Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
I am in two minds about this.
1 - sky have invested heavily in sports and it is what is their driving force, if they are forced to reduce prices then I expect there will be a significant loss of quality, eg. sky may make cut backs on its sky broadband as their profits get slashed.
2 - on the other hand the main reason sky charge so much is because everytime they renew their deal they pay more for it even when they have next to no competition, its as if they deliberatly want footballers overpaid.
personally they have priced me out so I will gain from this. but I expect sky customers will feel the brunt when this happens as they will cut operational costs all over the place.
---------- Post added at 10:38 ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 ----------
I remember watching some games on sky 1 and sky sports news when cable had lost those channels  |
My take on it is they charging VM MORE than what SKY users get as there charging VM a significant costs. Therefore using SKY platform as selling point if you want sport its cheaper here on ours.
Its no matter if they produce the content or pay for it they using other platforms as cash cow to support paying for it. On top they providing whether thats down to system or deliberate withhold inferior provisions.
I am disapointed OFCOM weakness to hit them harder and should linked Picnic as a if you accept findings you get picnic dont you get nothing.
This would held them to ransom to accept findings.
The movies is strange one its high subscribed but rubbish viewing and they attempted to rehash it several times. This must be costing them money I think this why OFCOM reluctant to do anything.
OFCOM could gone alot further and refer it to monopolies why content gets withhold shifting content sneakily so rivals cant watch it.
However I also feel VM shoots themselves in the foot they moan about SKY atitude withhelding content but look to consider selling there own channels to company who hell bent killing them.