View Single Post
Old 10-02-2011, 11:50   #23
Ignitionnet
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire
Age: 47
Posts: 13,995
Ignitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny stars
Ignitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny stars
Re: sky movies (excess profits)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big-Ted View Post
<Snip>
A major problem with your entire post, just like VM you want it both ways. You want to be able to claim private money built private networks so shouldn't be opened up then you want to scream monopoly.

You want to highlight how Sky monopolise content and raise the barriers to entry while ignoring how high the barriers are to entry should anyone decide they want to compete on similar terms to Virgin Media - they are far higher.

You comment on BT building their new network and it being subject to the same restrictions as their publicly built network but don't actually say why beyond mentioning the public funding they are receiving in Cornwall. Outside of Cornwall and other areas where some public subsidy is being provided where's the case to force open access?

Ebbsfleet and all other BT new builds are required to be open access yet BT are the only company that would have this restriction applied, VM could be the sole provider of TV / telco / broadband services and don't have to open up their network.

Where people are barred from putting up dishes people have a choice of VM or BT Vision, yet it's perfectly fine for VM to keep their network closed even in this case. Why?

You can't have it both ways. Either regulation is fair and applies to everyone evenly or it's arbitrary. The constant ignorance of those cases where VM hold over 51% of the retail and wholesale (to themselves) markets while coming down hard on Sky and BT are arbitrary - there is a perfectly reasonable case to regulate both, even Europe are pursuing it, yet the regulator here constantly turns a blind eye despite being ahead of the rest of Europe with regulation of BT and Sky.

The other odd comment focuses on how regulating Sky Movies is good for the consumer, so should be pursued. Surely mandating access to Virgin Media's network, allowing others to offer differentiating products or reducing the barrier to a third party deploying FTTH/B, is also a good thing for the consumer?

It's really quite perverse how many people are pro-consumer when it comes to Sky and BT but get defensive when it comes to Virgin Media. Let's get those ducts opened up and see who comes to put some glass to our homes - think of what an effect on our market a real fibre optic network will have.
Ignitionnet is offline   Reply With Quote