Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J
I wouldn't care about any of this if it wasn't for the fact of how much undue influence this one family has in the politics of the UK.It's undemocratic.No commercial organisation should have this much power to decide who gets into power and runs the country.That should be left to us the taxpayers and voters.I don't give a turd how much money the Murdochs make, I resent the fact that they can decide my future by whom they support in their bum wiping rags.  |
And regulating Sky's wholesale prices will do exactly nothing to change this I'm afraid.
---------- Post added at 17:36 ---------- Previous post was at 17:31 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahardie
Yes. That is basically what it is all about.
<snip>
|
Yes well that should hold up in court no problem.
Quote:
|
As for all the other 'poor old sky' stuff in your post, well whatever happens Sky will be laughing all the way to the bank. What I want to see is the consumers interest protected. Lets say for instance that I want Movie channels in HD (which I dont). Why should I be restricted to only one supplier? There is no way VM or BT could set up their own channels because Sky (and some credit to them here) have the market totally sewn up. Why should the richest company be able to buy up most of the sport and then tell me I can only watch it if I sign up to their sports channels. You can argue that is unfair on Sky but I dont have shares in Sky, it is the consumers interest I want protected. Left alone there would soon be only one company, which is bad enough for the tv consumer but that monopoly owned by Murdoch would be a disaster politically for this country.
|
Again the premium channels have no relevance to politics. If other platforms wish to either bid for rights or purchase the channels from Sky they are more than welcome to. BT can hardly plead poverty can they? Sky aren't the richest company and if they pay for the content they take the risk that they can make money from it, why shouldn't they receive some kind of reward. The remedy Ofcom are seeking will likely be challenged in the courts for the potential for material financial harm to Sky for heaven's sake. If it were a reasonable resolution Sky wouldn't even be able to appeal it.
The present situation has been the status quo for many years, I don't see there being only one company, indeed there are more options for television than ever before and more carriers carrying premium content.
I am not saying that something doesn't need to be done, but what Ofcom suggest certainly is
not that something, it's just a perpetuation of the Labour obsession with controlling everything. The remedy should fit the market, reward investment and promote innovation in that market in order to improve the services available not try to reshape the market to how the regulator think it should be. The remedy being promoted offers no incentive to Sky to focus on efficiency or quality but instead to try and reduce production costs, reduce quality, reduce investment to try and improve the sums for this ridiculous retail-minus calculation Ofcom want to impose.