Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic
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!  |
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 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by richard1960
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.
|
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
Quote:
|
Setanta Sports is still operating in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, USA, Canada, Australia and Africa.
|
---------- Post added at 12:41 ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDon
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.
|
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.