Tiscali TV reaches for Sky channels
Murdoch pulls a moonie at Virgin
Sky has agreed to supply Tiscali's TV service with the same package of channels it took away from Virgin Media in a dispute over charges earlier this year.
The deal for the satellite broadcaster's "Basics" package will make Sky One shows such as Lost and 24 available to Tiscali's 50,000 TV customers. The ISP bought south east-only IPTV network HomeChoice in 2006, and plans to roll-out to the rest of the country in the third quarter this year.
Although a coup for Tiscali's triple-play ambitions, the move will be widely interpreted, from Sky's side, as two fingers directed at its mass-market rival Virgin Media. The relationship between the two soured soon after Sky crashed into the broadband market.
Sky withdrew its channels from Virgin, which provoked consternation from the cable firm's three million-plus TV customers, taking a toll on subscriber numbers. In a recent update bosses claimed to have weathered the storm, however.
The Tiscali deal was "first revealed" by The Times, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns, er, Sky. Awesome scoop.®
Sky 1, 2 and 3 - NOT
As far as I can tell, Virgin TV nee Telewest never did have Sky 2 and 3.
I believe on a basic package with a monthly subscription but without movie or sports channels there's more choice with a Free view box these days.
Some people got several months half price, others didn't. Depends how you ask I suppose.
But Virgin media is still the same price!
I'm happy to say I don't miss Sky 1, but there's one thing I'm not happy about. I'd like to see Virgin reduce the cost of my package by whatever they're saving in not paying for Sky. People are calling Sky greedy, but Virgin are greedy too for keeping the money I'm paying for channels they no longer provide.
Surely this industry should be subject to greater regulation - is it right that one company (i.e. Murdoch's cartel) should own the studio making the programmes, the channels broadcasting the programmes, and the means of distribution (the satellite system)?
Surely Fox can just "sell" any programme to Sky, no matter what the bid is, if it serve's Murdoch's interests to keep it off the other channels?
Finally, shouldn't his newspapers be forced to print a disclaimer alongside stories about his own companies, along the lines of "Sky TV is wholly owned by News Corporation, which also publishes The Times"?
Then the public would be able to tell which stories are merely vested interest promo pieces for Murdoch's other companies!