So, if Sky want to show programming exclusively in the way they do, they have to accept that they will be required to make their channels available on other platforms. It's not that they don't get paid by cable and other subscribers for the service!
I too agree.
I was looking at my VM bill the other day and noted that I pay £36.50 per month purely for Sky services. Most of that money is received by Sky, bar a bit of VAT fiddling VM do to make a bit of profit, I can't imagine much of that cost is profit for VM.
I can't access anything online, through my mobile, or on anytime etc but yet still pay all that money.
It's not that I have an issue with that and I completely understand why Sky operate in such a way. It's more that it surprises me that Sky undervalue such subscribers who still spend so much. They can get away with it for a good few years yet but if ESPN do ever rival Sky with Prem League rights' etc, they may struggle a bit to be like that. (Although ESPN have jumped so quickly into bed with Sky in some respects that this is less likely than I originally thought when ESPN first announced their intention to launch within the UK).
Bit off-topic I know, just that over-all I think Sky are being a bit short sighted. The take up of Sports and Movies HD was quite high from what I could see. If I were Sky, I'd be knocking on VM's door and saying, "OK you can offer your customers Sports 3&4 and SSN HD + Movie HD Varients but you have to charge £10 minimum". That way they'd increase their revenue/profit. How many people choose Sky based solely on 3&4 in HD and SSN HD too? I'd take the extra money.
Well, it's possible that VM have it all covered, but I was worried that VM's statement appeared to indicate that they had not really thought about carriage of Sky Atlantic at one stage. My point was that when the VM deal was done with Sky, there should have been a clause in there to guarantee VM the right to carry all Sky channels at an appropriate wholesale price.
Mind you, if Sky were not so anti-competitive, this would not even be an issue. Any content provider who is buying up exclusive rights to programmes, films and sport should be expected by law to make that content available via all premium platforms that want to make this available to their customers. It's not as if Sky would lose out financially, given that the programmes are made available through subscription to the Sky channels.
Comments
I too agree.
I was looking at my VM bill the other day and noted that I pay £36.50 per month purely for Sky services. Most of that money is received by Sky, bar a bit of VAT fiddling VM do to make a bit of profit, I can't imagine much of that cost is profit for VM.
I can't access anything online, through my mobile, or on anytime etc but yet still pay all that money.
It's not that I have an issue with that and I completely understand why Sky operate in such a way. It's more that it surprises me that Sky undervalue such subscribers who still spend so much. They can get away with it for a good few years yet but if ESPN do ever rival Sky with Prem League rights' etc, they may struggle a bit to be like that. (Although ESPN have jumped so quickly into bed with Sky in some respects that this is less likely than I originally thought when ESPN first announced their intention to launch within the UK).
Bit off-topic I know, just that over-all I think Sky are being a bit short sighted. The take up of Sports and Movies HD was quite high from what I could see. If I were Sky, I'd be knocking on VM's door and saying, "OK you can offer your customers Sports 3&4 and SSN HD + Movie HD Varients but you have to charge £10 minimum". That way they'd increase their revenue/profit. How many people choose Sky based solely on 3&4 in HD and SSN HD too? I'd take the extra money.
Mind you, if Sky were not so anti-competitive, this would not even be an issue. Any content provider who is buying up exclusive rights to programmes, films and sport should be expected by law to make that content available via all premium platforms that want to make this available to their customers. It's not as if Sky would lose out financially, given that the programmes are made available through subscription to the Sky channels.