Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
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 ----------
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.
|
Why should my taxes be wasted by the government, to interfere in a situation that does not really need changing i.e. Sky Atlantic? If they interfere there, where does it stop? Do they then stop Netflix, Amazon etc having no exclusives? What would they do to survive with out ads and old repeats?
As a punter, I am pretty happy with the set up. I get the choice to have freeview or pay tv from a number of providers. If I want SA, it's available from two of those options. I have the choice of paying for OTT service's Netflix, Amazon etc - all of which are available on my smart TV. I have a subscription to Mubi and am seriously considering a sub for Curzon. The only OTT service, I don't think I can get via my tv is NOW TV (which I don't need as Sky offered a great deal.) If I wanted NOW TV as a VM customer, all I had to do was buy a box and plug that into my third HDMI socket.
If I want BT Sport and AMC, all I need to do is cancel my VM BB and get the free TV service from BT with their BB and phone.
The greatest irony of your comments is the fact that you are desperate for streaming services to evolve over the next few years. If they ever come in the way you hope, there will be numerous TV networks/providers all charging an arm and a leg to watch the latest first run shows live (exclusive on their service) and keep all the best on-demand content as their own exclusives. The average TV shows will still be sold to Netflix etc for the extra revenue.
If HBO GO ever launches over here, can you seriously see HBO letting other streaming services (or channels) have their content? No. they will want as many customers as they can get. Sky will lose their rights too. Ultimately, if you want HBO content - it's first run rights are pretty much exclusive to whoever they sell it to. The government will never change that, HBO (and pretty much anyone else) just won't deal with UK TV providerss if the government interfere and say they can't have exclusive rights for the maximum amount of money they can get.