Sky and BT to rejoin coverage

[phantom]

Sky and BT have have signed a deal to sell their channels on each other's platforms.

Under the deal, BT will now supply its sports channels - which show UEFA Champions League and Premier League football - to Sky.

In addition, BT will be able to sell Sky's Now TV service - which includes Sky Sports, Sky Cinema and the Sky Atlantic channel - to its customers.

The deal comes as the firms face growing competition from online rivals.

Marc Allera, the chief executive of BT Consumer, told the BBC that the deal was partly so the firms could join forces against the potential online threat.

"A lot of technology companies are coming into the market with vast budgets, and changing the market. We need to ensure our customers get the best choice," he said.

He said the deal was a "clear indication" of the importance BT attached to how digital and TV markets were converging, adding the firm would bid fiercely for exclusive content.

Bidding is due to begin in the next Premier League football rights auction in February, and digital giants such as Amazon and Facebook could throw their hats in the ring for streaming rights.

However, Mr Allera said: "I wouldn't say [the deal with Sky] takes the pressure off at all... we believe in holding exclusive rights."

BT has spent more than £3.5bn on Champions League and Premier League football rights since 2012 in an attempt to compete with Sky.

Sky boss Jeremy Darroch said: "This is great news for Sky customers who will be able to access all matches on Sky and BT channels from the Premier League, UEFA Champions League and Europa League directly with a single Sky TV subscription."

The new services will be available to BT and Sky customers from early 2019.

Richard Broughton, research director at media analysts Ampere, called the deal "very unusual" because of the rivalry between the two firms, but said it was a consequence of the rising costs of sports rights.

"The new rights are up for renewal very soon and this is a pre-emptive shot from both companies to limit their exposure to damage should they not get key rights and also allow them to be a little less aggressive in their bidding."

Michael Hewson, an analyst with CMC Markets, said the BT-Sky deal seemed better for BT than Sky, "given that Sky will take BT's sport content while BT gets Sky's sports, cinema and Sky Atlantic channel, and could even gain more access to content further down the road".

 

The big online firms have been part of a seismic shift in how people access content.

On Thursday, Disney announced a deal to buy a large chunk of 21st Century Fox, including its 39% stake in Sky.

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch told Sky News he was selling Fox's entertainment assets in part due to the rise of online giants.

"[Amazon and Netflix] are growth companies... Amazon, I don't know how much they want to do. They are spending $5bn or $6bn I believe on new programmes, but it's basically to widen the appeal of [Amazon] Prime.

"Anyone who joins Prime seems to spend about $3,000 immediately on retail... you know, they are a huge disruptor if you look at what they're doing."

He said the new Fox company that remained would have the strength to bid for sports rights, but that all companies could be "threatened by big nonsensical bids from the likes of Facebook".

[ZiderEyed]

Stream, always stream. 

[screech]

They realise their days are numbered. Netflix, Google, Amazon, Youtube, Facebook will all be better formats for the next generation to watch sport, they have much wider audiences.

[Never to the dark side]

I notice that there have only still pictures on Sky News of the cricket down under

Although BBC News have been showing some highlights of the action.

Wonder if anything will alter from this Saturday?

[redcityman]

2 hours ago, screech said:

They realise their days are numbered. Netflix, Google, Amazon, Youtube, Facebook will all be better formats for the next generation to watch sport, they have much wider audiences.

That is true to an extent, until you buy a tv that has all the apps to do so only for less than 4 years later most of the apps are no longer supported on your model, then the tv decides that you want to delete them, that's netflix gone, youtube gone, bbc iplayer gone from my bedroom tv, never buy a samsung product again.

Streaming is hit and miss depending on conection speed which is also another rip off and thats the legal ones, illegal streams I wouldn't touch with a barg pole unless I have a screw lose and want to risk having my savings robbed or worse still identity stolen.

 

[robin_unreliant]

Yes but I have BT Sport on BT TV and it streams over the internet. So same issues if you have a slow. connection.

[EstoniaTallinnRed]

3 hours ago, redcityman said:

That is true to an extent, until you buy a tv that has all the apps to do so only for less than 4 years later most of the apps are no longer supported on your model, then the tv decides that you want to delete them, that's netflix gone, youtube gone, bbc iplayer gone from my bedroom tv, never buy a samsung product again.

Streaming is hit and miss depending on conection speed which is also another rip off and thats the legal ones, illegal streams I wouldn't touch with a barg pole unless I have a screw lose and want to risk having my savings robbed or worse still identity stolen.

 

I had the same with my Sony Bravia, smart TV less than 5 years old now,  lost Youtube 2 years ago and the set was only 3 years old when that happened, another rip off to make you buy a newer set when the one you have is serviceable.

[Fiale]

6 hours ago, screech said:

They realise their days are numbered. Netflix, Google, Amazon, Youtube, Facebook will all be better formats for the next generation to watch sport, they have much wider audiences.

 

Disney is about to dominate in the coming years - they have bought out Fox, so now have a huge Disney and fox back catalogue including HULU which is a streaming site already to be repackaged as Disney's new platform. Fox own a lot of sports rights as well including local games across the US so Disney can cater to targeted demographics as well. I expect top see them rise top pretty soon.

[BTRFTG]

Devil is in the detail.

I have Sky and can buy (via BT) BT's sports pack if I so wish ( I don't.) So in principle this is no big deal.

Now if Sky pull part of its existing footy coverage into a new bundle with BT's sport I'll be reviewing whether I should continue to subscribe. If, on the other hand, an amalgamated bundle is priced at not too great a premium it'll be great.

As ever, no detail announced which I think bodes as bad news, financially, for us all.

[man in the middle]

Get a Roku box, you can download all apps including Amazon, now tv, Netflix, BBC, ITV, 4OD, & 5OD. 

[RED4LIFE]

Strangely enough, I'm reading this thread while watching The Grand Tour on Amazon Prime who have the financial muscle to outbid most TV companies for the next tranche of Premier League TV rights.

Personally (and I know I'm in the minority here), I tend to use products from companies whose business practices I like rather than what product they provide. This is why I will always use an Android based phone rather than an Apple phone (open-source/ 3rd party friendly) and that I now won't subscribe to Sky due to their Murdoch/Fox/Newscorp links. Although, it's looking likely that Disney will soon own Sky etc.

[ZiderEyed]

3 minutes ago, RED4LIFE said:

Strangely enough, I'm reading this thread while watching The Grand Tour on Amazon Prime who have the financial muscle to outbid most TV companies for the next tranche of Premier League TV rights.

Personally (and I know I'm in the minority here), I tend to use products from companies whose business practices I like rather than what product they provide. This is why I will always use an Android based phone rather than an Apple phone (open-source/ 3rd party friendly) and that I now won't subscribe to Sky due to their Murdoch/Fox/Newscorp links. Although, it's looking likely that Disney will soon own Sky etc.

Totally with you, the artificial buzz around Apple products, and the horrific business practice of Murdoch and co means I'll avoid it like the plague.

[t_b]

15 minutes ago, RED4LIFE said:

Strangely enough, I'm reading this thread while watching The Grand Tour on Amazon Prime who have the financial muscle to outbid most TV companies for the next tranche of Premier League TV rights.

Personally (and I know I'm in the minority here), I tend to use products from companies whose business practices I like rather than what product they provide. This is why I will always use an Android based phone rather than an Apple phone (open-source/ 3rd party friendly) and that I now won't subscribe to Sky due to their Murdoch/Fox/Newscorp links. Although, it's looking likely that Disney will soon own Sky etc.

Yet you approve of Amazon and their business practices?

[RED4LIFE]

1 minute ago, tommy_b said:

Yet you approve of Amazon and their business practices?

I actually like a company that (at the moment) isn't all about the bottom line.

Amazon have yet to make a profit as all their earnings go into R&D. Whether it is drone deliveries or spending massive money to make quality TV programs, at least they are trying to deliver superior customer services. Yes, ultimately they are doing it to become a market leader and will be one of the biggest companies in the world in the next 5-15 years, but they are raising the bar for what other companies need to strive for with regards to delivering a great product, and that can only be good for the consumer, whereas Apple have built a company on style over substance and they stifle creative independence which can never be a good thing.

[Bryans Left Peg]

34 minutes ago, Raging_Robin said:

Pretty sure Amazon are based in Luxembourg to avoid as much business tax as possible, so, they're certainly all about the bottom line. 

Correct, they're one of the largest tax avoidance companies in the world?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/10/amazon-uk-halves-its-corporation-tax-to-74m-as-sales-soar-to-7bn

[Up The City!]

I have Virgin and I very much doubt I'll see a reduction in my bill.

[Up The City!]

3 hours ago, Fiale said:

 

Disney is about to dominate in the coming years - they have bought out Fox, so now have a huge Disney and fox back catalogue including HULU which is a streaming site already to be repackaged as Disney's new platform. Fox own a lot of sports rights as well including local games across the US so Disney can cater to targeted demographics as well. I expect top see them rise top pretty soon.

Disney would to leave things well alone. Personally if I see any mention of Disney whilst watching a football game I'd switch off immediately. 

If anything is rebranded as Disney like HULU I would steer well clear simply because I associate Disney with children's TV.

[Up The City!]

3 hours ago, Fiale said:

 

Disney is about to dominate in the coming years - they have bought out Fox, so now have a huge Disney and fox back catalogue including HULU which is a streaming site already to be repackaged as Disney's new platform. Fox own a lot of sports rights as well including local games across the US so Disney can cater to targeted demographics as well. I expect top see them rise top pretty soon.

Disney would to leave things well alone. Personally if I see any mention of Disney whilst watching a football game I'd switch off immediately. 

If anything is rebranded as Disney like HULU I would steer well clear simply because I associate Disney with children's TV.

[ScottishRed]

1 hour ago, Raging_Robin said:

Pretty sure Amazon are based in Luxembourg to avoid as much business tax as possible, so, they're certainly all about the bottom line. 

All of them are.

The Sky / BT thing is about both recognizing that the next TV deal will have bids from the on- line providers, maybe as a 'test' of the market, but they will bid.

The new 'consortium' will win the majority of the packages........they won't next time round.

And so it continues, players and clubs - in the EPL - get richer, fans get poorer!

[Up The City!]

2 hours ago, RED4LIFE said:

I actually like a company that (at the moment) isn't all about the bottom line.

Amazon have yet to make a profit as all their earnings go into R&D. Whether it is drone deliveries or spending massive money to make quality TV programs, at least they are trying to deliver superior customer services. Yes, ultimately they are doing it to become a market leader and will be one of the biggest companies in the world in the next 5-15 years, but they are raising the bar for what other companies need to strive for with regards to delivering a great product, and that can only be good for the consumer, whereas Apple have built a company on style over substance and they stifle creative independence which can never be a good thing.

I get what your saying. I like Amazon too due to them trying to make a positive change to people's lives. OK that will make them more money but still I appreciate what they are doing.

At my house I have a full Virgin TV and Broadband package with Sports and Movies.

Also I have a Spotify, Netflix, guitar learning app and a Play Station subscription.

I also have Amazon Prime and it's this one where I feel I get the greatest value for money as you get the free delivery and sometimes other added benefits. However I am not a fan of Amazon Prime movies. I'd use it more if the app was on my Virgin box like Netflix is.

To use Amazon Prime Video I have to plug my laptop into the TV and that's just a boring process where as with Netflix I just have to press a few buttons and it's there.

Also I don't like the fact that on Amazon you have to pay to watch certain movies or TV shows, I once watched a season of something once and when I went to watch season 2 it said I'd have to pay so I never ended up watching it. Everything you see on Netflix you can watch and that is how it should be. Netflix also have the far superior user friendly app which is extremely easy to use.

I'd like to see one or two of these subscription based services coming together. For example sign up for Netflix and get Spotify for half price or something like that. 

There is just far too many of them appearing now and although they seem cheap when you add it all together it's a small fortune. I must be paying around 150 a month for all this content and Internet access.

 

[Pezo]

2 hours ago, RED4LIFE said:

I actually like a company that (at the moment) isn't all about the bottom line.

Amazon have yet to make a profit as all their earnings go into R&D. Whether it is drone deliveries or spending massive money to make quality TV programs, at least they are trying to deliver superior customer services. Yes, ultimately they are doing it to become a market leader and will be one of the biggest companies in the world in the next 5-15 years, but they are raising the bar for what other companies need to strive for with regards to delivering a great product, and that can only be good for the consumer, whereas Apple have built a company on style over substance and they stifle creative independence which can never be a good thing.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/18/amazon-regime-making-british-staff-physically-and-mentally-ill-says-union

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5118951/Amazon-staff-complain-conditions-Tilbury.html

http://metro.co.uk/2017/11/27/amazon-warehouse-staff-taken-away-in-ambulances-during-crippling-55-hour-weeks-7110708/

[Up The City!]

1 minute ago, ScottishRed said:

All of them are.

The Sky / BT thing is about both recognizing that the next TV deal will have bids from the on- line providers, maybe as a 'test' of the market, but they will bid.

The new 'consortium' will win the majority of the packages........they won't next time round.

And so it continues, players and clubs - in the EPL - get richer, fans get poorer!

If say Netflix or Amazon won the rights and it was able to be viewed with a current subscription then surely the fans win?

Never will we see top football on free to air TV again. If it can be bundled into an existing subscription then that's the closest we will ever get to watching football for free.

[Up The City!]

Why can't the TV packages be split into 2? So like a package for TV rights that BT and Sky will fight over and share.

And then streaming rights that Netflix and Amazon will fight over , BT and Sky would also want a share of this.

[RED4LIFE]

19 minutes ago, Pezo said:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/18/amazon-regime-making-british-staff-physically-and-mentally-ill-says-union

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5118951/Amazon-staff-complain-conditions-Tilbury.html

http://metro.co.uk/2017/11/27/amazon-warehouse-staff-taken-away-in-ambulances-during-crippling-55-hour-weeks-7110708/

Without trying to belittle any of those people that have made complaints about working for Amazon, I would suspect that there are loads of people working in factories/warehouses for near minimum wage that go through the same thing  but because they dont work for a massive company it never makes the media. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't make it right though.

As for 'crippling 55 hour weeks', that's an absolute joke. In the past I regularly did that as normal and often up to 70-80 hour weeks if I worked weekends. Just last week, I probably did 55 hours and it never crossed my mind that it is a lot let alone crippling. I'm a contractor for the MOD and you just have to do what it takes to get the job done. Admittedly, I wouldn't be happy doing it for minimum wage.

As for Tax Avoiding, I'm fairly certain that most largencompanies do that to a bigger or lesser degree. Should we stop watching City because SL is based in Guernsey, stop listening to U2 or stop laughing at Jimmy Carr?

Don't get me wrong, in a perfect world everyone would pay what they owe in tax and would treat everyone equally, but the world isn't fair so as a consumer you have to choose what is important to you, and to me Amazon, although not perfect are better than others. As I mentioned in a previous post, Apple have approval over all Apps that appear on the Apple Store and can veto various innovations that dont suit the Apple brand and, to me, that is more damaging than not paying tax as it stifles creativity. To me, that is unforgiveable. 

[joeyb]

1 hour ago, Up The City! said:

If say Netflix or Amazon won the rights and it was able to be viewed with a current subscription then surely the fans win?

Never will we see top football on free to air TV again. If it can be bundled into an existing subscription then that's the closest we will ever get to watching football for free.

If they are paying £3bn+ for the rights to show premier league football, they for sure won't be selling it at £10pm or whatever the current netflix subscription is. They'd be making £3bn+ losses over the period - can't see owners / investors / shareholders taking well to that.

[Pezo]

17 minutes ago, RED4LIFE said:

Without trying to belittle any of those people that have made complaints about working for Amazon, I would suspect that there are loads of people working in factories/warehouses for near minimum wage that go through the same thing  but because they dont work for a massive company it never makes the media. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't make it right though.

As for 'crippling 55 hour weeks', that's an absolute joke. In the past I regularly did that as normal and often up to 70-80 hour weeks if I worked weekends. Just last week, I probably did 55 hours and it never crossed my mind that it is a lot let alone crippling. I'm a contractor for the MOD and you just have to do what it takes to get the job done. Admittedly, I wouldn't be happy doing it for minimum wage.

As for Tax Avoiding, I'm fairly certain that most largencompanies do that to a bigger or lesser degree. Should we stop watching City because SL is based in Guernsey, stop listening to U2 or stop laughing at Jimmy Carr?

Don't get me wrong, in a perfect world everyone would pay what they owe in tax and would treat everyone equally, but the world isn't fair so as a consumer you have to choose what is important to you, and to me Amazon, although not perfect are better than others. As I mentioned in a previous post, Apple have approval over all Apps that appear on the Apple Store and can veto various innovations that dont suit the Apple brand and, to me, that is more damaging than not paying tax as it stifles creativity. To me, that is unforgiveable. 

No we shouldn't but from your interesting justification (supporting companies who's businees practices you like) about how you choose to spend your money then it may or may not be a consideration for you, I cant tell because at the moment it seems the only thing you stand for is creativity even at the expense of peoples health, be that working for Amazon or increases in hospital waiting time due to tax avoidance. I do wonder where you would draw the line - are child labour or slavery ok as long as it provides creativity? After all its not fair world.

At the moment it sounds to me like you are probably a software developer that just doesn't appreciate constraints and controls to ensure a higher quality user experience.

[Ashtonwurzel]

7 hours ago, RED4LIFE said:

Without trying to belittle any of those people that have made complaints about working for Amazon, I would suspect that there are loads of people working in factories/warehouses for near minimum wage that go through the same thing  but because they dont work for a massive company it never makes the media. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't make it right though.

As for 'crippling 55 hour weeks', that's an absolute joke. In the past I regularly did that as normal and often up to 70-80 hour weeks if I worked weekends. Just last week, I probably did 55 hours and it never crossed my mind that it is a lot let alone crippling. I'm a contractor for the MOD and you just have to do what it takes to get the job done. Admittedly, I wouldn't be happy doing it for minimum wage.

As for Tax Avoiding, I'm fairly certain that most largencompanies do that to a bigger or lesser degree. Should we stop watching City because SL is based in Guernsey, stop listening to U2 or stop laughing at Jimmy Carr?

Don't get me wrong, in a perfect world everyone would pay what they owe in tax and would treat everyone equally, but the world isn't fair so as a consumer you have to choose what is important to you, and to me Amazon, although not perfect are better than others. As I mentioned in a previous post, Apple have approval over all Apps that appear on the Apple Store and can veto various innovations that dont suit the Apple brand and, to me, that is more damaging than not paying tax as it stifles creativity. To me, that is unforgiveable. 

The neo-liberal nightmare in a nut shell.

[jimmyb]

9 hours ago, joeyb said:

If they are paying £3bn+ for the rights to show premier league football, they for sure won't be selling it at £10pm or whatever the current netflix subscription is. They'd be making £3bn+ losses over the period - can't see owners / investors / shareholders taking well to that.

I’d agree. It wouldn’t be included with Prime for £80 a year, more like £500+. 

I don’t see this potential bidding from streaming services as being good news. The more bidders there are the higher the price goes. The higher the subscription goes. 

That having been said I’m not sure they will. I don’t see how it sits in their business model. The cost of acquiring rights + production costs, bearing in mind they don’t at present do any live broadcasting, I think would be prohibitive. 

Maybe highlights/delayed coverage packages if available could be interest but that’ll depend on how the packages are structured. 

The only interesting aspect might be Disney, who already own ESPN outside UK. Their existing relationship with BT (who I think own ESPN in UK) might prove fruitful and go some way to knocking Sky out of way.

[Up The City!]

9 hours ago, joeyb said:

If they are paying £3bn+ for the rights to show premier league football, they for sure won't be selling it at £10pm or whatever the current netflix subscription is. They'd be making £3bn+ losses over the period - can't see owners / investors / shareholders taking well to that.

I think the business case would be by having the rights they would attract a significant amount of new subscribers to their service.

On a smaller scale Amazon have paid a hefty amount for the Grand Tour, they havnt increased the price to cover those loses because they know they are gaining subscribers because of the pull of The Grand Tour. 

Amazon would have a better business case than Netflix because of all the other services Amazon offer. If they can attract people with live football then they have their attention and can easily sell them other lucrative products. It's exactly how retail works, entice you in with low prices and good offers knowing they may make a loss on thay but knowing, as your in their shop your now likely to buy more expensive and more profitable items. Amazon is just a digital version of that.

Coca Cola is what it is today due to the heavy marketing they have been doing for years. The idea is if you constantly remind someone of a brand with say T shirts, xmas adverts, pencil Sharpeners then eventually when they are thirsty they are going to want to buy a coke because we have been brainwashed by that.

Amazon will do something very similar to that. Whilst watching a football game you will constantly see the amazon brand throughout the broadcast. This is done for two reasons, due to your love and loyalty to your club Amazon will become a trusted brand to you. Secondly when you next want to buy an item you will go onto Amazon and look to buy it because that has what has been put into your head without you even knowing it. Amazon are then quids in and that 3 billion then looks a bargain.