Quote:
Originally Posted by LexDiamond
But if Sky is split it wouldn't really have the same incentive as it does now.
Why would Sky release Atlantic HD just for the sake of it as a platform provider if the release does not specifically strengthen Sky's own position? The argument to split is all good and well except that it would actually leave Sky customers worse off.
I really do find it strange that some people say Sky should be asked to split. So basically people would want a situation where Virgin make no investment in actual channels whereas Sky do but Virgin have all the benefits of that channel investment that Sky have made.
Sky hold a strong market position because they are the ones that put their hands in their pockets and made the risky decisions to invest. Virgin have washed their hands of any kind of such investment and taken a low risk strategy of being a platform provider only.
|
I don't actually think they should be split. I think there should be regulation to protect us customers. When Sky took the basic channels off cable they lost something like 60 million pounds a year in advertising. This on top of what they are making from their own customers. That shows how much incentive there should be to sell on their channels to other platforms. Why is it that they wont settle for that kind of money? Because they want to force customers of other platforms over to their platform. That is why we customers need protection. Monopolies are never a good thing and channels exclusive to one channel only harm the customer. I really don't know why any customer would defend this practice.