Quote:
Originally Posted by zantarous
On the one hand I want Sky HD and red button on VM but on the other hand I can see Sky's point as well, they took all the risk and made the investment which paid of and now they may be forced to supply content cheaper to their rivals? Are there any other industries where a similar thing happens? BT comes to mind with unbundling their exchanges but that was built with tax payer money.
The cable companies were happy to sit back and do nothing about investing in their future, although that was probably due to being crippled by the cost of laying cables. It is about time there was a fair playing field, but a lack of vision,the stupid idea of cable franchise has hindered the industry far more then Sky. .
|
True, but there are no cable franchises now, albeit a few other tiny cable cos, so that's now a past issue. The playing field is more level now, because VM is a big company and the only one with a quality two-way network just as everything is going on the internet, even tv.
Although I agree in part with the "Sky have invested heavily why should they share argument", you need to look at how Sky got to that position.
No idea how long you have been following media issues, I've been following Sky and the cable cos from the beginning. But just like Microsoft, Sky has used ruthless tactics to get where it is. It's by no means whiter than white. Look up the Sky/Travel Channel spat from around 15 years as but one early example.
There's a reason why today, Sky owns 50% of many of the main channels that are carried on its satellite platform...
What will happen if Sky are forced to sell premium content at wholesale prices to competitors, is obvious. They'll pay less for it in the future.
Sky currently pays well over the odds for the premiership football rights and Hollywood films. That will stop, it will pay less. VM/BT et all will pick up some future film/sports rights and instead of paying one price for all sports and film channels as supplied by Sky. We'll have to pay for multiple channels to see all the sports/films in the future. It's competition and it's good for everyone, isn't it??.....erm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felim_Doyle
I know we've been through this discussion with contracts for channels and their time-shift and High Definition variants but surely, if VM are ready to introduce ground-breaking advances in their delivery mechanism, they would already be in negotiations with their EPG supplier or with a new supplier for the new platform.
|
Well, VM already announced they're buying a load of Cisco hardware, but this is for the networks, rather than stbs or software. Of course VM will need to have agreements in place before/if they switch EPG suppliers. But they've still got 18 months to sort that out, then it all needs to be tested. So I think my post the other day about we wont see IPTV/next gen tv on VM for another 3 years is realistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felim_Doyle
Cool!  Let's go to bed and watch the rest of the movie upstairs!. |
Actually, the V+ is capable of multi-room functionality if it had the right software. So you could've paused the video downstairs then carried on watching it in the bedroom. Sadly, this was not implemented by VM.
Have a look at the American cable cos web sites, some of them have been doing this for a few years now.
---------- Post added at 20:41 ---------- Previous post was at 20:18 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDon
As for other industries where a similar thing happens, every single utility, and for the mother of all "monopolies" go look at microsoft. There really is an example of a company that drove innovation and then got royally screwed over because they happened to be successful. .
|
And of course Microsoft/Gates never did anything to hurt their competitors, all of whom are all still in business today....Of course Microsoft, just like Sky, are whiter than whiter, pure as the driven snow - albeit with a "few" splashes of red in there too.
