Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic
to make more money from ad revenues and subs? Exclusive channels don't benefit the consumer.
|
But as a platform provider only, what is Sky's incentive to actually pay HBO for exclusivity and then make one channel that is then the home of HBO? As a platform provider only, Sky would have to put their hands in their pockets and make the investment only for other platforms to get the benefits without taking any of the risk. This is obviously something Virgin aren't willing to do.
And in the end Sky Atlantic will almost certainly be on Virgin anyway. So VM consumers will be better off (although IMHO Sky Atlantic will just end up being a load of hot air anyway - but it seems that I am the minority and most people are interested in this channel). It is just initially Sky will go through the motions of making a huge deal about this channel making people think it is something it is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahardie
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.
|
The only problem with the argument of regulation is that VM have gone ahead and sold Sky channels in an open market situation. It is actually VM's stance for the market to be this way. It is unfair for regulation on behalf of other platforms when VM are actually selling Sky channels at the same time.