Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2011) Vol. I.

[muppetman11]

Sky had no problems with using BT's network.

[pauldavies83]

Originally Posted by Felim_Doyle

So, similar to the way that BT OpenReach must provide unbiased access to the broadband infrastructure for all service providers, BSkyB's content provision and production companies could be made to supply all platforms, including Sky, under equal contract terms..

The difference is, BT's network was once nationalised.

Sky's "platform" has always been provided by private companies (Astra), which anyone else could attempt to agree access to. So they have not benefited from a public service in the same way that BT have.

[Media Boy UK]

You have to read this post from DS Forums:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...59&postcount=1

---------- Post added at 09:55 ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 ----------

Digital Spy: News Corp 'suggests Sky News sale'.

News Corp has reportedly told the government that it is prepared to make concessions, including the sale of Sky News, to avoid a lengthy review of its bid to acquire Sky.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcas...news-sale.html

[muppetman11]

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

---------- Post added at 10:54 ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 ----------

The question should be why they so desperate to take control of Sky.

[nialli]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

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

---------- Post added at 10:54 ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 ----------

The question should be why they so desperate to take control of Sky.

Money, pure and simple. It's a massive cash cow.

By selling off the (loss making) Sky News they will aim to silence critics who believe there's a political influence agenda behind the Murdochs' bid.

Having said that, if Sky News is sold (and who would buy it??) don't be surprised to see another channel launched once the Sky purchase is completed by News Corp. Launch a new channel after the deal is done? Surely not...Fox News anyone??

[Media Boy UK]

Originally Posted by nialli

Money, pure and simple. It's a massive cash cow.

By selling off the (loss making) Sky News they will aim to silence critics who believe there's a political influence agenda behind the Murdochs' bid.

Having said that, if Sky News is sold (and who would buy it??) don't be surprised to see another channel launched once the Sky purchase is completed by News Corp. Launch a new channel after the deal is done? Surely not...Fox News anyone??

FT says Sky News is losing £4m a year.

I think Sky may just close Sky News down unless ITN OR NBC want to buy it.

Or BSkyB can give it new ''owners'' like Own by ''Sky News Network''.

[Felim_Doyle]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Sky had no problems with using BT's network.

Huh? Relevance?

AFAIK, all of the ADSL broadband providers, including VM's national service, use BT's network - copper, fibre and exchanges.

Originally Posted by pauldavies83

The difference is, BT's network was once nationalised.

Sky's "platform" has always been provided by private companies (Astra), which anyone else could attempt to agree access to. So they have not benefited from a public service in the same way that BT have.

I know but it was the best and most recent analogy I could come up with, even though I knew it was somewhat flawed. I did say "similar to" rather than "the same as". The next time I use a weak analogy I'll say "similar to but not the same as", okay? Tough crowd!

Anyway, it's about separation of service (content) provider and carrier (platform) but, in Sky's commercial, non-nationalised legacy case, is it anti-competitive to split them up?

I've got it! As it's almost a monopoly with almost national coverage, let's nationalise BSkyB "the platform"! Oh, I just remembered, wrong kind of government for that sort of thing.

Yes, there is the further complication that the satellites are not owned by BSkyB and no, I'm not forgetting the 'nationalised' FreeSat which operates from similar satellite constellations to BSkyB.

Originally Posted by Media Boy

You have to read this post from DS Forums:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...59&postcount=1

Huh? What am I looking for?

---------- Post added at 09:55 ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 ----------

Originally Posted by Media Boy

Digital Spy: News Corp 'suggests Sky News sale'.

News Corp has reportedly told the government that it is prepared to make concessions, including the sale of Sky News, to avoid a lengthy review of its bid to acquire Sky.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcas...news-sale.html

As a 'news corporation' I'm surprised that the first thing they're willing to let go of is their TV news channel. Makes you wonder how much they actually value it.

Maybe selling off the sports side, including all of those lucrative exclusive deals for coverage of events and various leagues, would appease Ofcom and the Competition Commission more.

I presume that Sky Sports News is considered part of Sky Sports rather than Sky News but it does blur the line a bit.

---------- Post added at 11:32 ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 ----------

Originally Posted by nialli

Money, pure and simple. It's a massive cash cow.

By selling off the (loss making) Sky News they will aim to silence critics who believe there's a political influence agenda behind the Murdochs' bid.

Having said that, if Sky News is sold (and who would buy it??) don't be surprised to see another channel launched once the Sky purchase is completed by News Corp. Launch a new channel after the deal is done? Surely not...Fox News anyone??

What Nialli said!

[nialli]

Originally Posted by Media Boy

FT says Sky News is losing £4m a year.

I think Sky may just close Sky News down unless ITN OR NBC want to buy it.

Or BSkyB can give it new ''owners'' like Own by ''Sky News Network''.

Telegraph says £30m a year losses, which is probably nearer the mark. ITV could buy it and merge it with ITN, or C4 possibly but they're short of funds. No-one in the UK I can see would have the cash or the inclination. It really does highlight how few broadcasting companies we have in the UK and how dominant the BBC and Sky are now.

More beneficial would be is Sky were to separate the TV channels from the delivery platform, but they will never volunteer that and it's not particularly pertinent to this.

[Media Boy UK]

Originally Posted by Felim_Doyle

Huh? What am I looking for?

I was on about the following lines:

All round it must be a good result. They have a better replacement for Sky Real Lives with Living. They have the entire Star Trek and X Files back.

Also with talk Sky Atlantic not on Virgin and Living no longer an exclusive seems it's left cable another ten years behind in the dark ages. Sky must own hours of programming now from all Sky1's shows, Real Lives, Virgin and HBO content.

What about On Demand and also the TiVo? Also why is Sky still in talks with Virgin if Sky Atlantic is just going to be ''exclusive'' to Sky viewers?

[muppetman11]

Sky have a monopoly end of.

[Media Boy UK]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Sky have a monopoly end of.

They may have the monopoly to all the TV Shows.

But do they own the Network they broadcast on?
Do they own their phone network?

[Felim_Doyle]

Originally Posted by Media Boy

I was on about the following lines:

What about On Demand and also the TiVo? Also why is Sky still in talks with Virgin if Sky Atlantic is just going to be ''exclusive'' to Sky viewers?

Got it! Agreed, VM are getting far too much stick considering the leaps and bounds in improvements they made last year as well as what is "coming soon", as we say around here.

Many people don't seem to know about or appreciate the effort and expense it took to merge all of those disparate cable franchises, roll out NGTV and Nagra 3, add quite a few HD channels, expand On Demand as well as the big improvements on the broadband side.

The sell off of the VMTV channels may seem like a retrograde step in the short term but it will allow VM to concentrate their funding and resources on their core business and I expect to see the benefits of that in the coming months.

Just now, we are in a state of flux, while we await new deals for content and the full launch of TiVo, to mention just two. Personally, I'm looking forward to another good year with VM.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Media Boy

They may have the monopoly to all the TV Shows.

But do they own the Network they broadcast on?
Do they own their phone network?

Fair point but what good is that if you can't get access to content , its content the customers after they don't care how its delivered.

[Felim_Doyle]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Fair point but what good is that if you can't get access to content , its content the customers after they don't care how its delivered.

I care. I prefer it coming down a bi-directional cable. Others care. They either don't have line-of-sight to the birds or they have local restrictions on erecting a dish.

[muppetman11]

Agreed Felim Virgin had a great 2010 let's hope it continues this year.

---------- Post added at 12:39 ---------- Previous post was at 12:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Felim_Doyle

I care. I prefer it coming down a bi-directional cable. Others care. They either don't have line-of-sight to the birds or they have local restrictions on erecting a dish.

But you are in the minority to be fair , just look how many of them ugly dishes there are LOL