OFCOM ready to rule?

[gadge]

Originally Posted by Mobes

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.

Intresting read.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...edia-ofcom-sky

Typical Tories, say one thing one day and another the next:-

Good read though Gadge... sounds a bit more optimistic... my glass ifs always half empty lol...

"The Conservatives, however, do not appear interested in reversing any decision by Ofcom concerning Sky. Shadow culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, told the BBC's Newsnight on 26 November: "On pay-TV … and Ofcom, we explicitly said that is something that should be decided at arm's length from politicians".

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Sky won't be forced to do anything, they will go to the courts over this, they will feel that they are entitled to charge what they want.

In the end it comes down to one thing - the customer. I think in all seriousness, that the customer demands the best of everything for what they pay, if VM for example wanted to offer the Sky sports package at say a fiver a month, then surely they will lose money, if they pay Sky prices, and when it come to clubs losing money, l can't see how, the only thing l would like to see, where Sky are forced to cover games below the championship, where money is needed.

Ie when the last time you watched game from the Blue Square or watched Crewe play, its these games and players that provide the 'meat' for the big clubs.

[pedg]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Sky won't be forced to do anything, they will go to the courts over this, they will feel that they are entitled to charge what they want.

As I said above for Sky to go to court and stop the cut they would have to claim that ofcom where breaking the law. If they are only able to sue by claiming that ofcoms judgement is wrong then that would not stop the price cut. See the part of the guardian article...

The satellite broadcaster is expected to launch an immediate legal attack on any moves to cut its prices but the regulator will use its powers to introduce the measures while the lawyers make their arguments.

in which case could you imagine the outcry when/if Sky won the legal battle and then put up their prices again LOL

[Morden]

Originally Posted by martyh

it seems a little unfair to me to force sky to drop it's prices ,they have put in all the investment over the last 15-20 yrs ,if it wasn't for sky then football and sports coverage in the uk would still be stuck like it was in the 70's and early 80's .Jeremy Darrach has good right to be upset .

What goes around comes around. on one hand SKY were happy to expand their broadband based on piggy backing on BT's national network after OFCOM had previously ruled that BT must open up its network which spent billions and years of work on. If BT had not invested in their network upgrading exchanges, lines, etc, over a number of the last few decades then the only broadband would be Virgins. BT had to allow others access just like SKY will have to now. That access obviously dented BT's monopoly on telecoms just like this will dent SKY's monopoly on sports.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Sky won't be forced to do anything, they will go to the courts over this, they will feel that they are entitled to charge what they want.

In the end it comes down to one thing - the customer. I think in all seriousness, that the customer demands the best of everything for what they pay, if VM for example wanted to offer the Sky sports package at say a fiver a month, then surely they will lose money, if they pay Sky prices, and when it come to clubs losing money, l can't see how, the only thing l would like to see, where Sky are forced to cover games below the championship, where money is needed.

Ie when the last time you watched game from the Blue Square or watched Crewe play, its these games and players that provide the 'meat' for the big clubs.

No one wants to watch Blue Square games, as proved when they've actually been shown. Setanta's viewing figures for the BSP were abysmal.

The system as it is now works quite well, the tickle down effect has kept clubs going for years. The only problem with it now is more and more clubs buying foreign talent rather than looking at the lower divisions, that's not an issue for sky, it's one for the football leagues.

[pedg]

Originally Posted by martyh

it seems a little unfair to me to force sky to drop it's prices ,they have put in all the investment over the last 15-20 yrs ,if it wasn't for sky then football and sports coverage in the uk would still be stuck like it was in the 70's and early 80's .Jeremy Darrach has good right to be upset .

One man's investment is another man's purchased monopoly.

As to sport being stuck in 70's and 80's if we still only had 3/4 channels that we had then that football and sport on TV would be a very different beast to what it is now. The main driver for how TV sport has developed in this country is not down to sky but to the worldwide development of multichannel technology that has allowed the opening of channels dedicated totally to sport, something that would have been unthinkable in the 70's and 80's.

Originally Posted by Morden

What goes around comes around. on one hand SKY were happy to expand their broadband based on piggy backing on BT's national network after OFCOM had previously ruled that BT must open up its network which spent billions and years of work on. If BT had not invested in their network upgrading exchanges, lines, etc, over a number of the last few decades then the only broadband would be Virgins. BT had to allow others access just like SKY will have to now. That access obviously dented BT's monopoly on telecoms just like this will dent SKY's monopoly on sports.

Very well put i agree entirely.

Also a fact i had not realised is sky sports collection is more expensive at the moment then sky subs pay!

Just been on skys website and it states if you work the pricing out sky sports collection is £18 extra with any mix of channels from 1-6.

On cable i currently pay £20.50 but the price on cable is anywhere between £20.50-£26 for sky sports collection depending on tv package.

And no red button interactive on cable,which sky now regularly put content on,therefore at the moment we get an inferior service at a higher price,how can this be justified i would like to know.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by richard1960

Very well put i agree entirely.

Also a fact i had not realised is sky sports collection is more expensive at the moment then sky subs pay!

Just been on skys website and it states if you work the pricing out sky sports collection is £18 extra with any mix of channels from 1-6.

On cable i currently pay £20.50 but the price on cable is anywhere between £20.50-£26 for sky sports collection depending on tv package.

And no red button interactive on cable,which sky now regularly put content on,therefore at the moment we get an inferior service at a higher price,how can this be justified i would like to know.

It all depends how you look at it (all costs are on top of appropriate line rental):

Typical minimum cost to get Sky TV and Sports is £36 (1 pack + Sky Sports)
Tpyical maximum cost to get Sky TV and Sports is £41 (6 pack + Sky Sports)

Typical minimum cost to get Virgin TV and Sports is £29.50 (M+ and Sky Sports)
Typical maximum cost to get Virgin TV and Sports is £42 (XL tv + Sky Sports)

with TV L and Sky Sports working out to be £34, you have to go to 6 mixes and Sports for Sky to be cheaper - by £1

[newbie1001]

Well maybe if there was a Virgin Sports then Virgin could charge extra to Sky but if it was the same qulaity as Virgin one i wouldn't expect many to take it up. There was nothing stopping Virgin from starting up their own sports channel and bidding like everyone else, everyone had a chance to get the events not just Sky

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Morden

What goes around comes around. on one hand SKY were happy to expand their broadband based on piggy backing on BT's national network after OFCOM had previously ruled that BT must open up its network which spent billions and years of work on. If BT had not invested in their network upgrading exchanges, lines, etc, over a number of the last few decades then the only broadband would be Virgins. BT had to allow others access just like SKY will have to now. That access obviously dented BT's monopoly on telecoms just like this will dent SKY's monopoly on sports.

On the other hand BT were publically owned and given a natural monopoly at the time of privatisation, Sky have never been publically owned. The reason for BT's regulation is, and has always been, that they were at one time a publically owned company and were provided significant market power as their infrastructure was extremely difficult to replicate.

VM / BT have access to Sky's content, they don't want to pay the rate Sky wants for it though. The two aren't really comparable, Virgin are already delivering Sky's services down their cables as part of their package.

If Ofcom are really so into choice then I await the announcement of the following:

1) Mandatory duct sharing - VM and BT required to rent ducting space for other operators to deploy true fibre optic to homes and businesses at regulated rates.
2) Regulated wholesale access to the VM network.
3) Engagement of the government with a view to removing business rates on fibre optic cabling.
4) Ceasing inserting stupid phrases into code powers (ability to dig) such as requiring a small fibre optic company that's deploying access for a small underserved community to lay extra ducts for the national grid.

After all, I am sure those customers who are unable to get high speeds over DSL but don't want to deal with Virgin Media would appreciate a choice of ISPs over Virgin's HFC network and the prices Virgin previously charged AOL for wholesale access were incredibly expensive and disproportionate to their own costs in running the service as well as their own retail pricing.

The other measures remove barriers to companies to invest and in turn offer us choice too.

Ofcom parading themselves as being 'pro consumer' is laughable. They are pro whatever New Labour tell them to be pro, in this instance they saw Rupert turning from them so thought they'd inconvenience him. If they were actually serious they'd have done so much more than simply demanding that BT sell access to their network cheaply.

Originally Posted by BenMcr

It all depends how you look at it (all costs are on top of appropriate line rental):

Typical minimum cost to get Sky TV and Sports is £36 (1 pack + Sky Sports)
Tpyical maximum cost to get Sky TV and Sports is £41 (6 pack + Sky Sports)

Typical minimum cost to get Virgin TV and Sports is £29.50 (M+ and Sky Sports)
Typical maximum cost to get Virgin TV and Sports is £42 (XL tv + Sky Sports)

with TV L and Sky Sports working out to be £34, you have to go to 6 mixes and Sports for Sky to be cheaper - by £1

Thanks Ben yes you are correct in what you say there the £29.50 package is on vms website, pity virgins pricing was not as clear as skys is on their website.

[pedg]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

Ofcom parading themselves as being 'pro choice' is laughable. They are pro whatever New Labour tell them to be pro, in this instance they saw Rupert turning from them so thought they'd inconvenience him.

Sorry but your reasoning is the only thing here that is laughable.

The whole process of ofcom investigating the PAY TV market and their initial decision that the cost of the sports packages should come down happened way before the Sun started moving to support the tories but now you are saying that the decision that ofcom reached last year was somehow pushed backwards in time by a bitter labour party??

From where I, and I think many other people sit, the decision to regulate pay TV is the correct and logical thing to do and not some political point scoring.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

VM / BT have access to Sky's content, they don't want to pay the rate Sky wants for it though. The two aren't really comparable, Virgin are already delivering Sky's services down their cables as part of their package.

No they don't.

Sky WILL NOT sell the HD varients, or red button services to VM. The information in the pay tv consultation makes that perfectly clear.