General : Coming soon to Virgin TV 2014

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Dave42

Den what can VM do if sky wont let anyone have the missing channels please do tell as I said before and say again if sky give the missing channels they lose lots of customer we not getting them no matter how much us and VM would want them sky wont let anyone have them so nothing can be done

Then why do a backhaul deal with Sky if they ain't prepared to do a deal in return for Sky Atlantic and the other missing channels?.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by denphone

Then why do a backhaul deal with Sky if they ain't prepared to do a deal in return for Sky Atlantic and the other missing channels?.

backhaul and tv channels are totally different things though Den mate sky will not chance stance on the channels

[Anypermitedroute]

because VM need the cash more than Sky needs VM

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute

because VM need the cash more than Sky needs VM

very true there

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Dave42

backhaul and tv channels are totally different things though Den mate sky will not chance stance on the channels

That's a easy excuse to make and one that does not stand up to scrutiny.

---------- Post added at 11:14 ---------- Previous post was at 11:12 ----------

Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute

because VM need the cash more than Sky needs VM

They are now owned by LG so that should not be a problem as the CEO stated that we will want as much content as possible.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by denphone

That's a easy excuse to make and one that does not stand up to scrutiny.

it the FACT Den don't kid yourself sky wont let anyone have the missing channels they don't need to either

---------- Post added at 11:16 ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

That's a easy excuse to make and one that does not stand up to scrutiny.

---------- Post added at 11:14 ---------- Previous post was at 11:12 ----------



They are now owned by LG so that should not be a problem as the CEO stated that we will want as much content as possible.

that takes 2 sides to make deal to get the content sky wont let anyone have there missing channel nothing VM can do as much as we all hate sky policy on that it wont chance sadly

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by denphone

Then why do a backhaul deal with Sky if they ain't prepared to do a deal in return for Sky Atlantic and the other missing channels?.

Because VM are in the business of making money just like Sky and the deal was reportedly worth around £49,million to them.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Because VM are in the business of making money just like Sky and the deal was reportedly worth around £49,million to them.

exactly MM it got nothing to do with the missing sky channels

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute

Apart from last august (which was one quoted inside source article) has there been a single mention from any inside source or news item regarding this sky bravo?

I do really think this is a non news item and it's not related in any way to whether we get SA. The only reason we get it is either they are forced to or it makes commercial sense which sky has indicated that the price they want for it (be it in the millions or billions) has not been met.

More chance getting sky poker

Just because we have no further news doesn't mean that nothing's happening behind the scenes. Both sides will be very tight lipped until these negotiations are concluded.

Whether or not a deal is done may well depend on how badly Sky want their Bravo channel on VM.

I don't know on what basis you say that the two matters are not connected. Of course they are, VM will make sure of that!

---------- Post added at 12:09 ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 ----------

Originally Posted by Dave42

that takes 2 sides to make deal to get the content sky wont let anyone have there missing channel nothing VM can do as much as we all hate sky policy on that it wont chance sadly

Don't think channels, Dave, think content!

---------- Post added at 12:13 ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 ----------

Originally Posted by Dave42

exactly MM it got nothing to do with the missing sky channels

When company X wants something from company Y and company Y wants something from company X, surely you have to be a little blinkered to think there is no connection. These sorts of deals which to the untrained eye are unconnected can suddenly reveal themselves as being the key elements in a negotiation.

---------- Post added at 12:19 ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Agreed. The Guardian article from last August which I think launched the speculation said "It is understood that the launch of the channel is likely to be put on the back burner, in the short term at least, as it has not managed to gain a distribution deal to air in Virgin Media's four million-plus households." Why The Guardian understood this is not known.

Surely an article in The Guardian is more credible than the rumour mill on this forum. I wouldn't discount it that easily - no news is good news. To discover talks have broken down (and this hasn't been reported anywhere to my knowledge) has an air of finality about it. So as far as we know, negotiations continue.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Just because we have no further news doesn't mean that nothing's happening behind the scenes. Both sides will be very tight lipped until these negotiations are concluded.

Whether or not a deal is done may well depend on how badly Sky want their Bravo channel on VM.

I don't know on what basis you say that the two matters are not connected. Of course they are, VM will make sure of that!

---------- Post added at 12:09 ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 ----------

Don't think channels, Dave, think content!

---------- Post added at 12:13 ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 ----------

When company X wants something from company Y and company Y wants something from company X, surely you have to be a little blinkered to think there is no connection. These sorts of deals which to the untrained eye are unconnected can suddenly reveal themselves as being the key elements in a negotiation.

---------- Post added at 12:19 ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 ----------

Surely an article in The Guardian is more credible than the rumour mill on this forum. I wouldn't discount it that easily - no news is good news. To discover talks have broken down (and this hasn't been reported anywhere to my knowledge) has an air of finality about it. So as far as we know, negotiations continue.

and when company x wont let anyone have the thing company y wants what can company y do about it absolutely nothing you have to stop kidding yourself OB

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by vincerooney

I want tacky channels. I want pointless channels. I want stupid channels. I just want channels.

Sorry Vince, why waste money (which subscribers foot the bill for in the end) on 'Tacky, Pointless, Stupid' channels?

---------- Post added at 12:44 ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

So far Virgin have assumed that everybody wants faster internet speeds and BT Sport which in my humble opinion is fine to a certain extent but they also must listen to the customers who are not really interested in these but are more interested in having certain channels that Sky might have as one suspects if they don't then they will lose some customers to Sky in the short to medium term and also they must do more to improve the dreadful apps section of the TiVo as so far they have talked the talk but simply have not walked the walk in regards to this.

I agree Den, but I think the real reason that VM are focusing on fast BB and streaming content being added to Tivo, is that streaming is the way all content will be delivered in the future. For many of us, the future is now and I believe the number who that applies to will grow sooner rather than later.

Yes, at this point in time, unless you have a large family who are all streaming different things, you don't need 100meg BB. But as streaming grows in popularity, 100meg for a family will not be out of order.

Also being able to advertise that you have the fastest BB is a great thing and will attract customers because even though many people may not need it, they want it anyway, even if it's just for 'Bragging Rights'.

[theone2k10]

Only a rumour i've heard. To combat the growing success of BT Sports and Netflix Sky may reduce the wholesale costs of their movies and sports packs across all platforms.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by theone2k10

Only a rumour i've heard. To combat the growing success of BT Sports and Netflix Sky may reduce the wholesale costs of their movies and sports packs across all platforms.

that would be good news if it happens

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Dave42

and when company x wont let anyone have the thing company y wants what can company y do about it absolutely nothing you have to stop kidding yourself OB

You missed the bit about company x wanting what company y has to offer. In your argument, both companies miss out. In my analogy, it's win-win.

In the real case of Sky v Virgin Media, if Sky won't give VM what they want, even if VM are making it conditional on putting Sky Bravo on the platform, then VM will get around that problem in a different way (in this case via streaming content, one presumes, minus the first run shows, which just means a relatively short delay).

But it is a very short sighted proposition to deny VM the ability to upload the older Sky Atlantic programmes (ie not the first run stuff) when VM can access them by other means, thus denying Sky the income. Utterly pointless, actually.

[andy_m]

It seems to me that traditionally people chose Virgin for broadband and ended up with cable tv by default, whilst people chose Sky for tv. More recently those lines have become blurred, and there is also now competition in the fibre broadband market. Virgin certainly can't compete in both markets, and I think there is complete sense in reverting to the differentiation that has traditionally served them well. Virgin have a very good tv offering, most of the major channels, the only place to get both major sports broadcasters in a single subscription, and TiVo. In addition their broadband is competitively priced and they can market it as the UK's fastest.

If people really want every channel under the Sun then Sky is, always has been and probably always will be, the place to be. I appreciate not everybody can get Sky, but that's no reason to be upset with Virgin just because they've chosen not to compete on quite the same terms.