General : ESPN, BT, Euro, Premier and Sky Sports news

[cheekyangus]

Originally Posted by Raider999

I would like the option to pick the channels I want and not have to pay for a base package of channels that are mainly on freeview.

The price would go up if you were able to pick individual pay channels. The price is kept down by packaging them into larger groups.

The Freeview-available channels don't get a cut of the subscription fee. The subscription also pays for rental/maintenance of the equipment, it's not all going toward channels.

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by cheekyangus

The price would go up if you were able to pick individual pay channels. The price is kept down by packaging them into larger groups.

The Freeview-available channels don't get a cut of the subscription fee. The subscription also pays for rental/maintenance of the equipment, it's not all going toward channels.

Whilst I understand the ideas that packaging channels into groups is cheaper than paying for individual channels, my beef is that I have to pay for these which are on the whole are free through other sources.

This applies to both Sky & VM - I just want to be able to subscribe to Sky Sports and BT Sports which doesn't seem possible.

Now we all know how much these are deemed to be worth (through the discounts applied) this really should be possible.

It is also unfair that HD costs more for sports when it is free for movies - but that is another beef.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Taf

No, it was added with a price increase for all. No ifs or buts. I remember the email I got explaining the price increase to cover its addition.

I have responded to their email saying my "subscription" for BT Sports will resume, by saying that I do not want my "subscription" to restart, and expect the full price drop of £9.25 to continue.

The "office" was closed when I sent this, so I expect a reaction tomorrow when the "office" reopens.

. Good luck with that. Really you wouldn't drop down if everyone whom did not want this add on did so perhaps virgin would get the message. By the way I pay £45* to virgin And £8 to Netflix using apps on smart TV & a code for now TV thanks to a friend i can see more channels thanican possibly watch * TV bb and phone line which is another thing I have no use for but that's another grip.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by cheekyangus

The price would go up if you were able to pick individual pay channels. The price is kept down by packaging them into larger groups.

The Freeview-available channels don't get a cut of the subscription fee. The subscription also pays for rental/maintenance of the equipment, it's not all going toward channels.

That assumes that you would select the same channels as you were currently getting.

When you analyse the channels you actually watch, there would be a huge number that you could dispense with.

In addition to the free terrestrial channels, I would only choose the half a dozen Sky HD channels, the documentary/nature channels, TLC HD and Quest Red (for my wife), Virgin UHD Channel and the Sky Cinema HD channels. You can't tell me there would not be a saving if I didn't have the Sky and BT sports channels or that huge number of remaining channels that I would no longer have access to.

At least with the streamers, you can pick those that offer you the stuff you actually want to see. Quite a big saving, too, compared with the cost of TV channels.

[jfman]

Streamers offer plenty of content you don't want to see. It's just bundled differently

Cheekyangus is fundamentally correct that the economies of scale from 13m or so basic subscriptions in the UK keeps prices down.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Streamers offer plenty of content you don't want to see. It's just bundled differently

Cheekyangus is fundamentally correct that the economies of scale from 13m or so basic subscriptions in the UK keeps prices down.

Netflix offers a huge choice of films, dramas, music and documentaries from which I choose what I prefer to watch for 12 quid! It is much better value for money, in my view.

As for cheeky's comment about economies of scale is concerned, I don't disagree. However, in the example I gave, there would be a very worthwhile saving. You would only pay more if you selected the same channels that we currently have and paid for each individually.

[cheekyangus]

We all have niche interests, whether it's sport, hobbies, drama, etc.

If you only buy the things you want your niche interests won't likely get enough money to exist. Niche things get subsidised by popular things by doing thing like bundling. Everyone loses out, even if it's indirectly.

In the world of TV we could all end up with mainstream, safe shows (or big popular sports only) because those that want to bring you the niche, interesting stuff (e.g. minority sports) can't raise the money to do it as the market is deemed too small. Everyone needs to fund stuff they don't want to help fund stuff they do want.

Someone might like football and show jumping (unlikely, but bear with me). Both might be expensive to cover, but clearly football is much more popular. If the market changed so much that the public need only pay for individual sports (e.g. football) rather than a general sports package, the equestrian element may no longer be viable as a televised sport as it is no longer cross subsidised by the likes of football that brings the subscribers.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by cheekyangus

We all have niche interests, whether it's sport, hobbies, drama, etc.

If you only buy the things you want your niche interests won't likely get enough money to exist. Niche things get subsidised by popular things by doing thing like bundling. Everyone loses out, even if it's indirectly.

In the world of TV we could all end up with mainstream, safe shows (or big popular sports only) because those that want to bring you the niche, interesting stuff (e.g. minority sports) can't raise the money to do it as the market is deemed too small. Everyone needs to fund stuff they don't want to help fund stuff they do want.

Someone might like football and show jumping (unlikely, but bear with me). Both might be expensive to cover, but clearly football is much more popular. If the market changed so much that the public need only pay for individual sports (e.g. football) rather than a general sports package, the equestrian element may no longer be viable as a televised sport as it is no longer cross subsidised by the likes of football that brings the subscribers.

So you think that other people should help with your costs ? Perhaps we should all have to pay when near a show to cut the cost to those going in! I choose a lower package because I have not wish to pay for things I which I will never watch would love if virgin would make more channels bolt on and lower the basic charge. And yes put up if needed there costs . many of the channels that I still pay for I never look at unfortunately two or three that I do are not on freeview but as more and more offer streaming it is a root that I will no doubt use in the future. Yesterday I noted what I did use 23 minutes live TV the rest was streaming.

[cheekyangus]

Originally Posted by Itshim

So you think that other people should help with your costs ? Perhaps we should all have to pay when near a show to cut the cost to those going in!

No, I don't. And that wasn't what I was saying.

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by cheekyangus

No, I don't. And that wasn't what I was saying.

But that is what people have to do with the base channels which are mostly available elsewhere foc. And it's not like it is a minor charge either.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by cheekyangus

We all have niche interests, whether it's sport, hobbies, drama, etc.

If you only buy the things you want your niche interests won't likely get enough money to exist. Niche things get subsidised by popular things by doing thing like bundling. Everyone loses out, even if it's indirectly.

In the world of TV we could all end up with mainstream, safe shows (or big popular sports only) because those that want to bring you the niche, interesting stuff (e.g. minority sports) can't raise the money to do it as the market is deemed too small. Everyone needs to fund stuff they don't want to help fund stuff they do want.

Someone might like football and show jumping (unlikely, but bear with me). Both might be expensive to cover, but clearly football is much more popular. If the market changed so much that the public need only pay for individual sports (e.g. football) rather than a general sports package, the equestrian element may no longer be viable as a televised sport as it is no longer cross subsidised by the likes of football that brings the subscribers.

I understand the principle, cheeky, but if anyone wants to view content with minority appeal, they should jolly well pay extra for it. There are relatively few channels I watch these days and I resent paying for a plethora of rubbish channels like Blaze, and the sports channels that I never watch.

At least with streaming services, you can tailor the type of viewing you may be interested in.

If you look at Now TV, for example, you can have just the main entertainment channels, just the films or just the sports. That's how it should be.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I understand the principle, cheeky, but if anyone wants to view content with minority appeal, they should jolly well pay extra for it. There are relatively few channels I watch these days and I resent paying for a plethora of rubbish channels like Blaze, and the sports channels that I never watch.

At least with streaming services, you can tailor the type of viewing you may be interested in.

You still banging on about streamers and the poor value that is traditional TV even though your on one of Virgins dearest TV packages go figure.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

You still banging on about streamers and the poor value that is traditional TV even though your on one of Virgins dearest TV packages go figure.

I've explained that ad nauseum, muppetman. I have to have the full oomph to get those channels that I want and my wife is not confident enough to use the streamers on her own.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I've explained that ad nauseum, muppetman. I have to have the full oomph to get those channels that I want and my wife is not confident enough to use the streamers on her own.

Funny how you conveniently use your wife as your excuse for keeping according to your own words your expensive Virgin package.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Raider999

But that is what people have to do with the base channels which are mostly available elsewhere foc. And it's not like it is a minor charge either.

But, as Cheekyangus correctly points out, the vast majority of these channels get pennies per subscriber absorbed across the subscriber base. With the vast majority of channels comfortably being “niche” - a fact supported by BARB ratings - then it would be very few channels viable at all without bundles. Those that did survive would have to recoup their advertising and subscription losses from the ~200,000 subscribers maximum any of them are likely to see.

Even at a reasonably paltry 5p per month per subscriber - over 12 million basic package subscriptions - £7.2 million per annum. For the 200,000 who might actually subscribe that leaves them having to stump up £3 a month each to match that.

It’d take a very small amount of “niche” content to suddenly find yourself paying more in the long run.