It's not a financial rubbing their nose in it, but a offering a wider service than they can offer.
But Sky are not offering the channels in the first palce, BT are, so if anything, it is rubbing BT's nose in it as they are supplying a worse service themselves than they are offering through VM.
It's true, the biggest winners out of the whole BT Sports fiasco is VM customers on XL package. Whereas are Sky users have to pay extra to get it and BT customers are having trouble with Sky channels, we are getting our (fairly decent to be honest) ESPN sports package upgraded immensely for nothing. Some of us have even got better deals with reduced monthly bills or discounted services.
We've never had it so good - roll on bundesliga match tomorrow night.
To be fair though - it was always like this for VM and Sky customers.
But Sky are not offering the channels in the first palce, BT are, so if anything, it is rubbing BT's nose in it as they are supplying a worse service themselves than they are offering through VM.
That's a valid point, but what I am referring to is that it's the Sky subscribers who suffer (plus those using a satellite box just for BT Sport) IF multiroom is something you would use.
I am stunned at the terms under which VM have added the content though. Will be interesting to see how much they are paying! I'm guessing they have concluded VM customers are unlikely to switch to BT at present.
Yes Sirius - I am slightly surprised it's on XL but it was always the case that anything was possible due to the number of variables in the equation facing both BT and VM.
As you say, we don't actually know what price VM is paying - without that info it's impossible to assess how good a deal it is for BT and how good it is for VM.
You're quite right - we always knew that in practice very few VM customers would switch over this. Whilst there has been masses of excitement on here and Cable Forum , both companies will have assessed the actual number of switchers over the last 2 weeks and they have presumably concluded that the numbers aren't that significant.
If the above is the case, then going into VM XL makes sense - just as it did for Setanta and ESPN.
However if BT has been able to exert reasonable pressure on VM they may have been able to extract a significantly higher price. I wonder if we will get that information.
Finally what does this mean for the future? Probably not much as it's a 3 year deal in line with the PL rights. So if BT were to win far more rights in the next PL auction they would obviously be able to renegotiate with VM.
I guess we might imply that BT is now a bit less likely to spend a lot more on sports rights before August 2016 - so maybe a bit less likely to make a blockbuster Champions League bid but there again the new CL contract would only cover one year of BT's deal with VM so maybe not much of a consideration.
But Sky are not offering the channels in the first palce, BT are, so if anything, it is rubbing BT's nose in it as they are supplying a worse service themselves than they are offering through VM.
Sky are offering a worse potential service to their customers than Virgin is offering (ie multiroom with Sky requires a separate payment and activation fee for extra boxes). Who they are buying the channels from doesn't matter in this case. It's the platform you use.
I doubt BT would care as even though they are the ones telling Sky they can't offer multiroom that doesn't matter to a Sky customer when you see that Virgin customers DO offer it. They might think maybe Sky didn't offer enough money to do that deal etc etc.
It's another thing Virgin can use to now coax Sky customers over to Virgin, just as Sky did to Virgin customers before over BT Sports. BT get money either way.
Yes BT are theoretically losing out on additional box payments, but that's their choice as part of this Virgin deal. I don't know how many people would pay again to get it on another box with Sky though. Higher customer numbers = better for advertisers after all.
I am not fussed if I do look like an idiot to be honest. I will hold my hands up on here and admit it myself but I dont think I am wrong and I hope those who are certain it is coming by Saturday will do the same if they are proved to be wrong.
I will always hold my hands up when I am wrong. The only reason I was so adamant was because I attended a seminar with one of the directors and was told categorically VM would not get it in the near future. But I couldn't put that because I had to sign a non disclosure agreement, that obviously doesn't matter now, because they have done a deal and I have broken terms of my employment.
I am chuffed to bits VM are getting it, we shouldn't have to miss out.
I don't like to say "I told you so" - actually I do.;)
It would seem the logical expectation that BT want to offer a genuine alternative to Sky Sports was right and the idea that BT were willing to spend 700 million to retain BB customers was wrong.
In HD too !!!
Now if only I had the slightest interest in sport.
Out of interest - how much does it cost on Sky to get BTS?
I don't like to say "I told you so" - actually I do.;)
It would seem the logical expectation that BT want to offer a genuine alternative to Sky Sports was right and the idea that BT were willing to spend 700 million to retain BB customers was wrong.
In HD too !!!
Now if only I had the slightest interest in sport.
Out of interest - how much does it cost on Sky to get BTS?
If you have BT Broadband, it costs nothing at all on Sky, even if you their basic package, you don't even have to subscribe to Sky either. However if you don't have BT Broadband it will cost £12.00 (SD)/ £15.00 (HD) plus an activation fee of £15.00
What do you pay for Sky Sports on VM?
I know with Sky they always do deals with Sky Sports/Movies, often half price, or free.
If you have BT Broadband, it costs nothing at all on Sky, even if you their basic package, you don't even have to subscribe to Sky either. However if you don't have BT Broadband it will cost £12.00 (SD)/ £15.00 (HD) plus an activation fee of £15.00
What do you pay for Sky Sports on VM?
I know with Sky they always do deals with Sky Sports/Movies, often half price, or free.
If you have BT Broadband, it costs nothing at all on Sky, even if you their basic package, you don't even have to subscribe to Sky either. However if you don't have BT Broadband it will cost £12.00 (SD)/ £15.00 (HD) plus an activation fee of £15.00
What do you pay for Sky Sports on VM?
I know with Sky they always do deals with Sky Sports/Movies, often half price, or free.
I pay £31 per month for all skysports and skymovies add-on with VM. All in HD.
Strange. I cancelled sky sports and downgraded to M+ In June... With this news I just phoned to see what it would cost a month to add them back. To my surprise they quoted me a price £8 cheaper then I was paying in June!!! I didn't query it and accepted!.....
I got rid of the XL because I wasn't really watching most of the channels and Sky sports I was going to just watch via the internet, but I must admit to missing just flicking the TV on and watching sports, or even just playing ion the background.
After doing my sums I decided I would get XL back as Sky Sports package and the extra £15 for BT sports would cost me a few pound more then an upgrade to XL with no Bt Sports subscription charge..
Sky are offering a worse potential service to their customers than Virgin is offering (ie multiroom with Sky requires a separate payment and activation fee for extra boxes). Who they are buying the channels from doesn't matter in this case. It's the platform you use.
I doubt BT would care as even though they are the ones telling Sky they can't offer multiroom that doesn't matter to a Sky customer when you see that Virgin customers DO offer it. They might think maybe Sky didn't offer enough money to do that deal etc etc.
It's another thing Virgin can use to now coax Sky customers over to Virgin, just as Sky did to Virgin customers before over BT Sports. BT get money either way.
Yes BT are theoretically losing out on additional box payments, but that's their choice as part of this Virgin deal. I don't know how many people would pay again to get it on another box with Sky though. Higher customer numbers = better for advertisers after all.
Think you are getting confused how it works on the Sky box, it has NOTHING to do with Sky, they have done NO DEAL with Sky, BT are offering the channels THEMSELVES, you pay BT, and it is upto BT how you access the channels.
The only thing Sky do is activate the channels on whatever card BT tell them to activate it on (for a fee), the same as any other operator would do if they supply channels direct (box nation or premier sports maybe), so if BT wanted to allow access on multiple boxes, they could do, again, nothing to do with Sky, BT control who has access to what, Sky just follow their instructions, and activate it on whichever cards they are told to.
The multiroom fee paid to Sky is to allow viewing of any channels paid for to Sky to be available on other boxes, if BT wanted this option, maybe they should have just allowed Sky to sell the channels on their behalf.
Do you know what? I would really love VM to get it so all you guys can watch it too, but I am going to laugh really hard when it's not on there, just because of the pure disbelief at some people's posts!
Yes Sirius - I am slightly surprised it's on XL but it was always the case that anything was possible due to the number of variables in the equation facing both BT and VM.
As you say, we don't actually know what price VM is paying - without that info it's impossible to assess how good a deal it is for BT and how good it is for VM.
You're quite right - we always knew that in practice very few VM customers would switch over this. Whilst there has been masses of excitement on here and Cable Forum , both companies will have assessed the actual number of switchers over the last 2 weeks and they have presumably concluded that the numbers aren't that significant.
If the above is the case, then going into VM XL makes sense - just as it did for Setanta and ESPN.
However if BT has been able to exert reasonable pressure on VM they may have been able to extract a significantly higher price. I wonder if we will get that information.
Finally what does this mean for the future? Probably not much as it's a 3 year deal in line with the PL rights. So if BT were to win far more rights in the next PL auction they would obviously be able to renegotiate with VM.
I guess we might imply that BT is now a bit less likely to spend a lot more on sports rights before August 2016 - so maybe a bit less likely to make a blockbuster Champions League bid but there again the new CL contract would only cover one year of BT's deal with VM so maybe not much of a consideration.
Good points, although I don't necessarily with the point in bold.
In wholesaling to VM, BT have now secured a much larger viewing base. They can now build the attractiveness of their sports portfolio, so that potentially when the contract runs out with VM, they potentially have a bigger chunk of the PL and the Champions League too.
Consequently, if they decide at that point to withhold BT Sport from VM, there will be a large number of actively engaged BT Sport viewers who wil have a much higher propensity to move across to BT. Especially if BT also spend the next few years strengthening their TV proposition so it's comparable to VM in strength (which it isn't now).
Without being too crude, it's the old fashioned drug dealer approach. Get them hooked in, and then they won't be able to live without it. But for that to work BT still need to strengthen their sports portolio much more.
Think you are getting confused how it works on the Sky box, it has NOTHING to do with Sky, they have done NO DEAL with Sky, BT are offering the channels THEMSELVES, you pay BT, and it is upto BT how you access the channels.
You are still missing the point. If you are a Sky customer you are paying more (to BT) to get the channels through your Sky box than a Virgin Customer will be paying to Virgin to get the same product (eg BT Sports in multiple rooms).
It doesn't matter that BT are the ones controlling the lack of Multiroom access, if you are a Sky customer wanting BT Sports you are getting a worse deal than a Virgin customer can get for the same product.
It's purely a perception thing, which is exactly what all the companies use in their advertising.
E.g. Virgin could easily now sell their ability for you to pay no extra for Multiroom which Sky is unable to do.
I'm sure BT would rather you become a BT customer and get everything through them, but that's a whole different thing.
You are still missing the point. If you are a Sky customer you are paying more (to BT) to get the channels through your Sky box than a Virgin Customer will be paying to Virgin to get the same product (eg BT Sports in multiple rooms).
It doesn't matter that BT are the ones controlling the lack of Multiroom access, if you are a Sky customer wanting BT Sports you are getting a worse deal than a Virgin customer can get for the same product.
It's purely a perception thing, which is exactly what all the companies use in their advertising.
E.g. Virgin could easily now sell their ability for you to pay no extra for Multiroom which Sky is unable to do.
I'm sure BT would rather you become a BT customer and get everything through them, but that's a whole different thing.
I know all that, you said maybe Sky didn't offer enough money for the deal (to allow multiroom), i am merely pointing out there is no deal, so money has nothing to do with it, BT control the boxes.
You're quite right - we always knew that in practice very few VM customers would switch over this. Whilst there has been masses of excitement on here and Cable Forum , both companies will have assessed the actual number of switchers over the last 2 weeks and they have presumably concluded that the numbers aren't that significant.
If the above is the case, then going into VM XL makes sense - just as it did for Setanta and ESPN.
Yes, as we've mentioned it was never really that likely BT would benefit from witholding it from Virgin. I think quite a lot of Virgin customers are idiots like me who want Sky Sports but not Sky and think they look a bit cool. Given we'd been used to getting Setanta and ESPN free - with BT not seemingly offering much extra - I think most Virgin subscribers would either not bother at all or just get Sky, which is of no benefit to BT anyway.
But I never doubted it, Virgin have always been good for sports fans, there's now been three channels offered in XL so the only expense on top of Sky Sports has been PremPlus which ended six years ago. I know HD is extra but I've never found it that important. It was in both companies' benefit to offer it.
Anyway, it took a little longer than I thought but I'm thrilled it's here and in XL as well, which really is the perfect scenario.
Comments
Agreed, just done this and very pleased. I've spent about 45 minutes on the phone to them over the past 24 hours but well worth it.
Upgraded package and a nice discount.:D
It's not a financial rubbing their nose in it, but a offering a wider service than they can offer.
What a nice surprise to get these channels. Not that I watch much sport so never really cared that much!
But Sky are not offering the channels in the first palce, BT are, so if anything, it is rubbing BT's nose in it as they are supplying a worse service themselves than they are offering through VM.
IN YOUR FACE!!!
To be fair though - it was always like this for VM and Sky customers.
Totally happy for all you Sports fans
That's a valid point, but what I am referring to is that it's the Sky subscribers who suffer (plus those using a satellite box just for BT Sport) IF multiroom is something you would use.
Yes Sirius - I am slightly surprised it's on XL but it was always the case that anything was possible due to the number of variables in the equation facing both BT and VM.
As you say, we don't actually know what price VM is paying - without that info it's impossible to assess how good a deal it is for BT and how good it is for VM.
You're quite right - we always knew that in practice very few VM customers would switch over this. Whilst there has been masses of excitement on here and Cable Forum , both companies will have assessed the actual number of switchers over the last 2 weeks and they have presumably concluded that the numbers aren't that significant.
If the above is the case, then going into VM XL makes sense - just as it did for Setanta and ESPN.
However if BT has been able to exert reasonable pressure on VM they may have been able to extract a significantly higher price. I wonder if we will get that information.
Finally what does this mean for the future? Probably not much as it's a 3 year deal in line with the PL rights. So if BT were to win far more rights in the next PL auction they would obviously be able to renegotiate with VM.
I guess we might imply that BT is now a bit less likely to spend a lot more on sports rights before August 2016 - so maybe a bit less likely to make a blockbuster Champions League bid but there again the new CL contract would only cover one year of BT's deal with VM so maybe not much of a consideration.
Sky are offering a worse potential service to their customers than Virgin is offering (ie multiroom with Sky requires a separate payment and activation fee for extra boxes). Who they are buying the channels from doesn't matter in this case. It's the platform you use.
I doubt BT would care as even though they are the ones telling Sky they can't offer multiroom that doesn't matter to a Sky customer when you see that Virgin customers DO offer it. They might think maybe Sky didn't offer enough money to do that deal etc etc.
It's another thing Virgin can use to now coax Sky customers over to Virgin, just as Sky did to Virgin customers before over BT Sports. BT get money either way.
Yes BT are theoretically losing out on additional box payments, but that's their choice as part of this Virgin deal. I don't know how many people would pay again to get it on another box with Sky though. Higher customer numbers = better for advertisers after all.
I don't like to say "I told you so" - actually I do.;)
It would seem the logical expectation that BT want to offer a genuine alternative to Sky Sports was right and the idea that BT were willing to spend 700 million to retain BB customers was wrong.
In HD too !!!
Now if only I had the slightest interest in sport.
Out of interest - how much does it cost on Sky to get BTS?
Happy Ginge.
If you have BT Broadband, it costs nothing at all on Sky, even if you their basic package, you don't even have to subscribe to Sky either. However if you don't have BT Broadband it will cost £12.00 (SD)/ £15.00 (HD) plus an activation fee of £15.00
What do you pay for Sky Sports on VM?
I know with Sky they always do deals with Sky Sports/Movies, often half price, or free.
How much is BT Sports Multiroom on Sky?
I pay £31 per month for all skysports and skymovies add-on with VM. All in HD.
I got rid of the XL because I wasn't really watching most of the channels and Sky sports I was going to just watch via the internet, but I must admit to missing just flicking the TV on and watching sports, or even just playing ion the background.
After doing my sums I decided I would get XL back as Sky Sports package and the extra £15 for BT sports would cost me a few pound more then an upgrade to XL with no Bt Sports subscription charge..
Think you are getting confused how it works on the Sky box, it has NOTHING to do with Sky, they have done NO DEAL with Sky, BT are offering the channels THEMSELVES, you pay BT, and it is upto BT how you access the channels.
The only thing Sky do is activate the channels on whatever card BT tell them to activate it on (for a fee), the same as any other operator would do if they supply channels direct (box nation or premier sports maybe), so if BT wanted to allow access on multiple boxes, they could do, again, nothing to do with Sky, BT control who has access to what, Sky just follow their instructions, and activate it on whichever cards they are told to.
The multiroom fee paid to Sky is to allow viewing of any channels paid for to Sky to be available on other boxes, if BT wanted this option, maybe they should have just allowed Sky to sell the channels on their behalf.
Spectacular fail on your part
.
Good points, although I don't necessarily with the point in bold.
In wholesaling to VM, BT have now secured a much larger viewing base. They can now build the attractiveness of their sports portfolio, so that potentially when the contract runs out with VM, they potentially have a bigger chunk of the PL and the Champions League too.
Consequently, if they decide at that point to withhold BT Sport from VM, there will be a large number of actively engaged BT Sport viewers who wil have a much higher propensity to move across to BT. Especially if BT also spend the next few years strengthening their TV proposition so it's comparable to VM in strength (which it isn't now).
Without being too crude, it's the old fashioned drug dealer approach. Get them hooked in, and then they won't be able to live without it. But for that to work BT still need to strengthen their sports portolio much more.
You are still missing the point. If you are a Sky customer you are paying more (to BT) to get the channels through your Sky box than a Virgin Customer will be paying to Virgin to get the same product (eg BT Sports in multiple rooms).
It doesn't matter that BT are the ones controlling the lack of Multiroom access, if you are a Sky customer wanting BT Sports you are getting a worse deal than a Virgin customer can get for the same product.
It's purely a perception thing, which is exactly what all the companies use in their advertising.
E.g. Virgin could easily now sell their ability for you to pay no extra for Multiroom which Sky is unable to do.
I'm sure BT would rather you become a BT customer and get everything through them, but that's a whole different thing.
I know all that, you said maybe Sky didn't offer enough money for the deal (to allow multiroom), i am merely pointing out there is no deal, so money has nothing to do with it, BT control the boxes.
Yes, as we've mentioned it was never really that likely BT would benefit from witholding it from Virgin. I think quite a lot of Virgin customers are idiots like me who want Sky Sports but not Sky and think they look a bit cool. Given we'd been used to getting Setanta and ESPN free - with BT not seemingly offering much extra - I think most Virgin subscribers would either not bother at all or just get Sky, which is of no benefit to BT anyway.
But I never doubted it, Virgin have always been good for sports fans, there's now been three channels offered in XL so the only expense on top of Sky Sports has been PremPlus which ended six years ago. I know HD is extra but I've never found it that important. It was in both companies' benefit to offer it.
Anyway, it took a little longer than I thought but I'm thrilled it's here and in XL as well, which really is the perfect scenario.