Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tristan
What's wrong with it is that Sky are using their monopoly in one area -- broadcasting of live sports -- to influence another sector, namely the supply of digital TV to the home.
It's the same as if Microsoft produced an all-singing, all-dancing version of Word for Windows, but charged the same for a Mac version which was just a basic text editor. They would be guilty of anticompetetive behaviour, namely using their dominance in the field of Office applications to try to force people into using Windows.
|
But is it simply that Sky
don't/won't offer it to the cable companies, or that the cable platform is not able/capable of delivering the full features of Sky Sports?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tristan
The solution is to split BSkyB into separate broadcast and delivery companies, and let market forces take their course. Then Sky Broadcast would charge both Sky Digital and NTL per subscriber per channel -- and result in Sky Digital customers paying more (or, alternatively, Sky Broadcast offering the extra streams on NTL so as to increase their revenue).
In fact, it doesn't even have to be done. Just the threat of it would be enough. It's the threat of being split up that keep Microsoft making version of Office for the Mac that are equal (and some might say superior) to the Windows versions.
|
But if the cable platform is not physically capable of carrying an identical version of Sky Sports (including full red button interactivity/player cam etc), then even threatening Sky would have no impact as they would just say that the cable platform cannot physically offer the features that Digital Satellite can?
