Tiscali to offer Sky basic channels
Rob Shepherd
12:00pm
Tiscali TV has secured the carriage of Sky's basic channels and will add them to its line up in the next few weeks.

The deal, concluded earlier today (27 June), will see Sky One, Sky Two, Sky Three, Sky Arts, Sky Travel, Sky News and Sky Sports News become available to Tiscali customers.

Subscribers will now have access to premium entertainment content such as 24, Lost, The Simpsons and Sky One's recently acquired Prison Break. However, a spokeswoman for Tiscali said it has yet to decide how the channels will fit into to its current packages and that an announcement will be made in due course.

Sky's chief operating officer Mike Darcey said the deal was an endorsement of its decisions to increase investment in the basic channels by almost 70% in the last five years. "This agreement highlights why the growth of IPTV is such an exciting new revenue opportunity for Sky," he said.

Sky Movies and Sky Sports are already available on the Tiscali TV platform.

Tiscali's bundled pricing triple play package starts at £14.99 a month for 2Mb broadband, TV and free weekend calls. For £19.99 per month, customers can get 2Mb broadband, TV, free weekend calls and line rental.

Sorry...link can be found here:

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/broadc...StoryID=169748

If Sky go round and sign up all the ISP that offer IP TV they could make Virgins 3 million customers insignificant.

Wonder how much they are charging them for the priveldge...

Who???????

Tiscali? Is Sky really that desperate?

Interesting.

How many ISPs offer IPTV then?

I think this looks to be bigger news than it really is. Everybody is concentrating on the fact that Tiscali have a large customer base. However, in reality, how many of these Tiscali customers are also Sky Digital customers? If they already pay Sky for the service. are they going to invest in IPTV boxes or whatever Tiscali use, and pay Tiscali for the service?

And you made two links for the same subject why?

my ISP dont (i'm with supanet)

I also wondered that, seems if you read all the threadstarters other posts there a regular little homechoice advert! Hmmmmmmmmmmm

:yawn:

whats next Top Up TV

that will be good for them though...

King Nojo the 2nd! I wouldn't mind knowning how much Tiscali paid for the basics i bet it was not the same price they expected VM to pay!

wonder if that could be disclosed during the Sky/VM court case

Tiscali are not as big as VM obviously but SKY cannot be seen to be offering a high price for one and a low price for another. I hope it was astuoidly low price it will only strenghten Virgins case further!

I think you will find its probably about the same ,and the timing is today because of the court case with virgin tomorrow,It blows virgins arguement out of the water because tiscali have payed the money and seen the value of those channels

How exactly does it blow their case out of their water? you have to look at the whole arguement!:sleep:

if it is why aren't Sky crowing about it

I wonder?

It does nothing of the sort. Because one company is willing to pay overblown prices, it doesn't make the argument that the prices are overblown any weaker.

If it emerges during the court case that Tiscali were provided the channels for less per subscriber than VM, Sky won't have a leg to stand on. Sky aren't stupid, so I expect they've managed to wangle the full amount out of Tiscali, or they've done a deal that is substantially different to the VM one.

I'd still like to see Sky One back on VM for Lost, 24 and BSG but I look at the channel right now and I can see exactly what bad value for money it is for half the year. So I can fully understand why VM don't think it's worth paying so much for. I'd rather the money be spent on a higher volume of new imports (which are always going to be cheaper than established shows) and commissioned content.

It doe somewhat weaken the strength of Virgin's argument, however, when everyone else but Virgin seems to be able to reach agreements with Sky yet Virgin insist it's Sky's problem and it's Sky that don't want to share their channels rather than the other way aroud.

Even if you try to argue that perhaps Tiscali paid more than you in your opinion think that they should have done (and when it comes down to it, half of value is subjective and opinion-based), it shows the difference between Tiscali and VM that Tiscali are willing to pay what is necessary to give their customers more choice and what many of them want, wheras VM prefer to take Sky on and dismiss their channels.

this is all pure conjecture until we know how much Tiscali paid Sky

Sky can charge what they want, within reason. The increase they were asking from VM was not excessive in my view.

The first one, the second one or the third offer?

It looks as though this has been moved to the Tiscali TV forum (yes - one already exists Skysters! )

For those who aren't aware Sky have already been offering their premium channels (Sports & some movies) on Homechoice/Tiscali for the past 2 or 3 years. This is about Sky One and the channels withdrawn from Virgin.

Interesting but we'll see how this affects us...