Virgin and BT square up to Sky on prices

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...on-prices.html

Virgin Media and British Telecom have launched a detailed attack on Sky's pricing mechanism for its premium channels such as sport and films, saying that its "near monopoly" of the pay TV market means increased prices for consumers.
In a submission to Ofcom the two media and telecommunications companies, along with Top-Up TV, the company which offers Freeview access and tape-free recording, say that the lack of competition in the market is stifling growth and innovation

Anyone want to open a book on this?Though I think with the odds of a snowball's chance in hell, that maybe it's not worth it.

[greeninferno]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...on-prices.html



Anyone want to open a book on this?Though I think with the odds of a snowball's chance in hell, that maybe it's not worth it.

Conservatives stated that if they win the election they will scrap OFCOM.

The Sun newspaper publicly backs the Conservatives.

Who owns the Sun ?

OFCOM's fate is sealed.

This will leave the only recourse for Virgin et al to take it to the European level - this will take years.

All Virgin would be doing is throwing good money after bad.

[one2escape]

What Virgin need to do is get there IPTV offering here as soon as possible. Then they can hit back with more VOD etc.

[m419]

What Ofcom should do is enforce TV broadcasters to broadcast channels to all platforms.

I heard that when channels make agreements with Sky, they make that channel exclusive to sky for the contract period, that is unfair to the broadcaster and unfair to non-Sky customers.

Some people cannot get Sky and some people hate sky, so get used to that fact News international!

What Virgin need to do is:

Add more HD channels
Get rid of there Westminster franchise its a dead end game!
Upgrade all other Analogue only areas
Introduce new channels direct from Virgin Media Television
Keep there 50% stake in UKTV
Begin the rollout for 100MB broadband
Add more Foreign language channels to compete with satellite providers and stop those stupid dishes going up!
Launch the long awaited IPTV service

Westminster franchise is a dead loss, the whole system needs upgrading and nor BT or Virgin Media have the time or money to do this, its Analogue and most broadcasters no longer want to broadcast in this way, it hardly has any customers and I don't think it has many broadband customers,NTL rolled out Cable broadband in some parts and it hasn't really caught on.

The solution to this is to acquire Tiscali TV from Carphone warehouse as I don't think Carphone intend doing anything with Tiscali TV, Tiscali TV covers Greater London such as areas like Westminster, that will give them head on start.

It is unlikely that Westminster council will give Virgin Media permission to dig up the streets therefore it is doomed!

However, in 1994, Videotron rolled out its cable telephone service to Westminster residents and businesses, Videotron was blocked from building its C.A.T.V network because Westminster already had an allocated Cable company which at the time was Westminster Cable owned by BT. Videotron's orginal intention was to provide IPTV and ADSL services down there own telephone network.

In 1997, Videotron was merged with Nynex,Mercury and Bellcable creating Cable and Wireless Communications, However Cable and Wireless already had its Mercury infrastructure around the borough, and therefore it is likely Cable and Wireless quit adding new business customers onto the Videotron network.

NTL acquired the Videotron side, however when NTL acquired the customer base of BT's C.A.T.V network, BT forbid NTL to offer its telephone service in this area.

I'm interested to know if NTL had to boot off its residential users in 2000. I know that some businesses and public street payphones owned by a non-BT company was using the ex Videotron lines and that was in 2003, so I wonder what has become of it now.

If its still active, I would suggest Virgin Media quit its agreements with BT and stop using the BT Cable network and instead lay cable down the virtually disused telephone networks ducts, this would avoid mass roadworks.

Westminster seriously needs to sort out its digital TV options as Aerials and Dishes must not be seen from street view and there are many tall buildings blocking reception and signals. I would suggest that Westminster City Council work together with BT and Virgin Media at providing Digital TV options.

Another option is to use the BT cable network in Westminster just for Freeview use, as it has to be maintained and managed, I suppose it could be paid for out of tax payers money, say something like 20p per month per household could fund this to BT to keep it maintained and up to date, From then on Users should be able to connect there TV and Freeview box to the Cable TV socket and that way Westminster residents can enjoy Freeview Digital without any hassle and Westminster Council would not need to worry about any extra digging up of its streets.

BT Vision and Tiscali TV could also be used for the freeview and UHF access.

[Flyboy]

Is this the deal that Murdoch has done for supporting the Tories? Has he said that the Sun will give its support to the Tory party, if "The Friends of Dave" see this little problem go away?

[greeninferno]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Is this the deal that Murdoch has done for supporting the Tories? Has he said that the Sun will give its support to the Tory party, if "The Friends of Dave" see this little problem go away?

Capitalist "Democracy" don't you just love it.

SKY are a successful business this monopoly crap is just that crap. BT charges to much for others to use its network on none unbundled loops VM do not as of yet afaik allow other competitors to use its network so both of them have a monopoly as such in certain areas. Its just sour grapes and greed if they want some some of Murdochs wealth then they should work on improving their own content

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Is this the deal that Murdoch has done for supporting the Tories? Has he said that the Sun will give its support to the Tory party, if "The Friends of Dave" see this little problem go away?

Just have to love the "Friends of Dave" smear.

How are Bernie Ecclestone, David Abrahams, Chai Patel, Lord Sainsbury, et al?

[Ignitionnet]

It is interesting how Ofcom are doing this in the name of competition while they rejected Sky's attempt to increase competition and services on digital terrestrial via Picnic and appear to be quite happy with Virgin Media running a closed network.

EDIT: Then you remember who 'Lord Carter of Barnes' worked for prior to Ofcom - ntl - and all makes sense. Ofcom have always adored cable.

---------- Post added at 22:59 ---------- Previous post was at 22:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Is this the deal that Murdoch has done for supporting the Tories? Has he said that the Sun will give its support to the Tory party, if "The Friends of Dave" see this little problem go away?

Ofcom is a most 'New Labour' Quango, staffed to the hilt with New Labour-ites, it's where the New Labour worthy make mega-money.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/06/cameron_ofcom/

That Ofcom should be top of Cameron's hit list is not surprising. It has more than 800 staff at its Southwark base, and its top brass are awarded some of the largest public sector salaries and benefits, including a total of about £400,000 for chief executive Ed Richards.

In political terms, Ofcom is seen as the most New Labour of quangos. Ed Richards' predecessor Stephen - now Lord - Carter went on to act as Gordon Brown's strategy advisor, and then communications minister. David Currie, who stepped down as Ofcom chairman this April, was previously a key advisor to Brown when he was Chancellor, and had been a major Labour donor.

Like Carter, Ed Richards worked as a Number 10 strategy advisor. Prior to that he was a Labour policy wonk and famously branded by then-BBC director general Greg Dyke - himself a Labour donor - as a "jumped-up Millbank oik".

Suffice it to say, the links between New Labour and Ofcom run deep, and the Tories most likely cannot wait to kneecap the organisation.

[m419]

To be honest I think Sky actually likes the idea of having the Sky channels on Virgin TV, they realised that not everyone likes Sky and is still able to gain revenue by supply other providers with there content and TV channels.

BT should be allowed to charge what ever it likes to use its network, how would you like it if you let a room out to a lodger and then someone from the authorities comes and tells you how much rent you should charge? BT are the ones who have to upgrade the infrastructure and they have to foot the bill, so since the other networks are using BT's, its time to cough up, thats why its a slow process and why Britain has such bad ADSL.

Virgin Media should be able to choose who uses its network as and when or be able to keep it closed. Its a privately owned business which has invested millions into the franchises for its own use.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by m419

To be honest I think Sky actually likes the idea of having the Sky channels on Virgin TV, they realised that not everyone likes Sky and is still able to gain revenue by supply other providers with there content and TV channels.

Yes they do, which is why they have for many years sold the Sky channels to Virgin / ntl / Telewest.

BT should be allowed to charge what ever it likes to use its network, how would you like it if you let a room out to a lodger and then someone from the authorities comes and tells you how much rent you should charge? BT are the ones who have to upgrade the infrastructure and they have to foot the bill, so since the other networks are using BT's, its time to cough up, thats why its a slow process and why Britain has such bad ADSL.

When said 'authorities' built large bits of said network and continue to give subsidies and pension guarantees you don't have too much room to argue. The conditions of the various regulations on BT were agreed to a long time ago in any event. This is also nothing to do with the state of the UK's DSL. The UK's exchange based ADSL is actually very strong, the issue was the lack of fibre in the loops however BT's new NGA / Next Generation Access network upgrades they are allowed to price as they see fit. It is open access, anyone can give BT money and get access to the fibre to the home / cabinet network. This was a voluntary decision by BT, they decided not to fight this point with the regulator but it was never demanded that they give open access and they have indeed stated their commitment to open access networks.

Virgin Media should be able to choose who uses its network as and when or be able to keep it closed. Its a privately owned business which has invested millions into the franchises for its own use.

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you there, however given Ofcom's treatment of Sky and the fact that both Sky and BT are committed to open access to their respective platforms even though in the case of Sky they have no real infrastructure of their own and both are to an extent regulated to permit other operators access to their platforms it would seem to me that Virgin Media's network remaining closed is something of an anomaly.

[Horace]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you there, however given Ofcom's treatment of Sky and the fact that both Sky and BT are committed to open access to their respective platforms

Open as in the case of Sky "pay us enough and we might just let you onto our EPG"; Freesat wasn't set up for the fun of it - and in the case of BT "our infrastructure was built by the taxpayer and we had to be legislated into giving access". Virgin are the only one of the three to have built their own infrastructure and continue to pay for that investment via (frozen) interest payments.

Also, it's no surprise OFCOM gives seemingly unfair support to cable since without it SKY would have a complete monopoly in pay-tv in the U.K. It's also no surpise that organisations are full of Labour sympathisers, the same happened, and will again, when the Conservatives were in power for a long period.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Horace

Open as in the case of Sky "pay us enough and we might just let you onto our EPG"

Nope BSkyB have no say in what goes on their EPG, that's a condition of their Ofcom operating licence. Comply with the technical details, etc, and there's nothing Sky can do about it.

Freesat wasn't set up for the fun of it - and in the case of BT "our infrastructure was built by the taxpayer and we had to be legislated into giving access".

As I said above BT's next generation access network they voluntarily made open. This access network is either in no way built by the taxpayer or very little of it. That the taxpayer built the original network is also irrelevant it's the issues around replicating that infrastructure, it is a structural monopoly that are the reasons for the original legislations. BT wasn't just handed from government control to private control - they paid for it!

Virgin are the only one of the three to have built their own infrastructure and continue to pay for that investment via (frozen) interest payments.

So what? Legislation appears to be perfectly acceptable on Sky to prevent them having a monopoly, so what does who built what, where, why and how have to do with things? Sky's platform was built with entirely private money, why should they be regulated if whomever built the networks is relevant. Virgin Media do, after all, have a total monopoly on cable access and in some areas a monopoly on high speed internet access. They are always talking about how superior their network is, surely it would be in the public's best interest to have more choice over that superior network? Infact the only party to whom it wouldn't be in the best interest is Virgin Media. They have the only large non-open distribution network in the UK.

Requiring allowing of access to cable networks is certainly not without precedent. It's happening now in the Netherlands for TV content and in the United States access to cable networks for 3rd party ISPs was done as long as 9 years ago. Then there is that ntl were wholesaling access to their cable network a while ago, albeit at extremely inflated prices which only one operator was stupid enough to pay.

Also, it's no surprise OFCOM gives seemingly unfair support to cable since without it SKY would have a complete monopoly in pay-tv in the U.K. It's also no surpise that organisations are full of Labour sympathisers, the same happened, and will again, when the Conservatives were in power for a long period.

Ofcom isn't just full of Labour sympathisers, it's full of Labour advisors, donors, etc. Stephen Carter leaves his jumped up PR position at ntl and goes to Ofcom then leaves there to come work for the government. Ed Richards his successor used to work for the government. That goes beyond sympathising to loading up the regulator for political reasons, and rest assured Ofcom have a strong policy role. They also appear to be lining up a nice lucrative spectrum auction, once again taking money from private enterprise, which we will have to pay back in higher bills, and putting it into government coffers, which is nice.

On the subject of monopolies Sky are already required to wholesale a large number of their channels, and if BT and VM want the content so badly why don't they simply bid for it themselves? The whole fear that if Ofcom don't force Sky to sell their channels cheaper there will be some kind of monopoly is ridiculous. No-one is stopping BT and VM from putting their hands in their pockets and bidding. If they are too scared to bid on their own they could form a conglomerate and put in a combined bid. If they are still too scared to sink their own money into the bidding process they obviously don't want the content that badly if they'd rather Sky bear the risk.

Easy to think of VM as aggrieved however if they think there is a demand for these channels they can simply pay for them, Sky did offer to discount substantially from previous levels however I believe Ofcom refused that deal on behalf of VM and everyone else as Sky wanted to sell pay-tv over DTT in return. If they think the price is unreasonable they negotiate. If they still can't get anything out of the deal they look into allowing Sky to sell the channels on their platform and charge Sky for access to their platform. This way they get to take none of the risk and can advertise the HD availability, however I guess due in no small part to the 'politics' between the two companies that isn't going to happen which is a shame. Homechoice had Sky channels which were sold by Sky and transported on their platform and it's a very common arrangement in a number of countries across many different cable networks and DTH platforms including Sky's own where ESPN et al are sold distinctly from Sky so I'm not sure what the issue is beyond the politics and/or VM not wanting to set precedent through allowing other operators any kind of access to their network.

This whole thing is about Ofcom wanting to shape the market to fit their view of how it should be, it's nothing to do with fostering choice or fair competition. Going by how well things went last time Ofcom did this with a market - broadband - I wouldn't feel too optimistic. Ofcom's enforced competition just left us with several hundred varieties of crap to choose from, LLU offerings largely centred around reducing costs rather than improving services, and no-one wanting to make serious investment in next generation technologies to compete with cable until this year.

If you want some more idea about how prejudiced against Sky this remedy is Sky will be obliged to offer the channels at a retail minus basis. In other words the more efficient Sky are and the lower they keep the prices to their own consumers through things like more automation, more use of online resource, etc, the less they get for the channels, punishing them for trying to keep their own consumers' prices down. This is ridiculous as it assumes a similar level of efficiency from whomever buys the channels, and everyone who buys them from a Virgin Media or BT right down to Smallworld pays the same. In addition when Sky come to increase their retail prices that means they increase the wholesale ones as well right? Nope, they have to seek consent from Ofcom before the wholesale price goes down and in any event Ofcom have a pricing system of how they want the charges to go in the future anyway. Under this system it's perfectly feasible that Virgin Media will be able to rebroadcast Sky's channels for less than the cost of making them.

But hey, it's Sky right? Monopoly, evil Rupert Murdoch, must be stopped at all costs. Which is fine except when a body that's supposed to foster competition is the one doing the stopping at all costs. Maybe a remedy is needed, maybe other operators just need to grow a pair and start bidding with Sky for the new content and either let Sky sell on their platform directly or pay up, either way this remedy that Ofcom want to employ is really very OTT. Who'd have thought a Labour dominated regulator would be overbearing and want to control everything because they know best

[Media Boy UK]

Broadcast: Darroch - pay TV review could be bad for football.

BSkyB chief executive Jeremy Darroch has claimed Ofcom’s plans to intervene in the pay TV industry will have “serious, potential consequences for football and sport in general”.

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/r...006590.article

[Flyboy]

I think he is more concerned about himself, than he is about football.