Originally Posted by ahardie (Post 35171692)

So basically you agree with my argument then and if opening up VM's network works in our interests then I am in favour. That is really for another thread anyway and a different CC investigation and is off-topic in this thread. This thread is about Sky running a monopoly and ripping people off. Something I thought we would all be against. I suspect that what you are proposing would weeken a Sky competitor and move us closer to a total Sky monopoly though which isn't in our interests. But perhaps the competition comission shouls investigate. Until it does it's a red herring.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35171837)

I've no interest in weakening a competitor to Sky and have little interest in this decision as it stands, my irritation is in how one-sided the ongoing regulatory work in this space is. It's all about opening up Sky and BT's content and networks with no concessions being asked for or given by the company that supplies half of all pay TV and broadband services to half of the country.

It's the inconsistency which is the irritation.

Other than that I'm fine with Sky being pulled up for overcharging, don't misunderstand me, Sky are at heart a brutal, soul-less money-making machine, same as pretty much every other company of any size :)

EDIT: With this in mind I've asked my MP about the situation although this whole thing is a bit of a sore point with him I suspect :)

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35171429)

Oh I see, so being a monopoly is fine so long as you accumulated debt to get there?

The law and every other definition of a monopoly disagrees. Financial state is totally irrelevant to monopoly status. Virgin's debt is more than manageable according to their financial results.

Also of note is that a proportion of Virgin's debt is due to the acquisition of Virgin Mobile, most of the debt from acquisition of cable franchises. That's what the cost was, not the construction of them but overpaying on acquisitions, and most of this was wiped off in debt for equity swaps by ntl and Telewest.

Bad business decisions and being the poster child for the .com boom does not a company immune to monopoly status make.

Originally Posted by Tod (Post 35172080)

Originally Posted by Tod (Post 35172080)

If Virgin have to open up their cable then Sky should open up their EPG! :)

Originally Posted by TheDon (Post 35172096)

Bolded bit especially is why VM is not and never will be a monopoly, and why the broadcast side of Sky could never be a monopoly.

Anyone can build a cable network, just plough money into it and build your network. If VM's network (like BT's) reached every home in the UK and was therefore cost prohibitive to build (due to the cost of reaching rural areas where there's limited scope to recoup costs) then it'd be a monopoly, but as it stands it only passes areas that would be deemed as financially viable to replicate.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35172104)

Sky's EPG is open, this is enforced as part of their operating licence.

---------- Post added at 10:21 ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 ----------



Given that Virgin Media's predecessors both went through bankruptcy protection and debt for equity swaps this is debatable and within VM's passed areas there is no way that replicating their network could be done financially viably as the market is saturated. To be viable a new entrant would need to capture nearly half of the customer base in the area. The penetration of altnet services in Europe is sub-20% and price pressures are heavy right now.

This same argument could be applied to BT in areas where they overlap Virgin Media, and to an extent is, however this only applies to the charges BT are allowed to levy in the areas all open access obligations remain.

Regardless being a monopoly isn't the issue, the question is one of Significant Market Power.

Do Sky have SMP within Pay TV - yes, which is why they are regulated.
Do BT have SMP - yes, which is why they are regulated.
Do Virgin Media have SMP - within their passed areas clearly yes, however Ofcom side-step this by taking their market share nationwide.

Kingston Communications have regional SMP while VM don't. There are a number of contradictions however cable has been favoured since its conception.

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic (Post 35172134)

Do you think it's because Ofcom want a strong competitor to Sky and if they allowed others to use VM's network, this may water down VM's market share?

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35172171)

I have no idea what Ofcom want, you'd need to ask them that. :)

Originally Posted by Tod (Post 35172080)

If Virgin have to open up their cable then Sky should open up their EPG! :)

Anyhow, why are we talking about Virgin when the thread is about Sky's excess profits? Shouldn't this be discussed on another thread?

---------- Post added at 09:39 ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 ----------



"Monopoly - Market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted. Monopolist firms (in their attempt to maximize profits) keep the price high and restrict the output, and show little or no responsiveness to the needs of their customers."

This is NOT what Virgin are doing by keeping control of their own cable - but IS what Sky are doing with the movie content!

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35172104)

Sky's EPG is open, this is enforced as part of their operating licence.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35172104)

Given that Virgin Media's predecessors both went through bankruptcy protection and debt for equity swaps this is debatable and within VM's passed areas there is no way that replicating their network could be done financially viably as the market is saturated. To be viable a new entrant would need to capture nearly half of the customer base in the area. The penetration of altnet services in Europe is sub-20% and price pressures are heavy right now.

This same argument could be applied to BT in areas where they overlap Virgin Media, and to an extent is, however this only applies to the charges BT are allowed to levy in the areas all open access obligations remain.

Regardless being a monopoly isn't the issue, the question is one of Significant Market Power.

Do Sky have SMP within Pay TV - yes, which is why they are regulated.
Do BT have SMP - yes, which is why they are regulated.
Do Virgin Media have SMP - within their passed areas clearly yes, however Ofcom side-step this by taking their market share nationwide.

Kingston Communications have regional SMP while VM don't. There are a number of contradictions however cable has been favoured since its conception.

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic (Post 35172174)

Just putting it out there :D

Might be the reason they don't regulate VM.