Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone
Oh dear the defender of the faith strikes again part 505   because as we all know Sky have a considerable amount of finances at its disposal and as such is able to wield that power in making exclusive deals with certain companies and thus this is not at the benefit of most customers but its own monopolistic position in the market and thus it abuses and distorts for its own ends again and again and again. |
I have to say that Sky are not doing much wrong in this case. They have spent their money on (imo overrated) exclusive SA content, and are also helping themselves, along with ITV to improve ratings by enticing customers with this latest deal. Like VM, (or anyone else) they want customers to join them or stay with them. Why should Sky pump money into a channel(s) just to offer it to VM (or anyone else) who have not paid a penny for the start-up costs? It could be argued that selling it VM (or anyone else) will re-coup some costs, but if Sky can afford to take the hit, why not please their loyal customers and try and gain more custom?
If VM complete an exclusive deal with an American company and C4 or C5, would that be equally as wrong?
I do disagree with the way Sky operate overall though. The costs of SS and movies for VM customers are ridiculous. I know the same argument about expenditure can be used, but Sky are clearly ripping non-Sky subscribers off. Whilst people are daft enough to keep paying Sky for them though, Sky will keep charging it.
---------- Post added at 19:19 ---------- Previous post was at 19:17 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone
Its not about aligning behind any one supplier but just stating the cold hard facts of how Sky continually use nefarious tactics in the market and if some people can't see that they obviously have very large rose tinted glasses on.  |
No rose tinted glasses here Den, I disliked my time with Sky.