[andyk22]

''Mr Marks said the poor take-up is due to the service's extremely limited access to live Premiership football.''

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ustration.html

Did BT forget to mention it has Setanta plus Football first programming?


Isn't it more down to the fact you have to take a more expensive and poor telephone and broadband service from BT?

And the fact it offers no HD and its pay per view programming offers poor choice and its channel packages are no better.


The idea BT could win customers from Sky with football is unlikely especially when Sky can offer better priced phone and broadband services.

[Sover_99]

By 'limited access to live Premiership football.' I think he means they didn't have any exclusive rights that would hold fans to ransom and force them to subscribe to a service they don't want.

[jam2000]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sover_99

By 'limited access to live Premiership football.' I think he means they didn't have any exclusive rights that would hold fans to ransom and force them to subscribe to a service they don't want.

Bit like Sky then, having to subscribe to channels you dont watch in order to watch Premiership football.

[Jack1]

It just doesn't offer good value for money, the most expensive pack is an equivalent price to Virgin Media XL pack, and theres far more on Virgin XL pack.

[andyk22]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jam2000

Bit like Sky then, having to subscribe to channels you dont watch in order to watch Premiership football.

BT are far worse, you have to take its over priced broadband and telephone packages.

At least with pay operators you can cut some of these mixes and can choose who you want for your telephone and internet services.

[IanDF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyk22

''Mr Marks said the poor take-up is due to the service's extremely limited access to live Premiership football.''

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ustration.html

Did BT forget to mention it has Setanta plus Football first programming?


Isn't it more down to the fact you have to take a more expensive and poor telephone and broadband service from BT?

And the fact it offers no HD and its pay per view programming offers poor choice and its channel packages are no better.


The idea BT could win customers from Sky with football is unlikely especially when Sky can offer better priced phone and broadband services.

:yawn::yawn: How much do you get paid for posting these adverts for Sky?

For some years, most of your posts have consisted of excessively pro-Sky cheerleading, but this thread takes the biscuit.

I have seen less planted questions on the Labour back-benches at PMQs .

[andyk22]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IanDF

:yawn::yawn: How much do you get paid for posting these adverts for Sky?

For some years, most of your posts have consisted of excessively pro-Sky cheerleading, but this thread takes the biscuit.

I have seen less planted questions on the Labour back-benches at PMQs .

Didn't I say Setantas business model wouldn't work when it brought the premiership rights?


I think your Gordon Brown, ignore the facts and press your own points without any reality.

[IanDF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyk22

Didn't I say Setantas business model wouldn't work when it brought the premiership rights?

Although, as far I understand, Premiership rights being Setanta's downfall is putting an excessively a simple spin on the situation.

It's like saying Football rights bankrupt ITV Digital - in that case it was far from the truth. With ITV digital football rights were merely the excuse that already tetchy investors needed to push the company into administration.


Although, quite what Setanta's imminent bankruptcy has to do with your planted advert about how New Deal for the unemployed has helped millions of young people back into work ...

Sorry got confused there - wrong place - your planted advert for Sky vs BT has to do with Setanta, I'm not exactly sure.

[andyk22]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IanDF

Although, as far I understand, Premiership rights being Setanta's downfall is putting an excessively a simple spin on the situation.

It's like saying Football rights bankrupt ITV Digital - in that case it was far from the truth. With ITV digital football rights were merely the excuse that already tetchy investors needed to push the company into administration.

It's more down to cashflow.

Neither broadcaster was prepared for the fact it would take several years to break even and make a profit.

Setanta are also being hit by the downturn.

Quote:

Although, quite what Setanta's imminent bankruptcy has to do with your planted advert about how New Deal for the unemployed has helped millions of young people back into work ...

Sorry got confused there - wrong place - your planted advert for Sky vs BT has to do with Setanta, I'm not exactly sure.

Even a well known Labour MP says the new deal doesn't work so I'm not sure what you mean?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle5768727.ece




Either way BT Vision won't work while people have to take its overpriced products and poor service.

[samm2311]

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyk22

It's more down to cashflow.

Neither broadcaster was prepared for the fact it would take several years to break even and make a profit.

Setanta are also being hit by the downturn.




Even a well known Labour MP says the new deal doesn't work so I'm not sure what you mean?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle5768727.ece




Either way BT Vision won't work while people have to take its overpriced products and poor service.

Your opinion certainly not fact, and please oh please point me to a credible source and i do not mean anything originates from sky to back up your opinion.

We have BT Vision, we have no need for sport, we find the service and cost of BT BB competitive and see no need whatsoever to leave them. They will bury me in a cold grave before sky ever gets a subscription out of me for utter crap.

[andyk22]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samm2311

[/b]


Your opinion certainly not fact, and please oh please point me to a credible source and i do not mean anything originates from sky to back up your opinion.

We have BT Vision, we have no need for sport, we find the service and cost of BT BB competitive and see no need whatsoever to leave them. They will bury me in a cold grave before sky ever gets a subscription out of me for utter crap.

Here's a fact of how dire BT is.

If you don't cancel your contract when it is close to the end of its 12 month period BT sign you up for its poor services for another 12 months.

This means those that realise they can get cheaper and better services from other providers have to endure another poor 12 months of service.

[Jack1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samm2311

[/b]


Your opinion certainly not fact, and please oh please point me to a credible source and i do not mean anything originates from sky to back up your opinion.

We have BT Vision, we have no need for sport, we find the service and cost of BT BB competitive and see no need whatsoever to leave them. They will bury me in a cold grave before sky ever gets a subscription out of me for utter crap.

Your probably the perfect customers but most people for TV would choose Sky or Virgin over BT.

[ney]

Reason I have not got BT Vison yet is im holding off till DTT HD arrives. Even then if I do get BT Vision I dont plan on taking the full package. I got rid of Sky nearly 10 years ago when I moved to the faild ITVDigital. I would not think about doing back to Sky. I only had Sky as I was offered it as a replacement for the faild BSB that I had at the time.

Darren

[samm2311]

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyk22

Here's a fact of how dire BT is.

If you don't cancel your contract when it is close to the end of its 12 month period BT sign you up for its poor services for another 12 months.

This means those that realise they can get cheaper and better services from other providers have to endure another poor 12 months of service.

Once again you make your self look silly by assuming all BT services is poor, you again then reiterate the opinion that BT has poor services which you present as fact so i again ask you to provide a credible source to back up your flawed opinion.

If BT was as bad as you claim then i along with many others would have terminated and moved on long before now, i know many who are with BT who like myself have had outstanding service from them, BT has in my opinion (see how i present it as my opinion and not fact) has a product that suited to us as a family by being all things we need and by being competitively priced.

[samm2311]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack1

Your probably the perfect customers but most people for TV would choose Sky or Virgin over BT.

fair point, we do have access to satellite as well but refuse to subscribe to the services of Sky.

[swills]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samm2311

Once again you make your self look silly by assuming all BT services is poor, you again then reiterate the opinion that BT has poor services which you present as fact so i again ask you to provide a credible source to back up your flawed opinion.

If BT was as bad as you claim then i along with many others would have terminated and moved on long before now, i know many who are with BT who like myself have had outstanding service from them, BT has in my opinion (see how i present it as my opinion and not fact) has a product that suited to us as a family by being all things we need and by being competitively priced.

BT is indeed rubbish at times, but then so are all the rest!
None are prefect, most fall well short, you only have to look at the broadband forum, each day there is a post saying xx ISP is terrible, just depends what day it is!
I've been Talk Talk, AOL, Tiscali and BT, all as good/bad as one another

[Strathclyde]

I reckon the main reason for poor take-up of BT Vision has been that it is an incredibly complex purchase - difficult for Joe Public to grasp, AND it's well-nigh impossible to find out what actually is available if you do get it (assuming, indeed, you're close enough to your exchange for it to work).

Plus, every content owner I know who's tried to have their programming put up on BTV talks about tortuous negotiations, followed (if they persevere) by interminable delays in actually getting the material on-line....followed by more delays if you want to change your content.

It was a great idea, ahead of its time when launched, but the "vision" has not been delivered.

[packerbully]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strathclyde

I reckon the main reason for poor take-up of BT Vision has been that it is an incredibly complex purchase - difficult for Joe Public to grasp, AND it's well-nigh impossible to find out what actually is available if you do get it (assuming, indeed, you're close enough to your exchange for it to work).

.

Exactly - like cable many people can not get access to BT Vision - so why would the football leagues or other sporting bodies give exclusive rights to BT (or cable) when large portions of the Company will not be able to get the BT Vision - unless they put it on Sat as Sky put sports on cable.

[Jarrak]

BT wanted to corner the IP market and were willing to give away or sell below cost the hardware required, they failed and maybe it was content (reliance on Freeview for a lot of channel) and obviously for the reasons given limiting high value content revenue returns to such a niche market doesn't make sense for rights holders.

Worth remembering that for the the time BSKYB have existed BT have been the profit powerhouse of telecommunications, if they were serious about PAY TV they were one of the few companies who had the resources.

[tvtimes]

What makes me laugh about BT vision is the guys who sell it don't have the faith in the service either. At my local mall there is a BT vision stand and they only target the elderly! Probably cos they can spin some bull to the elderly who don't really understand what it is. (I don't mean all elderly people obviously just in general the larger percentage don't understand what it is.) Hell my grandad-in-law had to be talked into Freeview! I thought i would toy with them and ask about it and he said "No point you wouldn't be interested if you already have Virgin or Sky! Hard hell

[Gordie1]

I never went with BT because it was cheaper to get the Post office to install my line.

I didnt want tied to a 18month contract.

It was cheaper to pay Sky and post office for TV, Phone and internet, that pay BT for vision, plus its confusing, to me at least it looks very expensive to watch stuff.

If BT offered a decent All in deal (say £29.99 per month), watch all you want, download all you want and record all you want, with a minimum 3 month contract, then id go for it, but BT is a dinosaur, still beleiving they can tie folk to a 18month contract for something as basic as a phoneline, untill they start being so arrogant and providing a real killer offer to me, i will stay well away.

[Jack1]

I would say that a lot of the problem with take up is the way the product is keyed into packages, it makes sense for some people, but i personally believe from when i reserached it that the lower packs offer the best value for money.

[broxmouth]

I am on the point of quittting BT completely because it is driving me INSANE. I have a BT vision box - when I try to use it I get 'Error V404' - every time. This means the broadband is toi slow to load programmes.

It happened three weeks ago. My broadband download was as low as 200k per second. It is contracted to be a minimum of 2Mb per second. When I complained - after 2 hours on the phone to bloody India - hey presto by magic the broadband speed was SIX Megabtes the next day. Then - within a week it was down to a megabyte - now it is virtually useless.

What am I supposed to do? They just keep capping the speed until it is dead to all intents.

How do I send the useless BT Vision box back?

Graham

[zing]

I'd say the NO HD part is a big no no for many new customers.

[joshua_welby]

Another reason for not much uptake is that it does not have any channels on there except for Sky Sports 1 and 2