Quote:
Originally Posted by ahardie
Ignition I know you are an highly intelligent guy and I shouldn't need to explain about monopolies and why they are a bad thing. The fact is that if you want movie channels you have one choice, take it or leave it. If there were two companies providing them they (the companies) would have to compete on price. Sky dont have to do that. Saying that customers can just not pay the inflated prices means that they have to do without the product.
One thing you said as well that I must take issue with is where you say there is nothing to stop other companies buying the content. They can't. Sky have so much money compared to the others that nobody can compete. Sky would always outbid them and sky make sure they have exclusive rights.
|
Refusing to pay overinflated prices is how companies realise the market won't tolerate their pricing. Premium pay TV isn't essential, no-one is obligated to purchase it, clearly people tolerate Sky's charges as they do pay them.
The question of money is an interesting one. When it comes to the issue of VM's total integration within their closed cable network the answer to competition is 'build your own' which would cost a 11 figure sum. When it comes to paying less than £300 million to compete with Sky's content purchasing power no-one can compete.
Have a look at both VM and BT's balance sheets, pay special attention to the cash they are generating. They have both chosen not to invest in content and indeed VM have actively left the content space. Seems pretty ridiculous to choose not to invest in content then complain when a 3rd party buys it all and won't sell it to you for what you want to pay for it, however having a friendly regulator is always a bonus in those circumstances.
---------- Post added at 17:41 ---------- Previous post was at 17:37 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenJSmyth
But the point is, there isn't the choice for the customer and therefore we have to pay - whatever Sky decide to charge. That's what they are trying to stop - overcharging for a service only they can supply.
|
I wasn't aware we were required to purchase Sky's premium content. There are many products there is only one supplier for, there is nothing stopping other operators from purchasing these content packs they have just chosen to not do so.
---------- Post added at 17:43 ---------- Previous post was at 17:41 ----------
Regardless this regulation is fair enough, again I didn't say I was opposed to it, however I am completely opposed to regulation that isn't even handed, and again IMHO VM should be made to offer some concessions in return for access to BT's passive and active infrastructures and regulated access to increasing amounts of Sky's content.
I want to see VM's passive infrastructure opened up to 3rd parties just as BT's is. If VM are going to be getting Sky and BT's infrastructure and content time for it to go both ways.