Quote:
Originally Posted by richard1960
Hi yes thats fair enough i can see where you are coming from and i would agree that no one supplier could provide VOD services to every houshold.
The only tnhing i would add as a consumer is this, if i watched a lot of VOD films for instance and ofcom balanced the system for example, with lovefilm it is rumoured vm might tie up for a TiVo VOD streaming deal via a sub,if one dominent supplier is hoovering up a lot of exclusive VOD rights it gives me as a consumer less ways in which to view content and is therefore restrctive in itself plus it could help to keep prices artificaially high,ofcom is charged with looking after the consumer wether it does properly is down to peoples point of view,i do notice however you seem to dislike ofcom.
|
I don't dislike Ofcom as such but sometimes they do a good job and other times they just try to interfere to make work for themselves.
In the case of VOD it begs the question why they have been reactive rather than proactive? They have just been an example of an organisation who sat around doing nothing about VOD rights for movies until they realised 'hey this could actually take off, time to get on Sky's back again'.
The issue of competition is complex. On a pay tv level it is not so complex because we look at Sky subs vs VM subs and VM are actually a major player. But then scratch beneath the surface and Sky premium appears. On the one hand Sky have a lot of premium content but on the other hand who else can actually pay for it? In this case surely its better for Sky to run Sky Movies and Sports because the consumer can pay for the one sub for each and is probably better off than having to pay premium subs to a number of channels who can only afford a small chunk of movies and sports. But then the argument becomes that even if it is cheaper for the consumer under how Sky currently work it actually reduces choice as we can't 'pick and mix' which part of the premium service we want. And then this argument is now carrying on to a level below linear which is VOD. The question really comes down to is it wrong for Sky to actually tie up linear and VOD rights (and IMO they do provide the service too for VOD)? Some would say it is the natural progression from linear to VOD and others hold your view.
Your point about Lovefilm is exactly what it comes down to in the long run. The question is whether Sky can develop a VOD service that is standalone or will they just hide their VOD among their linear programming. But they will need to make money from it somehow so someone will have to pay for it.