Originally Posted by Broadbandings (Post 34947375)

I understood HD was offered a while ago, though at a price VM really didn't like.

More from Premier League:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...y-ofcom-rights

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 34946857)

I would love to see a price reduction on Sky, I have a multi room with Sky, and it is nearly £80.00 per month, I also have VM especially for the free ESPN channel and phone line etc, and l pay 50.00 and l have two boxes. BUT we did have mutli room on VM at the same price.

IF Sky reduced the price in line with all the others, then there would be good compitition and customers could then choose what is the best service to choose.

Originally Posted by pedg (Post 34947382)

Some might say there is little difference between not offering HD at all and offering it at a ridiculously high price.

As to the PL they are obviously complaining because their buddies at sky told them to. They seam to think there is a direct link between what sky can charge for their channels and the money they get where as, in reality sky will charge as much as they can get away with to maximise their profits and pay as little as they can for football rights. The PL need to remember that the only reason they got so much money last time was because of the competition of setanta and that one of these days sky may find they don't have any serious competition and could end up getting their PL matches at a knock down price which would have major implications for their finances.

Originally Posted by newbie1001 (Post 34947435)

There is nothing stopping Virgin from been the next Setanta and actually bidding for the rights. If it wasn't for Sky not only Football,but Darts,Snooker,Cricket,Golf,Rugby League and mny other sports would not be succesfull as they are now.

Originally Posted by newbie1001 (Post 34947435)

Sky put a lot of money into these and quite rightly expect a return. By forcing them to lower prices will just have an impact into all sports sky provide to because no one else wants to bid anything significant for them.

Originally Posted by pedg (Post 34947445)

By football being successful you mean spiralling debts and possible administration for a number of teams? Oh yes, they never had it so good have they?



If you read the ofcom report you would see that ofcom set the prices so that sky could continue to invest as much as they do now and make a reasonable return. At no point have ofcom come out and said it would involve sky spending less or sky not making a profit. Indeed they have reason to believe that with a lowering of the price an increase in subscribers would have a minimal impact on the money that skys broadcasting arm would make. Thus if they make the same money as before there is no reason why sky should not continue as they are at the moment.
Remember ofcom are not telling sky to open up their HD channels for free. VM and BT would have to pay extra for these which would add to skys income. The only reason they have not done so so far is to drive customers to skys delivery system and its stopping this abuse of power that is, to me, the best thing about the ofcom report not a 20% reduction in the cost of my subscription (nice though that would be, I might even put the money saved to pay for the HD channels!).

Originally Posted by pedg (Post 34947139)

According to guardian

The satellite broadcaster is expected to launch an immediate legal attack on any moves to cut its prices but the regulator will use its powers to introduce the measures while the lawyers make their arguments.

So if (and hopefully when) they do that it would mean that the price would have to drop immediately so it would be a brave Cameron to reverse something like that immediately he takes office.

Personally I am not so much interested in the price as having things like the HD channels and the 'other games on the red button' streams. Assuming that is covered by the same rules then we could get them soon and again it would be a brave politician to come in and say "Sorry cable and BT viewers but I am going to take those channels away".

Originally Posted by Morden (Post 34947311)

What goes around comes around. on one hand SKY were happy to expand their broadband based on piggy backing on BT's national network after OFCOM had previously ruled that BT must open up its network which spent billions and years of work on. If BT had not invested in their network upgrading exchanges, lines, etc, over a number of the last few decades then the only broadband would be Virgins. BT had to allow others access just like SKY will have to now. That access obviously dented BT's monopoly on telecoms just like this will dent SKY's monopoly on sports.

Originally Posted by TheDon (Post 34947349)

No they don't.

Sky WILL NOT sell the HD varients, or red button services to VM. The information in the pay tv consultation makes that perfectly clear.

Originally Posted by newbie1001 (Post 34947435)

There is nothing stopping Virgin from been the next Setanta and actually bidding for the rights. If it wasn't for Sky not only Football,but Darts,Snooker,Cricket,Golf,Rugby League and mny other sports would not be succesfull as they are now. Sky put a lot of money into these and quite rightly expect a return. By forcing them to lower prices will just have an impact into all sports sky provide to because no one else wants to bid anything significant for them.