Are these media gorillas really going to fight to the death? Who will win? And who will lose? Because today's moves put the public in the firing line.
Virgin says that it is Sky's fault: it is Sky which is threatening to pull its basic channels from the cable service if the amount it is paid for them is not increased.
Sky says that NTL/Virgin (how petty is it that they do that?) has been "premature" in its announcement and that
"unlike the open satellite platform, NTL/Virgin's cable network is closed. The only way Sky's channels can be available to cable viewers is if NTL/Virgin chooses to carry them".
Given that the deal runs out at the end of the month (that's next Wednesday), it doesn't seem that premature. Perhaps, in this game of brinkmanship, Sky wanted to get much closer to the wire. To either force the price up. Or to make Virgin sweat.
Because Virgin are certainly making Sky sweat. For the first time since BSB existed, Sky is actually facing a real, coherent, well-marketed opponent. Thus far Sky has managed to counter every Virgin blow. Be it with counter customer offers or announcements timed to ruin Virgin's PR plan.
But this is a step further. Would Sky seriously risk losing as much as £50m in advertising revenue if these channels (Sky One, Sky News, Sky Sports News but not the sports or movie channels) from cable? How many viewers would switch from cable to satellite for the sake of Lost, 24 or Battlestar Gallactica?
