General : Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2013) Vol. 5.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by howardmicks

Interesting times ahead me thinks,Bt nabbing more sports rights and netflix threating to nab more movies.Skys dominence is looking under threat and one would suspect its witholding channels is going to come back and bite them in the butt.

Sky's bully boy tactics worked in the past but now the bully boy is not reacting well to be given a taste of its own medicine in these last few months.

[vincerooney]

Question of the night why does the BT sport advert only say "is available also on the sky digital platform" but doesnt mention virgin media whatsoever???

Is it bitterness that virgin media played hard ball with them and got them to agree to free in XL?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by vincerooney

Question of the night why does the BT sport advert only say "is available also on the sky digital platform" but doesnt mention virgin media whatsoever???

Is it bitterness that virgin media played hard ball with them and got them to agree to free in XL?

Because they are in the business of making money. They retail directly on the Sky platform and the subscribers they make the least off of are Virgin XL subscribers.

At the end of the day it's not up to BT to push sales of a Virgin Media.

It's also debatable who played "hard ball" with who.

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by denphone

Sky's bully boy tactics worked in the past but now the bully boy is not reacting well to be given a taste of its own medicine in these last few months.

What do you think the difference is between Sky and BT?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by andy_m

What do you think the difference is between Sky and BT?

l don't think there is much difference but the fact remains that Sky for many many years used their huge financial resources to distort the market to suit their own increasingly monopolising position and in that process put ITV Digital and Setanta Sports out of business and also forced ESPN to withdraw from the UK market but now another big boy has come along and they don't like it up them one bit but it serves them right because like all bullies in the playground someone else comes along to start to bully them and give them the same treatment they have given many others in the last 15 years plus and as the old saying goes you reap what you sow.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by denphone

l don't think there is much difference but the fact remains that Sky for many many years used their huge financial resources to distort the market to suit their own increasingly monopolising position and in that process put ITV Digital and Setanta Sports out of business and also forced ESPN to withdraw from the UK market but now another big boy has come along and they don't like it up them one bit but it serves them right because like all bullies in the playground someone else comes along to start to bully them and give them the same treatment they have given many others in the last 15 years plus and as the old saying goes you reap what you sow.

But they will still abuse their position Den. Everyone knows my argument is that Sky should put prices down to reflect the lost content, but they won't.

All they will do is keep ripping off the people who keep paying.

The only way to stop Sky being dominant is for people to stop paying them over the top for sports.

BT are trying to take Sky on, whether it is for the customer or their own gain I do not know. It is pointless though if people blindly pay Sky what Sky want.

I won't be drawn into an argument on this (everyone will be pleased to know) but the sooner people vote with their wallets, the sooner we will see real change.

[johnathome]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

I won't be drawn into an argument on this (everyone will be pleased to know) but the sooner people vote with their wallets, the sooner we will see real change.

The way the pubs did. I mentioned in the other thread (i think) that Sky wanted an extra £500 per month off my local and they got rid.

Five years later they're now paying £300 less than before they cancelled.

Let's hope the home viewers do the same.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by johnathome

The way the pubs did. I mentioned in the other thread (i think) that Sky wanted an extra £500 per month off my local and they got rid.

Five years later they're now paying £300 less than before they cancelled.

Let's hope the home viewers do the same.

Good for them. Let's hope many others follow suite.

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by denphone

l don't think there is much difference but the fact remains that Sky for many many years used their huge financial resources to distort the market to suit their own increasingly monopolising position and in that process put ITV Digital and Setanta Sports out of business and also forced ESPN to withdraw from the UK market but now another big boy has come along and they don't like it up them one bit but it serves them right because like all bullies in the playground someone else comes along to start to bully them and give them the same treatment they have given many others in the last 15 years plus and as the old saying goes you reap what you sow.

Do two wrongs make a right, then?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by andy_m

Do two wrongs make a right, then?

Perhaps the more senior or more intelligent statesman's of this forum can answer that Andy as l just say what l think but that does not mean that l am right as quite often l am wrong dear chap.

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by denphone

Perhaps the more senior or more intelligent statesman's of this forum can answer that Andy as l just say what l think but that does not mean that l am right as quite often l am wrong dear chap.

I don't disagree, Sky got in to a dominant market position by spending money to the detriment of the consumer, financially at least. I'm just not sure i can join you in rejoicing in the rise of BT to take them on because i can't see how allowing a company to repeat the anti competitive practices of another benefits anybody other than that company.

The industry requires a shake up-streaming options are beginning to provide genuine competition to entertainment tv subscriptions, where a range of companies offer broadly the same content, meaning they have to compete in other ways, but when it comes to sport there are too many vested interests reliant on huge exclusive deals with big companies. If those companies are making a profit, and they are, it stands to reason that it must be the consumer bearing the cost of these deals. Dressing it up as "free" by bundling it with other devices doesn't mean that's not true.

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by denphone

Perhaps the more senior or more intelligent statesman's of this forum can answer that Andy as l just say what l think but that does not mean that l am right as quite often l am wrong dear chap.

Jesus H, that made some sense!!

[spankysmagicpian]

Originally Posted by andy_m

I don't disagree, Sky got in to a dominant market position by spending money to the detriment of the consumer, financially at least. I'm just not sure i can join you in rejoicing in the rise of BT to take them on because i can't see how allowing a company to repeat the anti competitive practices of another benefits anybody other than that company.

The industry requires a shake up-streaming options are beginning to provide genuine competition to entertainment tv subscriptions, where a range of companies offer broadly the same content, meaning they have to compete in other ways, but when it comes to sport there are too many vested interests reliant on huge exclusive deals with big companies. If those companies are making a profit, and they are, it stands to reason that it must be the consumer bearing the cost of these deals. Dressing it up as "free" by bundling it with other devices doesn't mean that's not true.

Bob on AndyM.

I've always said the packages, especially the PL should be split 50/50 with a set cost for each. None of this bidding for X number of packages. It makes a mockery of the justification of the bidding in the first place in order to drive costs down.

Failing that, the Premier League should manage, produce and televise all the packages and sell them on to whoever for re-showing. That way, as you said, all channels who paid for the rights to re-show the games would have to compete in other ways. Even something like this would actually bring prices down if the only unique selling point was the price of the subs each month.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by andy_m

I don't disagree, Sky got in to a dominant market position by spending money to the detriment of the consumer, financially at least. I'm just not sure i can join you in rejoicing in the rise of BT to take them on because i can't see how allowing a company to repeat the anti competitive practices of another benefits anybody other than that company.

The industry requires a shake up-streaming options are beginning to provide genuine competition to entertainment tv subscriptions, where a range of companies offer broadly the same content, meaning they have to compete in other ways, but when it comes to sport there are too many vested interests reliant on huge exclusive deals with big companies. If those companies are making a profit, and they are, it stands to reason that it must be the consumer bearing the cost of these deals. Dressing it up as "free" by bundling it with other devices doesn't mean that's not true.

Trouble is Andy on the point of regulation we were supposed to get cheaper bills if l rightly remember with regards to opening up competition but well just like many other regulator's in this country that frankly has not happened as companies tend to pay lip service to the public and the bills keep on going up exponentially and sadly l cannot see that changing one jot unless as that old revered poster Harry says that we all cancel our subscriptions to these companies but that's not going to happen l am afraid as many like their entertainment at home nowadays and sports and movies are part of that entertainment market.

[Superblade7]

Hi guys,

Interesting read of all the posts about the BT Sports deal for the CL/EL. I think this definitely shows that BT are in it for the long haul and I think they've probably caught Sky on the back foot with this one as the CL was one of their 'golden eggs'.

The loss of the CL will definitely devalue Sky Sports from 2015 so it will be interesting to see what they do to react? Reduce prices, obtain alternative content?

Definitely interesting times ahead and I think, as others have said, with the onslaught Sky are facing with BT, Netflix, Blinkbox, Lovefilm, etc then hopefully they'll now view VM as a bit of an ally to wholesale their content through and finally give us the channels a lot of people on here would like such as Atlantic and the additional Sports HD channels.