OFCOM ready to rule?
 

According to the Telegraph OFCOM could possibly rule this week that Sky must drop its whole sale prices of Movies and Sports, there is no mention in the article of HD content.

And it would seem that BT and Virgin are already drawing up plans to slash the price they offer Sky Sports at.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...price-war.html

As one would expect Sky have already stated they they will raise a legal challenge if forced to lower wholesale prices.

I have kept this out of the coming soon thread as we would just end up derailing that thread.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

This is the best news i have heard all month.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

If this is announced in March as the article suggests, it will not likely mean prices will start to fall. Sky have said they intend to challenge this legally, and they are adept in doing that.

They still have their 17% stake in ITV, despite being told to reduce it to at least 7% over a year ago.....this is as a direct legal challenge to that ruling.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

We are still along way off from a solution but this is although positive only what we expected. I for one would be happy to continue the full price providing I got all of package, HD and red button feature of all sky channels.

Duke

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

I think a lot of people would agree with you on that.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

it seems a little unfair to me to force sky to drop it's prices ,they have put in all the investment over the last 15-20 yrs ,if it wasn't for sky then football and sports coverage in the uk would still be stuck like it was in the 70's and early 80's .Jeremy Darrach has good right to be upset .

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

I agree with you. It is unfair.

On the football matter though, if we were still in the 70s & 80s we would see a different class of football and none of these £80m pound deals / £100,000 a week wages.

Duke

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

you mean footballers would actually play for the love of the game?;)

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Wouldn't that be a show of loyalty?

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

hold on a minute ,that would involve ethics and commitment from footballers and as you well know that's just wrong :nono:

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Look at it another way as a taxpayer i over the years paid a lot of money towards huge investments in BT(when state owned),that massive investment made by taxpayers not private companies, is being used by sky to deliver their BB and phone service is that fair or should sky if they are bleating on about investment ought to have laid their own lines?

As a consumer i am not worried about virgin sky or bt i want a good deal,and the monopoly sky now hold through their integrated platform is not the best way to achieve this, i think everyone one has a right to be upset not just Jeremy Darroch,comsumers have the most reason to be upset in my view.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

It's not just football though is it, its Cricket, Rugby and other good sports.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

It's not unfair to expect them to charge a fair market price for the services, and to offer equivalent services to those that they themselves offer.

Them being able to charge anything they want limits consumer choice, and is bad not just for non-sky customers but also their own. Competition drives down prices, and competition can only thrive in an environment where all providers have access to the premium content at competitive pricing.

That no one other than Sky can offer their channels in HD, or with the red button is an obvious case of abusing a dominant market position by non-price discrimination, and it doesn't matter how much they invested on those services, they should still be offered to other carriers of the channels on a rate that allows them to offer them to their customers at a competitive price.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

I would agree with the above in full,the dominent position sky now hold is bad for all including their own customers perversly.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Sky were more than happy to take advantage of BT's network to get in to the broadband market... they are not victims by any means! :)

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

All in all this is good news. The consumer will have buying power, and the service providers, including Sky, will have to work hard to win our hard earned.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Indeed.. as should all companies... people pay good money to their providers and want value for money.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

ABBAsolutely People argue that they invested so should be able to maintain inflated prices, but I ask those people this:- think about if competition was quashed in other areas of our lives. A loaf of bread would cost £6, and/or basic computers would still cost in excess of £1000 therefore not allowing a good proportion of the populous affordable access to them and sub services such as the internet.

Competition is healthy, greed is bad. SKY are like toddlers, they expect to get their own way if it benefits their stranglehold but get really upset when they finally get told off.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

the HD and red button service is a marketing strategy designed to attract customers ,any good company will have unique selling points that they wouldn't other companies to have access to

what seems to be forgotten is that most of skys' sports coverage is done by sky itself and not bought in, they then sell it on to other tv companies at a profit ,if the only argument is the amount of profit that sky make on these deals then BT and Virgin should start having their own coverage thus making for better competition

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

LMFAO... That is precisely why I loathe the near monopoly that is Sky!

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

so why don't BT stop sky using their network? that is not a very good argument. BT were a monopoly at the time and used sky just as much to cement their position in the market place .It was a partnership deal advantagious to both companies

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

BT can't stop Sky using their network because a BT line is required for ADSL. Sky use their own kit in most of the exchanges and use BT kit when they don't have it available.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Just because you don't want other companies to have access to them it doesn't mean it's right that they don't. Just ask microsoft.

Yeah because it's trivial to start up a sports channel that's comparative to sky sports.

Lets just take a look at what happened to setanta when they tried to compete?

Setanta underlines exactly why Sky's market dominance is bad, the cost to market for a sports channel is insanely high, and there's a huge market apathy towards multiple providers of the same content, people don't want to pay for multiple channels for their premier league football. They want to pay one company, and have them provide it all, so anyone that doesn't have a majority of content will never gain a major market share.

Lets look at the movie channels as well, Sky have deals with all the studios, if you want to offer a range of movie channels like Sky's you'd have to outbid them for all of these deals, that's cost prohibitive when you're going up against a company that through the benefit of being first to market has developed a huge customer base and huge revenue. They don't even utilise most of the rights that they hold from movie studios (such as subscription on demand rights for the movies on their channels, if VM held the same rights as sky not only would you have the movie channels but you'd also have access to the movies played on them on demand).

Being first to market does not give you the right to dominate that market.

---------- Post added at 12:15 ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 ----------

BT can't stop anyone using their network, they have a legal obligation to allow ANYONE that wants access to their network access to is, such is the downside to having a monopoly. Sky are now going to learn that the laws that helped them in broadband are also going to hinder them in TV.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

The sky red button is more then a marketing startegy sky are using it more and more,and the plain fact is vm customers pay around the same as skys own customers for sky sports service,therefore should have access to it end of.

I only sub to sky for the cricket sky do the coverage in the uk,but a lot of the tv pictures around the world are done by the host country broadcaster not sky,such as the current south africa test series,sky also have an intergrated platform which means they own and deliver content thus skewing the market,to the dertriment of competiton.

Sky were in at the start so set the prices for sports/movies cable through no fault of its own was saddled with millions of debt we all saw what happened to setanta when it tried to compete with sky,sky just paid more and more for sports content setanta was forced to up and up its bids until it went bust.

Sky and espn have a different closer relationship sky markets,and provides espns pictures,the only way for the consumer to get a fair deal is through regulation of the skewed market,this is not about sky bt or vm but about the consumer.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

yes i agree ,but forcing a company to sell it's unique product to others is not true competition ,why can't BT and Virgin produce the same service for their customers ?

I fear that any such ruling by ofcom will only result in sky withdrawing all of their channels as they did to virgin a couple of years back ,they don't have to sell their products to non sky subscribers

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Yes they do a few years ago quite a few years ago the rate card was introduced after the on digital fiasco,which meant sky HAD to sell sports /movies to virgin media then ntl at a regulated price.

As i already said look what happened to setanta when they tried to compete with cash rich sky,if that is not a sign of a skewed market i do not know what is.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Of course, it's not like they pay for use of the BT network is it?

---------- Post added at 12:36 ---------- Previous post was at 12:34 ----------

Setanta's screw ups are their own making. Nothing at all to do with Sky. They knew that Sky couldn't take all the Premiership rights so I'm not sure what Setanta's unrealistic business model for the UK has to do with things?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4975632.stm



---------- Post added at 12:41 ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 ----------

Sky are required to sell channels to Virgin Media, however VM evidently don't want to pay for them, as one would expect. I find the way that the price is being calculated quite distasteful, I find Ofcom's ongoing over-regulation and attempts to meddle in pretty much every aspect of every UK market they can possibly claim a mandate over distasteful. Our broadband market actively deters investment through the poor quality, low price, low RoI services which are the norm and they appear to want to do the same to Sky.

BT's regulation is to an extent understandable, they have a natural, infrastructure based monopoly. Sky on the other hand simply invested, at their own risk, and have been successful. The message this sends out isn't one of regulating a formerly publically owned incumbent who were provided advantages through being publically owned, it's one of punishing companies that invested, took the risks and made them pay off.

Sky and BSB were both on the brink of faliing in 1990. They merged, they stuck with it, and in time they were ok.

Ofcom are 'New' Labour socialist sluts to the end sadly, and through all this they still simply don't 'get it'. I'll raise a glass when their policy meddling reign is over. It makes absolutely no sense, given that Sky have been consistently losing viewers and Europe ensured that 1/3rd of Premier League matches could not be shown by Sky, to do this now and it strikes me as a cynical well-lobbied move from a Quango whose well demonstrated socialist roots shine through in their actions and want to stick it to 'the man' before they are themselves broken up.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Amazing how the countries that they still have a market presence in they don't have a Sky like force to compete with isn't it?

Setanta's screw up was assuming that if they paid Sky-rates for the content they'd get sky-level subscriber numbers.

Instead they came up against the complete un-willingness for subscribers to subscribe to multiple sports channels.

Setanta's business model was only unrealistic because of Sky being such a dominant force meaning that customers who are used to getting all their premium content in one channel package didn't want to subscribe to any others so they couldn't reach the subscriber numbers needed to make it profitable.

---------- Post added at 12:51 ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 ----------

Source that VM don't want to pay for them?
As everything in the ofcom consultation says they DO want to pay for them, just at a level where they can actually offer competitive pricing on them without losing money.

Ofcom should go further, the vertical integration of services and platforms should be banned, and companies broken up so all platforms have access to all content on a level playing field.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

1) They can't. In a similar manner to how Sky are required to allow Virgin Media access to some of their channels BT are obliged to sell some services.
2) Sky pay BT a fairly handy chunk of cash. It's not 'free' even though the implication seems to be that BT are doing Sky a favour here. Sky pay the same as everyone else and that price list can be seen on the BT Openreach website.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Well i think broadbandings,you are coming from the wrong angle ofcom are charged with looking after the consumer where the consumer has very little power thmeselves,as such i am on the VM platform as sky bodged up an intallation and then made four other appointments that proved equally fruitless.

Why should i be denied HD just because i cannot have sky? or the red button interactive? it is not my fault i cannot get sky. As a consumer i look to ofcom to remedy this situation, and as such i do not see this as meddling like you do but actions designed to help people like myself is that wrong.

I think in the end if no remedy is found european regulators will eventually get involved to help consumers,most commercial organisations work under some form of regulation be it supermarkets or other concerns where it is detrimental to consumers not to regulate,why should pay tv companies be any different


And by the way new Labour are far from being "socialist" if they were i may still be a member,nu-labour =pinko tories.

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.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

What does that graph actually describe?

This graph http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ion_income.png shows the total number of subscribers steadily going up.

Does the graph you quoted mean the market size is getting bigger but Sky's share of the total market is getting smaller?

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

I used be a part of the why should sky seller stuff to the competition for cheaper as the made the investment but have come to this conclusion, all manufactures sell at a whole sale price to retailers, Pay TV should be no exception to this. After all Virgin and BT are selling a service that Sky make money form and they too should be able to make some money from it as well.

I think we need to take a look at the US model where content is much more freely available and you chose your cable or satellite company on price rather then what channels they maybe able to carry.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

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.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

The price reduction on the other platforms could well plug any finacial lose that Sky might suffer as they could sell more subscriptions and if there is a slight profit for the other operators to make they may get a bit more aggressive about selling Movies and Sports.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

I was having a look at earlier reports last year. Something has to be done. Who has the b*lls to do it?

Anything that puts even a slight dent in the global media power of the arrogant tool Rupert Murdoch can only be a good thing. Something has to be done.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

fully agree

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

I'm not holding my breath..As I've said before I'll believe it when it happens. ;)

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

The promising thing is if ofcom are actually taking the line of comply now, appeal later, rather than letting it drag out for years through the courts.

With a verdict at the end of march, and them forcing Sky to comply immediately, the consumer could actually see movement on this before the end of Q2. It just sounds far too good to be true.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Sky has a very powerful tool, its like when the football comes up for renewal, Sky has the firepower to knock all the other competition out of the water.

I have said all along, no one has the bottle to take Sky on, and even Ofcom won't beat them, What l would like to see is another broadcastor come in and offer the same service as Sky at a cheaper rate, and see what happens.

I always thought that when Sir Richard came into the business, l thought, here is a man with enough gun power and money to take on Sky, and what has happened nothing. We need someone too take on Sky - BUT who.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

ESPN have come on to the market in the UK and have the power and also the money to take on SKY (bankrolled by DISNEY) . Also in the movie stakes there are new movies starting up such as EPIXHD as the work with cable companies as if you take bb and tv you can stream on the net and also get the channel on tv where you are able to watch movies the same as VOD but for a monthly subscription !

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

How does this help Sky's customers?

If Sky have to charge VM / BT less than they charge their customers by x%, retail minus, then dropping the prices to their own customers simply means they have to drop the prices to Virgin and BT as well. They aren't going to drop their own customers' prices so that they can charge VM and BT less as well.

---------- Post added at 23:02 ---------- Previous post was at 23:01 ----------

This would not produce any kind of price reduction for Sky customers Arthur. Have another read of it all.

---------- Post added at 23:04 ---------- Previous post was at 23:02 ----------

It's about eye balls on screens and the channels they are watching. There are more channels to watch than before and Sky's content is getting less viewers than before.

Yes Sky continue to gain subscribers however their share of the DTV market continues to drop due to Freeview and Freesat primarily.

---------- Post added at 23:06 ---------- Previous post was at 23:04 ----------

Content is available, just as Sky's content is available, however the price for carriage of the channels is individually negotiated between content provider and broadcaster.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

I wouldn't hold your breath. If "Dave Camera-on" gets in, he'll give Murdoch what he wants anyway.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Ignoring the rest of it I recommend you yourself take a look at America. Local areas don't usually have their own providers who can compete with the big players, no idea where you've gotten that from. Usually the municipal / Ma and Pa cable companies have a more limited subset of channels and aren't competing with the Comcast, Cox, Time Warner and Charters. They tend to have ancient networks descended from old MATV networks from times long passed.

They don't get the content randomly, they negotiate with the content providers just as broadcasters here do. There have been cases recently of operator and content provider having disagreements over carriage charges.

Time Warner Cable have, in the last year and a bit, had disagreements over carriage charges with Viacom and Fox.

http://157.166.226.108/2010/01/01/ne...erry/index.htm
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/106212
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/99971

Cablevision in that same article dropped some channels due to not being able to agree carriage terms with a content supplier.

Hell Time Warner went as far as opening up a campaign website to complain about the TV networks. I have no idea where you have the idea that the US is some kind of free content panacea but you are very, very much mistaken. If we took the US approach it would be for regulators to keep their noses out.

---------- Post added at 23:22 ---------- Previous post was at 23:17 ----------

It would appear that a lot of the support for this is based on Ofcom sticking it to 'the man', ignoring of course that Sky customers will likely end up paying more or service quality for everyone will go down, and that Sky while 39% owned by News Corp is not a News Corp company.

Sky give a good product at a reasonable price (IMHO), Virgin for all their complaints manage to compete with Sky on price and have better gross profit margin. Who's getting stitched up here exactly?

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

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".

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Be interesting to see if Ofcom can just push this through. Regardless of what powers Ofcom think they have I believe they can't simply force a change through if BSkyB can obtain an injunction. Worst case BSkyB can tell them to go to hell and Ofcom will have to begin infringement proceedings, Ofcom cannot lower BSkyB's prices for them, they can threaten them with a stick if they don't but it would be a very, very messy battle. IANAL though!

EDIT: Incidentally all this stuff about BSkyB charging VM more for the channels than their own customers pay isn't true, at least for the bundle. For individual packages beyond this a comparison is 'tricky' as I suspect Sky take a hit on SS1 as they know so few customers take it on its' own.

According to The Guardian VM pay 23.40 for the Sports and Movies bundle, Sky charge their customers 25.50. Further, the costs to VM of carriage of these channels specifically over and above the rest of their selection is marginal. Perhaps they are trying to justify their upselling price strategy on TV?

Again the timing of it all seems odd until one notes an election coming up, the Guardian got it spot on. This is Ofcom waving its' willy before it gets chopped off.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Of course your opinion outweights the intensive investigation done by Ofcom on what is a reasonable price that should be paid while still allowing Sky to make a profit?

Not sure how you reckon that sky customers will pay more. If OFCOM implement these changes that to remain competitive Sky will have to drop the price they charge their subscribers to a similar level. And again research has been done to show that the lower prices will be cancelled out to a great extent by an increase in subscribers so as to not really affect the profits of the broadcast section of sky.

Personally I don't care if Sky was owned by Murdock or Peppa Pig its the way that they have behaved in trying to use their broadcast channels to drive people to their delivery platform that gets my goat. For example all sky people on air appear to be under instruction to assume that the only people watching are watching via skys satellite channels. Its like having a weather forecast for the UK and not mentioning scotland as if did not exist.

---------- Post added at 09:11 ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 ----------

I think there is a difference between getting an injunction compared to appealing OFCOMs decision in court. As I understand it to get an injunction they would have to try and prove that ofcom acted illegally. If all they can do is attempt to go to court to try to prove that ofcoms reasoning is faulty then that would happen, as stated in the article, after ofcom had forces the price down. One assumes that ofcoms lawyers would be making sure that if they do go through with this that its 100% legal.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

I wasn't refering to "ma and pa cable companies" but ones with limited geographical range that still compete with the likes of direcTV and dish who have complete coverage, and the cables companies that have a wider coverage, such as comcast and time warner. Cablevision for instance operates in only a couple of states, and yet has huge penetration in those states., it's not what I'd call a big player. But if you're looking for smaller than that, you can see Advanced cable communications or northland cable, both are small providers existing in limited areas that still compete competitively with the big players.

This is exactly my point? They make the same carriage deals that are made in this country for pretty much every other channel than the Sky ones. There's no need for a channel to be part of a platform for it to make content.

Sky just holds their own channels to ransom with inflated prices because it can carry them itself and sees no need for them to be on other platforms (a stance that was shaken with the sky basics debacle)

If a platform decides that it's not viable to carry a channel at the asking price then that should be it's choice, it should however have the same access to it as any other platform and be able to make that choice, not have the content provider sit there and go "we don't want you to have it".

I know the US situation isn't perfect (for instance direcTV still has exclusive rights to many channels like the NFL Sunday Ticket) but it's a lot better than it is here where the market leading platform is also the market leading content supplier and so has the rest of the industry over a barrel.

Vertical integration is extremely bad for the consumer, it limits choice and changes the focus of content providers from eyes on screen to subscribers to the platform. There's a fundamental conflict of interest where a content provider should be more interested in eyes on the screen than which platform they're coming from, but when platform and content provider are the same there's a vested interest in limiting those eyes to your own platform.

This is why the tv networks in the states were heavily regulated from the start, it just wouldn't be possible for one of the major players like direcTV to exert any sort of control over ABC, CBS, NBC or FOX, which is essentially the situation that exists here. When news corp bought in to direcTV one of the core requirements of the deal was that they couldn't pull the channels from other platforms, and all platforms had to be treated equally. It could even be said that the tight regulation was what caused news corp to then sell on it's stake in direcTV because they couldn't leverage it in the same way that they've been able to with bskyb over here.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

The thing with the News Corp thing and Time Warner recently that really got me was, unlike here, there are many cable and satellite companies and you would think that if a broadcaster had the balls to demand a $1 increase per subscriber all the cable co and satellite companies would get together and tell said company to go take a hike and see how long they would survive without channels on air.

Having only two major players here is hindering the competition, having one of those players holding all the cards is stifling competition and hitting consumers in the pocket. Pay TV would be far cheaper if Cable and Satellite were just deliver systems and neither company owned their own stations and if they did want that then there should be strict regulation about withholding content and offering it at a fair price.

Our regulator has been quite for far too long and is probably acting far to late.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Cablevision is the MSO in the areas where it operates, there is virtually zero overlap between it and any other operator.

It's also, amusingly, involved in content issues.

Also, again, only access is regulated, content has to be offered to all platforms, the pricing is not regulated.

Then let Sky suffer due to their own shaky stance.

Sky have offered to do similar to Setanta / ESPN on other platforms and offer Sky Sports, etc using the VM network themselves. VM refused, an odd move given how loss making it alledgedly is however as we know VM are very protective of their network assets.

Actually content providers influence carriers there just as here. Note again the Time Warner Cable - Viacom spat.

Separating Sky's production and broadcast isn't necessarily a bad idea but would have to be handled very, very carefully.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Since we have whines about sky being allowed to use bt lines to deliver broadband and sky should share the pie surely in the same spirit cable should do the same with its network ?

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Seeing as the Cable infrastructure is a patchwork quilt of lots of different legacy technologies and which VM are spending huge amounts on to harmonise, I wouldn't be surprised if it was opened up in future to allow faster channel launches. However in its current state that simply isn't possible. Sky selling directly to VM customers wouldn't be any cheaper for us anyway and we would still be treated by contempt by sky without HD and red button.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

It's not really the same thing is it. Sky tv can get along quite nicely without using the cable infrastructure. They couldn't have got anywhere in the internet business without using the BT network. What this is all about is competition and what is best for the tv customer. Not just taking the side of one company like you would support a side in a football match. People seem to forget that we should be looking after our interest as customers first and that can only be achieved though fair competition.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

I think it's long over due but also needs to be done on a ownership basis, along with the news papers- No one person or family should be able to exert that much control.

Don't hold your breath though as it's looking like Lapdog Cameron's already been put on a leash.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

They didn't, it was a PR stunt to justify their annual / bi-annual price rises. :(

---------- Post added at 10:20 ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 ----------

Well it's more that VM's interactive platform is closed the lack of red button however I can very much imagine HD being available if VM were to make the bandwidth available.

As far as harmonising technologies goes most of this harmonisation is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Whether Sky are billing for it and Virgin billing Sky for access or Virgin are billing for it directly to the customer it's still broadcast in the same way.

There's nothing technical stopping VM from opening up their network to Sky to sell the channels themselves - at least some of the soft core porn channels are already sold in this way I believe? I could be wrong of course but that's how I think it goes. Either way no reason why Virgin couldn't do it technically, how the signal is being transmitted isn't really relevant it's all back-end stuff.

---------- Post added at 10:22 ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 ----------

If it were to be done to Sky there would immediately be a strong case for doing it to Virgin Media as well.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

The BBC manage to offer red button services so I don't see a technical reason why they can't? And forgetting the technial side of delivery would Sky selling direct to cable viewers be good for us? No ofcourse not look at how VM negotiated a good deal on ESPN and brought the Asia world pack down to just £10. If Sky sold direct we would never get a good price.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Which, given they have already investigated selling off their TV channels would not be something they would be particularly scared of I would guess.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Sadly we'll never know. Virgin's penchant for bunding channels is both a good and a bad thing. ESPN may cost less but it costs less because everyone on XL is paying for it whether they use it or not.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Ofcom is preparing to force Sky to cut the price of its premium sports content to benefit consumers and rival operators, but the move will prove controversial.


http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitalt...price-cut.html

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Yes absolutely.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

It's all meaningless.... Sky will appeal which means nothing will be resolved until after the general election. This means, if and when the Tories get in, Sky will not be forced into anything as Ofcoms power will be diminished if it's not dissolved totally.

"John Whittingdale MP, the Conservative chairman of the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, told The Sunday Telegraph: "Many sporting bodies are concerned that if Sky are forced to cut the price they can charge for Sky Sports it will reduce the amount they will pay for rights and reduce the money paid to clubs.""

So don't expect a cut in Skys price, HD or interactive this side of ever.

I hope i'm wrong.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Intresting read.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...edia-ofcom-sky

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Typical Tories, say one thing one day and another the next:-

Good read though Gadge... sounds a bit more optimistic... my glass ifs always half empty lol...

"The Conservatives, however, do not appear interested in reversing any decision by Ofcom concerning Sky. Shadow culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, told the BBC's Newsnight on 26 November: "On pay-TV … and Ofcom, we explicitly said that is something that should be decided at arm's length from politicians".

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Sky won't be forced to do anything, they will go to the courts over this, they will feel that they are entitled to charge what they want.

In the end it comes down to one thing - the customer. I think in all seriousness, that the customer demands the best of everything for what they pay, if VM for example wanted to offer the Sky sports package at say a fiver a month, then surely they will lose money, if they pay Sky prices, and when it come to clubs losing money, l can't see how, the only thing l would like to see, where Sky are forced to cover games below the championship, where money is needed.

Ie when the last time you watched game from the Blue Square or watched Crewe play, its these games and players that provide the 'meat' for the big clubs.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

As I said above for Sky to go to court and stop the cut they would have to claim that ofcom where breaking the law. If they are only able to sue by claiming that ofcoms judgement is wrong then that would not stop the price cut. See the part of the guardian article...

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.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

in which case could you imagine the outcry when/if Sky won the legal battle and then put up their prices again LOL

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

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.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

No one wants to watch Blue Square games, as proved when they've actually been shown. Setanta's viewing figures for the BSP were abysmal.

The system as it is now works quite well, the tickle down effect has kept clubs going for years. The only problem with it now is more and more clubs buying foreign talent rather than looking at the lower divisions, that's not an issue for sky, it's one for the football leagues.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

One man's investment is another man's purchased monopoly.

As to sport being stuck in 70's and 80's if we still only had 3/4 channels that we had then that football and sport on TV would be a very different beast to what it is now. The main driver for how TV sport has developed in this country is not down to sky but to the worldwide development of multichannel technology that has allowed the opening of channels dedicated totally to sport, something that would have been unthinkable in the 70's and 80's.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Very well put i agree entirely.

Also a fact i had not realised is sky sports collection is more expensive at the moment then sky subs pay!

Just been on skys website and it states if you work the pricing out sky sports collection is £18 extra with any mix of channels from 1-6.

On cable i currently pay £20.50 but the price on cable is anywhere between £20.50-£26 for sky sports collection depending on tv package.

And no red button interactive on cable,which sky now regularly put content on,therefore at the moment we get an inferior service at a higher price,how can this be justified i would like to know.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

It all depends how you look at it (all costs are on top of appropriate line rental):

Typical minimum cost to get Sky TV and Sports is £36 (1 pack + Sky Sports)
Tpyical maximum cost to get Sky TV and Sports is £41 (6 pack + Sky Sports)

Typical minimum cost to get Virgin TV and Sports is £29.50 (M+ and Sky Sports)
Typical maximum cost to get Virgin TV and Sports is £42 (XL tv + Sky Sports)

with TV L and Sky Sports working out to be £34, you have to go to 6 mixes and Sports for Sky to be cheaper - by £1

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Well maybe if there was a Virgin Sports then Virgin could charge extra to Sky but if it was the same qulaity as Virgin one i wouldn't expect many to take it up. There was nothing stopping Virgin from starting up their own sports channel and bidding like everyone else, everyone had a chance to get the events not just Sky

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

On the other hand BT were publically owned and given a natural monopoly at the time of privatisation, Sky have never been publically owned. The reason for BT's regulation is, and has always been, that they were at one time a publically owned company and were provided significant market power as their infrastructure was extremely difficult to replicate.

VM / BT have access to Sky's content, they don't want to pay the rate Sky wants for it though. The two aren't really comparable, Virgin are already delivering Sky's services down their cables as part of their package.

If Ofcom are really so into choice then I await the announcement of the following:

1) Mandatory duct sharing - VM and BT required to rent ducting space for other operators to deploy true fibre optic to homes and businesses at regulated rates.
2) Regulated wholesale access to the VM network.
3) Engagement of the government with a view to removing business rates on fibre optic cabling.
4) Ceasing inserting stupid phrases into code powers (ability to dig) such as requiring a small fibre optic company that's deploying access for a small underserved community to lay extra ducts for the national grid.

After all, I am sure those customers who are unable to get high speeds over DSL but don't want to deal with Virgin Media would appreciate a choice of ISPs over Virgin's HFC network and the prices Virgin previously charged AOL for wholesale access were incredibly expensive and disproportionate to their own costs in running the service as well as their own retail pricing.

The other measures remove barriers to companies to invest and in turn offer us choice too.

Ofcom parading themselves as being 'pro consumer' is laughable. They are pro whatever New Labour tell them to be pro, in this instance they saw Rupert turning from them so thought they'd inconvenience him. If they were actually serious they'd have done so much more than simply demanding that BT sell access to their network cheaply.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Thanks Ben yes you are correct in what you say there the £29.50 package is on vms website, pity virgins pricing was not as clear as skys is on their website. :)

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Sorry but your reasoning is the only thing here that is laughable.

The whole process of ofcom investigating the PAY TV market and their initial decision that the cost of the sports packages should come down happened way before the Sun started moving to support the tories but now you are saying that the decision that ofcom reached last year was somehow pushed backwards in time by a bitter labour party??

From where I, and I think many other people sit, the decision to regulate pay TV is the correct and logical thing to do and not some political point scoring.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

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.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

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

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

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.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Have no sympathy for people who pay their employees £100,000's a week....

It might actually bring some common sense in the amount proffesional footballers are paid.

But thats another matter i guess...

---------- Post added at 16:17 ---------- Previous post was at 16:16 ----------

Indeed, an artificially inflated offer is no offer at all.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

When l was in Florida, a couple of years ago, and l was talking to a few people in the queue, l was actually telling them what we pay for Satellite and Cable, and they could not believe the price - it was far to high.

In USA, they get more channels then anything, and they don't pay half as much as we do.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Erm, Arthur - when you say "we", I think you mean "you".;)

I don't pay £130 a month for Sky and VM, and I don't know anyone who does.....

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

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.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

I woudnt say snooker the only thing on sky sports is the prem snooker league everything else is on the bbc and eurosport but i do expect that too change now that barry hearn is involved.

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

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!).

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

Well said PEDG :clap:

Re: OFCOM ready to rule?
 

All I'll be happy with is just a fair price on the channels.

HD would be a bonus, but we've managed without it for a while now so it's best to have patience and Virgin will soon make deals :)