TiVo : F1 Channel

[alwaysabear]

Originally Posted by andy_m

It's not often I disagree with den, but as far as I'm concerned Sky have earnt their competitive advantage since it is they, and not Virgin, that have gone out and bought the rights to the sports that they show on their channels. Forcing a company to share some of what it considers to be it's most important assets in the interests of competition is really just giving Virgin a license to make money out of another company's adventure. Same with f1, Sky have every right to keep the hd version for themselves, I believe. And I really hate Sky!

I agree with you completely Sky are the ones who put "their money where their mouth is" and go out and do things.

[tweetiepooh]

One issue is that Sky own both the content and the distribution. Maybe they need to be split off so that no single company (replace with whatever definition you think makes most sense) can own both.

That way you'd have a content owner/provider who would sell to whatever distributors they want to at a reasonable price.

I am completely unbiased in my views

[kop32]

Originally Posted by denphone

Because they are deliberately with-holding back the HD variants of their channels to give themselves a competitive advantage and this is where Ofcom should step in to force them to make available the HD variants of some of their channels.

Shame on them Den for trying to give themselves a competitive advantage,I've never heard of anything so selfish......


PS I also really hate Sky but I am a sports nut and IMO Virgin can not compete as yet,who knows though things may change.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

One issue is that Sky own both the content and the distribution. Maybe they need to be split off so that no single company (replace with whatever definition you think makes most sense) can own both.

That way you'd have a content owner/provider who would sell to whatever distributors they want to at a reasonable price.

I am completely unbiased in my views

Yes i can tell your completely impartial

Having said that splitting Sky up between content and platform has long been rumbling around in various postings.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by richard1960

Yes i can tell your completely impartial

Having said that splitting Sky up between content and platform has long been rumbling around in various postings.

The problem being , too many platform owners around the world also have their own channels and content it would be harsh to enforce this on Sky when other companies were allowed to continue on , I'm sure Comcast in the USA is a platform and channel owner. Sky use the wide range of HD channels as a USP just as VM use their fibre optic BB network in fact I'm sure if you asked random people what they thought of VM and Sky the majority would say BB for VM and TV , HD when it came to Sky.

Originally Posted by muppetman11

The problem being , too many platform owners around the world also have their own channels and content it would be harsh to enforce this on Sky when other companies were allowed to continue on , I'm sure Comcast in the USA is a platform and channel owner. Sky use the wide range of HD channels as a USP just as VM use their fibre optic BB network in fact I'm sure if you asked random people what they thought of VM and Sky the majority would say BB for VM and TV , HD when it came to Sky.

Yes having read you post MM i have to agree it would seem a little harsh to impose this on Sky seeing as its the TV side that is the main business,and with VM its the broadband i have to agree with you on those points mate.

Guess its the consumer thinking in me coming out.

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

The problem being , too many platform owners around the world also have their own channels and content it would be harsh to enforce this on Sky when other companies were allowed to continue on , I'm sure Comcast in the USA is a platform and channel owner. Sky use the wide range of HD channels as a USP just as VM use their fibre optic BB network in fact I'm sure if you asked random people what they thought of VM and Sky the majority would say BB for VM and TV , HD when it came to Sky.

On Demand / TiVo / Fast Broadband for Virgin Media

Extra Channels / HD for Sky

[LexDiamond]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

One issue is that Sky own both the content and the distribution. Maybe they need to be split off so that no single company (replace with whatever definition you think makes most sense) can own both.

That way you'd have a content owner/provider who would sell to whatever distributors they want to at a reasonable price.

I am completely unbiased in my views

Even if this happened there is no guarantee that there would be any more HD on VM. VM's current pricing structure doesn't really lend itself to more and more HD as they don't really charge a seperate sub for HD.

It could just as easily be the case that VM don't really want to spend/charge anymore than they already do.

[pauldavies83]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

One issue is that Sky own both the content and the distribution. Maybe they need to be split off so that no single company (replace with whatever definition you think makes most sense) can own both.

But it was OK for Virgin to own content and distribution when they had VMTV back in the day? Was that not unfair on Sky?

Only difference being, I'd take a wild guess that Sky's content is a hell of a lot more popular and made a hell of a lot more money in subs than VM's ever was (Sports/Movies/Atlantic etc etc)

[joff81]

This whole scenario with F1 was brought about by the BBC and its the BBC who is to blame for the viewing situation. The BBC couldn't afford to keep F1 going as it was within their budget but also the BBC refused to give up the rights to F1 even though they couldn't afford it.
Channel 4 were willing to step in and take over but this could only happen its BBC terminated their contract with the FOM (Bearnie Ecclestone).
The BBC refused to terminate their agreement so the FOM was stuck with a TV air agreement who couldn't afford to produce a show.
The BBC then offered SKY the rights to all live races providing the BBC kept a highlights package as long as the FOM aggreed To which they did, hence the situation we are in now.

If the BBC were not so worried about loosing the big viewer numbers F1 brought in and just cut their losses we would be looking forward to channel 4's all live coverage including HD.
This is not the case because the BBC loosing F1 completely will almost kill off its popularity and as such we have this half assed coverage from the BBC even though their production team are still going to every race.

Sky are the ones who are investing in F1 and as such can market it as they see fit to benefit them.

Although Sky keep banging on about HD the fact is the BBC's coverage is also in HD so of its F1 in HD you are after then dont worry as the BBC will still show F1 in HD it's just a matter of only half the races are live.

[HDFootyMan]

HD content has long been a USP for Sky. As such I really don't blame them for keeping SSF1 HD for themselves. That's like demanding that VM open up their network to allow Sky access to fiber-optic broadband (pre BT Infinity rollout of course).

The only reason we have the existing Sky content (both linear and on-demand) in HD was due to the sale of VMTV to Sky. After that, VM have run out of cards to play when playing poker with Sky.

[Vicki]

Originally Posted by denphone

Because they are deliberately with-holding back the HD variants of their channels to give themselves a competitive advantage and this is where Ofcom should step in to force them to make available the HD variants of some of their channels.

THey should also force Virginmedia to open its cable Internet to sky as well . It seems virgin want the Tv channels from sky but don't want to give sky access to its broadband. Both company's were at 1 point billions in debt , but sky managed to get a model that allowed it to become debt free. Virginmedia has not managed this yet.But sky should not be constantly penalised for being a success.

Originally Posted by pauldavies83

But it was OK for Virgin to own content and distribution when they had VMTV back in the day? Was that not unfair on Sky?

Only difference being, I'd take a wild guess that Sky's content is a hell of a lot more popular and made a hell of a lot more money in subs than VM's ever was (Sports/Movies/Atlantic etc etc)

It possibly would have been a bit more even aguably if sky had not blocked VMs bid for ITV by hoovering up shares in the company.

If the takeover had of happned it could well be that VM might have still been in the content and distribution game.

Sky bought a 17.9% stake in ITV in 2006 just as rival Virgin was finalising a takeover deal with ITV. The move was widely seen as a strategic move to prevent that merger.

---------- Post added at 04:53 ---------- Previous post was at 04:46 ----------

Originally Posted by Vicki

THey should also force Virginmedia to open its cable Internet to sky as well . It seems virgin want the Tv channels from sky but don't want to give sky access to its broadband. Both company's were at 1 point billions in debt , but sky managed to get a model that allowed it to become debt free. Virginmedia has not managed this yet.But sky should not be constantly penalised for being a success.

Well the deals also benefit sky also ,sure they have invested in F1 but by selling the SD version to VM gain access to a potential 3.8 million customers approx,thereby letting sky charge extra for ad space,also seeing as VM customers will have to pay £22.50 a month to get the sky sports package for F1,sky also rake in extra in subs they might not otherwise have got,not a bad deal for either VM or Sky.

Originally Posted by richard1960

It possibly would have been a bit more even aguably if sky had not blocked VMs bid for ITV by hoovering up shares in the company.

If the takeover had of happned it could well be that VM might have still been in the content and distribution game.

Sky bought a 17.9% stake in ITV in 2006 just as rival Virgin was finalising a takeover deal with ITV. The move was widely seen as a strategic move to prevent that merger.

---------- Post added at 04:53 ---------- Previous post was at 04:46 ----------



Well the deals also benefit sky also ,sure they have invested in F1 but by selling the SD version to VM gain access to a potential 3.8 million customers approx,thereby letting sky charge extra for ad space,also seeing as VM customers will have to pay £22.50 a month to get the sky sports package for F1,sky also rake in extra in subs they might not otherwise have got,not a bad deal for either VM or Sky.

end of the day sky sports f1 is free to sky subscribers but not to virgin media subscribers.. thats a joke.. on both networks should be the same prises on all channels and packages to the subscribers..its only fair..

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

How do you know that it is all Sky's fault? I ask because there are non Sky HD channels that VM also don't carry.

Because Sky want to keep the HD version exclusive to them, so that they can win customers from VM...it's just business I'm afraid.

I should think in another year or two it will be in HD on VM also.