Quote:
Originally Posted by andy_m
I'm happy that I have a choice between various providers offering different services, and I'm happy with the choice I've made.
In general I'm also happy for businesses to decide how best to monetise their own products.
That's my position.
|
Why should you have to choose between the services when by selecting either major platform you lose out on exclusive programming that you want to see and can only access by choosing both (and paying more for the pleasure)?
It does not make sense and the fact that this can happen quite legally at present doesn't mean the Government can't do anything about changing it. The current position is quite nonsensical and I don't understand why some are defending the status quo.
I hope that we will look back on all this in ten years time and chuckle about how antiquated and absurd the system was in 2014.
---------- Post added at 12:50 ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy_m
That would eventually force the less successful provider out of the business, leaving just one to charge what it wants, and we'd be back where we started. The current system isn't perfect, but it does allow the consumer choice between a more expensive package with more coverage or a cheaper option with fewer games. That's also a model which allows provider's outlay to be proportionate to its related revenues, something which couldn't be guaranteed if a provider with a smaller number of subscribers was offering effectively the same package as a provider with over ten million.
I have a feeling that the investigation will, rightly, conclude that there is no significant reason to change the status quo, and that that decision will be met with predictable outrage.
|
Sadly, I have to agree with your conclusion, although I don't believe that anyone will be forced out of business by rectifying the position. It all sounds very fatalistic. Maybe one day we'll see an OFCOM with guts, acting on behalf of the consumer.