Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2011) Vol. I.

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Ofcom should have grew some balls and made Sky Sports 3 and 4 part of the deal.

It would have been much better if a separate enquirey had taken place one that separates skys platform from the content which is the real problem here,if the content divsion had to operate independantly they would have to sell content on a non discriminatory fashion,certainly it would make the pay tv platform a lot fairer for those that want the content but cannot get sky.IE it would be a benefit to consumers not big buisiness so it probably will not happen.

[muppetman11]

People believe Sky shouldn't be regulated as it's a private company unlike BT , Royal Mail etc , however Microsoft in the states is a private company and look at all the times they've been regulated or made to change things ( ever noticed on Windows now you have the choice of browser to install). Sky uses it's Market position to dictate the pay tv Market.

Examples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
http://www.webpronews.com/blogtalk/2...t-legal-issues

Would bundling together be the case if News Corp buys 100% of Sky (Ie selling newspaper subs with Sky and vice versa.)

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

People believe Sky shouldn't be regulated as it's a private company unlike BT , Royal Mail etc , however Microsoft in the states is a private company and look at all the times they've been regulated or made to change things ( ever noticed on Windows now you have the choice of browser to install). Sky uses it's Market position to dictate the pay tv Market.

Examples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
http://www.webpronews.com/blogtalk/2...t-legal-issues

Would bundling together be the case if News Corp buys 100% of Sky (Ie selling newspaper subs with Sky and vice versa.)

Let's be quite clear BSkyB is most certainly regulated, whether that regulation should cover a wider scope is something that is worthy of discussion in my opinion, I personally wouldn't want to see any broadcaster too heavilly regulated though.

Originally Posted by muppetman11

People believe Sky shouldn't be regulated as it's a private company unlike BT , Royal Mail etc , however Microsoft in the states is a private company and look at all the times they've been regulated or made to change things ( ever noticed on Windows now you have the choice of browser to install). Sky uses it's Market position to dictate the pay tv Market.

Examples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
http://www.webpronews.com/blogtalk/2...t-legal-issues

Would bundling together be the case if News Corp buys 100% of Sky (Ie selling newspaper subs with Sky and vice versa.)

I would hope the regulator would look into all the issues regarding Mr Murdoch buying 100% of BSkyB along with the newspaper division he would have massive influence on the media including the one you highlighted ie bundling.

Yes Microsoft faced several investigations regarding their browser monopoly,and were made to change things ie due to their size and power thanks to a ruling we now have a choice as to which browser to install,however unless i am wrong microsoft are not quite so agressive as Mr Murdoch about using political influence,any politician sems to go a pale white and start to shake at the very mention of his name,which cheifly is why we are where we are today in regards to sky being properly regulated as a virtual monopoly of content people really wish to pay for.

---------- Post added at 18:12 ---------- Previous post was at 18:07 ----------

Originally Posted by mersey70

Let's be quite clear BSkyB is most certainly regulated, whether that regulation should cover a wider scope is something that is worthy of discussion in my opinion, I personally wouldn't want to see any broadcaster too heavilly regulated though.

Surely though by separating the content from the platform it would be a lot better for the consumer in general sky have enormous power in being a platform as well as content providers.

I am in favour of more regulation of any near or monopoly service.

[Pair of Ducks]

Originally Posted by Media Boy

TCM2 is only an part-time channels that runs from 8pm - 4am (When Cartoonito is not broadcasting.)

Any way I think TCM2 will be closing soon to make way for Adult Swim Channel to launch.

That's what I thought would happen, but it's a new license, if they were gonna close it TCM2, they would change the name of the TCM2 license.

Originally Posted by mersey70

I thought it has now been confirmed that OFCOM had not actually awarded Adult Swim a TV licence after all? Or am I not upto speed.

No, they have the license http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/tvlicensing/cs/2095.htm

But Adult Swim's Twitter and Facebook are denying they're launching a channel, saying it's the license for the Sky Mobile TV channel

Which makes no sense since none of the other Sky Mobile TV channels have ofcom licenses

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by richard1960

I would hope the regulator would look into all the issues regarding Mr Murdoch buying 100% of BSkyB along with the newspaper division he would have massive influence on the media including the one you highlighted ie bundling.

Yes Microsoft faced several investigations regarding their browser monopoly,and were made to change things ie due to their size and power thanks to a ruling we now have a choice as to which browser to install,however unless i am wrong microsoft are not quite so agressive as Mr Murdoch about using political influence,any politician sems to go a pale white and start to shake at the very mention of his name,which cheifly is why we are where we are today in regards to sky being properly regulated as a virtual monopoly of content people really wish to pay for.

---------- Post added at 18:12 ---------- Previous post was at 18:07 ----------



Surely though by separating the content from the platform it would be a lot better for the consumer in general sky have enormous power in being a platform as well as content providers.

I am in favour of more regulation of any near or monopoly service.

I don't have a view on the content/distribution argument personally, i'm open minded at the moment.

I don't know what your definition of a monopoly service is though, if VM have 4m and Sky have 10m TV customers I cannot see any monopoly personally as don't OFCOM, being dominant and a monopoly are two entirely different things (I accept they can buy up a lot of unregulated content though) and of course there are other players too but I do understand peoples genuine concerns.

Bad news that it has today been reported that YouView may be delayed until next year, Sky and VM will no doubt be pleased though as they can truly offer both real competition.

[muppetman11]

Sky's content is great and there HD is second to none however I feel everybody should be able to watch it on the platform of there choice much like in the US.

[Felim_Doyle]

Originally Posted by richard1960

It would have been much better if a separate enquirey had taken place one that separates skys platform from the content which is the real problem here,if the content divsion had to operate independantly they would have to sell content on a non discriminatory fashion,certainly it would make the pay tv platform a lot fairer for those that want the content but cannot get sky.IE it would be a benefit to consumers not big buisiness so it probably will not happen.

Originally Posted by muppetman11

People believe Sky shouldn't be regulated as it's a private company unlike BT , Royal Mail etc , however Microsoft in the states is a private company and look at all the times they've been regulated or made to change things ( ever noticed on Windows now you have the choice of browser to install). Sky uses it's Market position to dictate the pay tv Market.

Examples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
http://www.webpronews.com/blogtalk/2...t-legal-issues

Would bundling together be the case if News Corp buys 100% of Sky (Ie selling newspaper subs with Sky and vice versa.)

Whilst I would like to see Sky split more clearly between the delivery platform and the content provider, the same could have been said of VM until a few months ago. Even now VM have a 50% interest in the UKTV channels and I would be very wary of them losing that to certain parties (not just Sky).

Putting broadband and telephone aside it is still quite a complicated situation with the Sky/BSkyB TV and Radio service. As I understand it, you buy a Sky box and dish and you can already receive free-to-air and free-to-view programming with it, subject to having a £20 FreeSatFromSky viewing card perhaps. Then, for a subscription, you can receive additional channels with content from a variety of providers as well as Sky branded channels, such as Sky 1, 2 and 3, with content from a variety of providers, as well as Sky produced programming on Sky channels such as Sky News and Sky Sports. Then there are the movie channels with content from a variety of providers and some On Demand services as well, if you have a broadband connection, with content from a variety of providers.

So where do you make the split? The satellite platform, the additional channel provision, the Sky branded channels, the Sky production company, the bit that buys up the rights to televise various sports etc.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Sky's content is great and there HD is second to none however I feel everybody should be able to watch it on the platform of there choice much like in the US.

It's a fair argument, of course they would say if they are not allowed to enhance the attractiveness of their own platform by having something exclusive (like SSP 3/4 HD) they lose the incentive to invest. They might also say others like VM have decided to not provide their own content and are happy just to carry theirs and other providers so there's two sides to the coin. I don't know who is right.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by jtaylor06

Channel 5 logo looks very American-like if you get where I'm coming from?
Looks pretty good though!

Oh, I've just noticed that with the Filmflex previews, in replacement of the "500 films at your fingertips" (was very annoying), there is now a new clip that says
"Sorry this channel is currently having difficulties", followed by the advertisement of the OD services.
I must say, this is pretty good and is less annoying than the Filmflex clip it had before.

I've noticed this at around midnight on the 14th and 15th January. I agree it is SO much less annoying...

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s....php?t=1424571

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by mersey70

It's a fair argument, of course they would say if they are not allowed to enhance the attractiveness of their own platform by having something exclusive (like SSP 3/4 HD) they lose the incentive to invest. They might also say others like VM have decided to not provide their own content and are happy just to carry theirs and other providers so there's two sides to the coin. I don't know who is right.

Agreed but this comes back to platform/content, in the US the main sports channels are not platform providers ie ESPN , Fox Sports , ABC Sports , TNT , NFL network etc so there channels are available on a variety of platforms , I think Comcast have a sports channel and they are a platform provider but can't think of any more.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Agreed but this comes back to platform/content in the US the main sports channels are not platform providers ie ESPN , Fox Sports , ABC Sports , TNT , NFL network etc so there channels are available on a variety of platforms , I think Comcast have a sports channel and they are a platform provider but can't think of any more.

I think Comcast are the biggest Pay TV platform (either cable or satellite) in the US and they are most certainly a content provider, in fact they are just in the process of buying NBC. Don't Time Warner also have a cable network and channels too?

It is very common in Europe for platforms to provide content too, I suppose Canal Plus France are the best example and I think these are the best to compare with rather than US companies.

[Media Boy UK]

Originally Posted by Gavin-D

Media Boy do you have any information on the Brit Cops series according to wikipedia there is another one to be shown BritCops: Series 6: Rule of Law - 10 editions - Transmission TBA would it be put on Sky Livingit?

I have just found on the Virgin EPG that BritCops are broadcasting on LIVINGit on Thursday nights at 10pm until the end of January.

(Sorry but I only found it).

[Gavin-D]

Originally Posted by Media Boy

I have just found on the Virgin EPG that BritCops are broadcasting on LIVINGit on Thursday nights at 10pm until the end of January.

(Sorry but I only found it).

Thanks for that Media Boy as i suspected they have put it on LIVINGit.

[Felim_Doyle]

Originally Posted by mersey70

I don't have a view on the content/distribution argument personally, i'm open minded at the moment.

I don't know what your definition of a monopoly service is though, if VM have 4m and Sky have 10m TV customers I cannot see any monopoly personally as don't OFCOM, being dominant and a monopoly are two entirely different things (I accept they can buy up a lot of unregulated content though) and of course there are other players too but I do understand peoples genuine concerns.

Bad news that it has today been reported that YouView may be delayed until next year, Sky and VM will no doubt be pleased though as they can truly offer both real competition.

Hence the desire for a 'split' of the platform from the content provision. In your example, VM have 4m platform customers and Sky have 10m platform customers and those are reasonable, competitive proportions. But Sky as a content provider also buy up a lot of programming, produce their own programming and corner the market in some sports which they have been known to withhold from other platforms or for which they negotiate anti-competitive deals, hence the Ofcom ruling last year.

So, similar to the way that BT OpenReach must provide unbiased access to the broadband infrastructure for all service providers, BSkyB's content provision and production companies could be made to supply all platforms, including Sky, under equal contract terms.

However, maybe that in itself is anti-competitive.