Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

but as has been pointed by Broadbandings sky's monopoly was ended a few years ago as regards premiership football coverage so why didn't /couldn't setanta take advantage of this ,give potential customers what they wanted like red button access to matches ,decent commentators ,if the only reason lack of funds then that's hardly sky's fault

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Like Northern Ireland and Eire, both of whom have full Sky services available?

They overpaid due to the competition for the rights from various other parties including apparently the BBC and some company called Virgin Media.

A bad choice of words on my part, I should have mentioned they don't want to pay the current rates for them. VM appear to have no problems cross-subsidising in some ways, for example ESPN being free to XL TV. VM chose to advertise Sky Sports for less than Sky, their decision.

If they have so much trouble with Sky Sports they have always had the option of removing it from their packages and allowing Sky to take the commercial risks associated with it in a similar manner to how Homechoice delivered Sky content.

Breaking up companies in the manner you describe would be an amazingly bad idea that would lead to no-one investing in content due to the uncertainty of where they would find their return, it would also make things amazingly confusing to subscribe to.

As far as vertical integration goes, the most vertically integrated would actually be Virgin Media, given that they produce some of their content, own the network is runs on, the CPE, billing, etc. Sky rent capacity on the SES Astra satellites which anyone else can do, and run an open platform on their EPG, unlike Virgin Media whose network is totally closed.

Doing what Ofcom are doing doesn't actually do anything to preventing or discouraging vertical integration, it merely discourages investment in content. Seems to me that Ofcom just want to punish Sky for being too successful.

Had ntl and Telewest been able to compete better in the 90s, not killed themselves massively overspending acquiring networks at .com boom prices, and therefore had more cash they would probably be in the same situation Sky are, but they aren't. They screwed up, Sky didn't as badly, so now Sky are expected to allow them the benefits of their investment in content.

---------- Post added at 13:04 ---------- Previous post was at 13:02 ----------

Part of the issue with Setanta was that their productions were, initially, garbage. Comparing the poor picture quality and at times amateurish production with the slick, extremely well run Sky operation was probably another major issue.

It's worth noting that a lot of issues Setanta had weren't with getting customers but retaining them. They had a lot of teething trouble with their hardware and bit rates which turned people used to high picture quality games from Sky off in a massive hurry.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/11...s-picture.html
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...d.php?t=621915

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

---------- Post added at 13:04 ---------- Previous post was at 13:02 ----------



Part of the issue with Setanta was that their productions were, initially, garbage. Comparing the poor picture quality and at times amateurish production with the slick, extremely well run Sky operation was probably another major issue.

It's worth noting that a lot of issues Setanta had weren't with getting customers but retaining them. They had a lot of teething trouble with their hardware which turned people used to high picture quality games from Sky off in a massive hurry.[/QUOTE]

very true ,while watching any of setantas earlier productions in my local with other fans it was quite obvious that they had a long way to go before they could get anywere close to sky's quality ,but that doesn't mean that sky should be forced a quality production at a lower price imo

you don't get a rolls royce for the price of mini

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

The trouble with this thread is its starting to become sky v everybody else,the consumer is being forgotten in all the sky v the rest stuff ofcom are not charged with looking after sky vm bt or top up tv, but the consumer and if all their "meddling" ends with me and my wallet getting a better deal then i am happy.

The fact i am not able to get what i want at the moment speaks volumes to me about the uks "pay tv market" and as a consumer with no money invested in sky vm or any other pay company(other then as a customer) i would like to see a remedy to this situation. people would not accept no regulation in other walks of life why should these companies be any different.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

thats a fair point ,but were do you draw the line in a free market ,too much regulation on pricing will only give us a lower quality end product
now if sky gave us shoddy sports coverage for example and still charged premium prices then i would have no problem at all with such a ruling but their service is second to none imo and as such, a premium price i feel is justified

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Thanks, without having access to documents that ofcom had in the pay tv enquirey i could not tell you how much room there is on price without a reduction in quality, the pay tv review documents were online with the margins of profit from all providers blacked out,but presumably ofcom had them and knows about pricing structures,there may be room for a small reduction,but if not i would accept what i currently pay if......


I could have access to red button interactive on sports,and the possibility for a fee obviously of subbing to HD i would not expect to get them for hardly anything.

The free market is not a bad thing for innovation but sometimes consumers do not come out very well particularly in this instance, and i would like to see ofcom redress the balance a little,though not so much as the quality of service suffers. overegulation is one thing,but not enough sometimes works the other way for consumers the tricky bit is getting the right balance.:)

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

OFCOM is set up to protect the media consumer and prevent a Media Monopoly by any one company.Considering they have no teeth for the job I reckon they provide as good a service as they can...:erm:

Saying which I'll believe this story when it actually happens.:rolleyes:

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

but can you prove sky can not produce quailty material with less money? unoless you have access to sky bank accoutn then the truth is none of know, and from wha ti r4ead of ofcom reports sky have been over pricing for a while even there own customer the prices ofcom want ot set maybe a little low but sky will still makea good profit but sky want max profits and that why they oppose and htey also dnt want otehr havign access and to undercut them.

the only point i agree in is that sky investment ina product should get return like hd but it has now gotten a return and more so it time it regulated so other can have access mean the customer can choose wher ethey get there content from (i dnt think 3d should be regulated until 2012 at the earilst probally more 2014)

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

i take your point on overcharging and if that is the case then yes i agree sky should be taken to task ,but don't forget they are in buissness to make maximum profits both for future investment and the shareholders

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

How do Sky have a monopoly Maggy? They neither have all the Premiership football nor keep the content to themselves being required by law to sell it onwards. It's purely the pricing that's the sticky part.

---------- Post added at 14:16 ---------- Previous post was at 14:12 ----------

We know this because Sky are a PLC and as such required to produce accounts 4 times a year.

I'm not sure if you've read Ofcom's plans but they consist of the product becoming 'retail minus'. Whatever Sky charge their customers they have to charge VM / BT etc that price minus an Ofcom adjudicated sum. How exactly will this reduce Sky's overcharging of their customers? All it will do, to my mind, is improve the profits of VM and BT and actively encourage Sky to spend less on their production and content as the less they spend while keeping their prices the same the higher their profits will be.

Just to make a point Virgin Media actually have a better gross margin % than Sky do and a higher EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation and Amortisation) relative to revenue.

I'm not sure how impoverished you or anyone else think Virgin Media are but that rather sweet Operating Cash Flow / OCF number that Virgin pop up with here and there does actually mean just that. VM make more money than Sky do but, like most cable companies, bury the earnings amidst various write-offs to improve the tax situation. Their debt hasn't been paying itself off at a rapid rate these past several months, indeed they feel good enough to go ask for another 2 billion GBP in bonds.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

The way it works looks like sky charge x and ofcom say its got to be minus for vm and bt which means they can charge less for sky sports/movies then sky currently does,which means in order to keep prices for its own customers to the same sky then has to reduce their price for its own customer base for sky sports,so skys own subs could benefit.

Thereby helping skys own subscribers to cut costs,not saying i agree with this but ofcom will have figures the public did not have access to (as the figures were blacked out on pay tv enquirey documents i saw online)

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Did I say they did?What I said it was OFOM's remit and they don't really have the tools to prevent it but that despite that they are achieving something to prevent Sky or anyone else having a monopoly.They are also doing their best at protecting the consumer with again limited tools.

The actual monopoly that Sky has achieved is by being first into the market of providing DTV and they maintain it by having made the larger financial gain..Which is bound to be eroded eventually.All I'm concerned is that Murdoch's empire gets no larger especially in relationship to NEWS provision.That's where I really don't want anyone to have a monopoly.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

I apologise, given that this is about certain premium content I thought the comment about monopolies referred to the topic at hand rather than a general Murdoch-bash. Sky's provision of news is actually nothing to do with the Ofcom decision it's confined to pricing of premium content.

Ofcom's attempts to protect the customer are dubious given their previous credentials and history. 3G and future licenses come to mind, the money for those licenses has to come from somewhere. There's also Ofcom's inactivity in opening up Virgin's network, or any pursuit on their part for repeal of business rates on fibre.

See above regarding large financial gains. The financial situations aren't as dissimilar as you might think. Sky's 'monopoly' is actually being eroded naturally as per my earlier post on viewing figures.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

The reports DO NOT show how much it costing them to run the channels, even if it is that high it is there own fault for determine to outbid everyone with 1 billion pound bids why should everyone else pay for there determination to control the market

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Sky has very little interest in competing for Ireland's sports rights, hence how Setanta was able to first start in Ireland.

Go take a look at America for an example of how much of a bad idea it is... oh wait their cable and satellite companies seem to have huge competition, with hundreds of channels (and hundreds of them in hd), and with local areas having their own providers which can still compete with the big players because of equal access to content.

Their channels don't seem to be doing too badly either! Amazing how they seem to be able to fund the likes of 24 and lost with no certainty of where they're going to find their return (except for ofc the same carriage contracts that every other non-sky and non-VM owned channel currently uses to gauge such a thing).

Obviously it's a terrible idea though and would never work.

Why is this all about premiership football? It's not, go take a look at the movie channels for the definition of a monopoly.

Also just because you're required to sell it onwards it doesn't mean you're not a monopoly, a monopoly is where there are many buyers, but only one seller, the only seller for premium movie channels is Sky.