Sky Sport 1 & 2

stewM · 10-05-2011, 19:36

I thought the only appeal Sky was making was over the wholesale price BT & co pay Sky for the two Sky Sports Channels.

According to this article Sky are still appealing that the have to provide Sky Sports 1 & 2 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/art...-Media-BT.html

If SKY win this appeal, then BT Vision could lose SKY Sport 1 & 2?

MostynDS · 10-05-2011, 20:21

I wouldn't expect Sky to win that appeal.

However, and I say this just to be Devil's advocate...

Suppose BT were disappointed with the take-up of Sky Sports on their platform? There have been some articles posted in here or the Freeview forums indicating that take-up has been slow. Don't ask me to post URLs because I admit, I can't find them, but I did see them.

BT spent a fair bit on promoting SS, and presumably spends even more for the airspace, so my question is: What if BT actually wanted to lose this case?

Just a thought...

stewM · 10-05-2011, 20:27

...and counter appealing to keep up the pretence?

MostynDS · 10-05-2011, 20:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by stewM

...and counter appealing to keep up the pretence?

Heh. OK, perhaps I got carried away with my conspiracy theory.

daniel2015 · 10-05-2011, 20:44

Would be good if Sky Sports 1 and 2 has to shut on DTT in my opinion. Then freeview could have 2 new streams for free channels.

But at a guess I reckon they will be on DTT for a long time to come.

MostynDS · 10-05-2011, 21:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by daniel2015

Would be good if Sky Sports 1 and 2 has to shut on DTT in my opinion. Then freeview could have 2 new streams for free channels.

But at a guess I reckon they will be on DTT for a long time to come.

Hmm. When BT did this, it was met by quite a bit of hostility on the Freeview forum.

However, I'm not convinced that there are any more channels who can afford to pay for Freeview space. Hence the recent increase of Shopping / Slapper channels.

I read somewhere (bit short of provenance tonight) that Ofcom were breaking their own rules and offering short term space to many of these channels because there were no other takers.

If (say) CBS Drama wanted to launch on Freeview next month, the space would be made available for them to do so. But they don't...

noise747 · 11-05-2011, 08:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by MostynDS

I wouldn't expect Sky to win that appeal.

However, and I say this just to be Devil's advocate...

Suppose BT were disappointed with the take-up of Sky Sports on their platform? There have been some articles posted in here or the Freeview forums indicating that take-up has been slow. Don't ask me to post URLs because I admit, I can't find them, but I did see them.

BT spent a fair bit on promoting SS, and presumably spends even more for the airspace, so my question is: What if BT actually wanted to lose this case?

Just a thought...

BT Vision subscriptions rse a fair bit once sky sport was on it, if it is enough for Bt is another thing.

scotty2808 · 11-05-2011, 10:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by MostynDS

BT spent a fair bit on promoting SS, and presumably spends even more for the airspace, so my question is: What if BT actually wanted to lose this case?

Just a thought...

Mostyn - Fair argument but I don't think BT want to lose the case. The company strategy is around value add services on top of Broadband. Premium content is a revenue generator.

In terms of costs of transmission - I agree that this is a factor not just for BT but for all (inc Sky with Sat transmission). Everytime you want a new channel you need to pay for a slot/transponder.

BT have stated they are developing a TV network over IP. The scant details available indicate that cost of transmission per channel goes out the window. If you are building a fibre backbone across the UK you pump your data down the same fibre channels - you're not buying additional transmission slots/transponders.

IMO - costs for transmitting channels for BT will reduce. Part of the court case is over Sky Sports 3 and 4. I can't see them appearing on Freeview - but I can see them appearing on BT's Linear TV service when it launches.

MostynDS · 11-05-2011, 10:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by scotty2808

Mostyn - Fair argument but I don't think BT want to lose the case. The company strategy is around value add services on top of Broadband. Premium content is a revenue generator.

In terms of costs of transmission - I agree that this is a factor not just for BT but for all (inc Sky with Sat transmission). Everytime you want a new channel you need to pay for a slot/transponder.

BT have stated they are developing a TV network over IP. The scant details available indicate that cost of transmission per channel goes out the window. If you are building a fibre backbone across the UK you pump your data down the same fibre channels - you're not buying additional transmission slots/transponders.

IMO - costs for transmitting channels for BT will reduce. Part of the court case is over Sky Sports 3 and 4. I can't see them appearing on Freeview - but I can see them appearing on BT's Linear TV service when it launches.

Yeah. Good point. I was only whistling in the wind really.

Pure Genius · 11-05-2011, 22:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by noise747

BT Vision subscriptions rse a fair bit once sky sport was on it, if it is enough for Bt is another thing.

any links?

scotty2808 · 12-05-2011, 15:57

Some links.

Jan 2009 - 350k
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2009/...criber-levels/

October 2010 - 467k
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2010/...bt-vision-2-0/

May 2011 - 575k
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2011/...reeps-forward/

mlt11 · 12-05-2011, 18:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by scotty2808

October 2010 - 467k
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2010/...bt-vision-2-0/

May 2011 - 575k
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2011/...reeps-forward/

467k was actually the number at 31 March 2010.

575k is the number at 31 March 2011.

So growth in the 12 months was 108k.

I think that can be regarded as good, solid growth but not spectacular given the step-change that BT may have anticipated following the addition of Sky Sports 1 and 2.

Pure Genius · 15-05-2011, 09:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlt11

467k was actually the number at 31 March 2010.

575k is the number at 31 March 2011.

So growth in the 12 months was 108k.

I think that can be regarded as good, solid growth but not spectacular given the step-change that BT may have anticipated following the addition of Sky Sports 1 and 2.

I think, and likely plenty of BT execs agree that it can be described as pathetic.

the addition of SS has made virtually no difference.

those figures seem to suggest the figures are 'boxes under TV' rather than actually fee payers but it is ambigious.

10-05-2011, 19:36	#1
stewM Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Saddleworth Posts: 288	Sky Sport 1 & 2 I thought the only appeal Sky was making was over the wholesale price BT & co pay Sky for the two Sky Sports Channels. According to this article Sky are still appealing that the have to provide Sky Sports 1 & 2 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/art...-Media-BT.html If SKY win this appeal, then BT Vision could lose SKY Sport 1 & 2?

10-05-2011, 20:21	#2
MostynDS Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 773	I wouldn't expect Sky to win that appeal. However, and I say this just to be Devil's advocate... Suppose BT were disappointed with the take-up of Sky Sports on their platform? There have been some articles posted in here or the Freeview forums indicating that take-up has been slow. Don't ask me to post URLs because I admit, I can't find them, but I did see them. BT spent a fair bit on promoting SS, and presumably spends even more for the airspace, so my question is: What if BT actually wanted to lose this case? Just a thought...

10-05-2011, 20:27	#3
stewM Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Saddleworth Posts: 288	...and counter appealing to keep up the pretence?

10-05-2011, 20:39	#4
MostynDS Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 773	Quote: Originally Posted by stewM ...and counter appealing to keep up the pretence? Heh. OK, perhaps I got carried away with my conspiracy theory.

10-05-2011, 20:44	#5
daniel2015 Guest Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,307	Would be good if Sky Sports 1 and 2 has to shut on DTT in my opinion. Then freeview could have 2 new streams for free channels. But at a guess I reckon they will be on DTT for a long time to come.

10-05-2011, 21:22	#6
MostynDS Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 773	Quote: Originally Posted by daniel2015 Would be good if Sky Sports 1 and 2 has to shut on DTT in my opinion. Then freeview could have 2 new streams for free channels. But at a guess I reckon they will be on DTT for a long time to come. Hmm. When BT did this, it was met by quite a bit of hostility on the Freeview forum. However, I'm not convinced that there are any more channels who can afford to pay for Freeview space. Hence the recent increase of Shopping / Slapper channels. I read somewhere (bit short of provenance tonight) that Ofcom were breaking their own rules and offering short term space to many of these channels because there were no other takers. If (say) CBS Drama wanted to launch on Freeview next month, the space would be made available for them to do so. But they don't...

11-05-2011, 08:11	#7
noise747 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Herefordshire Posts: 22,810	Quote: Originally Posted by MostynDS I wouldn't expect Sky to win that appeal. However, and I say this just to be Devil's advocate... Suppose BT were disappointed with the take-up of Sky Sports on their platform? There have been some articles posted in here or the Freeview forums indicating that take-up has been slow. Don't ask me to post URLs because I admit, I can't find them, but I did see them. BT spent a fair bit on promoting SS, and presumably spends even more for the airspace, so my question is: What if BT actually wanted to lose this case? Just a thought... BT Vision subscriptions rse a fair bit once sky sport was on it, if it is enough for Bt is another thing.

11-05-2011, 10:36	#8
scotty2808 Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 435	Quote: Originally Posted by MostynDS BT spent a fair bit on promoting SS, and presumably spends even more for the airspace, so my question is: What if BT actually wanted to lose this case? Just a thought... Mostyn - Fair argument but I don't think BT want to lose the case. The company strategy is around value add services on top of Broadband. Premium content is a revenue generator. In terms of costs of transmission - I agree that this is a factor not just for BT but for all (inc Sky with Sat transmission). Everytime you want a new channel you need to pay for a slot/transponder. BT have stated they are developing a TV network over IP. The scant details available indicate that cost of transmission per channel goes out the window. If you are building a fibre backbone across the UK you pump your data down the same fibre channels - you're not buying additional transmission slots/transponders. IMO - costs for transmitting channels for BT will reduce. Part of the court case is over Sky Sports 3 and 4. I can't see them appearing on Freeview - but I can see them appearing on BT's Linear TV service when it launches.

11-05-2011, 10:46	#9
MostynDS Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 773	Quote: Originally Posted by scotty2808 Mostyn - Fair argument but I don't think BT want to lose the case. The company strategy is around value add services on top of Broadband. Premium content is a revenue generator. In terms of costs of transmission - I agree that this is a factor not just for BT but for all (inc Sky with Sat transmission). Everytime you want a new channel you need to pay for a slot/transponder. BT have stated they are developing a TV network over IP. The scant details available indicate that cost of transmission per channel goes out the window. If you are building a fibre backbone across the UK you pump your data down the same fibre channels - you're not buying additional transmission slots/transponders. IMO - costs for transmitting channels for BT will reduce. Part of the court case is over Sky Sports 3 and 4. I can't see them appearing on Freeview - but I can see them appearing on BT's Linear TV service when it launches. Yeah. Good point. I was only whistling in the wind really.

11-05-2011, 22:04	#10
Pure Genius Inactive Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: N.of Sheffield, S. of N'castle Posts: 265	Quote: Originally Posted by noise747 BT Vision subscriptions rse a fair bit once sky sport was on it, if it is enough for Bt is another thing. any links?

12-05-2011, 15:57	#11
scotty2808 Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 435	Some links. Jan 2009 - 350k http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2009/...criber-levels/ October 2010 - 467k http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2010/...bt-vision-2-0/ May 2011 - 575k http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2011/...reeps-forward/

12-05-2011, 18:23	#12
mlt11 Forum Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 17,165	Quote: Originally Posted by scotty2808 October 2010 - 467k http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2010/...bt-vision-2-0/ May 2011 - 575k http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2011/...reeps-forward/ 467k was actually the number at 31 March 2010. 575k is the number at 31 March 2011. So growth in the 12 months was 108k. I think that can be regarded as good, solid growth but not spectacular given the step-change that BT may have anticipated following the addition of Sky Sports 1 and 2.

15-05-2011, 09:20	#13
Pure Genius Inactive Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: N.of Sheffield, S. of N'castle Posts: 265	Quote: Originally Posted by mlt11 467k was actually the number at 31 March 2010. 575k is the number at 31 March 2011. So growth in the 12 months was 108k. I think that can be regarded as good, solid growth but not spectacular given the step-change that BT may have anticipated following the addition of Sky Sports 1 and 2. I think, and likely plenty of BT execs agree that it can be described as pathetic. the addition of SS has made virtually no difference. those figures seem to suggest the figures are 'boxes under TV' rather than actually fee payers but it is ambigious.

DS Forums

Sky Sport 1 & 2