Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Broadbandings
Like Northern Ireland and Eire, both of whom have full Sky services available?
|
Sky has very little interest in competing for Ireland's sports rights, hence how Setanta was able to first start in Ireland.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Broadbandings
Breaking up companies in the manner you describe would be an amazingly bad idea that would lead to no-one investing in content due to the uncertainty of where they would find their return, it would also make things amazingly confusing to subscribe to.
|
Go take a look at America for an example of how much of a bad idea it is... oh wait their cable and satellite companies seem to have huge competition, with hundreds of channels (and hundreds of them in hd), and with local areas having their own providers which can still compete with the big players because of equal access to content.
Their channels don't seem to be doing too badly either! Amazing how they seem to be able to fund the likes of 24 and lost with no certainty of where they're going to find their return (except for ofc the same carriage contracts that every other non-sky and non-VM owned channel currently uses to gauge such a thing).
Obviously it's a terrible idea though and would never work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadbandings
How do Sky have a monopoly Maggy? They neither have all the Premiership football nor keep the content to themselves being required by law to sell it onwards. It's purely the pricing that's the sticky part.
|
Why is this all about premiership football? It's not, go take a look at the movie channels for the definition of a monopoly.
Also just because you're required to sell it onwards it doesn't mean you're not a monopoly, a monopoly is where there are many buyers, but only one seller, the only seller for premium movie channels is Sky.