No way in the world am I paying anything more than a tenner.
Correct. ESPN at £10pm is already a bit of a rip off (especially compared to Sky Sports). £15pm for exactly the same package plus 15 Premier League games is not on.
I imagine BT Sports will be included in the "premium" BT Vision package, with Sky Sports being a £20pm add-on (unless Sky increase their wholesale prices, which they now can, in which case it could go up to £25pm).
Correct. ESPN at £10pm is already a bit of a rip off (especially compared to Sky Sports). £15pm for exactly the same package plus 15 Premier League games is not on.
I imagine BT Sports will be included in the "premium" BT Vision package, with Sky Sports being a £20pm add-on (unless Sky increase their wholesale prices, which they now can, in which case it could go up to £25pm).
In a way ESPN could not be a rip-off as they were selling subscriptions at loss! Sports channels in the UK are expensive due to escalating rights and are not really profit centres in their own rights these days.
I agree that the three BT-owned channels are likely to be in the £12.50 BT Vision bundle though.
So could we see £12.50 BT customers, £15.00 Virgin, TalkTalk and Sky customers?
They can not even think about charging their own customers a penny more than what they already pay IMO. They currently get ESPN bundled in so for their own provider to come in and effectively take over the coverage to then charge £12.50 would be outrageous if I was a BT customer.
Also there's the fact that they can't really charge anything on top because it'd send their prices rocketing. At the moment, for Infinity 1 and TV Unlimited it's £50.95 a month without line rental saver. Add another £2.50 on for the extra channels and that'd be £53.45... at that price I'd fully expect to be receiving their sports channels bundled in!
If they charged an extra £12.50 that'd be £65.95 a month BEFORE you even think of adding Sky Sports. I think it's expensive enough if they bundle their own channels into the £53.45 because even if Sky Sports stayed at £20 it'd still be £73.45 a month and that's not going to lure many people in.
They can not even think about charging their own customers a penny more than what they already pay IMO. They currently get ESPN bundled in so for their own provider to come in and effectively take over the coverage to then charge £12.50 would be outrageous if I was a BT customer.
Also there's the fact that they can't really charge anything on top because it'd send their prices rocketing. At the moment, for Infinity 1 and TV Unlimited it's £50.95 a month without line rental saver. Add another £2.50 on for the extra channels and that'd be £53.45... at that price I'd fully expect to be receiving their sports channels bundled in!
If they charged an extra £12.50 that'd be £65.95 a month BEFORE you even think of adding Sky Sports. I think it's expensive enough if they bundle their own channels into the £53.45 because even if Sky Sports stayed at £20 it'd still be £73.45 a month and that's not going to lure many people in.
I totally agree they can't charge their customers anymore. Sorry, the £12.50 I referred to is the existing premium BT Vision sub which includes ESPN UK and inclusive on-demand services. I don't think is great value at the moment but will be far better value with BT's 38 EPL matches.
In a way ESPN could not be a rip-off as they were selling subscriptions at loss! Sports channels in the UK are expensive due to escalating rights and are not really profit centres in their own rights these days.
I agree that the three BT-owned channels are likely to be in the £12.50 BT Vision bundle though.
Free? I hadn't considered that either. As I'm already on a heavily discounted package - Phone line, BT Infinity Unlimited, BTVision and Sky Sports with ESPN all for only £60 a month.
I totally agree they can't charge their customers anymore. Sorry, the £12.50 I referred to is the existing premium BT Vision sub which includes ESPN UK and inclusive on-demand services. I don't think is great value at the moment but will be far better value with BT's 38 EPL matches.
I'd imagine it'd be bundled into the new £15 option that includes the £2.50 additional charge for the linear channels. That in itself sounds great and really good value considering you get a few other channels thrown in... but add the Infinity and line rental and it shoots up straight away.
It comes to something when this 'real competition' argument people keep bringing forward actually means which provider do I want to be paying a minimum £70 a month to if I want to watch the football.
Im waiting to see the price and if it will also be on the YouView box before I decided anything.
My BT Infinity/Evening and weekend call package with a £1.75 a month discount is up for renewal come mid June.
I already have a YouView box that I bought mid October last year.
Im waiting to see the price and if it will also be on the YouView box before I decided anything.
My BT Infinity/Evening and weekend call package with a £1.75 a month discount is up for renewal come mid June.
I already have a YouView box that I bought mid October last year.
Darren
It will be on YouView. No doubts about that. Only unknown is pricing.
Im waiting to see the price and if it will also be on the YouView box before I decided anything.
My BT Infinity/Evening and weekend call package with a £1.75 a month discount is up for renewal come mid June.
I already have a YouView box that I bought mid October last year.
Darren
The Humax YouView boxes are expected to become Multicast enabled in July of this year. Just before BT Sports launches.
Sky Sports 1&2 and ESPN are already live on Multicast via Infinity enabled BTVision boxes.
I'd imagine it'd be bundled into the new £15 option that includes the £2.50 additional charge for the linear channels. That in itself sounds great and really good value considering you get a few other channels thrown in... but add the Infinity and line rental and it shoots up straight away.
It comes to something when this 'real competition' argument people keep bringing forward actually means which provider do I want to be paying a minimum £70 a month to if I want to watch the football.
At the moment there's real competition for rights which is driving up their cost. If BT Sport got to a rights level whereby people could seriously think of it as a substitute for Sky Sports then there might be some price pressure there. But that's a long way off and to achieve this would further push up the cost of sports rights.
Im not to bothered about having the Sky Sports channels but may look at having the BT Sports if the price is right.
Darren
For BTV/YouView from BT users, BT are expected to market this new package very aggressively. After all, atm they offer ESPN for free and still sell Sky Sports 1&2 at a loss too. So I don't see the new sports channels being any different, for new and existing users. So the pricing of the packages should be interesting...
Free? I hadn't considered that either. As I'm already on a heavily discounted package - Phone line, BT Infinity Unlimited, BTVision and Sky Sports with ESPN all for only £60 a month.
As of tomorrow I'll be paying £63pm for:
Line rental
Weekend & evening calls
Unlimited FTTC broadband (80/20 Mbps)
Sky Entertainment
Sky Sports
Sky Movies
HD Pack
ESPN
Multiroom
Although in reality that's split between 3 so it's only £21pm for me. Sadly it won't last.
It will be fascinating if BT Sport offer their channels for non-BT YouView customers. Things could change big-time in the "a la carte" arena.
Line rental
Weekend & evening calls
Unlimited FTTC broadband (80/20 Mbps)
Sky Entertainment
Sky Sports
Sky Movies
HD Pack
ESPN
Multiroom
Although in reality that's split between 3 so it's only £21pm for me. Sadly it won't last.
It will be fascinating if BT Sport offer their channels for non-BT YouView customers. Things could change big-time in the "a la carte" arena.
BT have said they will offer these channels to any other platform that wants them, so yes they'll be available elsewhere. But I can't see them being offered for free.
But DragonQ, this acquisition of ESPN/ESPNA, it isn't a game changer, and nor will it threaten Sky's number one TV position either. But what it has done is enable BT to finally now have enough sports content to broadcast a 24 hour sports channel/s. But thats all its done.
All BT are trying to achieve at the moment is a foothold in the market. Then if they can achieve that foothold, move on from there at a later date. But thats a long way down the line at the moment.
Given that the £10 a month that ESPN charged had some kind of subsidy via Sky built in ( no proof, just my view ) I would suspect that BT will be looking to charge VM and Sky Digital subscribers around £12.99 a month. Anything more than that will be too much of a hike in my opinion. They would be stupid to come in at say £15.00 - cant see many people going for that. People will instead just pick and choose to go to pubs to watch key matches.
Nice to see Katherine Rushton once again going over the top in the Telegraph this morning talking about BT having bought "a slew of American, British and Irish sports channels from broadcaster ESPN" - er that would be 2 channels Katherine, one of which has already lost its primary reasons to exist and the other is a pale shadow of its former self.
Nonetheless this has handed BT Sport "a new battery of weapons in its escalating war with rival BSkyB" - er College Basketball, SPL, Bundesliga etc. Sky must be quaking.
Also we are told the "telecoms giant...will run some of these (channels) under the ESPN name - er likely 1 actually Katherine.
Stick to the facts rather than the hyperbole. What this deal does is give BT direct access to ESPN's existing subscriber base, EPG slots on some platforms, staff with worthwhile sports channel experience and avoids it having to get embroiled in a whole series of minor sports rights negotiations. A good deal for BT on that basis.
It does very little in the battle with Sky. What BT can do is offer its own sports channels more attractively through its own platform and triple offerings than you might get if you add a BT Sports sub through another platform.
On another point, if Sky wants to do anything re a US Sports channel, as some have suggested but i'm less sure about, then it will target MLB rights initially if these are outside the BT / ESPN deal (unclear) then follow up by increasing its investment and output in NBA and NFL and then chase after NHL rights (maybe by acquiring Premier Sports operation or somesuch or simply waiting for the rights to become available).
The sooner we know what is or is not included in this deal the better.
What this deal does is give BT direct access to ESPN's existing subscriber base
Not sure what you mean by that / whether that's right.
Anyone getting ESPN through Sky is a customer of Sky, not ESPN. The customer pays Sky for ESPN.
Now Sky will have to pass on an amount £x to ESPN per Sky customer taking ESPN. So Sky would have to give ESPN details of customer numbers. But I doubt very much ESPN gets names and addresses.
Ditto VM and TUTV.
I guess BT might be able to buy a list of names and addresses from TUTV but I doubt Sky or VM will be offering such information for sale.
I guess BT might be able to buy a list of names and addresses from TUTV but I doubt Sky or VM will be offering such information for sale.
Exactly. Imagine if it was the other way around - would BT be so forthcoming with Sky or Virgin? Of course they wouldn't.
The plus point for BT is that anybody who is unaware of the situation and tunes in to ESPN expecting normal service, will be greeted with BT and instructions on how to subscribe (presuming BT take 417 of course, which I fully expect).
One wonders how BT will arrange subscriptions through Sky. If I recall Setanta had their own call centre operation?
It would be much more consumer friendly for everything to be handled through Sky, although I'd assume BT have the infrastructure in place to do it themselves to save paying Sky?
One wonders how BT will arrange subscriptions through Sky. If I recall Setanta had their own call centre operation?
It would be much more consumer friendly for everything to be handled through Sky, although I'd assume BT have the infrastructure in place to do it themselves to save paying Sky?
BT have the intention to act as retailer so they would be dealing with sales directly. The only way it will be connected to Sky is by being listed on their EPG.
BT Sport has clearly assembled a significantly better sports rights portfolio than ESPN currently has. But how does it compare to Setanta in 2008/09? I think the main rights break down as follows:
Setanta 2008/09:
- 46 PL games (Sat 5.30pm slot, no 1st picks) [vs 92 PL games on Sky]
- FA Cup secondary package
- England away World Cup qualifiers
- England home friendlies
- SPL (exclusive???)
- Several European football leagues
- US PGA Tour golf
- Boxing (inc Hatton, Haye, Calzaghe)
- Setanta Sports News channel
- US Sports channel (NASN)
BT Sport 2013/14:
- 38 PL games (Sat 12.45pm slot, 18 1st picks) [vs 116 PL games on Sky]
- FA Cup secondary package
- SPL secondary package
- Europa League (3rd and 4th picks)
- Several European football leagues
- Aviva Premiership rugby
- Womens WTA Tennis
- US Sports channel (ESPNA)
It's easy to forget that in 2007/10 Setanta (/ ESPN) had 46 live PL games against only 92 on Sky. BT has the significant advantage of 18 1st picks (though we don't yet know quite how good these will prove to be) but it has 8 fewer games (38 compared to 46) and a worse timeslot. Sky meanwhile now has 116 games compared to 92 at that point.
As far as the other rights are concerned it's a fairly close run thing - essentially boiling down to England away WC qualifiers and home friendlies, US PGA Tour golf and boxing on Setanta vs Europa League (3rd / 4th picks), Aviva Premiership and WTA tennis on BT Sport. In my view Setanta would just about edge that comparison though views will obviously differ.
Setanta then had its own sports news channel - we haven't yet heard about any such operation from BT.
Of course we have to remember BT is not finished yet and may well acquire many more rights.
BT Sport has clearly assembled a significantly better sports rights portfolio than ESPN currently has. But how does it compare to Setanta in 2008/09? I think the main rights break down as follows:
...
There's not much in it but for me, Setanta had a slightly stronger offering.
BT Sport has clearly assembled a significantly better sports rights portfolio than ESPN currently has. But how does it compare to Setanta in 2008/09? I think the main rights break down as follows:
Setanta 2008/09:
- 46 PL games (Sat 5.30pm slot, no 1st picks) [vs 92 PL games on Sky]
- FA Cup secondary package
- England away World Cup qualifiers
- England home friendlies
- SPL (exclusive???)
- Several European football leagues
- US PGA Tour golf
- Boxing (inc Hatton, Haye, Calzaghe)
- Setanta Sports News channel
- US Sports channel (NASN)
BT Sport 2013/14:
- 38 PL games (Sat 12.45pm slot, 18 1st picks) [vs 116 PL games on Sky]
- FA Cup secondary package
- SPL secondary package
- Europa League (3rd and 4th picks)
- Several European football leagues
- Aviva Premiership rugby
- Womens WTA Tennis
- US Sports channel (ESPNA)
It's easy to forget that in 2007/10 Setanta (/ ESPN) had 46 live PL games against only 92 on Sky. BT has the significant advantage of 18 1st picks (though we don't yet know quite how good these will prove to be) but it has 8 fewer games (38 compared to 46) and a worse timeslot. Sky meanwhile now has 116 games compared to 92 at that point.
As far as the other rights are concerned it's a fairly close run thing - essentially boiling down to England away WC qualifiers and home friendlies, US PGA Tour golf and boxing on Setanta vs Europa League (3rd / 4th picks), Aviva Premiership and WTA tennis on BT Sport. In my view Setanta would just about edge that comparison though views will obviously differ.
Setanta then had its own sports news channel - we haven't yet heard about any such operation from BT.
Of course we have to remember BT is not finished yet and may well acquire many more rights.
Yes, I agree that we forget how good Setanta's rights were.
I still think, and am happy to be proved wrong, that having missed out on the bulk of PL rights that BT are now mainly concerned about getting Sky to retail them their sports channels at a decent price. Of course they can build a half decent sports channel with non PL rights that will tempt non pay tv customers to switch, however it will never be enough to convince football fans to ditch Sky if they can't offer them the same value.
Comments
No way in the world am I paying anything more than a tenner.
I imagine BT Sports will be included in the "premium" BT Vision package, with Sky Sports being a £20pm add-on (unless Sky increase their wholesale prices, which they now can, in which case it could go up to £25pm).
I agree that the three BT-owned channels are likely to be in the £12.50 BT Vision bundle though.
BT have been running tests on Sky for some time, Channels 445 & 447 (Sailing 1&2). Would the purchase of ESPN give them access to their EPG numbers?
They can not even think about charging their own customers a penny more than what they already pay IMO. They currently get ESPN bundled in so for their own provider to come in and effectively take over the coverage to then charge £12.50 would be outrageous if I was a BT customer.
Also there's the fact that they can't really charge anything on top because it'd send their prices rocketing. At the moment, for Infinity 1 and TV Unlimited it's £50.95 a month without line rental saver. Add another £2.50 on for the extra channels and that'd be £53.45... at that price I'd fully expect to be receiving their sports channels bundled in!
If they charged an extra £12.50 that'd be £65.95 a month BEFORE you even think of adding Sky Sports. I think it's expensive enough if they bundle their own channels into the £53.45 because even if Sky Sports stayed at £20 it'd still be £73.45 a month and that's not going to lure many people in.
Free? I hadn't considered that either. As I'm already on a heavily discounted package - Phone line, BT Infinity Unlimited, BTVision and Sky Sports with ESPN all for only £60 a month.
I'd imagine it'd be bundled into the new £15 option that includes the £2.50 additional charge for the linear channels. That in itself sounds great and really good value considering you get a few other channels thrown in... but add the Infinity and line rental and it shoots up straight away.
It comes to something when this 'real competition' argument people keep bringing forward actually means which provider do I want to be paying a minimum £70 a month to if I want to watch the football.
My BT Infinity/Evening and weekend call package with a £1.75 a month discount is up for renewal come mid June.
I already have a YouView box that I bought mid October last year.
Darren
It will be on YouView. No doubts about that. Only unknown is pricing.
The Humax YouView boxes are expected to become Multicast enabled in July of this year. Just before BT Sports launches.
Sky Sports 1&2 and ESPN are already live on Multicast via Infinity enabled BTVision boxes.
At the moment there's real competition for rights which is driving up their cost. If BT Sport got to a rights level whereby people could seriously think of it as a substitute for Sky Sports then there might be some price pressure there. But that's a long way off and to achieve this would further push up the cost of sports rights.
Im not to bothered about having the Sky Sports channels but may look at having the BT Sports if the price is right.
Darren
For BTV/YouView from BT users, BT are expected to market this new package very aggressively. After all, atm they offer ESPN for free and still sell Sky Sports 1&2 at a loss too. So I don't see the new sports channels being any different, for new and existing users. So the pricing of the packages should be interesting...
Line rental
Weekend & evening calls
Unlimited FTTC broadband (80/20 Mbps)
Sky Entertainment
Sky Sports
Sky Movies
HD Pack
ESPN
Multiroom
Although in reality that's split between 3 so it's only £21pm for me. Sadly it won't last.
It will be fascinating if BT Sport offer their channels for non-BT YouView customers. Things could change big-time in the "a la carte" arena.
BT have said they will offer these channels to any other platform that wants them, so yes they'll be available elsewhere. But I can't see them being offered for free.
But DragonQ, this acquisition of ESPN/ESPNA, it isn't a game changer, and nor will it threaten Sky's number one TV position either. But what it has done is enable BT to finally now have enough sports content to broadcast a 24 hour sports channel/s. But thats all its done.
All BT are trying to achieve at the moment is a foothold in the market. Then if they can achieve that foothold, move on from there at a later date. But thats a long way down the line at the moment.
Nonetheless this has handed BT Sport "a new battery of weapons in its escalating war with rival BSkyB" - er College Basketball, SPL, Bundesliga etc. Sky must be quaking.
Also we are told the "telecoms giant...will run some of these (channels) under the ESPN name - er likely 1 actually Katherine.
Stick to the facts rather than the hyperbole. What this deal does is give BT direct access to ESPN's existing subscriber base, EPG slots on some platforms, staff with worthwhile sports channel experience and avoids it having to get embroiled in a whole series of minor sports rights negotiations. A good deal for BT on that basis.
It does very little in the battle with Sky. What BT can do is offer its own sports channels more attractively through its own platform and triple offerings than you might get if you add a BT Sports sub through another platform.
On another point, if Sky wants to do anything re a US Sports channel, as some have suggested but i'm less sure about, then it will target MLB rights initially if these are outside the BT / ESPN deal (unclear) then follow up by increasing its investment and output in NBA and NFL and then chase after NHL rights (maybe by acquiring Premier Sports operation or somesuch or simply waiting for the rights to become available).
The sooner we know what is or is not included in this deal the better.
Not sure what you mean by that / whether that's right.
Anyone getting ESPN through Sky is a customer of Sky, not ESPN. The customer pays Sky for ESPN.
Now Sky will have to pass on an amount £x to ESPN per Sky customer taking ESPN. So Sky would have to give ESPN details of customer numbers. But I doubt very much ESPN gets names and addresses.
Ditto VM and TUTV.
I guess BT might be able to buy a list of names and addresses from TUTV but I doubt Sky or VM will be offering such information for sale.
Exactly. Imagine if it was the other way around - would BT be so forthcoming with Sky or Virgin? Of course they wouldn't.
The plus point for BT is that anybody who is unaware of the situation and tunes in to ESPN expecting normal service, will be greeted with BT and instructions on how to subscribe (presuming BT take 417 of course, which I fully expect).
It would be much more consumer friendly for everything to be handled through Sky, although I'd assume BT have the infrastructure in place to do it themselves to save paying Sky?
BT have the intention to act as retailer so they would be dealing with sales directly. The only way it will be connected to Sky is by being listed on their EPG.
Setanta 2008/09:
- 46 PL games (Sat 5.30pm slot, no 1st picks) [vs 92 PL games on Sky]
- FA Cup secondary package
- England away World Cup qualifiers
- England home friendlies
- SPL (exclusive???)
- Several European football leagues
- US PGA Tour golf
- Boxing (inc Hatton, Haye, Calzaghe)
- Setanta Sports News channel
- US Sports channel (NASN)
BT Sport 2013/14:
- 38 PL games (Sat 12.45pm slot, 18 1st picks) [vs 116 PL games on Sky]
- FA Cup secondary package
- SPL secondary package
- Europa League (3rd and 4th picks)
- Several European football leagues
- Aviva Premiership rugby
- Womens WTA Tennis
- US Sports channel (ESPNA)
It's easy to forget that in 2007/10 Setanta (/ ESPN) had 46 live PL games against only 92 on Sky. BT has the significant advantage of 18 1st picks (though we don't yet know quite how good these will prove to be) but it has 8 fewer games (38 compared to 46) and a worse timeslot. Sky meanwhile now has 116 games compared to 92 at that point.
As far as the other rights are concerned it's a fairly close run thing - essentially boiling down to England away WC qualifiers and home friendlies, US PGA Tour golf and boxing on Setanta vs Europa League (3rd / 4th picks), Aviva Premiership and WTA tennis on BT Sport. In my view Setanta would just about edge that comparison though views will obviously differ.
Setanta then had its own sports news channel - we haven't yet heard about any such operation from BT.
Of course we have to remember BT is not finished yet and may well acquire many more rights.
There's not much in it but for me, Setanta had a slightly stronger offering.
Yes, I agree that we forget how good Setanta's rights were.
I still think, and am happy to be proved wrong, that having missed out on the bulk of PL rights that BT are now mainly concerned about getting Sky to retail them their sports channels at a decent price. Of course they can build a half decent sports channel with non PL rights that will tempt non pay tv customers to switch, however it will never be enough to convince football fans to ditch Sky if they can't offer them the same value.