• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Broadcasting
UEFA Champions League on TV
<<
<
71 of 120
>>
>
mlt11
12-11-2013
Originally Posted by bottleofbest:
“BT bought the network off the government for a considerable figure, but the also inherited a load of regulations to go along with it such as they have to wholesale to other companies who can just start up from nowhere.
They also have to pay to maintain that network.
They didn't claim poverty at all; the government created the scheme and let companies tender for it. Both Fujitsu and BT tendered for the contract and Fujitsu pulled out. Leaving only bt willing to roll it out and then bank roll the rest themselves.
BT have surpassed Vms fibre reach now but have nowhere near the same level of take up and it is really hard to sell fibre to a majority customer base made of the older generation.

If it wasn't for BT this country would be left in the dark ages in terms of internet speed!”

Surely all that happened was that BT was privatised - ie the ownership of BT changed from the Government to private shareholders.

Whatever assets BT had immediately before privatisation it still had immediately after privatisation. BT didn't pay the Government for any individual assets. The (new) private shareholders just paid the Government to buy the shares.

Now one could debate whether the Government sold the shares too cheaply but that's another matter.

Notwithstanding the above, some people say "but the network was built with public money" and of course that's true to the extent that the Government funded BT when it was owned by the Government.

But I do have one question re this matter. BT was privatised in 1984. That is now 29 years ago. So to what extent does the "network" now being used by BT still comprise of assets constructed before 1984?

I don't pretend to know anything about telecoms infrastructure but surely a very large proportion of the "network" has been either newly built or rebuilt since 1984.

NB. By "network" I mean literally everything - ie all the fixed assets involved - ie telephone exchanges, cables, poles and all related equipment.

So can anyone put a figure on what % of the "network" was built pre 1984 and what % was built post 1984?
OB racks
12-11-2013
Originally Posted by BigFoot87:
“And then, the Al Jazeera submarine surfaced.”

Indeed. The big guns are out now. BT will certainly go for a big bid for EPL. Interesting that one of the newspaper articles quoted above pointed out that Tony Ball (ex Sky) is now working for BT, and for CL rights effectively advised them to go in with a 'killing bid', just like Sky used to do for PL rights. And it worked. Sky never even got past the 'sealed bids' first round for CL rights.

The fact that that Sky reportedly lobbied EUFA hard for 3 days (but were told to sod off) to 'please let us bid again' I think reveals the extent of panic in the Sky Boardroom. Also the reported £1.3 Bn wiped off Sky shares on Monday may not have helped?

As one of the comments on the above articles stated 'people are happy that BT are now doing to Sky what Sky did to everybody else'.
blueisthecolour
12-11-2013
Originally Posted by Belligerence:
“European deal may tempt BBC to Champions League (Express)”

Why would the BBC bid for CL highlights when it would mean them painstakingly removing all bolted on advertising and paying extra for the pleasure?
derek500
12-11-2013
Originally Posted by OB racks:
“Interesting that one of the newspaper articles quoted above pointed out that Tony Ball (ex Sky) is now working for BT, and for CL rights effectively advised them to go in with a 'killing bid', just like Sky used to do for PL rights.”

He's a non-executive director, so doesn't work for BT.
OB racks
12-11-2013
Originally Posted by bottleofbest:
“If it wasn't for BT this country would be left in the dark ages in terms of internet speed!”

May I beg to differ? I have had VM cable BB for a long as I can remember. It started as Telewest. I had 50meg BB when mates on BT ADSL were struggling to get 5megs. For the past 4 or 5 years I've had 100megs and it works perfectly. I hear BT Infinity is not very reliable, and also hear BT customer service is wholly reviled across the country?

If BT up their BB game, I would certainly look at switching. But all indicators at the moment that I can see, suggest that would be a bad idea?
OB racks
12-11-2013
Originally Posted by derek500:
“He's a non-executive director, so doesn't work for BT.”

Well ok, split hairs. But he did give the advice. Reportedly.
Young Turks
12-11-2013
Originally Posted by Radiomike:
“Strange as you might find it, not all of Sky's customers subscribe purely for football or for CL football at that. Only 3% of even Sky Sports viewing is of CL football. Work on the basis that the statement about drama wasn't for your benefit.

Surely if one of the main reasons you are paying Sky is for CL football you will go for BT Sport in 2015 irrespective of Sky's pricing - as they won't have any CL football.

BT paid £1bn to acquire the CL rights - are you seriously claiming that they are greedy if they try to recoup any of that through extra charges.

It is not just Sky who need to wake up and smell the coffee - you may want to try it yourself.”

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about if you believe investing in dramas will make up the loss of CL rights.

Surely not all customers subscribe for footballbut sky's entire business rely on investing in football to pull customers. They have now lost the rights the biggest club competiton in the world and if you think it wont hurt sky you may need to smell the same coffee with them

In regards to BT's greed if they overprice their package it will also hurt them because regardless how many billions they paid for CL rights there is a limit what customers would pay.
Marti S
12-11-2013
Originally Posted by Young Turks:
“You clearly have no idea what you are talking about if you believe investing in dramas will make up the loss of CL rights.

Surely not all customers subscribe for footballbut sky's entire business rely on investing in football to pull customers. They have now list the rights the biggest”

Whilst at the same time other parts of the Sky subscription cross subsidise Sky Sports. So I think it's you that clearly has no idea.

Don't think by any means think that sports is the bread and butter.
mogzyboy
12-11-2013
Here's quite a good blog on this subject. Not entirely centred on the broadasting side of things - also makes mention of FFP and the like - but thought some of you may find it interesting nonetheless:

http://www.danielgeey.com/bt-go-sky-high/
Young Turks
12-11-2013
Originally Posted by Marti S:
“Whilst at the same time other parts of the Sky subscription cross subsidise Sky Sports. So I think it's you that clearly has no idea.

Don't think by any means think that sports is the bread and butter.”

Without sky sports they would never be able to charge what they charge today so i am afraid you have no clue what you are going on about either my friend.
casinoman13
12-11-2013
Originally Posted by Young Turks:
“You clearly have no idea what you are talking about if you believe investing in dramas will make up the loss of CL rights.

Surely not all customers subscribe for footballbut sky's entire business rely on investing in football to pull customers. They have now lost the rights the biggest club competiton in the world and if you think it wont hurt sky you may need to smell the same coffee with them

In regards to BT's greed if they overprice their package it will also hurt them because regardless how many billions they paid for CL rights there is a limit what customers would pay.”

One simple point there matey.....did Sky ever over charge when they first came along?.....Off course they did and still do and grabbed every penny possible.

People carried on watching then and will still do if BT do start charging extra.

I think some folk have short memories as to what Sky were like when they first came along.
Jaycee Dove
12-11-2013
Just to put this in perspective, of course Sky wanted CL and, of course, their PR spin over investing the money in drama is partly spin,,,,but Sky started to increase its spend on drama 2 - 3 years ago. As a result they have created new channels like Sky Atlantic and started to produce some highly regarded series like The Tunnel. So it has been a longer term plan to diversify in this way.

Sky could always revive Dream Team and air it on BTs champion league nights!
bottleofbest
12-11-2013
Originally Posted by OB racks:
“May I beg to differ? I have had VM cable BB for a long as I can remember. It started as Telewest. I had 50meg BB when mates on BT ADSL were struggling to get 5megs. For the past 4 or 5 years I've had 100megs and it works perfectly. I hear BT Infinity is not very reliable, and also hear BT customer service is wholly reviled across the country?

If BT up their BB game, I would certainly look at switching. But all indicators at the moment that I can see, suggest that would be a bad idea?”

I wasn't talking about VM area's perse mate. I was talking about the country as a whole. Most areas in non vm areas were lucky if they could surpass 2meg.

I have VM myself because where I am I only get a measly 4mbps.
BT Infinity has won awards by Ofcom.

In regards to speed, this http://www.choose.net/media/guide/fe...media-xxl.html is a very balanced article.
They're both good.

BT is currently also trialling Infinity 3 with fttp with speeds of 300mbps but that's a very select few at the moment.
You also have to consider that whilst VM offer faster speeds they throttle users at peak time due to congestion where as BT do not traffic manage anymore.
square_eyes
12-11-2013
Originally Posted by Jaycee Dove:
“Just to put this in perspective, of course Sky wanted CL and, of course, their PR spin over investing the money in drama is partly spin,,,,but Sky started to increase its spend on drama 2 - 3 years ago. As a result they have created new channels like Sky Atlantic and started to produce some highly regarded series like The Tunnel. So it has been a longer term plan to diversify in this way.”

Doesn't drive subscriptions though. Sky Atlantic's figures are miniscule & Sky 1 original content doesn't rate well.

The drama audience are well catered for by BBC, ITV, C4 & C5. There is little incentive to start paying a premium for it, unlike sport.
coopermanyorks
12-11-2013
Originally Posted by Young Turks:
“..................

I am paying for a sport channel and one of the main reason I am paying for is Champions League football.

Why would I care if they invest in drama or not when I want to watch Champions League football?
”

For me add on EPL to CL and the same applies to me
Young Turks
12-11-2013
Originally Posted by casinoman13:
“One simple point there matey.....did Sky ever over charge when they first came along?.....Off course they did and still do and grabbed every penny possible.

People carried on watching then and will still do if BT do start charging extra.

I think some folk have short memories as to what Sky were like when they first came along.”

I agree sky also overcharged when they first came in, however, the point you are missing is sky offered other channels other entertainment as well and finally built a package for whole the family but BT is a new kid on the block comparing to sky's TV empire.

So BT have to be carefull investing billions into football itself may not be enough if the price and the package is not right.
Glenn A
12-11-2013
I received a letter last week saying my BT broadband was going up by 3.5 pc in January. Now I realise it was probably for a sport I'm not interested in. Let's hope they don't start increasing bills simply to pay for football, a sport the majority of their customers don't like.
derek500
12-11-2013
Originally Posted by square_eyes:
“Doesn't drive subscriptions though. Sky Atlantic's figures are miniscule & Sky 1 original content doesn't rate well.”

Sky's own productions generally rate as well as imports and the viewing share for Sky's entertainment channels is higher than for sports.
Glenn A
12-11-2013
Originally Posted by derek500:
“Sky's own productions generally rate as well as imports and the viewing share for Sky's entertainment channels is higher than for sports.”

Also even many people with Sky Sports don't have it for football. Two of my friends have it for rugby league and cricket and have no interest in football. Football isn't the only sport around, although it would like to think so and so would some of its fans.
bottleofbest
12-11-2013
Originally Posted by Glenn A:
“I received a letter last week saying my BT broadband was going up by 3.5 pc in January. Now I realise it was probably for a sport I'm not interested in. Let's hope they don't start increasing bills simply to pay for football, a sport the majority of their customers don't like.”

Bt always raise their prices once a year and line rentsal saver once a year. It would have risen regardless of winning the football. They announced price rises before they even bid for the rights.
Radiomike
13-11-2013
Mark Watson from BT is on Radio 4's Media Show and has confirmed that BT will charge for CL coverage but not necessarily for BT Sport. So looks like CL coverage will definitely be separate from the rest of BT Sport.

When asked how much he will charge for CL he will only say that it will be less than the £40 he claims Sky Sports costs now (when you take into account the need to take other packages). When asked to compare against Sky Sports nominal £22 cost he was evasive suggesting the charge may be more than the few pounds some expect.

He was also evasive about suggestions that other customers might be subsidising sports right expenditure.

Well worth a listen. Was the first item on the show - 4.30 Radio 4.
mogzyboy
13-11-2013
Thanks for that Radiomike - will listen a bit later tonight.

It wouldn't surprise me if they adopt the same, or similar, structure to how Sky Sports works now. So, for instance, if you just take Sky Sports 1, then you get a discounted price to add Sky Sports 2 if you want to.

So, I suspect BT will do something similar. As an example:
-Main BTS Pack OR BTS Champions League - £15/month
-Completing the packag - £5/month
-Complete package - £20/month*

(*) Haven't considered HD, but wouldn't surprise me if that was upped to £5 from the current £3.

It wouldn't surprise me if that is around the prices for standalone BT Sport come 2015. Obviously, there's the BT Broadband scenario to consider, which will bring the rice of the BTS Pack down somewhat I would imagine. Although, I doubt it will remain free with BT Broadband come 2015.
Jaycee Dove
13-11-2013
BT are certainly going to have to do something about multiroom as charging double now to see it in two rooms is bad enough, Nobody is going to pay 2 x £40 pm or whatever to watch it.

And however much they stream things and make it available on line Sky's HD multiroom and coming planner sharing to multiple boxes and TVs in different rooms is a service viewers regard and BT are miles behind in that kind of delivery right now.

They need to appreciate this matters more for sport than some other things as it is likely to be a house dividing attraction. If they want to maximise sales to families then not having to take out two full subs to watch different things in two rooms (as you can via Sky) is a must,
loyalsince
13-11-2013
Id guess bt might wait until pl rights are sorted for pricing. Bit late but would give them approx 2 months to advertise
Dansky+HD
13-11-2013
I would have gladly paid more for Sky Sports had they acquired the champions Lge and Europa Lge.

Any more premier league or European leagues such as Serie A or Bundesliga would be great.
<<
<
71 of 120
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map