Quote:
Originally Posted by zantarous
If a single a boardcaster has all the rights there would be no incentive to make those games/channels available to rivals, costs would probably still go up and they would use their monopoly to dictate and run roughshot on smaller players in the market. In the long run multiple broadcasters in sport is very much a good thing. It makes companies innovate in making their product the best it can be, there is incentive to make sure their channels are on rival platforms.
The cost of football is what is driving up the game people seem prepared to pay ludicrous amounts to watch it, there has to come a time where the broadcasters think hang on a minute we can bid crazy sums for this but will people pay that price? I really can't understand the vast sums that get forked out for football.
|
I think we need to start thinking outside the box. Most of us on these forums want to see change but are not really looking at the full picture. Too many are shrugging their shoulders and saying 'that's the way it is' and are not prepared to think through how things could be made to change.
Your first point, Zantarous, is a case in point. If a single broadcaster had all the rights, the incentive to make the programmes available to competitors is to provide them with rights to broadcast at a price that allows a reasonable profit. However, I think regulation is required to prevent the likes of Sky from overcharging.
As I have said before, you can still have elements of exclusivity. For example, Sky might choose to keep Sky Atlantic an exclusive channel but would be prevented from exclusivity of the content (so that other channels could show the programmes from that channel that it chose to buy).
Alternatively, Sky might want to negotiate exclusive rights (for example to HBO programmes) for broadcast on Sky Atlantic, but then it would be required to permit other platforms to offer Sky Atlantic at a reasonable price.
This still allows companies to differentiate their offerings from other providers but in a way that doesn't affect the customer adversely.
The current situation is manifestly unfair to the consumer and needs to change. While I understand that the current Government would prefer a laissez faire approach to business, I do think it needs to intervene in this kind of situation where it is clear that the private sector will not act in the interests of the punters.
---------- Post added at 15:59 ---------- Previous post was at 15:49 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stop It
But there aren't any monopolies to tackle.
Channel exclusivity is not a monopoly. All of the content on the channel must be either produced by the network who owns it, which is fair play, or bought from the content producers on the open market.
In fact, market differentiation is a sign of a good market, not the other way around. if everyone had all channels and content, there would be no need for competition and a monopoly would likely emerge, as we basically had with Sky in the football TV market until BT came along.
Also, there is no such thing as "required content". Pay TV is a luxury item, outside of the PSB there is no right, nor requirement for customers to have all content from a single source. If you want the content, you have the ability to buy it. The fact that it isn't from one box is frankly irrelevant.
|
Well, it seems that you are one of those people who are ecstatic about the present situation and don't want change. Of course, you may be perfectly happy to pay through the nose for content, but I, for one, am not.
Given the number of protests on this forum regarding price increases, I think there are many who would agree with me on this.