Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35959803)

Huh...I never knew.

Must be rather coincidental that they keep offering cut price programing that they own the rights to though that may also be as my husband has been a customer for like 13 years now.

Thanks for the info - certainly explains how VM break even.

If Sky wanted to be cruel I suppose that they could just refuse to sell the rights of their network? They would lose the money they earn from VM though.

(Are you sure that they are prevented from doing so when it is not a case of hardware though? To provide the service for phone and broadband, Sky and others have to use BT's firm / hardware. It is not the same for Virgin as Sky has no monopoly at all).

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35959867)

Yeah and a whole there does need to be a base level of regulation but given that Sky did all the ground work in establishing the infrastructure to create their sports and movie empire no way should they be obligated to provide it to other media platforms IMO.

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35959867)

Yeah and a whole there does need to be a base level of regulation but given that Sky did all the ground work in establishing the infrastructure to create their sports and movie empire no way should they be obligated to provide it to other media platforms IMO.

Originally Posted by tvtimes (Post 35959869)

I don't think Ofcom or many millions of customers who don't want Sky would agree with that. I can see where you're coming from, I just think it will be a abuse of power.

Originally Posted by BenMcr (Post 35959909)

I'd understand the argument if it was possible for other providers to show the same content via their own channels, and so compete directly with what Sky Sports or Sky Cinema show.

But they can't, so there is a monopoly of content delivery (and not delivery platform) that has to be managed appropriately.

Originally Posted by tvtimes (Post 35959914)

That's exactly how I see it, Ben, so I was very surprised to learn the regulations against Sky have ended, and purely because there are more providers these days.
Even with more providers, what is to stop Sky overcharging competitors to over-inflate their prices to make Sky look more attractive?

Originally Posted by tvtimes (Post 35959914)

Even with more providers, what is to stop Sky overcharging competitors to over-inflate their prices to make Sky look more attractive?

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 35959929)

Because...

(From the Ofcom link above)

Originally Posted by tvtimes (Post 35959953)

Then why not just leave the regulation in place in the first place?
I don't understand Ofcom sometimes.

Originally Posted by tvtimes (Post 35959841)

Ah, thanks. This is news to me and I don't know how I missed it seeing as it's 3 years old nearly! My bad.
It does state Ofcom will closely monitor and quickly step back in though if Sky try anything funny. I think that's quite an important statement.