moan moan moan .. it now means that to get the same coverage as one got from sky 3 years ago, it's now necessary to subscribe to skysports, ESPN and now to BT. As is usually the case, big company inter-rivalry costs the consumer a load of cash
Most of BT's games will be the early slots - that's the lot they one in the bid. Free to BT Broadband customers with BT Vision or who buy a box or who take out a minimum £5 per month package. If you are a Sky Customer like me, you can buy the BT Sports channels for £12 a month (BT will make a bigger margin from selling through Sky). Expect a similar deal with Virgin Media. There is a lot more on BT Sports than football and they are acquiring more every week. BT Vision has moved into the Olympic Media Centre and they are signing up big name broadcasters to help establish their brand - Jake Humphries, Lawrence Dallaglio, Clare Balding, Gareth Bale, Rio Ferdinand, Tim Lovejoy, Martina Navratilova, Barry McGuigan, David James and loads more.
Well you have sold it to me anyway. Perhaps you should get a job with them :-). On a side note, i wouldn't put Ferdinand on any advertising merchandise.
We have BT broadband and Sky TV, but our broadband is paid annually in advance on some sort of cheap deal, I don't really understand it but hey!
From the small print on the BT website it seems that existing broadband customers with Sky need to 'order' BT Sport (for free) with your viewing card number. However this re-sets any existing broadband deal you have. Confused!
Its a good deal if you are a BT broadband customer and you have a sky box or a BT vision box or a youview box. It's also a good deal if you don't as you get the app and watch on whatever device you wish. All of these are at no extra cost
I have BT broadband and Sky. I have multiroom and have registered all 3 boxes for free. So i can watch all BT Sport on any box at no extra costs - Bargain. I also get to watch them in HD!
Interested to know what others are paying for sky? After years of poor BT broadband service, I went completely SKY back last year, broadband, telephone, sky package plus 1 x multi room, so far v pleased with broadband via sky performance despite it coming through same BT substation, just wish it was a bit cheaper.... think my bill is knocking on towards £100 per month!
Don't have sky, but do have BT Infinity so hoping I can get the app on my ipad and plug into the tv for free. I currently do that with US Baseball (although not free).
Most of BT's games will be the early slots - that's the lot they one in the bid. Free to BT Broadband customers with BT Vision or who buy a box or who take out a minimum £5 per month package. If you are a Sky Customer like me, you can buy the BT Sports channels for £12 a month (BT will make a bigger margin from selling through Sky). Expect a similar deal with Virgin Media. There is a lot more on BT Sports than football and they are acquiring more every week. BT Vision has moved into the Olympic Media Centre and they are signing up big name broadcasters to help establish their brand - Jake Humphries, Lawrence Dallaglio, Clare Balding, Gareth Bale, Rio Ferdinand, Tim Lovejoy, Martina Navratilova, Barry McGuigan, David James and loads more.
Well you have sold it to me anyway. Perhaps you should get a job with them :-). On a side note, i wouldn't put Ferdinand on any advertising merchandise.
My issue is that they've basically bought up the ESPN deals, so the third rate Premier League game of the week, Italian and German football, some Scottish. This all sounds great to me and I've subscribed to ESPN since it started but when I sit down and think about it, do I really watch it enough to justify £150 a year ? The prospect of watching top games from Serie A and the Bundesliga sounds attractive but in realities life tends to get in the way.
BT have better games than ESPN though, I believe they have first pick rather than being lumbered with 'Stoke vs West Ham' type games...
madadd...I am paying £57.50 a month to Sky and that's for the Entertainment & Sports HD package in a single room.
I have BT Infinity Broadband, so the deal is good from my point of view, but I am considering whether I actually want the Sky Sports pack going forward. That costs £21 per month as part of the existing package and it looks like BT will have enough sports, at no additional cost for me, to keep me happy.
madadd...I am paying £57.50 a month to Sky and that's for the Entertainment & Sports HD package in a single room.
I have BT Infinity Broadband, so the deal is good from my point of view, but I am considering whether I actually want the Sky Sports pack going forward. That costs £21 per month as part of the existing package and it looks like BT will have enough sports, at no additional cost for me, to keep me happy.
Yes sounds about right, out of interest how much does your BT package add to that per month.
I think the BT Sport thing could be a major car crash. They're talking about 'reinventing' sports coverage (does it need reinventing?), and one of the ploys to do so is to build a penalty area in their studio for greater detail. This is to replace Gary Neville's analysis screen. A replica penalty area. And a ball. It's basically Phoenix from the Flames without the sense of humour.
They're relying on the 'free to our customers' thing to get people to take their box instead of Sky. Probably more effective to new customers who have neither yet, rather than to steal Sky's existing customer base. But with 11m households, and most footy fans already signed up to either Sky or Virgin (BT's customer base is something like 780k) I find it hard to believe many existing Sky customers will switch completely.
Its a bit like the Pepsi taste challenge. Seems very good at first, but when you drink a whole can, you realise it's a bit rubbish. Basically one game a week, of which only a dozen will be the top tier games. Then there's the points Riviera made - you don't get all the ancillary stuff that Sky has built up in an effort to avoid relying solely on their sports deals. Something that will help when the contracts come up in a few years, and the likes of Apple and Google have a shot at truly changing the game.
Maybe they'll be a breath of fresh air, but to me, BT are making the same noises Setanta and ITV Digital made....
madadd...I am paying £57.50 a month to Sky and that's for the Entertainment & Sports HD package in a single room.
I have BT Infinity Broadband, so the deal is good from my point of view, but I am considering whether I actually want the Sky Sports pack going forward. That costs £21 per month as part of the existing package and it looks like BT will have enough sports, at no additional cost for me, to keep me happy.
Yes sounds about right, out of interest how much does your BT package add to that per month.
Multiroom is a £10.00 a month
Been with Sky for years madadd and the package is all the Sky packs except movies. The Sports pack is apparently £21 a month and HD adds a further £10 a month. I suspect that there are better deals for people who have come along later and maybe I can get something out of Sky if I tell them to drop the Sports pack next season. We'll see...
38 games against Sky's 118. No Football league, no Champions League, no HD, no 3D, no cricket, no US golf, no Super League, no ATP tennis, no excellent Sky dramas and comedies. The list goes on. I had BT vision and Sky. I dumped BT as a whole and now have Sky phone and broadband. I had the super fast BT infinity broadband, yes it was very quick but so prone to going down. When it goes down so does your TV. Sky broadband is very good, certainly quick enough for the normal person, landline is cheaper too. Also Sky On-Demand via Sky Broadband is excellent. All the i-players on your telly rather than PC or tablet. Then of course there is Sky Go, fantastic!
Choosing your TV provider is not just about Premiership football.
No, it is about money. Never had sky so not ripped off by them, you can usually track down Charlton matches somewhere on tinternet.
I think the BT Sport thing could be a major car crash. They're talking about 'reinventing' sports coverage (does it need reinventing?), and one of the ploys to do so is to build a penalty area in their studio for greater detail. This is to replace Gary Neville's analysis screen. A replica penalty area. And a ball. It's basically Phoenix from the Flames without the sense of humour.
They're relying on the 'free to our customers' thing to get people to take their box instead of Sky. Probably more effective to new customers who have neither yet, rather than to steal Sky's existing customer base. But with 11m households, and most footy fans already signed up to either Sky or Virgin (BT's customer base is something like 780k) I find it hard to believe many existing Sky customers will switch completely.
Its a bit like the Pepsi taste challenge. Seems very good at first, but when you drink a whole can, you realise it's a bit rubbish. Basically one game a week, of which only a dozen will be the top tier games. Then there's the points Riviera made - you don't get all the ancillary stuff that Sky has built up in an effort to avoid relying solely on their sports deals. Something that will help when the contracts come up in a few years, and the likes of Apple and Google have a shot at truly changing the game.
Maybe they'll be a breath of fresh air, but to me, BT are making the same noises Setanta and ITV Digital made....
The difference being that BT has a stack of cash to burn, I know people at Sky and they are taking the BT threat very seriously - this is only their initial assault on the market once they have rolled BT Infinity to 19 million homes and have switched most subs to the new service then they will really move through the gears.
BT are basically following the same model as many of the Asian telcos have done since they rolled fiber out, Sky are a fearsome rival but all of this is great for the consumer, you will be getting great prices and content.
I'm at Sky, and I agree it's being taken seriously - all our marketing budgets are going on Sports this year, rather than my department!
But to do what they want to do, they're going to need a lot more than 38 (mostly average) games. The money they have means they won't collapse like the others have, even if it goes completely wrong. I just don't think BT have enough to offer... yet.
38 games against Sky's 118. No Football league, no Champions League, no HD, no 3D, no cricket, no US golf, no Super League, no ATP tennis, no excellent Sky dramas and comedies. The list goes on. I had BT vision and Sky. I dumped BT as a whole and now have Sky phone and broadband. I had the super fast BT infinity broadband, yes it was very quick but so prone to going down. When it goes down so does your TV. Sky broadband is very good, certainly quick enough for the normal person, landline is cheaper too. Also Sky On-Demand via Sky Broadband is excellent. All the i-players on your telly rather than PC or tablet. Then of course there is Sky Go, fantastic!
Choosing your TV provider is not just about Premiership football.
No, it is about money. Never had sky so not ripped off by them, you can usually track down Charlton matches somewhere on tinternet.
You've never had Sky? Well how can you comment about being "ripped off"? I've had Sky since 1989 and what a transformation it has been since then! I do not think I have ever been ripped off. The quality of the output, service and tech back up is simply brilliant. BT could learn a lot about customer service from Sky.
The fact they've bought the rights to women's tennis says it all. I'll get it for free,so not really bothered. It's good that US sport will still be shown though. I just don't think anyone can match sky for in-depth sports coverage or tv as a whole,and I don't know why people keep trying to
Interesting point Croydon. It was the EU that insisted the one supplier, easy to use reasonably priced wasn't fair to the customer, so they forced football to sell at least one package to someone else and bingo, the overall price to watch all available football went up, and we had to mess around changing our suppliers every couple if years - that has really improved things for the paying customer I don't think.
What if no-one else bid for the poor mans package - what would the EU do about that?
I think JiMMy 85 has hit the nail on the head and he works for Sky. BT have the financial muscle, client base and the will to make this work. Look at Sky now and look back or remember some of the earlier years and see the huge strides they have made in terms of coverage and analysis/commentators/presenters. No successful business stands still and they certainly haven't.
However, their evolution has been aided as much by having competition as anything else. In the case of Setanta and ESPN (BT are picking up a couple of the ESPN channels as well I believe), they have seen them off. I do think that BT will be around for the long term and all signs are that they are starting with a broad base of sports and quality presenters. They may be cumbersome to start, but so were Sky and I am sure they'll get there.
That can only be good for us as consumers (choice and price) and I am sure it will drive Sky on again to improve on their own service. From a personal point of view, as mentioned earlier, I may drop my own Sky Sports package, as I will receive BT Sport as part of my broadband deal. That's nothing against Sky or even to do with finances. It's, for me, simply about an overload of sport available and the time I am around indoors to view it.
Some of you are forgetting that when Sky had all the rights to the Premier League....the 40 extra games (that have subsequently been shown on ESPN and Setanta before that) were only available on "Prem Plus" which was their Pay as you watch additional subscription service. So you were already paying an extra (£9 per month if I remember rightly) if you wanted the extra matches
All I know was that it was cheaper to buy Sky and Prem plus than it was to buy Sky and Setanta. There is still no choice. If I want the match on BT, I have to get it from BT, one way or another and pay whatever they demand. Choice would be the same match on different channels. I could pay one price for all Sky's bells, whistles and two hour build ups for a tenner, or just watch the match with no commentary or flannel on Fredbloggs Sport for seven fifty. THAT would be choice.
you can get it on your sky box, just give them your viewing card number and it comes free I believe no need for their box as long as you have the qualifying broadband
Comments
On a side note, i wouldn't put Ferdinand on any advertising merchandise.
Alternatively, you could just get one of these.
From the small print on the BT website it seems that existing broadband customers with Sky need to 'order' BT Sport (for free) with your viewing card number. However this re-sets any existing broadband deal you have. Confused!
After years of poor BT broadband service, I went completely SKY back last year, broadband, telephone, sky package plus 1 x multi room, so far v pleased with broadband via sky performance despite it coming through same BT substation, just wish it was a bit cheaper.... think my bill is knocking on towards £100 per month!
I have BT Infinity Broadband, so the deal is good from my point of view, but I am considering whether I actually want the Sky Sports pack going forward. That costs £21 per month as part of the existing package and it looks like BT will have enough sports, at no additional cost for me, to keep me happy.
Multiroom is a £10.00 a month
They're relying on the 'free to our customers' thing to get people to take their box instead of Sky. Probably more effective to new customers who have neither yet, rather than to steal Sky's existing customer base. But with 11m households, and most footy fans already signed up to either Sky or Virgin (BT's customer base is something like 780k) I find it hard to believe many existing Sky customers will switch completely.
Its a bit like the Pepsi taste challenge. Seems very good at first, but when you drink a whole can, you realise it's a bit rubbish. Basically one game a week, of which only a dozen will be the top tier games. Then there's the points Riviera made - you don't get all the ancillary stuff that Sky has built up in an effort to avoid relying solely on their sports deals. Something that will help when the contracts come up in a few years, and the likes of Apple and Google have a shot at truly changing the game.
Maybe they'll be a breath of fresh air, but to me, BT are making the same noises Setanta and ITV Digital made....
BT are basically following the same model as many of the Asian telcos have done since they rolled fiber out, Sky are a fearsome rival but all of this is great for the consumer, you will be getting great prices and content.
But to do what they want to do, they're going to need a lot more than 38 (mostly average) games. The money they have means they won't collapse like the others have, even if it goes completely wrong. I just don't think BT have enough to offer... yet.
I do not think I have ever been ripped off. The quality of the output, service and tech back up is simply brilliant. BT could learn a lot about customer service from Sky.
What if no-one else bid for the poor mans package - what would the EU do about that?
However, their evolution has been aided as much by having competition as anything else. In the case of Setanta and ESPN (BT are picking up a couple of the ESPN channels as well I believe), they have seen them off. I do think that BT will be around for the long term and all signs are that they are starting with a broad base of sports and quality presenters. They may be cumbersome to start, but so were Sky and I am sure they'll get there.
That can only be good for us as consumers (choice and price) and I am sure it will drive Sky on again to improve on their own service. From a personal point of view, as mentioned earlier, I may drop my own Sky Sports package, as I will receive BT Sport as part of my broadband deal. That's nothing against Sky or even to do with finances. It's, for me, simply about an overload of sport available and the time I am around indoors to view it.
Robbo does that actually work and how legal is it
Seems to good to be true