Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadbandings
It would appear that a lot of the support for this is based on Ofcom sticking it to 'the man', ignoring of course that Sky customers will likely end up paying more or service quality for everyone will go down, and that Sky while 39% owned by News Corp is not a News Corp company.
Sky give a good product at a reasonable price (IMHO), Virgin for all their complaints manage to compete with Sky on price and have better gross profit margin. Who's getting stitched up here exactly?
|
Of course your opinion outweights the intensive investigation done by Ofcom on what is a reasonable price that should be paid while still allowing Sky to make a profit?
Not sure how you reckon that sky customers will pay more. If OFCOM implement these changes that to remain competitive Sky will have to drop the price they charge their subscribers to a similar level. And again research has been done to show that the lower prices will be cancelled out to a great extent by an increase in subscribers so as to not really affect the profits of the broadcast section of sky.
Personally I don't care if Sky was owned by Murdock or Peppa Pig its the way that they have behaved in trying to use their broadcast channels to drive people to their delivery platform that gets my goat. For example all sky people on air appear to be under instruction to assume that the only people watching are watching via skys satellite channels. Its like having a weather forecast for the UK and not mentioning scotland as if did not exist.
---------- Post added at 09:11 ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadbandings
Be interesting to see if Ofcom can just push this through. Regardless of what powers Ofcom think they have I believe they can't simply force a change through if BSkyB can obtain an injunction. Worst case BSkyB can tell them to go to hell and Ofcom will have to begin infringement proceedings, Ofcom cannot lower BSkyB's prices for them, they can threaten them with a stick if they don't but it would be a very, very messy battle. IANAL though!
|
I think there is a difference between getting an injunction compared to appealing OFCOMs decision in court. As I understand it to get an injunction they would have to try and prove that ofcom acted illegally. If all they can do is attempt to go to court to try to prove that ofcoms reasoning is faulty then that would happen, as stated in the article, after ofcom had forces the price down. One assumes that ofcoms lawyers would be making sure that if they do go through with this that its 100% legal.