TiVo : How should Virgin offer the Olympics to their customers?

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

A 'delay' of 2 weeks when there still 4 months to go to the Olympics

Also Virgin announced in December that they would definately be carrying the content on the TiVo boxes, so if anything Sky were 4 months behind Virgin for Olympics announcements

I don't think VM management realise how badly VM are regarded with respect to channel additions. Reading these forums, the general automatic view is that, when Sky add a new channel, VM won't get it. Most of the critisism of VM is down to lack of new channel aquisition. Given that, VM should have lost no time in announcing the Olympic channels at the point that Sky announced them.

The only reason to not do that is if they weren't sure that they were going to add them. That is the reason why it was right that people started posting straight away to say that VM should add linear channels.


I imagine that VM thought they had a real USP for tivo before Sky anounced linear channels. And there's nothing wrong with that. But Sky's move changed the game. Did it catch VM off guard? Who knows'

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

They could only have done that if Sky had told them when they were announcing, which I doubt very much they are inclined to do, and also if Virgin were ready to do so themselves i.e. they'd had confirmation from all technical teams that it would be possible etc
'

If so at last a common sense approach, not putting ,& horse & cart come to mind . Here is the BUT, so to speak.Pity they do not do that more often.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by passingbat

But Sky's move changed the game.

Didn't change anything, as Virgin also have the channels, have have announced that fact 4 MONTHS, that's MONTHS before they will be needed

Personally I think it's great that Sky managed to persuade the BBC to change their mind about live streams

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

No, what you said was, that from past experience, people reacted the way that they did.

Acting on past experience is very sensible in my view.

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

That means users here used their expectations to whinge and this has no bearing whatsoever on reality. The Olympics was simply a front for people to talk about what they don't have in terms of channels.

How do you get away with accusing posters of ulterior motives to what they are posting about? Pretty insulting really. This was a straight discussion thread until you, with no basis at all, accused people having a larger ageda than just the topic under discussion. TBH, discussion with someone with that attitude is pretty pointless.

[LexDiamond]

Originally Posted by passingbat

Acting on past experience is very sensible in my view.



How do you get away with accusing posters of ulterior motives to what they are posting about? Pretty insulting really. This was a straight discussion thread until you, with no basis at all, accused people having a larger ageda than just the topic under discussion. TBH, discussion with someone with that attitude is pretty pointless.

Straight discussion thread? Have a read through again. It was VM bashing by the usual suspects until VM made their announcement. All good one would think? Nope because apparently the Olympics just aren't the same anymore because VM announced second.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Didn't change anything, as Virgin also have the channels, have have announced that fact 4 MONTHS, that's MONTHS before they will be needed

Personally I think it's great that Sky managed to persuade the BBC to change their mind about live streams

But, If Sky hadn't have persuaded the BBC, would VM have tried to? That is a question people like me will never get an answer to. If they wouldn't have tried, Sky getting the linear channels was a game changer.

From a purely commercial aspect, there would be no point in VM persuading the BBC, because without linear channels, it would be a great way of driving Tivo sales. I'm not suggesting that VM would have put commercial advantage over the V+ users Olympic access, but you can't help mulling these things over, especially as you said that it was Sky that persuaded the BBC

[Mr K]

On analogue so the coverage is actually live.

[BenMcr]

Even if Virgin had offered to carry linear channels, I don't think the BBC would have said yes anyway.

With Sky doing it, it gets carried on satellite, meaning due to the BBC 'non-exclusive' remit, both Freesat and cable gain access. That wouldn't be the case if Virgin carried it.

[carlwaring]

And vice versa, of course (ie they couldn't just be on VM either )

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Even if Virgin had offered to carry linear channels, I don't think the BBC would have said yes anyway.

With Sky doing it, it gets carried on satellite, meaning due to the BBC 'non-exclusive' remit, both Freesat and cable gain access. That wouldn't be the case if Virgin carried it.

I wasn't suggesting that VM would ask the BBC for linear channels just for VM. I would assume that any request for linear channels, by whatever providor requested them, would be available to any provider that wanted to carry them. As it stood before Sky persuaded the BBC, there were no linear channels available and confirmed full access was only available only via the web or Tivo.

[BenMcr]

But in order to provide linear channels for Sky, they have to be carried via satellite - which means they are not exclusive to Sky even if Sky wanted them to be because anyone can point DVB-S compatible kit at the satellite that covers the UK and get BBC channels (seperate to any EPG data). So there was then no additional cost to the BBC to open them up to other providers, and it also complied with their 'non-exclusive' remit

Virgin can distribute channels via fibre link, meaning they wouldn't be available to any other platform