Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadbandings
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?
|
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 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadbandings
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.
|
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.