Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

I can see why people want HD but I did think when you watch football its for game not the picture, OFCOM ruling I can see will do nothing as Sky will appeal and it will be a long drawn out battle, by then VM will have more HD and the ruling will be worthless.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

But the election is only four months away. "Dave" has also promised to dismantle OFCOM, so there will be nothing to stand in Murdoch's way.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Scuse me it wasn't bts network it was the taxpayers so everyone has a right to it . You didn't hear bt complaining when they were making obscene amounts in profit back in the 80 and early 90s , the sad part is bt did minimum amounts to its infrastructure when they were making huge profits. The only real advances came when cable laid its own telco network to challenge bts dominance and price gouging. So please cry me a river on the bt line it wont wash if you want real spending look at how much by and ntl spent and the smalelr cable firms they went billions into debt by building from scratch.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Add in that they wont allow Virgin to offer a Sky Movies On Demand service - obviously because it would kick ass over the current set up and make the Sky Movies offering on Virgin VASTLY superior to the one on the Sky! Split all content providers from platform operators, it's the best option but it'll never happen unfortunately.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

You know I don't think throwing billions at sports has improved them at all.I really think they have been ruined by greed,avarice resulting in lousy sportsmanship on and off the sports grounds.:(

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Hopefully what will happen is that ofcom will force through the changes in April. Sky will appeal but the rules apparently say that the price cut will stay until the appeal is settled. At that point there may be a change of government but they would be rather foolish to interfere with an ongoing court case. If sky's position wins out then he can happily reverse the ofcom decision but if the court come out against sky then it would be difficult to see what he could do to change it.

The next stage however will be that sky will try to corner the market in 3D sports TV and so exactly the same with that as they have done with HD sport except this time there will not be a powerful enough regulator to force them to share it. I know 3D is very niche at the moment, but then so was HD tv when it first came out.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

I agree with newbie1001, the trouble is VM don't have that sort of dosh, and the way they haggle over cost of everything, l wouldn't hold your breath on HD channels either.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Really Arthur?

Directv - https://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/new_c...oternavtype=-1 is the main satellite company. Note the special 1 year deals on the packs, apart from the lowest Family pack they are all $26/month more expensive on the regular price, so for their equivalent of Sky's HD, movies and sport you're looking at $109.99 + $10 for HD + $6 for DVR = $125.99 = just over 77GBP. Just for TV, no broadband internet or telephone service.

Cablevision isn't hugely cheaper - http://www.optimum.com/io/pricing.jsp

RCN, who actually overbuild onto existing cable companies' areas and compete: http://www.rcn.com/boston/digital-ca...es-and-pricing

Cox - http://ww2.cox.com/residential/palos.../tv/cox-tv.cox - Basic TV (73 channels) $50.99, right up to $104.89 for 251 channels, only the $104.89 TV pack includes PVR service. Just to repeat again that is for TV only. For the top TV package, equivalent of XL phone and 10Mbps traffic shaped internet a mere $157.28.

Comcast - http://www.comcast.com - the largest cable company in the world.

Digital Starter
On Demand with tons of free movies
Over 80 digital cable channels. $61.99 per month

Digital Preferred
Over 100 channels and tons of free movies with On Demand
100+ digital cable channels.
Over 10,000 movies and shows–most free–ready to play as you please with On Demand. $78.94 per month

Digital Preferred Plus
Includes HBO and Starz, and their On Demand libraries
150+ digital cable channels.
Over 10,000 movies and shows–most free–ready to play as you please with On Demand. $112.94 per month

Digital Premier
Includes HBO, Showtime, Starz and Cinemax, along with their multiplexes and On Demand libraries, plus the Sports Entertainment Package
200+ digital cable channels.
Over 10,000 movies and shows –most free– ready to play as you please with On Demand. $127.94 per month

Bundles:

Starter XF Triple Play
NEW SUBSCRIBERS: Get the Starter XF Triple Play today for this special price:
$99 a month for 12 months
$114.99 a month for months 13-24

Includes:
Over 80 digital cable channels.
Thousands of On Demand movies and shows.
Internet speeds that are way faster than DSL. (12Mbps)
Comprehensive Security Suite.
Unlimited nationwide calling – rated #1 in call clarity.
Voice mail and 12 popular calling features, including Caller ID and Call Waiting.

HD Preferred Plus XF Triple Play
NEW SUBSCRIBERS: Get the HD Preferred Plus XF Triple Play today for this special price:
$139.99 a month for 12 months
$154.99 a month for months 13-24

Includes:
Free HD – no HD access fees or HD equipment fees.
Over 160 digital cable channels, including HBO and Starz.
Thousands of On Demand movies and shows.
Faster Internet speeds. (16Mbps)
Comprehensive Security Suite.
Unlimited nationwide calling – rated #1 in call clarity.
Voice mail and 12 popular calling features, including Caller ID and Call Waiting.


HD Premier XF Triple Play
NEW SUBSCRIBERS: Get the HD Premier XF Triple Play today for this special price:
$179.99 a month for 12 months
$189.99 a month for months 13-24

Includes:
Free HD DVR – no HD access fees or equipment fees.
Sports Entertainment Package.
Over 200 digital cable channels, including HBO, Starz, Cinemax and Showtime.
Over 17,000 On Demand movies and shows.
Faster Internet speeds. (24Mbps)
Comprehensive Security Suite.
Unlimited nationwide calling – rated #1 in call clarity.
Voice mail and 12 popular calling features, including Caller ID and Call Waiting.

Just TV and HSI / broadband:

Digital Starter with Performance High-Speed Internet
On Demand with tons of free movies + downloads up to 15Mbps with PowerBoost®. PowerBoost provides bursts of download and upload speeds for the first 10 MB and 5 MB of a file, respectively. The speeds are actually 12Mbps downstream and 2Mbps upstream.
Over 80 digital cable channels.
Downloads up to 15Mbps, uploads up to 3Mpbs with PowerBoost®.
All the speed you need for downloading music and movies, and uploading photos and streaming video.
Offer limited to residential customers satisfying applicable eligibility criteria.

For these 80 channels, approximately equivalent to the M Plus VM tier, and an Internet service roughly equivalent to XL, the bargain price of...

$69.99 for the first 6 months
$109.90 per month thereafter

Or if you like 42.85 for the first 6 months then 67.27 in pounds.

They were shocked at how much we pay huh? The ones I speak to on http://www.dslreports.com are indeed shocked, but by how cheap it is here.

---------- Post added at 22:12 ---------- Previous post was at 22:01 ----------

If Virgin want the rights to the movies they can always, you know, pay the studios for them? It's not like those rights are owned by Sky by default. Virgin will never have Sky Movies On Demand, Sky Movies is just the name of a linear channel, they simply pay for the rights to the content and can show it whenever they please.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

IIRC Sky and BSB bought up all the movie rights with exclusive deals for insane amounts of cash back in the 90s. I would suspect that they still hold exclusive rights for pay tv. The only thing that BT and cable can do is buy up VOD rights.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Sky movies might be the name of a linear channel, but they don't just have the linear channel rights to the movies they air though, they have the subscription vod rights to them as well as they're contained in the same deal.

It's something ofcom looked into, and decided that if the industry wants to develop those rights and monetise them to a greater extent then they can seperate the two themselves. I'd expect that to happen the next time the rights go up for grabs.

As for VM creating their own movie channels, there's only really room for one set in the market tbh, splitting movie rights by studio isn't anywhere near ideal for the consumer, so they'd have to gain the entire set of rights, and then we'd be in the same situation now, but with VM instead of Sky.

Of course the alternative would be the end to exclusive deals, but I doubt the studios feel they can make as much money that way.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Indeed!

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

The point is, if (Sky) Movies was not owned by the platform operator the content provider would no doubt tailor its offering to the platform operators requirements in order to generate maximum subscribers. Sky won't do this as it would give its competitors an advantage over its linear service. Although I'm sure once Sky gets an on demand strategy in place Sky Movies will no doubt be available on demand to Sky subscribers.

I don't think it will happen to be honest as I think it would result in the total amount of cash going to studios being less than the current set up. For me the better option would be for the studios to get together (along the lines of Film Flex) and cut Sky out of the loop i.e. a separation of content provider and platform operator.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

If Virgin opened up their closed network we would have had more channels today including HD. Sky would happily launch their HD channels on the platform and pay Virgin a lot of money for each epg slot they occupy for their channels.

At the end of the day its VM's fault why there is a lack of HD/SD channels.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

The content provider isn't really Sky though, the content provider is the studios with Sky packing it up and reselling it wholesale. Sky purchased the rights to the content and up to them how they use it from there. Can't blame Sky altogether for this, they offered the most money, the studios took it. If the studios wanted to tailor their content to generate maximum subscribers they wouldn't have agreed exclusivity with Sky.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

I thought VM paid SKY for the content, not the other way round.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

They're both content providers, just to different people. The studios are content providers to Sky, sky are content providers to the consumer.

You can't blame sky for it, but you can make sure they don't use a monopoly in one area to further their business in another. That is essentially the entire basis upon which the anti-competitive lawsuit against microsoft was made.

There's nothing illegal about having a monopoly, there is about using shady business practices that leverage that monopoly in other areas to cripple your competitors, which is the very reason the must-offer obligations exist for sports and movies.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

They pay one another for different content and provide it to one another.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

But all BT's investment in broaddand was as a private company and there are other examples of markets being investigated e.g. supermarkets, banks where accusations of monolopolys or price fixing were made.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

The argument is about the cost of laying the actual cable for a network that reaches everywhere in the UK. It's that part that costs the money, far far more than what they've invested in broadband.

If you already have the cables laid to reach the homes it's then trivial to invest in broadband, as you don't have to engage in a massive road digging program and instead just have to upgrade the tech in your existing exchanges.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

But the government didnt give BT away they SOLD it to the stock market. They SOLD the exchanges, the copper, the telegraph poles, the monopoly etc. So the fact that the network was build with public funds carrys no weight in the argument as the public have been reimbersed for that investment.

The opening up of BT's network has nothing todo (officially) with it being build with public funds but purly about proventing a company abusing its monoply position. Which is the position were now in with sky (and fyi sky wasbuild with public money, ASTRA (the company that ownes the sattelites and (some of) the uplink stations, bascally the expensive infrastructure that sky uses) was funded by the eu ;)

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

You missed the important part of my quote:

It wasn't about who paid for what, it is that they are a natural monopoly that is extremely difficult and expensive to duplicate with private money.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

What it was sold for was not what it would have cost to replicate, or cost to even build in the first place. No one would have paid that, and if it was left to a private business to build a competing network they would NEVER give it the coverage BT's has, they'd cherry pick the most profitable areas (just look at VM's coverage).

That is why it was opened up, not because it was specifically built with public money, but because without public money a huge amount of it would never have been built as it would never have been profitable. It is the network that makes BT a monopoly. They are the only company that has, or will ever have, a network that reaches 99.99% of the population, and they only have that because it was built with public money.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

What your talking about is sellers regret, something that cannot bee used as an excuse for tighter legislation, as it would make life very difficalt for the government should they need to engange the city again (remember the railtrack disaster) and would proberlly bee illegal.

Alough there main bee some element of sellers regret in the regulation of BT's monopoly. for the most part its purely about preventing a company abusing its monopoly. Something that is very common (we even have a specific government department with very wide reaching powers to prevent private company's abusing its donamint market position (the competition (commission (formally the less powerful monopoly's and mergers commission)).

Also remember as i said before the majority of skys network infructure was also build with public funds (astra).

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

I dont think that you get my argument on this either, never mind you believe what you want and I'll believe what I want.

There is no point in having a point of view, a reminder to myself on why I rarely visit this forum. Oh well back in another 6 months and see if anythings changed bye bye.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

I have often wondered about this "selling" of BT to the public. How could the public actually buy something that they already owned? The company was "sold" off, along with every other valuable asset, at a very cheap price, to pay for the economic disasters of the then government.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Yup; and made a lot of wealthy people wealthier. :mad:

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

It's nothing to do with sellers regret at all.

When people say it's because it was paid for with public funds what they actually mean is that no corporation would ever put that level of investment into it because they'd never see a return, and so the only reason it exists is because it was publicly funded.

It's making the point that it's not possible to launch a network to compete with it, and the reason that's not possible is because it's not financially viable to do so. No one can come in to the telephone market and go "you know what, I'm going to build a telephone network that rivals BTs" they'd go bankrupt before they started.

The reason BT was a monopoly was not just because it was the only company offering a high level of coverage, but it was the only company that COULD, and the only reason it could, was because, you guessed it, it's network was built with public money.

Sky is entirely different because it IS economical to launch a satellite system to compete with it, or rent access off any of the existing ones.

It's not just the fact public money was used, but the fact that without it it'd never have happened.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

I suppose we shouldn't mention the privatisation of NATS (Air Traffic Control), and that of Qinetiq, carried out by Labour?

How are the 640 PFI initiatives, worth £209 billion, launched under the Labour Government, coming along?

How is the London Underground PPPs (Public Private Partnerships) coming along? (oh, they're not doing very well, are they?)

Do you think "Mandy" will privatise Royal Mail?

All these, and many more questions, will not be answered by "Clause 4".

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

But that is nowhere near as devastating as the wholesale privatisations carried out by the Tory government during their tenure.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

And privatisation at a massivley discounted price.... :td:

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

It seems to me that nowadays everything has to be wholesaled or offered to everyone. (I get my gas from my electric company and my electric from my gas company!!!).

I can see both sides of the argument but it either has to be one way or the other. Total regulation and one rule for everybody or a completely free market.

I would hate to have spent a lot of time, money and effort developing pay TV channels such as sky sports only to have somebody tell me that I have to let someone else sell it to their customers for the sole reason that my labour and effort is too successful!!. In fact I would be inclined to not bother developing anything else again and just buy in other peoples channels to offer to my customers! What is wrong with sky having a competitive edge if they have made the effort and investment.

If sky are made to do this, just as BT offer their products as wholesale or LLU, then VM should also be made to offer a wholesale product on their network. Then everything is open for everybody. (things could get quite confusing!)

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Do you often throw the toys just because someone disagrees with you? :confused: Probably not wise to visit discussion forums if that is the case to be perfectly honest.

---------- Post added at 22:42 ---------- Previous post was at 22:41 ----------

In infrastructure based markets or markets where a player dominates agreed. The case for VM to be forced to open up its' network is stronger.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Lets hope they are forced to open up their network, better for the consumer in the long run.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Seeing as Tuesday has come and gone has anyone heard anything? I know they will not announce till March which seems odd as they have already decided and that they spent years looking to this. Why delay.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Perhaps now that they may have reached a decision and i add the word" MAY HAVE" with rerservations, seeing as this review has been rumbling on since 2007 :erm:

They may well be working out how to handle any inpending announcement given skys litigeous nature,or they may well be informing any interested parties of any announcement in private to give them time to adjust. other then that who knows.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Seeing as you dont allow PM's I thought IO would reply about your comments that BT did its investment in its broadband infrastructure whilst a gov owned and therefore was developed with tax payers monney making it different from SKY. (difficult considering that in 1986 that the internet did not really exist and in fact was not invented until Tim Berners Lee developed HTTP in 1990)

In Addition BT did major investment in 2006 Following ref from Wikkipedia. In October 2006 BT confirmed that it would be investing 75% of its total capital spending, put at £10 billion over five years, in its new Internet Protocol (IP) based 21st century network (21CN). Annual savings of £1 billion per annum are expected when the transition to the new network is complete in 2010, with over 50% of its customers transferred by 2008. That month BT took a major step forward when the actual process that will be used to transfer the first customers on to 21CN was successfully tested at Adastral Park in Suffolk.[29]

I just could not be bothered with your line of argument when it was flawed, I just cant stand it it when people bend truths just like corrupt politicians do and dont rely on the factual truths of history.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

The infrastructure that costs money to deploy is not the backhaul, it's not in the exchanges, it's the access network that connects the consumers premises up to these.

So they're spending £10bn on the 21cn upgrades which aren't touching the last mile.

Think about how much that would be if they were doing that, if they were having to lay cable to everyone of the 60m households in their serviceable area?

That is what people are saying, any amount they invest now is dwarfed by the cost of laying the last mile access network, hence why they aren't rolling out ftth across the country.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

R they really gonna rule, how would it be implementated new software update?

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

:confused:

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

I am puzzled too! lol

Duke

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Looks like Sky might get to retail channels on Freeview as compensation for being forced to slash whole sale prices on Sports and Movies:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...m-pay-tv-bskyb

I find this bit fascinating

That is a long time for your subscriber base to remain so static.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

And the results are in Sky ordered to cut premium channels cost by 20%, but allowed to launch Picnic as a sweetner http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle7069785.ece

How long before we see a cut in prices?

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Not sure about the prices but its about time Ofcom showed its teeth :clap:

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

RESULT!!!!!!!

Duke

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Didn't Sky shelve plans for Picnic years ago and have shown no interest since, could this be a sweetener or final insult?

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Indeed, I'm looking forward to them doing more of this through a requirement for VM to either wholesale or offer duct access along with BT in the near future :)

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

They shelved it because it became part of Ofcom's market investigation, so there was no chance of them launching it any time soon.

The biggest problem with Picnic IMO was that it was not compatible with Freeview. Not a problem on the face of it, but on the other hand, over time there was a risk of Sky coming to dominate the terrestrial broadcast space with a not-entirely-freeview service, using the fact that Picnic would have been HD-capable as its hook.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

No mention of the HD channels in that report though. Maybe Sky might want to start selling them to VM to make up some of the shortfall in revenue from the price drop?

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Teeth?

What teeth?

Picnic shouldn't be allowed on Freeview.

Besides, there's plenty of time for Sky to appeal about (and delay) the wholesale issue, and Ofcom's powers would be greatly reduced anyway if the Tories win the General Election.

---------- Post added at 11:16 ---------- Previous post was at 11:12 ----------

A 20% cut would result in VM paying Sky £10.78 for Sky Sports 1 (excluding VAT).

OFCOM were thinking about a wholesale price of somewhere between £9.41 and £11.24, so £10.78 seems a little high.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

As long as it goes both ways ie if BT or Sky want it then make them pay the commercial rate that will be set.

A company has just asked for and will get £600000 over a couple of years at present prices for 10 km's of core duct space and wayleave ;) Please dont ask me who or where on here as i will not be answering it.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

The HD channels are available, Virgin choose not to provide due to bandwith issues and potential cost before todays PAY TV announcement. Something that has changed in the last couple of months where Virgin now have the capacity to provide.

Expect to see SKY HD channels at a premium cost soon.

Duke

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Any mention of interactive red button services on sky sports in the report i wonder? ofcon did mention those in an earlier round of the mammoth pay tv enquirey.

And sky use these streams quite often now.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

full report isnt out yet but i tink it does include red button movies nad psort and hd movies and sports, and it iwll also cover sky 1 if they use that for any sport broadcsats in the future

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Thanks very much for the info,keeping my fingers crossed it includes the above.:)

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

have to say if the choice was HD sport or Red button, id have to go with the red button as its brilliant if only for fans of teams outside the sky 4.

if we do get the red button reckon VM would let us record it like sky do?

e.g. record screen 3 of match choice for instance?

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Without the full report we can not be sure of what OFcom have ruled. There may be clauses that are beneficial for Sky or VM.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Well tvtimes i hope it will not be much longer nearly three years in the making it should be something pretty special LOL.:D:D

I just hope it contains enough to justify the time spent,personally i think vm customers should be able to access the red button on sky sports after all we are subbed the same as skys own customer base more or less,and there is less value in them for us.

Especially people like myself who through no fault of our own cannot get sky even if we wanted.

As has been said i would rather the red button then the HD,but we shall wait and see. ofcon surely cannot hold on to the report much longer.;)

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Just because the report comes out doens't mean we will see SKY HD or red button any time soon.

Sky will prolong the process as much as they can with an appeal UNLESS Ofcom has allowed Sky some sweetners to allow OFCOM'S ruleing to go unchallenged.

As much as i wnt Sky HD sports and red button on VM, part of me thinks as Sky invested in the first place why should they have to give anything to VM and BT.

You could argue they were a monoploy at the time but should we be retrospectivley penailising them for that?

I dunno...

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

OFCOM has already said it would use its powers to force the changes through while any appeal goes on.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

It will still take time, not a matterof days i would suggest. The election is in a few weeks time....it may all change after that!

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Er sky are not giving the channels away vm pay for them and so do i through vm. Yes sky did invest in the first place but i am a consumer myself not a buisness and as a consumer who CANNOT get sky i do not see why i should not have access to sport i want to watch because one near monopoly bought up the rights.

Also i remember well when BT were privatised in the 80s they were expressively banned from starting a tv network by the then conservative government, for fear that due to their size they would crush any company that wanted to compete, ironic that considering sky are in that position now. So it could be argued sky had more then a little helping hand there.

Sky may not be in a position to delay implimentation as ofcon could order sky to do it and allow them to appeal retrospectively to halt any delay until after a general election when a prospective conservative government may stop it.

All will only be clear when the details are published and yes the rumour is ofcon have sweetened the pill with a nod to picnic if sky are still interested.:)

---------- Post added at 15:23 ---------- Previous post was at 15:19 ----------

Yes they have suggested they will do this otherwise the fear is this could go on as long as the itv shares court saga in which sky threw limitless money at barristers and lawyers and still lost the case.:erm:

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Just because you're not a buisnessman Richard doesn't mean you shouldn't think about the buisness side of things...I cannot get Sky either, massive great tree in my backgarden but that doesn't have any bearing on the argument either.

Also, you DO have access to their sport, just not in HD. i want their sport and Movies in HD too...

All im saying is i can see Sky's point.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

If the Cameron wins it is not as if the first day in office he rip OFCOM to shreds he has much bigger fish to fry, and even big senior members of the Conservative party have voiced concerns on plans to do so. Plus the hardwork is already done, the matter can be reffered to The OFT the Competition commission. Stripping OFCOM of powers will only delay the inevitable.

There is also the EU who the case can be referred to, they have already forced Sky Italia to give up their presence on DTT in Italy. If there is one thing the EU love, it is taking on the big boys.

Sky have a duty to share what they have built with the rest of the industry, they may have invested heavily but if you are the only game in town you should not be able to with hold content as they currently do with the red button even though Cable customers pay the same.

Another story has surfaced, although I can't believe there is any truth to it, OFCOM may force Sky to offer sports and movies on DTT before Picnic http://www.newstatesman.com/broadcas...ia-ofcom-bskyb

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Fair enough Mobes but i come from a consumer angle,and whilst i may have access to their sport that is only thanks to regulation (the rate card) which states that NTL/vm now, must have access to sports/movies at regulated prices.(office of fair trade ruling i think a few years ago) after the itv digital fiasco.

ofcom have seen all the buisiness side of things as there have been plenty of consultations in the pay tv enquirey( profit margins and such were blacked out so the public could not see them online so i cannot say if sky could cut the price and still return healthy profits ) so i do not need to think about skys business side as ofcom have done and know more then i could ever do.

Also i do not have access to all of their sport a lot is now hidden away under the red button which obviously is not yet available to us despite paying a hefty sub. But Mobes we shall have to wait and see.:)

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Yeah i agree 100% about the red button thing and sport...if nothing else is sorted out then that must be! I pay Sky through VM for their sports package (HD in my opinion if different) and i should be able to access all their coverage at leats in SD.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Yes i pretty much agree with the above points Zantarous,although i would be amazed if ofcom made sky offer premium content on DTT before picnic,but it could be a surprise one though i would be amazed at completely.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Interesting snip it at the VMHD Blog http://vmhd.blogspot.com/

It is similar to a posting on DS where a poster said that Sky Sports 3 and 4 were not part of the regulation. Interestingly also Disney Cinemagic is also apart of the review, I didn't realise that was a Sky run channel. The only movie channel not under the review was Sky Movies Classics.

---------- Post added at 17:56 ---------- Previous post was at 17:53 ----------

Also there seems to be lost of posts on DS saying that the HD access charge should be about £5-£6. No links with sources yet.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Looks like OFCOM has done a half arsed job here http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...eup-sky-sports

Looks like Sky have plenty of wiggle room with moving fixtures to Sky Sports 3 and 4 to keep up prices.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Very true ;) but some people in europe have been watching the review are interested int ehr esults ;) lets jsut says sources i have suggest if they do nt feel it goes further neough they might launcht there own invesgation in sky as a whole including tie up with channels etc and they wont be so lenite

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Would that be our friends at the EU who like to take on the big boys and over regulate everything? Actually I quite like them guys they may seem over meddling but you need someone to act in the interest in the consumer and not the rich businessmen that have enough wealth to buy what they want.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

There's no justification for ofcom to intervene on sky sports 3 & 4 at the moment though.

The question you have to ask is will Sky do something blatantly aimed at avoiding the regulation? I don't think they will. It's in their best interests to co-operate with ofcom, because if they don't then they could very easily see themselves sliced in half.

Moving premier league fixtures to the secondary channels when there isn't anything of a higher importance on the main channels simply to allow them to charge more is a textbook example of abuse of a monopolistic position, and they'd be dragged over hot coals for doing it.

The article is essentially just scare mongering.

Anyway, the cost of the channels is of secondary importance to the availability of HD and the red button, that's the crux of the report, the pricing isn't that bad.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

The pricing is everything on these channels, not so much for the consumer but for the resellers like Virgin and BT. They simply are unable to make a profit on selling these services, HD and red button are important seeing as we pay full whack. But the pricing in the what the resellers have raised the complaint about.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

It can be argued they don't have a right to profit on the channels, as long as they aren't making a loss whilst pricing them competitively then there's not a huge issue.

They can make their profit on other services that customers will take with them. Without access to the same service though they won't get the option as customers will simply go else where.

It's the same principle as loss leaders in super markets, they're used to get the customers in, and then you make the money elsewhere.

If you don't have the same services though you can't get the customers in, that's why HD and the red button are more important than being able to profit on reselling the channels.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Hello guys, I'm i rightly saying that Ofcom Pay TV Reports was suppose to come out today.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

I had a look at DS and a google for it but can't find anything yet.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Shall wait for answser from Media Boy Kingstar!!!:monkey:

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

The Mail on Sunday says it was out Today.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

at worst itll be out tomorrow as they did say it was going to be published by end of march yea? or did i just make that up lol?

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Maybe tommorow it will be published mate :dozey:

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Ofcom did say ''By end of month''.

But The Mail on Sunday is right 90% of the time (But not with this one.)

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Oh well if not today maybe tommorow man :dozey:

---------- Post added at 15:26 ---------- Previous post was at 15:23 ----------

If published today will be on this website http://vmhd.blogspot.com :confused:

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Can someone explain this whole thing to me as I am confused.

What's wrong with Sky charging what they want for their channels to other providers especially when they have purchased the content they show?

Why is that bad & why does it need a review?

Seemed to have missed a step in the hate campaign against Sky somewhere :dozey:

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Because Sky doesn't just own channels, it owns a distribution platform. The market is regulated to prevent it unfairly disadvantaging the owners of other content delivery platforms (mainly VM). Using a dominant market position to drive competitors out of business is illegal under EU law.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Thank you for explaining Chris

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

ive got no issue with sky charging the price it does, my issue is the price they charge despite not giving others the full package it just feels like being short changed, if we were given the red button id be fine with it i think

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

This is how Sky are trying to force out other rivals and to force people onto Sky:

Selling Sky Movies and Sky Sports at very high costs to rivals to the point where rivals can never beat or even match the price Sky charges its residential customers.

Undercutting services even though rivals pay a very high price such as restricting features such as Red Button and interactive services as well as holding back HD that should be coming with the Sky premium channels together.

Deliberately offering a less high performing picture quality to rivals customers. However,I've noticed it happens occasionally,maybe so that they don't get caught out.

Sky control the following channels:

Sky 1
Sky 2
Sky 3
Sky Sports 1
Sky Sports 2
Sky Sports 3
Sky Sports 4
Sky Sports News
Sky News
Sky News HD
Sky Real Lives 1
Sky Real Lives 2
Sky Real Lives HD
Sky 1 HD
Sky Sports HD channels
Sky Movies Premiere
Sky Movies Premier+1
Sky Movies Showcase
Sky Movies Drama
Sky Movies Family
Sky Movies Horror&Sci-Fi
Sky Movies Comedy
Sky Movies Classics
Sky Movies Screen 1
Sky Movies Screen 2
Sky Movie HD channels
Sky Travel
Sky Vegas

Sky then has like 50% ownership over:

National Geographic
National Geographic+1
National Geographic HD
History
History HD
Crime and Investigation Network

Then there is the parent company owned channels:

Fox News
FX
FX HD
The Weather Channel (Thats if it ever returns to the UK,Absent since 1995)

They also control 50% of Men and Motors,however this channel is being ceased on 1st April 2010.

Other interests:

Five News and certain content is provided by BskyB
A share in ITV soon to be sold off is owned by BskyB
Most Sky exclusive channels are locked to Sky under contract
Sky control Disney Channels

So you see they control too much of the pay-tv and Digital TV market.

Sky were even after launching a similar service to top-up-tv that would offer dribbles of Sky1,Sky Real Lives,Disney Channel and National Geographic. This was blocked by Ofcom.

So when Sky get worried about churning or when they see Virgin Media becoming a threat, Sky start throwing there weight about and wack up wholesale prices to the point where rivals find it non-commercially viable and thus rivals will either cease carrying the channels or else cut features which customers do not want and this is Sky's attempt to win back customers.

Sky's content Rivals:

BBC:

BBC1,BBC2,BBC3,BBC4,BBC Parliament,BBC News 24,BBCHD,CBBC and Cbeebies

Virgin Media Television:

Living,Livingit,Living+1,Livingit+1,LivingHD,Bravo ,Bravo+1,Bravo2,Challenge TV,Challenge Jackpot,Virgin1 and Virgin1+1 also brand ownership of discontinued channels such as Trouble and TinyLiving

UKTV Channels(A 50/50 joint venture company between BBC and Virgin Media Television):

Watch
Watch+1
G.O.L.D
G.O.L.D+1
Dave
Davejavu
Dave+1
Alibi
Alibi+1
Eden
Blighty
Home
Home+1
Really
Really+1

Channel 4 Television:

Channel 4
Channel 4+1
Channel 4HD
Film 4
Film 4+1
More4
E4
E4+1
E4 HD (Coming soon)
4 Music

CBS and Viacom:

Comedy Central
Comedy Central+1
Comedy Central Extra
CBS Reality
CBS Horror
CBS Thriller
All MTV channels inlcuding Viva,VH1 and MTVHD
Nickelodeon

Other content rivals do not get a chance at offering HD really, so yeah it is time someone intervened.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

I am sure that Sky has a 25% stake in MTV and Comedy Central channels as well.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

and 98% of MGM's UK channel.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Also I am sure that there stake in the Nat Geo and A&E channels are no where near 50%. Remember just because they have a stake in them doesn't mean they control the channel, they maybe able to get exclusive use of them for a period of time but they will be financially paying for this, which is something that cable has so far been unwilling do to. Hopefully with channels like Living HD and Film 4HD this may change.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Try here for info - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bskyb

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Looks like Sky is gonna get away with it again.

All they have to do is move key footy games to SS2, SS3 or SS4, since OFCOM can't tell Sky what to show on its channels:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...eup-sky-sports

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Sky also own or a have a huge stake in the Star channels.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

cough post 169 cough :p:

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

196? This is Post 195, Doctor Who. ;)

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

:LOL: Damn you got in quick before the edit.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

You and your time travelling powers are no match for my quick posts. :p:

Still....with the 23 extra games Sky have from next season, they could turn around to OFCOM and say "Well, we had to put Wigan vs Bolton on SS1. We have no choice with all the extra games we have. But no worries, Man Utd vs Liverpool will be on SS4, okay?"

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Yeah it does seem quite half arsed but at the same time if they continually move fixtures then I am sure the regulator will come down on them with even more force.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

The ruling has been made public. Looks like Sky will appeal so this could run on for years and with a new government likely that will be much more sympathetic to Sky's interests.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Except OFCOM are forcing Sky to make the changes now to which they can then appeal rather than them being allowed to go to court to postpone it. Once its in the courts any new government would find interfering tricky.