[Dave42]

Originally Posted by batchain

Seems to me Sky has a history of overcharging and accusing others of wanting content on the cheap. There is no evidence to support the claim that Virgin has ever tried to do this, but penty to support Sky abusing their monopolistic control.

In January 2007, despite a 15% increase in the viewing share of Virgin Media TV's channels over the previous three years in Sky homes, Sky forced Virgin Media to accept an 85 per cent reduction in the price it paid for the channels.

Over the same period the viewing share of Sky's basic channels had fallen by about 20 percent in Virgin Media homes. Despite this, Sky demanded that Virgin Media pay nearly double the existing arrangement for retailing the channels, an annual price per subscriber some 1,700% higher than it paid for the Virgin Media TV channels.

Sky claimed Virgin and BT wanted Sky Sports on the cheap. Ofcom disagreed and decided that Sky was abusing its power by overcharging Virgin and refusing to wholesale its sports channels to other pay-TV platforms.

Sky claimed rivals wanted Sky movies on the cheap. The Competition Commission disagreed and has said that Sky has been making ‘excess profits’ on its Sky Movies channels, that Sky charges other pay TV competitors like Virgin Media too much for these movies and that Sky is withholding rights meaning there is less innovation and choice.

Sky claims that Virgin wants Sky Atlantic on the cheap, while Virgin claims the terms offered are commercially unviable. Given Sky's past history of abuse and the fact that no cable company in the UK or Ireland has been able to secure carriage, I'm inclined to side with Virgin Media on this one.

well said