General : No Sky Atlantic on VM for a "long long time"...

Originally Posted by gizuk

Highly competitive is extremely subjective. Sky have built up a dominant position based on years of no competition. They have continually abused this dominant position to the detriment of customers and competitors. This is the reason OFCOM stepped in (eventually, and in my opinion FAR too late) and introduced the various rate cards that now exist.

I think there is a difference between the availability of big ticket content such as sports and movies, and channels that have been available cross-platform for decades, and new products that have never been available outside of the Sky delivery platform, which is what Sky Atlantic is.

There is a reasonable expectation that Sky One will be universally available on pay TV precisely because it has been for a long time, the cable operator(s) have built business models around it in good faith and consumers have invested in equipment or contract tie-ins. Ditto sports and movies.

But it would be perverse to insist that Sky can't create its own exclusive branded products. Just as you can only buy Harrods branded goods from Harrods, so Sky should be allowed to develop new, premium services that are its own exclusive property to sell. It's not as if HBO shows didn't exist before Sky signed an exclusive carriage deal for them. Any other pay TV or terrestrial operator could have gone in and done what Sky did. But they didn't.

Sky is a commercial enterprise, it has shareholders who invest money so they can get a return. At present, Sky's judgement is that the best return on their investment in HBO programming is to use it as a means of attracting new customers to their platform, rather than retailing it through other carriers and trying to pick up higher viewing figures and ad revenues.

[gizuk]

Originally Posted by Chris

I think there is a difference between the availability of big ticket content such as sports and movies, and channels that have been available cross-platform for decades, and new products that have never been available outside of the Sky delivery platform, which is what Sky Atlantic is.

There is a reasonable expectation that Sky One will be universally available on pay TV precisely because it has been for a long time, the cable operator(s) have built business models around it in good faith and consumers have invested in equipment or contract tie-ins. Ditto sports and movies.

But it would be perverse to insist that Sky can't create its own exclusive branded products. Just as you can only buy Harrods branded goods from Harrods, so Sky should be allowed to develop new, premium services that are its own exclusive property to sell. It's not as if HBO shows didn't exist before Sky signed an exclusive carriage deal for them. Any other pay TV or terrestrial operator could have gone in and done what Sky did. But they didn't.

Sky is a commercial enterprise, it has shareholders who invest money so they can get a return. At present, Sky's judgement is that the best return on their investment in HBO programming is to use it as a means of attracting new customers to their platform, rather than retailing it through other carriers and trying to pick up higher viewing figures and ad revenues.

That is not at all how it works. Companies sign multi-year deals. If the deal is not renewed then the channel(s) will disappear.

The issue here is sky make the channel and sky supply the service. They externally want to charge others MUCH MORE for the channel rather than the internal charging. This is anti-competitive and is EXACTLY what OFCOM ruled on and why they introduced the rate cards.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

I think there is a difference between the availability of big ticket content such as sports and movies, and channels that have been available cross-platform for decades, and new products that have never been available outside of the Sky delivery platform, which is what Sky Atlantic is.

There is a reasonable expectation that Sky One will be universally available on pay TV precisely because it has been for a long time, the cable operator(s) have built business models around it in good faith and consumers have invested in equipment or contract tie-ins. Ditto sports and movies.

But it would be perverse to insist that Sky can't create its own exclusive branded products. Just as you can only buy Harrods branded goods from Harrods, so Sky should be allowed to develop new, premium services that are its own exclusive property to sell. It's not as if HBO shows didn't exist before Sky signed an exclusive carriage deal for them. Any other pay TV or terrestrial operator could have gone in and done what Sky did. But they didn't.

Sky is a commercial enterprise, it has shareholders who invest money so they can get a return. At present, Sky's judgement is that the best return on their investment in HBO programming is to use it as a means of attracting new customers to their platform, rather than retailing it through other carriers and trying to pick up higher viewing figures and ad revenues.

Sorry, can't agree with that, Chris. Sky Atlantic is just a channel filled with the content that others provide that Sky just suck up and put an exclusive tag on. How can this be fair when there are other companies (eg Virgin Media) who do not supply channels of their own? It's unfair competition.

I might have some sympathy with this argument if Sky were actually producing the programmes for Sky Atlantic themselves, but they are seeking to dominate the whole market.

Incidentally, the first episodes of Mad Men were shown on BBC2, and so it is not true to say that 'new products ... have never been available outside of the Sky delivery platform'. But even so, I don't see how it can be OK for one company to buy up content from all those providers and then hog that material for itself.

One big thing that Sky has not yet grasped is that we are Sky customers too. This behaviour sets people against the company, and so I don't know how some people think it is to Sky's commercial advantage to engage in these despicable practices. Considering the small audiences SA attracts, I think it is stretching things to describe this as a 'unique selling point'. They are having a laugh and the competition authorities are too lazy to do anything about it.

Originally Posted by gizuk

That is not at all how it works. Companies sign multi-year deals. If the deal is not renewed then the channel(s) will disappear.

The issue here is sky make the channel and sky supply the service. They externally want to charge others MUCH MORE for the channel rather than the internal charging. This is anti-competitive and is EXACTLY what OFCOM ruled on and why they introduced the rate cards.

Wrong.

Ofcom forced a rate card on Sky Sports 1 and 2 in 2010. It threatened to do so for movies as well, but backed off in 2012 because of the launch of services like Netflix. There is no compulsory rate card for the Sky Basics channels that I have been able to uncover. Sky and VM thrashed out a mutually acceptable deal for carriage of Flextech and Sky Basics channels in 2010 after the debacle of Sky One etc being pulled from VM for a period of months.

The anti-competitive charges against Sky have been upheld in a very narrow part of its business.

Sky do indeed both 'make' Sky Atlantic and distribute it via their own platform; they are entitled to do so and it is not anti-competitive because there has never been a ruling to say that it is. Virgin Media were free to make a deal with HBO but they didn't. Channel 4, ITV or the BBC could have done so, but didn't.

Sky is under no obligation to water down its investment in its brand. If you want SA, you know where to get it.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Wrong.

Ofcom forced a rate card on Sky Sports 1 and 2 in 2010. It threatened to do so for movies as well, but backed off in 2012 because of the launch of services like Netflix. There is no compulsory rate card for the Sky Basics channels that I have been able to uncover. Sky and VM thrashed out a mutually acceptable deal for carriage of Flextech and Sky Basics channels in 2010 after the debacle of Sky One etc being pulled from VM for a period of months.

The anti-competitive charges against Sky have been upheld in a very narrow part of its business.

Sky do indeed both 'make' Sky Atlantic and distribute it via their own platform; they are entitled to do so and it is not anti-competitive because there has never been a ruling to say that it is. Virgin Media were free to make a deal with HBO but they didn't. Channel 4, ITV or the BBC could have done so, but didn't.

Sky is under no obligation to water down its investment in its brand. If you want SA, you know where to get it.

NTL/Telewest used to have HBO programmes on demand but they did not make it exclusive. Sky have spoiled everything for non-Sky satellite subscribers and they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

The fact that there has not yet been a ruling does not mean these Sky practices are not anti-competitive. Of course they are, that is why they do it, to take an unfair slice of the market.

[gizuk]

Originally Posted by Chris

Wrong.

Ofcom forced a rate card on Sky Sports 1 and 2 in 2010. It threatened to do so for movies as well, but backed off in 2012 because of the launch of services like Netflix. There is no compulsory rate card for the Sky Basics channels that I have been able to uncover. Sky and VM thrashed out a mutually acceptable deal for carriage of Flextech and Sky Basics channels in 2010 after the debacle of Sky One etc being pulled from VM for a period of months.

The anti-competitive charges against Sky have been upheld in a very narrow part of its business.

Sky do indeed both 'make' Sky Atlantic and distribute it via their own platform; they are entitled to do so and it is not anti-competitive because there has never been a ruling to say that it is. Virgin Media were free to make a deal with HBO but they didn't. Channel 4, ITV or the BBC could have done so, but didn't.

Sky is under no obligation to water down its investment in its brand. If you want SA, you know where to get it.

Which is it? Is it wrong? Or is there a rate card?

There is a rate card in place for sport. This is what I was talking about. It is my opinion that the same should be the case for movies (There is NO effective competition in this area) and other channels.

The only reason Sky can afford the money they can is because they charge the amount they do. It is a spiral which has been allowed to continue and which has brought us to where we are. The other companies you mention cannot afford to pay the money Sky do because of this.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by gizuk

Which is it? Is it wrong? Or is there a rate card?

There is a rate card in place for sport. This is what I was talking about. It is my opinion that the same should be the case for movies (There is NO effective competition in this area) and other channels.

The only reason Sky can afford the money they can is because they charge the amount they do. It is a spiral which has been allowed to continue and which has brought us to where we are. The other companies you mention cannot afford to pay the money Sky do because of this.

Yes, gizuk, and as customers, we are all screwed too!

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, gizuk, and as customers, we are all screwed too!

And who is to say that even if Sky Atlantic was available then whats the odds on Sky setting up other exclusive channels just to keep on their own platform and thus the cycle goes on.

[gizuk]

Originally Posted by denphone

And who is to say that even if Sky Atlantic was available then whats the odds on Sky setting up other exclusive channels just to keep on their own platform and thus the cycle goes on.

Which is where Sky Atlantic came from. Announced on the very day Virgin made a big fanfare of finally getting Sky One HD. Not anti-competitive?

[Anypermitedroute]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

One big thing that Sky has not yet grasped is that we are Sky customers too. This behaviour sets people against the company, and so I don't know how some people think it is to Sky's commercial advantage to engage in these despicable practices. Considering the small audiences SA attracts, I think it is stretching things to describe this as a 'unique selling point'. They are having a laugh and the competition authorities are too lazy to do anything about it.

This I do agree with old boy, until Sky the content supplier and Sky the provider are seperated then all others will be at a disadvantage unless a politics gets involved that either forces Sky to do a deal with VM or forces VM to allow sky a mechanism to sell directly to customer via an app for e.g..

fortunately/unfortunately sky can jsut say we made it available directly to all using the now TV method at a "reasonable" price so it think they covered themselves to be honest

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute

This I do agree with old boy, until Sky the content supplier and Sky the provider are seperated then all others will be at a disadvantage unless a politics gets involved that either forces Sky to do a deal with VM or forces VM to allow sky a mechanism to sell directly to customer via an app for e.g..

fortunately/unfortunately sky can jsut say we made it available directly to all using the now TV method at a "reasonable" price so it think they covered themselves to be honest

Well I guess that's one of the reasons why Sky have done it, but it doesn't cut the mustard in my book. The Now TV box might make Sky Atlantic available to Sky customers but it remains the case that the content on Sky Atlantic is denied to other providers.

I'm glad that Sky are in the entertainment market and not the meat market.

[RobboEdin]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well I guess that's one of the reasons why Sky have done it, but it doesn't cut the mustard in my book. The Now TV box might make Sky Atlantic available to Sky customers but it remains the case that the content on Sky Atlantic is denied to other providers.

I'm glad that Sky are in the entertainment market and not the meat market.

Imagine that - having to make do with chicken at your local Morrisons because Tesco has exclusive rights to beef.

[Doug P]

Originally Posted by gizuk

Which is where Sky Atlantic came from. Announced on the very day Virgin made a big fanfare of finally getting Sky One HD. Not anti-competitive?

No. Extremely clever imo.

[passingbat]

Maybe HBO deserve some of the blame?

They choose to do a financially lucrative deal with Sky rather than, as they do in the US, make it available to multiple cable/satellite providers.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RobboEdin

Imagine that - having to make do with chicken at your local Morrisons because Tesco has exclusive rights to beef.

Yes, and at an enhanced price to boot, with labeling and cooking instructions an optional extra!