NTL Broadcast Sale In Doubt

[Ignition]

Check here as it seems to be much faster than the Independent's own site: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache...roadcast&hl=en

I'm really beginning to get confused by Ofcom now. In my opinion they are over-regulating BT to the detriment of the UK consumer, and now with big investments incoming they again see fit to want to 'increase competition' again at the detriment of the UK consumer.

What exactly are OfCom thinking, and shouldn't they be considering looking after us poor schmuck consumers in between obsessing about making every market imaginable as competitive as possible, which while I'm sure it will benefit niches is ultimately not going to be beneficial to consumers of products in the short term.

Lights are on and they are certainly busy in OfCom central, just seems to be a shame that they have forgotten they are supposed to be improving competition to enhance consumer experience, not just improving competition wherever they see the need, regardless of the effect on the consumer (in this case both giving a disincentive to companies to invest prior to the analogue switchoff, and harming the ntl group by devaluing an asset which harms the ntl group that would be left as a business / residential telecomms and television provider making them less competitive to big bad BT).

Shouldn't OfCom perhaps consider encouraging competition through incentives to other companies to compete, rather than constant disincentives to the larger players, especially when these are the players they expect to spend the billions on enhancing services.

Still on the upside this might have the wonderful side effect of making higher prices for terrestrial TV services necessary, as if we don't already pay through the nose for most things.

[Pierre]

Don't these competetion watchdogs realise that some times the industry can't sustain lots of companies.

You only have to look at what happened in the cable industry and the upcoming merger to see that.

What do ofcom suggest, "mast unbundling" ?? letting other broadcasters use the ntl and crowncastle masts.

It's not likely is it? There's no complaints from any of the broadcasters is there? They're just meddling for meddlingsake to justify their own existence.

[SMHarman]

How do you unbundle a mast. There is only a certain number of frequencies and pattern of frequencies availiable, the fact this is "broadcast", not narrowcast means you want a provider that covers a broad area, not a narrow one. The BBC can broadcast to the whole of the UK and parts of europe by uplinking to the Sky Sat, do they really want to negotiate 30 different contracts with 30 different broadcast mast providers. Crazy.

[Escapee]

Good on you Carter.

[themelon]

Yet OFCOM fail to ever take note of the monopoly that is Sky...........and that is still churning away a full speed and still getting away with it.

I dont see why Sky Should be allowed to advertise their service using channels provided by Disney and UKTV should they not have to point out that these services are also available on other platforms like Cable. To the unsuspecting idiot, Digital TV is Sky, my friend still come round to watch the football on 'Sky' despite the fact I moved to cable 2 years ago!!

And Interactive services, why are they witheld even though we pay the same amount, sureley if we are missing out on some services wholesale costs should be less and we should pay less.

Madness........OFCOM are a waste of space, always tackling issues that dont really matter, sometimes they go too far and ignore the real problems.

I think for one, BT are treated terribly by OFCOM and this makes them less likely to push new technologies as it will be judged anti competative.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by themelon

Yet OFCOM fail to ever take note of the monopoly that is Sky...........and that is still churning away a full speed and still getting away with it.

I dont see why Sky Should be allowed to advertise their service using channels provided by Disney and UKTV should they not have to point out that these services are also available on other platforms like Cable. To the unsuspecting idiot, Digital TV is Sky, my friend still come round to watch the football on 'Sky' despite the fact I moved to cable 2 years ago!!

And Interactive services, why are they witheld even though we pay the same amount, sureley if we are missing out on some services wholesale costs should be less and we should pay less.

Madness........OFCOM are a waste of space, always tackling issues that dont really matter, sometimes they go too far and ignore the real problems.

I think for one, BT are treated terribly by OFCOM and this makes them less likely to push new technologies as it will be judged anti competative.

Is Sky any more of a monopoly than NTL or Telewest or are the cablecos more monopolistic? Theoretically anyone can rent a transponder on Astra and broadcast to the same customer base as Sky and be accessable to anyone with satellite receiving equipment. The same cannot be said for cable as they must have the cablecos agreement to use their networks.

Channel providers decide what should appear on their channel and who can advertise on them, not Sky. Are you saying that Sky should pay for adverts which also advertise their competitors.

I don't think that you should be going round calling your friends idiots because they come to your house to watch football on Sky. It probably was on Sky Sports anyway.

Back to the question of NTL Broadcast. Couldn't some of the broadcast masts be used to provide wireless internet access. Maybe the downstream path could be supplied by satellite with the user having a NTL digibox as part of the receiving hardware with a NTL smartcard for TV reception.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

<snip>
Channel providers decide what should appear on their channel and who can advertise on them, not Sky. Are you saying that Sky should pay for adverts which also advertise their competitors.

I don't think that you should be going round calling your friends idiots because they come to your house to watch football on Sky. It probably was on Sky Sports anyway.
<snip>

He's (We're ) not talking the advertising shown on the channel, but the current bombardment from posters, TV, radio, falling out of the newspaper inserts that Sky are subjecting us too.

e.g Picture of Bert and Ernie or Bear with Sky can be educational for kids. In this instance Sky is using the Playhouse Disney channel to advertise it's product. What the advert does not say is that there are alternate means of getting the Playhouse Disney Channel (there must be other examples, but being as this is a channel watched regularly in my house this one springs to mind).

Whilst you have a valid point on the the mates coming round, Sky have cleverly fused the broadcast medium and the product, people think you need sky to watch sky, a myth that sky are obviously happy to perpetuate. Imagine if BBC started advertising that to watch all their channels the only thing you could do was get a freeview box (when you could get Sky, NTL or TW) imagine the outrage from Sky that they were using public money to advertise and not properly highlighting the alternative methods of getting their product.

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by Escapee

Good on you Carter.

If your company were bidding for a major contract with a company which then got OfCom'd and that contract was cancelled, with the result possible loss in jobs including yours, I doubt you'd hold that same attitude. OfCom seem intent on trying to break up the natural monopoly industries while the services they provide are driven straight into the ground.

This isn't a personal thing for your amusement people's jobs could be threatened over this if ntl and Crown Castle are forced to spend a load of money so that others can take their business off them.

Glad that entertains you so much. Personally I think it's horrid, and no doubt any ntl:Broadcast people who may have their careers threatened if Ofcom decide to chop into the margins of a future owner or ntl:Broadcast themselves wouldn't be overly amused either.

Here's hoping that your company after however many decades for christ's sake of operating as they are aren't large enough to get the attention of this regulator incase they feel the need to make some work for themselves by deciding you need extra competition, oh and expecting you to pay to make it possible, along with massive CapEx on new digital platforms.

Summary, that was a petty, inconsiderate and overall crappy thing to say. Hopefully you'll have a think about all the people whose job losses you ranted about and remember how they felt, this decision could quite easily arrange for more people to be joining them. I'm happy you're happy about it.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

He's (We're ) not talking the advertising shown on the channel, but the current bombardment from posters, TV, radio, falling out of the newspaper inserts that Sky are subjecting us too.

e.g Picture of Bert and Ernie or Bear with Sky can be educational for kids. In this instance Sky is using the Playhouse Disney channel to advertise it's product. What the advert does not say is that there are alternate means of getting the Playhouse Disney Channel (there must be other examples, but being as this is a channel watched regularly in my house this one springs to mind).

I would imagine that Disney would be just as happy to see NTL and Telewest advertising in the same way. If either of these did that they probably wouldn't want to put "also available on Sky" in their advert.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

I would imagine that Disney would be just as happy to see NTL and Telewest advertising in the same way. If either of these did that they probably wouldn't want to put "also available on Sky" in their advert.

None of them would want to, but BT (as the principal supplier of the last mile / phone services) have to point out that other BB service providers are available when they advertise, why should sky (as the principle supplier of pay tv services) not have to point out other pay tv services are available? This is the sort of thing that OFCOM should be doing. Maybe OFCOM should set up a pay tv helpline that customers could call to see what options ther are in their area, Sky, NTL/TW, Homechoice, could do the same for BB etc. Now that would be a way of educating the consumer in their choices.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

None of them would want to, but BT (as the principal supplier of the last mile / phone services) have to point out that other BB service providers are available when they advertise, why should sky (as the principle supplier of pay tv services) not have to point out other pay tv services are available? This is the sort of thing that OFCOM should be doing. Maybe OFCOM should set up a pay tv helpline that customers could call to see what options ther are in their area, Sky, NTL/TW, Homechoice, could do the same for BB etc. Now that would be a way of educating the consumer in their choices.

As far as I see it, Sky have a relatively small number of channels of their own, an EPG that makes viewing of all the channels that subscribe to it easy and a digibox sale, repair and installation service. They rely on other companies to provide the bulk of the channels available on their EPG. They rely on other companies to provide the satellites that carry the channels and on other companies, noticeably NTL, to provide the uplink to those satellites and other broadcasting services.

AFAIK anyone can can perform all of the things that Sky does without Sky being involved at all other than to allow its own channels to be received. This puts Sky in a different position to BT as BT own the last mile which is needed for ADSL reception. Sky do not own anything that is essential to provide a satellite reception service.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

As far as I see it, Sky have a relatively small number of channels of their own, an EPG that makes viewing of all the channels that subscribe to it easy and a digibox sale, repair and installation service. They rely on other companies to provide the bulk of the channels available on their EPG. They rely on other companies to provide the satellites that carry the channels and on other companies, noticeably NTL, to provide the uplink to those satellites and other broadcasting services.

AFAIK anyone can can perform all of the things that Sky does without Sky being involved at all other than to allow its own channels to be received. This puts Sky in a different position to BT as BT own the last mile which is needed for ADSL reception. Sky do not own anything that is essential to provide a satellite reception service.

But sky do make it exceptionally difficult to carry their channels, and if you were to attempt to set up a rival sat tv based service I'm pretty sure that they would make life incredibly difficult for you. NTL even charged separately for Sky One until a few years ago.

[themelon]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

Is Sky any more of a monopoly than NTL or Telewest or are the cablecos more monopolistic? Theoretically anyone can rent a transponder on Astra and broadcast to the same customer base as Sky and be accessable to anyone with satellite receiving equipment. The same cannot be said for cable as they must have the cablecos agreement to use their networks.

Channel providers decide what should appear on their channel and who can advertise on them, not Sky. Are you saying that Sky should pay for adverts which also advertise their competitors.

I don't think that you should be going round calling your friends idiots because they come to your house to watch football on Sky. It probably was on Sky Sports anyway.

Back to the question of NTL Broadcast. Couldn't some of the broadcast masts be used to provide wireless internet access. Maybe the downstream path could be supplied by satellite with the user having a NTL digibox as part of the receiving hardware with a NTL smartcard for TV reception.

This is mainly because the cable cos built their networks.........Sky didnt, they just rent space despite the original terms of UK Satellite broadcast which specified that the Service provider must use DMAC and their own Satellites both of which Sky got away with............but not BSB.........a long time ago but why........Rupert?!?

The Cable Cos arent strictly a monopoly, the technology has been available for DSL TV since DSL has been available, although LLU makes this a much more likely event, this means anyone can compete offering tripple play.

Another Satellite Broadcaster could start but would they stand a chance? or would they go down the pan like BSB or ITV Digital. The latter I think, a lot of Sky success is due to Ruperts Influence on those in high places, people arent going to complain! wholesale products from Sky are extortionate, any Broadcasting Alternative starting out will need these channels to get subscribers, they cant afford to outbid Sky, even Granada/Carlton screwed themselves trying to outbid Sky. There is absolutely no profit margin in having Sky Products on your platfrorm so no room for profitability.

I think Sky should point out (in small print if necessary) that the services such as Disney Channel are available elsewhere joe public is not all that bright in many cases, an advert for Disney Channel will automatically make them get Sky because they will think Sky is the only way to get it.........wrong.

My friend is mis informed (in a lot of cases) I always rib him about it and he doesnt care , It may well be on Sky Sports or Prem+ but he says hes watching it on Sky (if he said Sky Sports then id accept it), which it isnt its Cable or ntl to be precise.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

But sky do make it exceptionally difficult to carry their channels, and if you were to attempt to set up a rival sat tv based service I'm pretty sure that they would make life incredibly difficult for you. NTL even charged separately for Sky One until a few years ago.

I am sure that is the case but it makes you wonder why no other company, particularly the cablecos, has introduced a satellite viewing service.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

I am sure that is the case but it makes you wonder why no other company, particularly the cablecos, has introduced a satellite viewing service.

OffNet TV, interesting concept. They have jumped on it for offnet BB (well NTL are offering it), perhaps it is because of the regulation of BT/Offcom vs Sky/OffCom. Potentially NTL could do a homechoice style product NTLChoice and offer TV/Phone/BB/VOD to offnet customers.