General : Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2013) Vol. 3.

[johnasimmons]

Originally Posted by howardmicks

30 p off 4 million customers is a lot bud

1.2 million pounds...

[thegrid]

Originally Posted by ottoni

Lets look at it from both sides, BT have got this brand new product and has come into this with all the bells and whistles going and it has, of course got peoples attention. They want primarily to use this to get new phone and broadband customers, but if it steals some virgin and Sky customers, all the better great PR for BT.

Virgin on the other hand have dug a bit of a hole for themselves. They have now become associated with giving football away as 'free' with tv xl from when it was Setanta and then ESPN. Virgin now want it again with BT and of course BT are playing hardball. They will both end up losing, virgin would have eroded themselves the value of their top tier tv package if they can't get it, and BT will have to explain to shareholders why a potential 4-5 million extra viewers can't see their tv channels.

I've got to agree with you on this. Sky will probably end up being the winner with this as they have the full package. BT has their sport and Virgin has the rest. I'll be staying with Virgin because i'm not in a rush to get BT Sport. Although it will be showing the majority of my Teams games this season, it doesn't really bother me.

[Islandman]

Originally Posted by ChrisB74

If we don't get BT Sport I just hope that the money remaining from the loss of ESPN [let's say £9.99 per month in XL price] is used to pay for the following and then VM will be loved once more!

-CI HD
-CI +1
-HISTORY HD
-Sky News HD
-Sky Sports News HD
-More 4 HD
-Disney Channel HD
-Disney Junior +
-Disney Junior HD
-Disney XD HD
-FOX +1
-MGM HD
-Nat Wild HD
-E! HD
-Universal Channel HD

[and if Sky are feeling like ganging up on BT]
-Sky Atlantic
-Sky Atlantic +1
-Sky Atlantic HD
-Sky Sports F1 HD
-Sky Sports 3 HD
-Sky Sports 4 HD

The logic of this thinking escapes me. So, we lose 4 sports channels, denying us access to many sports including the EPL, but if VM replace them with Disney channels and other channels we mostly already have but not in HD, all will be well and we'll all love VM again. NO WE WON'T! THEY NEED TO REPLACE WHAT THEY HAVE TAKEN AWAY. DISNEY???????

[muppetman11]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...-rejected.html

Very interesting whilst good news for Sky what does this mean for wholesale deals of BT Sport ? VM already have all the Sky Sports channels in SD and two in HD while BT can currently only offer its own sports channels with its You view box will they want to strengthen its competitors sports offerings ?I guess we'll have to wait and see.

It could be argued all the pay TV platforms now have stronger sports offerings than BT's You view.

[young_timbo]

Originally Posted by Jameseh

Lets say 30p.

I looked into this the other day. Bar one poster on here, all evidence I can see points to ESPN having received a fee of £2-£3 per sub from Virgin. I don't believe 30p for a minute, nobody would accept 30p out of £114. you'd just say get stuffed. out of principle.

[XxDanoxX]

Can't help but think that VM don't really feel the need to compete, I mean it's either them or Sky for most folk.

What is needed is for BT to up their game when it comes to their TV offering - move into the same fields as VM and force VM's hand.

It's pretty poor that channels close and they've nothing lined up to fill the gap immediately.

Now, if a few shopping channels closed on VM, nobody is going to give two hoots - but premium channels being lost from XL DOES devalue the overall offering and it is taking the pish when they just shrug and not offer subscription refunds.

It's about Premium offerings, Premium offerings is what allows you to charge what you charge, if you lose that offering then in my opinion the cost should come down.

[ocav]

Originally Posted by Islandman

The logic of this thinking escapes me. So, we lose 4 sports channels, denying us access to many sports including the EPL, but if VM replace them with Disney channels and other channels we mostly already have but not in HD, all will be well and we'll all love VM again. NO WE WON'T! THEY NEED TO REPLACE WHAT THEY HAVE TAKEN AWAY. DISNEY???????

As someone who doesn't watch sport, I'd much prefer to be able to watch the shows, I, and my younger siblings want to watch in HD. Based on what was said in another thread not many people would pay extra for BT Sport, so what's the difference to VM, if VM get it as an add on they won't make a penny off having BT Sport, whereas they would by saying they have practically the same amount of HD channels as Sky!

[Clarence]

Just to clarify, VM stated we are free to cancel TV but would have to pay a release fee for BB and phone. For me that only totals £110, so I am sorely tempted.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...-rejected.html

Very interesting whilst good news for Sky what does this mean for wholesale deals of BT Sport ? VM already have all the Sky Sports channels in SD and two in HD while BT can currently only offer its own sports channels with its You view box will they want to strengthen its competitors sports offerings ?I guess we'll have to wait and see.

None of these companies should be allowed to with-hold their content in my mind and in my humble opinion its time Ofcom sorted out this type of behaviour once and for all.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...-rejected.html

Very interesting whilst good news for Sky what does this mean for wholesale deals of BT Sport ? VM already have all the Sky Sports channels in SD and two in HD while BT can currently only offer its own sports channels with its You view box will they want to strengthen its competitors sports offerings ?I guess we'll have to wait and see.

It could be argued all the pay TV platforms now have stronger sports offerings than BT's You view.

cant see that changing any time at all MM

[clinteastman]

Originally Posted by ocav

As someone who doesn't watch sport, I'd much prefer to be able to watch the shows, I, and my younger siblings want to watch in HD. Based on what was said in another thread not many people would pay extra for BT Sport, so what's the difference to VM, if VM get it as an add on they won't make a penny off having BT Sport, whereas they would by saying they have practically the same amount of HD channels as Sky!

I too would rather the money go on none sporty content. I think that the bundles should be a whole lot more granular too.

[thegrid]

I think that since Virgin Media was acquired by Liberty Global (as bad as it seems at the moment) They are thinking long term by negotiating carefully to give its customers quality channels rather than rush to get anything that not all the customers want. This wouldn't be so much of a problem had ESPN not been included in the XL package, but because it was we're all expecting BT Sport as a immediate replacement.

[i am not scouse]

Originally Posted by howardmicks

The money there saving from not paying espn is going nowhere other than gathering interest to end up in shareholders back pockets

Totally agree. They will just wether the storm and we wont see anything new that is worth what was lost.

[young_timbo]

Originally Posted by denphone

None of these companies should be allowed to with-hold their content in my mind and in my humble opinion its time Ofcom sorted out this type of behaviour once and for all.

The sports rights should be opened up and every TV service should be allowed to buy every pack for a set price. Then the customer can choose the provider which gives them the best value. The way it is now is ridiculous. Paying two people, and many people unable to even have a chance the pay the 2nd person. Or being able to pay the 2nd person, but then not being able to pay the 1st if what the Telegraph says is true. It'll be necessary to pay a 3rd person soon. Greed from all the companies is what has gotten us in this position. Taking advantage of this nation's unequivocal love of Sport. Well, the majority anyway, the minority represented on here hate sport and are only gutted because when they heard ESPN was going they assumed Nick HD and Sky Atlantic would come in its place. Because they haven't, nobody is happy.

[johnasimmons]

Originally Posted by young_timbo

The sports rights should be opened up and every TV service should be allowed to buy every pack for a set price. Then the customer can choose the provider which gives them the best value. The way it is now is ridiculous. Paying two people, and many people unable to even have a chance the pay the 2nd person. Or being able to pay the 2nd person, but then not being able to pay the 1st if what the Telegraph says is true. It'll be necessary to pay a 3rd person soon. Greed from all the companies is what has gotten us in this position. Taking advantage of this nation's unequivocal love of Sport. Well, the majority anyway, the minority represented on here hate sport and are only gutted because when they heard ESPN was going they assumed Nick HD and Sky Atlantic would come in its place. Because they haven't, nobody is happy.

I might be wrong, but I think it is done like this in the USA...