Quote:
Originally Posted by altis
First, Virgin is out-manouvered by Sky over its proposed takeover of ITV and now some of the Sky channels are no longer carried on cable. Methinks that's two:nil to Murdoch - so far!
As an engineer I just see that cable and satellite are two competing but complementary methods of delivery. In some instances cable is more appropriate (eg. in towns) whilst in others (eg. in the countryside) satellite would be better. There is no logical reason why one system should carry a different selection of channels to the other.
To my eye, the problem is that Sky is both a content provider and a channel deliverer whilst Virgin Media is just a deliverer. Provided matters stay like this, Sky will always be able to skew the market for their own benefit.
I believe that Ofcom should step in and force Sky to split into two companies - one providing the content whilst the other is responsible for the transport of channels by satellite. That way, all transport systems would be on a level footing and the customer could simply choose the one most apropriate.
|
I agree, something needs to be done be the regulator(s). But as Nemesis mentioned if content provider & distrubitors are to be split, the same would apply to Virgin Media, as Virgin Media Television (which is the content provider/production arm of Virgin Media) owns LIVING, LIVING 2, Bravo, Bravo 2, Trouble, Challenge, Sit Up TV (providers of Price Drop TV & Bid TV) as well as 50% of UKTV.