I've just done a little test of what Virgin offer; from their home page there is a very nice pop-up where you can tailor your needs.
Me; TV only, must include Sky Sports and Eurosport.
£48.25 a month - no offers, and I couldn't see how long of contract whether it's 12 or 18 months, but no matter, but no indication of whether that gets the red button coverage as Sky now hide some games behind it - messing Now TV subscribers no end.
Is £579/year a good deal? I think not, and if they could produce a sports package only for less than that - maybe £35- £40tops inc Eurosport I may be interested.
Not to me it isn't as nowhere do not I call them dimwits, if someone is about to jump of a cliff or take the plunge into subscription TV aren't they entitled to know the pros & cons and possible consequences?
Under the banner of extreme sports some people make a living jumping off cliffs, it's not something I would choose to do but it doesn't make them dimwits.
I agree that the fees that BBC, ITV Channel 4 and Five, had to pay to be on the Sky platform were outdated, if not inappropriate in the first place, and that the fact they are no longer payable (you are correct - see link below) seems to be the right result for all concerned. Everyone (Sky, the channels, viewers) benefits from the current arrangement, so it's good that common sense prevailed.
The government is to review whether the BBC and other public service broadcasters should be allowed to charge BSkyB and Virgin Media potentially tens of millions to air their channels in pay-TV homes.
Various figures have been bandied about over the last few years as to the potential income that PSBs might make from retransmission charges, ranging from tens of millions of pounds to as much as £200m annually.
PSB channels account for the vast majority of viewing on pay-TV services.
Which suggests Sky has been ripping off TV licence fee payers for years.
Which suggests Sky has been ripping off TV licence fee payers for years.
Of course if they want to charge Sky, but Sky do not wish to pay, then we will end up as we did a few/many years ago when it said switch to Ch1 and your TV for BBC1 or Ch3 for ITV, but then they decided they were losing too many viewers so made the move to Satellite, and also maybe we could back to when if you only rec'd Satellite TV, at that time just Sky and the Euro channels, when you did not have to have a TV licence, but they soon changed that so the BBC got a slice of the money and you could not avoid paying even if you did not watch any BBC or ITV !
Not sure why the BBC nor ITV would want to pay to part of the EPG, it also benefits them too being "on Sky"
Of course if they want to charge Sky, but Sky do not wish to pay, then we will end up as we did a few/many years ago when it said switch to Ch1 and your TV for BBC1 or Ch3 for ITV, but then they decided they were losing too many viewers so made the move to Satellite, and also maybe we could back to when if you only rec'd Satellite TV, at that time just Sky and the Euro channels, when you did not have to have a TV licence, but they soon changed that so the BBC got a slice of the money and you could not avoid paying even if you did not watch any BBC or ITV !
Not sure why the BBC nor ITV would want to pay to part of the EPG, it also benefits them too being "on Sky"
Isn't it also the other way round? With BBC 1 and ITV 1 being the two most popular channels in sky homes?
It would be a very bad move for Sky not to have then on their platform.
The box wouldn't be used as much and people might question it's worth.
Comments
Me; TV only, must include Sky Sports and Eurosport.
£48.25 a month - no offers, and I couldn't see how long of contract whether it's 12 or 18 months, but no matter, but no indication of whether that gets the red button coverage as Sky now hide some games behind it - messing Now TV subscribers no end.
Is £579/year a good deal? I think not, and if they could produce a sports package only for less than that - maybe £35- £40tops inc Eurosport I may be interested.
Not to me it isn't as nowhere do not I call them dimwits, if someone is about to jump of a cliff or take the plunge into subscription TV aren't they entitled to know the pros & cons and possible consequences?
Under the banner of extreme sports some people make a living jumping off cliffs, it's not something I would choose to do but it doesn't make them dimwits.
It seems things have moved on and Sky may end up paying the BBC.
In that article it states...
And they appear to have been correct due to the speed Sky dropped its charges and now there is talk of the BBC charging Sky a fee....
Which suggests Sky has been ripping off TV licence fee payers for years.
Of course if they want to charge Sky, but Sky do not wish to pay, then we will end up as we did a few/many years ago when it said switch to Ch1 and your TV for BBC1 or Ch3 for ITV, but then they decided they were losing too many viewers so made the move to Satellite, and also maybe we could back to when if you only rec'd Satellite TV, at that time just Sky and the Euro channels, when you did not have to have a TV licence, but they soon changed that so the BBC got a slice of the money and you could not avoid paying even if you did not watch any BBC or ITV !
Not sure why the BBC nor ITV would want to pay to part of the EPG, it also benefits them too being "on Sky"
Isn't it also the other way round? With BBC 1 and ITV 1 being the two most popular channels in sky homes?
It would be a very bad move for Sky not to have then on their platform.
The box wouldn't be used as much and people might question it's worth.