OFCOM ready to rule?

[pedg]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

It would appear that a lot of the support for this is based on Ofcom sticking it to 'the man', ignoring of course that Sky customers will likely end up paying more or service quality for everyone will go down, and that Sky while 39% owned by News Corp is not a News Corp company.

Sky give a good product at a reasonable price (IMHO), Virgin for all their complaints manage to compete with Sky on price and have better gross profit margin. Who's getting stitched up here exactly?

Of course your opinion outweights the intensive investigation done by Ofcom on what is a reasonable price that should be paid while still allowing Sky to make a profit?

Not sure how you reckon that sky customers will pay more. If OFCOM implement these changes that to remain competitive Sky will have to drop the price they charge their subscribers to a similar level. And again research has been done to show that the lower prices will be cancelled out to a great extent by an increase in subscribers so as to not really affect the profits of the broadcast section of sky.

Personally I don't care if Sky was owned by Murdock or Peppa Pig its the way that they have behaved in trying to use their broadcast channels to drive people to their delivery platform that gets my goat. For example all sky people on air appear to be under instruction to assume that the only people watching are watching via skys satellite channels. Its like having a weather forecast for the UK and not mentioning scotland as if did not exist.

---------- Post added at 09:11 ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 ----------

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

Be interesting to see if Ofcom can just push this through. Regardless of what powers Ofcom think they have I believe they can't simply force a change through if BSkyB can obtain an injunction. Worst case BSkyB can tell them to go to hell and Ofcom will have to begin infringement proceedings, Ofcom cannot lower BSkyB's prices for them, they can threaten them with a stick if they don't but it would be a very, very messy battle. IANAL though!

I think there is a difference between getting an injunction compared to appealing OFCOMs decision in court. As I understand it to get an injunction they would have to try and prove that ofcom acted illegally. If all they can do is attempt to go to court to try to prove that ofcoms reasoning is faulty then that would happen, as stated in the article, after ofcom had forces the price down. One assumes that ofcoms lawyers would be making sure that if they do go through with this that its 100% legal.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

Ignoring the rest of it I recommend you yourself take a look at America. Local areas don't usually have their own providers who can compete with the big players, no idea where you've gotten that from. Usually the municipal / Ma and Pa cable companies have a more limited subset of channels and aren't competing with the Comcast, Cox, Time Warner and Charters. They tend to have ancient networks descended from old MATV networks from times long passed.

I wasn't refering to "ma and pa cable companies" but ones with limited geographical range that still compete with the likes of direcTV and dish who have complete coverage, and the cables companies that have a wider coverage, such as comcast and time warner. Cablevision for instance operates in only a couple of states, and yet has huge penetration in those states., it's not what I'd call a big player. But if you're looking for smaller than that, you can see Advanced cable communications or northland cable, both are small providers existing in limited areas that still compete competitively with the big players.

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

They don't get the content randomly, they negotiate with the content providers just as broadcasters here do. There have been cases recently of operator and content provider having disagreements over carriage charges.

Time Warner Cable have, in the last year and a bit, had disagreements over carriage charges with Viacom and Fox.

http://157.166.226.108/2010/01/01/ne...erry/index.htm
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/106212
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/99971

Cablevision in that same article dropped some channels due to not being able to agree carriage terms with a content supplier.

Hell Time Warner went as far as opening up a campaign website to complain about the TV networks. I have no idea where you have the idea that the US is some kind of free content panacea but you are very, very much mistaken. If we took the US approach it would be for regulators to keep their noses out.

This is exactly my point? They make the same carriage deals that are made in this country for pretty much every other channel than the Sky ones. There's no need for a channel to be part of a platform for it to make content.

Sky just holds their own channels to ransom with inflated prices because it can carry them itself and sees no need for them to be on other platforms (a stance that was shaken with the sky basics debacle)

If a platform decides that it's not viable to carry a channel at the asking price then that should be it's choice, it should however have the same access to it as any other platform and be able to make that choice, not have the content provider sit there and go "we don't want you to have it".

I know the US situation isn't perfect (for instance direcTV still has exclusive rights to many channels like the NFL Sunday Ticket) but it's a lot better than it is here where the market leading platform is also the market leading content supplier and so has the rest of the industry over a barrel.

Vertical integration is extremely bad for the consumer, it limits choice and changes the focus of content providers from eyes on screen to subscribers to the platform. There's a fundamental conflict of interest where a content provider should be more interested in eyes on the screen than which platform they're coming from, but when platform and content provider are the same there's a vested interest in limiting those eyes to your own platform.

This is why the tv networks in the states were heavily regulated from the start, it just wouldn't be possible for one of the major players like direcTV to exert any sort of control over ABC, CBS, NBC or FOX, which is essentially the situation that exists here. When news corp bought in to direcTV one of the core requirements of the deal was that they couldn't pull the channels from other platforms, and all platforms had to be treated equally. It could even be said that the tight regulation was what caused news corp to then sell on it's stake in direcTV because they couldn't leverage it in the same way that they've been able to with bskyb over here.

[zantarous]

The thing with the News Corp thing and Time Warner recently that really got me was, unlike here, there are many cable and satellite companies and you would think that if a broadcaster had the balls to demand a $1 increase per subscriber all the cable co and satellite companies would get together and tell said company to go take a hike and see how long they would survive without channels on air.

Having only two major players here is hindering the competition, having one of those players holding all the cards is stifling competition and hitting consumers in the pocket. Pay TV would be far cheaper if Cable and Satellite were just deliver systems and neither company owned their own stations and if they did want that then there should be strict regulation about withholding content and offering it at a fair price.

Our regulator has been quite for far too long and is probably acting far to late.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by TheDon

I wasn't refering to "ma and pa cable companies" but ones with limited geographical range that still compete with the likes of direcTV and dish who have complete coverage, and the cables companies that have a wider coverage, such as comcast and time warner. Cablevision for instance operates in only a couple of states, and yet has huge penetration in those states., it's not what I'd call a big player. But if you're looking for smaller than that, you can see Advanced cable communications or northland cable, both are small providers existing in limited areas that still compete competitively with the big players.

Cablevision is the MSO in the areas where it operates, there is virtually zero overlap between it and any other operator.

It's also, amusingly, involved in content issues.

Also, again, only access is regulated, content has to be offered to all platforms, the pricing is not regulated.

This is exactly my point? They make the same carriage deals that are made in this country for pretty much every other channel than the Sky ones. There's no need for a channel to be part of a platform for it to make content.

Sky just holds their own channels to ransom with inflated prices because it can carry them itself and sees no need for them to be on other platforms (a stance that was shaken with the sky basics debacle)

Then let Sky suffer due to their own shaky stance.

If a platform decides that it's not viable to carry a channel at the asking price then that should be it's choice, it should however have the same access to it as any other platform and be able to make that choice, not have the content provider sit there and go "we don't want you to have it".

Sky have offered to do similar to Setanta / ESPN on other platforms and offer Sky Sports, etc using the VM network themselves. VM refused, an odd move given how loss making it alledgedly is however as we know VM are very protective of their network assets.

I know the US situation isn't perfect (for instance direcTV still has exclusive rights to many channels like the NFL Sunday Ticket) but it's a lot better than it is here where the market leading platform is also the market leading content supplier and so has the rest of the industry over a barrel.

Vertical integration is extremely bad for the consumer, it limits choice and changes the focus of content providers from eyes on screen to subscribers to the platform. There's a fundamental conflict of interest where a content provider should be more interested in eyes on the screen than which platform they're coming from, but when platform and content provider are the same there's a vested interest in limiting those eyes to your own platform.

This is why the tv networks in the states were heavily regulated from the start, it just wouldn't be possible for one of the major players like direcTV to exert any sort of control over ABC, CBS, NBC or FOX, which is essentially the situation that exists here. When news corp bought in to direcTV one of the core requirements of the deal was that they couldn't pull the channels from other platforms, and all platforms had to be treated equally. It could even be said that the tight regulation was what caused news corp to then sell on it's stake in direcTV because they couldn't leverage it in the same way that they've been able to with bskyb over here.

Actually content providers influence carriers there just as here. Note again the Time Warner Cable - Viacom spat.

Separating Sky's production and broadcast isn't necessarily a bad idea but would have to be handled very, very carefully.

[nexy33]

Since we have whines about sky being allowed to use bt lines to deliver broadband and sky should share the pie surely in the same spirit cable should do the same with its network ?

[zantarous]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

Sky have offered to do similar to Setanta / ESPN on other platforms and offer Sky Sports, etc using the VM network themselves. VM refused, an odd move given how loss making it alledgedly is however as we know VM are very protective of their network assets.

Seeing as the Cable infrastructure is a patchwork quilt of lots of different legacy technologies and which VM are spending huge amounts on to harmonise, I wouldn't be surprised if it was opened up in future to allow faster channel launches. However in its current state that simply isn't possible. Sky selling directly to VM customers wouldn't be any cheaper for us anyway and we would still be treated by contempt by sky without HD and red button.

Originally Posted by nexy33

Since we have whines about sky being allowed to use bt lines to deliver broadband and sky should share the pie surely in the same spirit cable should do the same with its network ?

It's not really the same thing is it. Sky tv can get along quite nicely without using the cable infrastructure. They couldn't have got anywhere in the internet business without using the BT network. What this is all about is competition and what is best for the tv customer. Not just taking the side of one company like you would support a side in a football match. People seem to forget that we should be looking after our interest as customers first and that can only be achieved though fair competition.

[ArronC07]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

Separating Sky's production and broadcast isn't necessarily a bad idea but would have to be handled very, very carefully.

I think it's long over due but also needs to be done on a ownership basis, along with the news papers- No one person or family should be able to exert that much control.

Don't hold your breath though as it's looking like Lapdog Cameron's already been put on a leash.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by zantarous

The thing with the News Corp thing and Time Warner recently that really got me was, unlike here, there are many cable and satellite companies and you would think that if a broadcaster had the balls to demand a $1 increase per subscriber all the cable co and satellite companies would get together and tell said company to go take a hike and see how long they would survive without channels on air.

Having only two major players here is hindering the competition, having one of those players holding all the cards is stifling competition and hitting consumers in the pocket. Pay TV would be far cheaper if Cable and Satellite were just deliver systems and neither company owned their own stations and if they did want that then there should be strict regulation about withholding content and offering it at a fair price.

Our regulator has been quite for far too long and is probably acting far to late.

They didn't, it was a PR stunt to justify their annual / bi-annual price rises.

---------- Post added at 10:20 ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 ----------

Originally Posted by zantarous

Seeing as the Cable infrastructure is a patchwork quilt of lots of different legacy technologies and which VM are spending huge amounts on to harmonise, I wouldn't be surprised if it was opened up in future to allow faster channel launches. However in its current state that simply isn't possible. Sky selling directly to VM customers wouldn't be any cheaper for us anyway and we would still be treated by contempt by sky without HD and red button.

Well it's more that VM's interactive platform is closed the lack of red button however I can very much imagine HD being available if VM were to make the bandwidth available.

As far as harmonising technologies goes most of this harmonisation is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Whether Sky are billing for it and Virgin billing Sky for access or Virgin are billing for it directly to the customer it's still broadcast in the same way.

There's nothing technical stopping VM from opening up their network to Sky to sell the channels themselves - at least some of the soft core porn channels are already sold in this way I believe? I could be wrong of course but that's how I think it goes. Either way no reason why Virgin couldn't do it technically, how the signal is being transmitted isn't really relevant it's all back-end stuff.

---------- Post added at 10:22 ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 ----------

Originally Posted by ArronC07

I think it's long over due but also needs to be done on a ownership basis, along with the news papers- No one person or family should be able to exert that much control.

Don't hold your breath though as it's looking like Lapdog Cameron's already been put on a leash.

If it were to be done to Sky there would immediately be a strong case for doing it to Virgin Media as well.

[zantarous]

The BBC manage to offer red button services so I don't see a technical reason why they can't? And forgetting the technial side of delivery would Sky selling direct to cable viewers be good for us? No ofcourse not look at how VM negotiated a good deal on ESPN and brought the Asia world pack down to just £10. If Sky sold direct we would never get a good price.

[pedg]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

If it were to be done to Sky there would immediately be a strong case for doing it to Virgin Media as well.

Which, given they have already investigated selling off their TV channels would not be something they would be particularly scared of I would guess.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by zantarous

The BBC manage to offer red button services so I don't see a technical reason why they can't? And forgetting the technial side of delivery would Sky selling direct to cable viewers be good for us? No ofcourse not look at how VM negotiated a good deal on ESPN and brought the Asia world pack down to just £10. If Sky sold direct we would never get a good price.

Sadly we'll never know. Virgin's penchant for bunding channels is both a good and a bad thing. ESPN may cost less but it costs less because everyone on XL is paying for it whether they use it or not.

[braysoj1]

Ofcom is preparing to force Sky to cut the price of its premium sports content to benefit consumers and rival operators, but the move will prove controversial.


http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitalt...price-cut.html

[ArronC07]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

If it were to be done to Sky there would immediately be a strong case for doing it to Virgin Media as well.

Yes absolutely.

It's all meaningless.... Sky will appeal which means nothing will be resolved until after the general election. This means, if and when the Tories get in, Sky will not be forced into anything as Ofcoms power will be diminished if it's not dissolved totally.

"John Whittingdale MP, the Conservative chairman of the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, told The Sunday Telegraph: "Many sporting bodies are concerned that if Sky are forced to cut the price they can charge for Sky Sports it will reduce the amount they will pay for rights and reduce the money paid to clubs.""

So don't expect a cut in Skys price, HD or interactive this side of ever.

I hope i'm wrong.