General : Underhand devious Sky

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Itshim

Perhaps I can access ASDAs goods via my local CO-OP (its closer to me). Sorry its time people started to get real. I do not like, not having the full range of SKY channels via Virgin, but there are a whole lot more that are the same & very few people complain about that ( Think news channels on freeview for a kick off -not on Virgin)

While I actually agree with you, not really sure that analogy works.

The problem with Sky is they buy the exclusive rights to things. So, if you want to watch Premiere League football, or watch (say) Boardwalk Empire, you have to subscribe to a Sky channel. You can't (legally) watch another channel to get the English Premiere League. You can't (legally) watch Boardwalk empire on another UK channel, and it's not just a case of watching another show.

Supermarkets tend not to have exclusive agreements to sell goods, and even if they did, you can probably get the same thing, but another brand.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

they now place a lot of new stuff that should (or at least would) have been on Sky1 onto Sky Atlantic which, by definition, is only supposed to show HBO programming.

Nope we're did it say that in the press release ?
http://corporate.sky.com/media/press...ky_Altantic_HD

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I will say this ONLY ONCE...I do not expect or demand to see Sky channels on VM.I also think that the OP doesn't expect that either.
What we are complaining about is the way programmes are placed on Sky channels because Sky has far more money and therefore bidding power than any of the other platforms.

Two examples.House and Lost.Both were being shown on other platforms and channels.Between one series and the next Sky outbid for them and they disappeared behind the Sky platform.Very hard on those who were watching them on Channel 5 and Channel 4 and had no access to Sky.

While I fully understand your point it is called business. We have exclusive rights to some products in the UK. We out bid an other supplier whom had it before .He sold to anyone now some outlets can no longer supply it. You want it you buy it from US. That`s how it works in the real world,sorry but its true Next people will be telling football clubs that they cant have a player because someone else cannot afford to buy him

[gazzae]

Originally Posted by Stuart

While I actually agree with you, not really sure that analogy works.

The problem with Sky is they buy the exclusive rights to things. So, if you want to watch Premiere League football, or watch (say) Boardwalk Empire, you have to subscribe to a Sky channel. You can't (legally) watch another channel to get the English Premiere League. You can't (legally) watch Boardwalk empire on another UK channel, and it's not just a case of watching another show.

Supermarkets tend not to have exclusive agreements to sell goods, and even if they did, you can probably get the same thing, but another brand.

Well you can - ESPN.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Stuart

While I actually agree with you, not really sure that analogy works.

Supermarkets tend not to have exclusive agreements to sell goods, and even if they did, you can probably get the same thing, but another brand.

Quite correct the point I was badly trying to make is that rivals try to keep some items as exclusive to them. Sky are only doing that.

Originally Posted by Itshim

While I fully understand your point it is called business. We have exclusive rights to some products in the UK. We out bid an other supplier whom had it before .He sold to anyone now some outlets can no longer supply it. You want it you buy it from US. That`s how it works in the real world,sorry but its true Next people will be telling football clubs that they cant have a player because someone else cannot afford to buy him

Well this person WON'T be buying from the gangster Murdoch..under any circumstance.They could be the only supplier and I still won't use them.MY CHOICE.My standards.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I will say this ONLY ONCE...I do not expect or demand to see Sky channels on VM.I also think that the OP doesn't expect that either.
What we are complaining about is the way programmes are placed on Sky channels because Sky has far more money and therefore bidding power than any of the other platforms.

Two examples.House and Lost.Both were being shown on other platforms and channels.Between one series and the next Sky outbid for them and they disappeared behind the Sky platform.Very hard on those who were watching them on Channel 5 and Channel 4 and had no access to Sky.

That's not a fault of sky though is it . If programs are available to be bid on then why shouldn't Sky bid on them .In the case of lost if channel 4 wasn't prepared to pay or couldn't pay ,then that is an issue for channel 4 to sort out .It may have been a pain for the viewers but it was a result of how the whole tv media industry works not just Sky

Originally Posted by martyh

That's not a fault of sky though is it . If programs are available to be bid on then why shouldn't Sky bid on them .In the case of lost if channel 4 wasn't prepared to pay or couldn't pay ,then that is an issue for channel 4 to sort out .It may have been a pain for the viewers but it was a result of how the whole tv media industry works not just Sky

I think it's a case of whom has more money and more clout.Sky has more of both because it was handed to them by past governments who were terrified of Murdoch.The BBC may have our licence money but it's a drop in the ocean compared to Skys resources.Indeed the BBC has had it's funding reduced at the behest of Murdoch complaining about it so bitterly to the government.

Originally Posted by martyh

I think that's just your Murdoch hatred comming out in you Maggie.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Well this person WON'T be buying from the gangster Murdoch..under any circumstance.They could be the only supplier and I still won't use them.MY CHOICE.My standards.

Told you

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Well this person WON'T be buying from the gangster Murdoch..under any circumstance.They could be the only supplier and I still won't use them.MY CHOICE.My standards.

Interesting, do you not watch any of the Sky channels supplied via Virgin ?
Or any thing created by 20th Century Fox ? Read The Times / Sunday Times, Sun. Or any of the other papers from News international.

As much as I do not want to pay money directly to him. My Virgin subs clearly help line his pockets . So if you subscribe to Virgin TV you pay him. Sorry cant see your "details" while typing this so not sure

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Nope we're did it say that in the press release ?
http://corporate.sky.com/media/press...ky_Altantic_HD

Well it does mention the words "exclusive" and "HBO" my mistake.

However, the main points still spply

---------- Post added at 15:39 ---------- Previous post was at 15:36 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

In the case of lost if channel 4 wasn't prepared to pay or couldn't pay, then that is an issue for channel 4 to sort out.

Actually, no. The buying power of BSkyB means they can simply out-bit any other broadcaster. How is that (in this example) "channel 4's problem"?

PS. Yes, I didn't read Maggy's post before I wrote mine

---------- Post added at 15:41 ---------- Previous post was at 15:39 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Well this person WON'T be buying from the gangster Murdoch..under any circumstance.They could be the only supplier and I still won't use them.MY CHOICE.My standards.

More than a little drastic that, Maggy, I think

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Well it does mention the words "exclusive" and "HBO" my mistake.

However, the main points still spply

---------- Post added at 15:39 ---------- Previous post was at 15:36 ----------


Actually, no. The buying power of BSkyB means they can simply out-bit any other broadcaster. How is that (in this example) "channel 4's problem"?

because they couldn't out bid sky .
I am currently pricing up a conservatory for a customer ,i know that i will be competing with 2 other companies for the job ,i have no idea what price they have put in ,i will just have to work out the cost and how much profit i want to make .If my price is too high i will not get the job either because my profit margin is too high or i cannot buy the product at a cheap enough price ,both are my problems not the companies who can provide the product at a lower cost or forgo any profit because they have money in the bank and can out bid me

Originally Posted by martyh

Told you

Not ashamed of it either..I believe in ethics and that it should apply in business,politics and all parts of our lives.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by martyh

because they couldn't out bid sky

Correct. No-one can.

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Correct. No-one can.

which is their problem not sky's .If sky have the financial clout and business acumen to succeed where others have failed then good luck to them .