[martine93]

http://mediaboyblog.blogspot.co.uk/2...e-of-that.html

it's weekly reach is only 83k
http://www.barb.co.uk/report/weekly-viewing?_s=4

I wonder if they have paid Virgin Media to be put on the EPG rather than the other way around ?

[martine93]

The Africa Channel is now on channel 828 - it starts at 6am on the 2nd of october according to the TiVo EPG.

Originally Posted by martine93

Checked the diagnostics menu on TiVo and noticed the Total Services aka Total Channels have increased from 421 to 423.

Maybe it is Sky Sports News HD and Sky News HD or CBS Drama and Sony Movies ?

and Total Services aka Total Channels have increased again to 424 because The Africa Channel has been added to the EPG.

[LudwigVonDrake]

Wow I'm so excited.. Let me get the bunting out(!)

I'm sure there maybe a few who will be happy to see it on the platform, but it means absolutely diddly-squat to the rest of us.

Here's hoping for some better channels in the near future.

[boyzie]

Whooopeeee...

[stuntmaster]

and it was in media boy's SD list I posted earlier. Come on VM don't start filling the EPG with dross.

even men and movies is crap but gotta be better than this.

[weetomuncher]

I have to be honest and say that there at least twenty trashy channels I would get rid of happily to get Sky Atlantic instead.

The likes of The Africa Channel isn't going to draw viewers in. It is a free channel on satellite and is available on Freesat, yet Virgin are making a fuss about it launching in a few days on their service.

To be honest, Virgin need Sky Atlantic, the rest of the Sky Sports channels in HD and extra On Demand content, not minority interest channels (not necessarily ethnic channels but also other low interest, low budget channels that few people have any interest in) as the big channels are what draw in customers.

[martine93]

Originally Posted by weetomuncher

To be honest, Virgin need Sky Atlantic, the rest of the Sky Sports channels in HD

Sky are keeping Sky Sports 3 , 4 and F1 HD to themselves and I would amazed if Sky Atlantic came to Virgin Media this year seeing as both Talktalk and UPC Ireland in the last few months agreed new deals with Sky which did not include Sky Atlantic.

[hd-media-nut]

Originally Posted by martine93

Sky are keeping Sky Sports 3 , 4 and F1 HD to themselves and I would amazed if Sky Atlantic came to Virgin Media this year seeing as both Talktalk and UPC Ireland in the last few months agreed new deals with Sky which did not include Sky Atlantic.

Agree V/m have no chance of getting sky sports 3/4 HD and sky atlantic, would you give your crown jewels to your rival?.
Sky can bring new subscribers in with sports 3/4 HD and sky sports news HD, and sky Atlantic HD so why would they sell them?

[SC03OTT]

To make money off the people who are not able to get them through a dish for whatever reason.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by SC03OTT

To make money off the people who are not able to get them through a dish for whatever reason.

Isn't that what there planning to do with Atlantic via Now TV.

[hd-media-nut]

Originally Posted by SC03OTT

To make money off the people who are not able to get them through a dish for whatever reason.

I agree with you, but is it not the case that sky have gone as far as they are going to now, they arnt going to give v/m any more HD, and why on earth should they, its about time V/M got there act together and started doing some new chanells for themselves, insted of going cap in hand to sky all the time for there programs.
whats wrong with them starting the V/M movie chanell or the V/M sports chanell, V/m arnt skint.

[weetomuncher]

I thought the whole point of selling the Flextech channels to Sky was to allow Virgin Media access to the channels that Sky were holding out on as part of the deal then they went and launched Sky Atlantic right after that and pulled the same stunt they tried with their other channels previously, in trying to get Virgin Media to pay an inflated price to show the channel.

Sky has a habit of negotiating very low deals to carry other channels and then asking for a fortune for their own channels. There should be a government imposed cap on channel charges and the major TV carriage companies should have easy access to all major channels for a fair price.

[hd-media-nut]

Originally Posted by weetomuncher

I thought the whole point of selling the Flextech channels to Sky was to allow Virgin Media access to the channels that Sky were holding out on as part of the deal then they went and launched Sky Atlantic right after that and pulled the same stunt they tried with their other channels previously, in trying to get Virgin Media to pay an inflated price to show the channel.

Sky has a habit of negotiating very low deals to carry other channels and then asking for a fortune for their own channels. There should be a government imposed cap on channel charges and the major TV carriage companies should have easy access to all major channels for a fair price.

Whats wrong with V/M doing there own sports chanell and movie chanells other providers are doing it so why not V/M?
insted of bleating on about how V/M should get something on the cheap from sky again!, why dont they do something for themselves for a change?

[R410]

Originally Posted by hd-media-nut

I agree with you, but is it not the case that sky have gone as far as they are going to now, they arnt going to give v/m any more HD, and why on earth should they, its about time V/M got there act together and started doing some new chanells for themselves, insted of going cap in hand to sky all the time for there programs.
whats wrong with them starting the V/M movie chanell or the V/M sports chanell, V/m arnt skint.

Virgin Media don't want to be a TV producer, hence selling the TV production arm to Sky a few years ago.

[hd-media-nut]

Originally Posted by R410

Virgin Media don't want to be a TV producer, hence selling the TV production arm to Sky a few years ago.

So your saying because they sold there tv a few years ago to sky, thats o.k for them to stand still and stagnate, and wait for sky to throw them scraps, because thats all sky will give them now.
What a way to run a buisness, stand stiil and do nothing!

[alwaysabear]

Originally Posted by hd-media-nut

Whats wrong with V/M doing there own sports chanell and movie chanells other providers are doing it so why not V/M?
insted of bleating on about how V/M should get something on the cheap from sky again!, why dont they do something for themselves for a change?

They don't have the money to compete with Sky and BT for the sports rights.

[stuntmaster]

Originally Posted by alwaysabear

They don't have the money to compete with Sky and BT for the sports rights.

Exactly.

VM vs Newscorp (who own fox and part of sky).

Sky will always outbid everyone due to the vast amounts of money they have.

it's not justifiable for VM to launch channels.

VM probably gave up on running channels because when the content comes for renewal sky would have probably outbidded them.

[SC03OTT]

Content producers and content providers. That's pretty much how it should be set up. But it's not.

[trinity28]

Originally Posted by R410

Virgin Media don't want to be a TV producer, hence selling the TV production arm to Sky a few years ago.

i remember reading or hearing some where that virgin are concentrating on the broadband more then the tv services it looks this way if true the broadband is good and the tv channels not as good as sky

[boyzie]

If we had skysports 3 and 4 hd and itv4 hd I'd be happy with that.

[blueisthecolour]

Originally Posted by hd-media-nut

So your saying because they sold there tv a few years ago to sky, thats o.k for them to stand still and stagnate, and wait for sky to throw them scraps, because thats all sky will give them now.
What a way to run a buisness, stand stiil and do nothing!

I thought the point was that telecom suppliers should compete against each other on the basis of price and quality of services rather than content. Otherwise you'll end up in a situation where channels are split between the different providers and the only way you can watch everything is by taking out multiple services. VM aren't expecting this stuff free from Sky, they just want their customers to have the opportunity to pay for them.

It's like if Tesco decided to buy up the entire UK milk market and refuse to let any other shop in the country sell milk. Actually it's worse than that, it's like if Tesco bought up the entire UK milk market, wouldn't let any other shop sell it and then would let you buy milk from tesco's unless you also spent at least £40 a month on other products in store.

Sky customers might not mind the situation at the moment but they would start complaining if BT bought up lots of shows/channels that they enjoyed and refused to let them watch. Put simply ever broadcaster should be forced to offer all their content to all platforms at the same price. No one is saying that has to be a low price . . . .

[hd-media-nut]

Originally Posted by blueisthecolour

I thought the point was that telecom suppliers should compete against each other on the basis of price and quality of services rather than content. Otherwise you'll end up in a situation where channels are split between the different providers and the only way you can watch everything is by taking out multiple services. VM aren't expecting this stuff free from Sky, they just want their customers to have the opportunity to pay for them.

It's like if Tesco decided to buy up the entire UK milk market and refuse to let any other shop in the country sell milk. Actually it's worse than that, it's like if Tesco bought up the entire UK milk market, wouldn't let any other shop sell it and then would let you buy milk from tesco's unless you also spent at least £40 a month on other products in store.

Sky customers might not mind the situation at the moment but they would start complaining if BT bought up lots of shows/channels that they enjoyed and refused to let them watch. Put simply ever broadcaster should be forced to offer all their content to all platforms at the same price. No one is saying that has to be a low price . . . .

For what your asking, and that is for sky to offer V/M more chanells at a reasonble price just wont happen, sky like we all know are sinking millions into sky sports HD and 3D and films in HD and 3D, so why on earth should they even contemplate giving anything to v/m at at any price whe. And as for B/T they mite well try and get more football in the future, and good luck to them for having a go, at least they are trying to be a serious compeitor to sky, unlike v/m who do nothing in the tv market, yet still expect something for nothing from sky.
How many V/M subscribers would pay for more HD from sky? your sports pack has just gone up by £3.25p a month, because one thing is certain, if sky did offer V/M any more HD in the future it would NOT be for free, so you mite say you want more HD from sky, but i bet you would not want to pay for it, due to the fact you have had two price hikes over the last 8 months, e.g sky sports 1/2 HD £7 a month?

[real world]

Originally Posted by hd-media-nut

For what your asking, and that is for sky to offer V/M more chanells at a reasonble price just wont happen, sky like we all know are sinking millions into sky sports HD and 3D and films in HD and 3D, so why on earth should they even contemplate giving anything to v/m at at any price whe. And as for B/T they mite well try and get more football in the future, and good luck to them for having a go, at least they are trying to be a serious compeitor to sky, unlike v/m who do nothing in the tv market, yet still expect something for nothing from sky.
How many V/M subscribers would pay for more HD from sky? your sports pack has just gone up by £3.25p a month, because one thing is certain, if sky did offer V/M any more HD in the future it would NOT be for free, so you mite say you want more HD from sky, but i bet you would not want to pay for it, due to the fact you have had two price hikes over the last 8 months, e.g sky sports 1/2 HD £7 a month?

How would Sky feel if BT said no you can't use our Broadband Network? Isn't it the same argument?

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by real world

How would Sky feel if BT said no you can't use our Broadband Network? Isn't it the same argument?

No similarity whatsoever , BT's network was built and funded by public money as such BT are obliged to offer access , Sky's TV service was solely funded from private investment.

[real world]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

No similarity whatsoever , BT's network was built and funded by public money as such BT are obliged to offer access , Sky's TV service was solely funded from private investment.

However their fibre product was funded by them - how would Sky feel if BT removed their fibre offering to them?