
-UCB TV
-EWTN TV
-JML Direct
-High Street TV
-Jewellery Channel
-QVC Beauty
-Thane Direct
-Rocks & Co 1
-STAR Plus HD
-ARY Qtv
-ARY Oneworld
-Sahara One
-Al Jazeera Children's Channel

& Comedy Central Extra+1?

[Media Boy UK]

Originally Posted by johnasimmons

& Comedy Central Extra+1?

If Comedy Central Extra +1 was launch that will mean an new broadcast deal with Viacom.

Viacom also own all MTV and Nickeldeon Channels.

See my list on post one for full list of channels own by Viacom.

[DaMac]

Just pick two that have been available for years on freesat.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by bamav

I suppose it depends on what your interests are. I personally don't think it's value for money as I don't watch sport all the time. I just watch some football when it's my team, or a European game. So I'm having to fork out the same amount of money as someone who has the channel on every hour of the day.

I feel it's over-priced with far too many adverts, which should really be covering the bulk of their costs.

Sky could quite easily cut quite a considerable amount off their subscription rates for sport and still make a comfortable profit for future investments; ie buying rights, etc. Just because Sky have created an artificially high bidding system for sports does not give them retrospective right to over-charge in the first place.

If the lowered sub and wholesale costs, they would get more subscribers which would give then more power with advertisers. Might even balance out for them in the long term, and they come out looking better for it.

BIB, I agree fully, they really should make the prices fairer. They get to keep prices high by claiming they save people money by not having to go to live matches (no known link, just what CS used to tell me). Whilst it "saves" money on the odd live game (work time permitting) I go to see in Northampton, I wonder if I would ever spend money to go to Durham to watch a cricket game, seeings as I live in Cambridge, I doubt I ever will. Ergo, I feel I am missing out on I would never have watched otherwise. Sky Sports is a massive rip-off for me and does not "save" me money. Sky seemingly want to give people the "saving money" guff just to keep subscribers high and can seemingly push advertising prices up