OFCOM ready to rule?

[carbon60]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

See above regarding large financial gains. The financial situations aren't as dissimilar as you might think. Sky's 'monopoly' is actually being eroded naturally as per my earlier post on viewing figures.

What does that graph actually describe?

This graph http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ion_income.png shows the total number of subscribers steadily going up.

Does the graph you quoted mean the market size is getting bigger but Sky's share of the total market is getting smaller?

[zantarous]

I used be a part of the why should sky seller stuff to the competition for cheaper as the made the investment but have come to this conclusion, all manufactures sell at a whole sale price to retailers, Pay TV should be no exception to this. After all Virgin and BT are selling a service that Sky make money form and they too should be able to make some money from it as well.

I think we need to take a look at the US model where content is much more freely available and you chose your cable or satellite company on price rather then what channels they maybe able to carry.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I would love to see a price reduction on Sky, I have a multi room with Sky, and it is nearly £80.00 per month, I also have VM especially for the free ESPN channel and phone line etc, and l pay 50.00 and l have two boxes. BUT we did have mutli room on VM at the same price.

IF Sky reduced the price in line with all the others, then there would be good compitition and customers could then choose what is the best service to choose.

[zantarous]

The price reduction on the other platforms could well plug any finacial lose that Sky might suffer as they could sell more subscriptions and if there is a slight profit for the other operators to make they may get a bit more aggressive about selling Movies and Sports.

[naeskydish]

I was having a look at earlier reports last year. Something has to be done. Who has the b*lls to do it?

On 26 June Ofcom published a report into the pay-TV market. After long investigation, it concluded that Sky had a monopolistic control: its 80% of Premier League football and 100% of movies from the big Hollywood studios prevent others from entering the market, and Sky sells these rights to others at too high a price. As a competition regulator, Ofcom's job is to keep the market open. Its new ruling requires Sky to sell on its rights to all comers at some 30% less than it currently charges. BT reckons this will drop the average cost of watching top-flight football by £10 a month.
Ofcom's boldness drew an amazed intake of breath from industry players and observers. This is the first time a regulator has seriously challenged Murdoch's market power. Those who stood to gain – BT Vision, Virgin Media, Top Up TV and others — were delighted their protests were so bravely answered.
Sky's chief executive replied immediately that it would challenge Ofcom using "all available legal avenues". This time, however, Ofcom is not expected to allow Sky to use the tactic of delaying regulators in the courts for years – it must comply and can appeal afterwards. The battle is on, since historically Murdoch's empire has stooped to manipulating regulators and avoiding taxes. How has he done that? By leaning hard on politicians, who – knowing only too well his dominant voice in newspapers – are frightened for their lives.
Taken from Guardian 11 July 2009

Anything that puts even a slight dent in the global media power of the arrogant tool Rupert Murdoch can only be a good thing. Something has to be done.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by naeskydish

I was having a look at earlier reports last year. Something has to be done. Who has the b*lls to do it?



Anything that puts even a slight dent in the global media power of the arrogant tool Rupert Murdoch can only be a good thing. Something has to be done.

fully agree

I'm not holding my breath..As I've said before I'll believe it when it happens.

[TheDon]

The promising thing is if ofcom are actually taking the line of comply now, appeal later, rather than letting it drag out for years through the courts.

With a verdict at the end of march, and them forcing Sky to comply immediately, the consumer could actually see movement on this before the end of Q2. It just sounds far too good to be true.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Sky has a very powerful tool, its like when the football comes up for renewal, Sky has the firepower to knock all the other competition out of the water.

I have said all along, no one has the bottle to take Sky on, and even Ofcom won't beat them, What l would like to see is another broadcastor come in and offer the same service as Sky at a cheaper rate, and see what happens.

I always thought that when Sir Richard came into the business, l thought, here is a man with enough gun power and money to take on Sky, and what has happened nothing. We need someone too take on Sky - BUT who.

[devilincarnate]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Sky has a very powerful tool, its like when the football comes up for renewal, Sky has the firepower to knock all the other competition out of the water.

I have said all along, no one has the bottle to take Sky on, and even Ofcom won't beat them, What l would like to see is another broadcastor come in and offer the same service as Sky at a cheaper rate, and see what happens.

I always thought that when Sir Richard came into the business, l thought, here is a man with enough gun power and money to take on Sky, and what has happened nothing. We need someone too take on Sky - BUT who.

ESPN have come on to the market in the UK and have the power and also the money to take on SKY (bankrolled by DISNEY) . Also in the movie stakes there are new movies starting up such as EPIXHD as the work with cable companies as if you take bb and tv you can stream on the net and also get the channel on tv where you are able to watch movies the same as VOD but for a monthly subscription !

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by richard1960

The way it works looks like sky charge x and ofcom say its got to be minus for vm and bt which means they can charge less for sky sports/movies then sky currently does,which means in order to keep prices for its own customers to the same sky then has to reduce their price for its own customer base for sky sports,so skys own subs could benefit.

Thereby helping skys own subscribers to cut costs,not saying i agree with this but ofcom will have figures the public did not have access to (as the figures were blacked out on pay tv enquirey documents i saw online)

How does this help Sky's customers?

If Sky have to charge VM / BT less than they charge their customers by x%, retail minus, then dropping the prices to their own customers simply means they have to drop the prices to Virgin and BT as well. They aren't going to drop their own customers' prices so that they can charge VM and BT less as well.

---------- Post added at 23:02 ---------- Previous post was at 23:01 ----------

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I would love to see a price reduction on Sky, I have a multi room with Sky, and it is nearly £80.00 per month, I also have VM especially for the free ESPN channel and phone line etc, and l pay 50.00 and l have two boxes. BUT we did have mutli room on VM at the same price.

IF Sky reduced the price in line with all the others, then there would be good compitition and customers could then choose what is the best service to choose.

This would not produce any kind of price reduction for Sky customers Arthur. Have another read of it all.

---------- Post added at 23:04 ---------- Previous post was at 23:02 ----------

Originally Posted by carbon60

What does that graph actually describe?

This graph http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ion_income.png shows the total number of subscribers steadily going up.

Does the graph you quoted mean the market size is getting bigger but Sky's share of the total market is getting smaller?

It's about eye balls on screens and the channels they are watching. There are more channels to watch than before and Sky's content is getting less viewers than before.

Yes Sky continue to gain subscribers however their share of the DTV market continues to drop due to Freeview and Freesat primarily.

---------- Post added at 23:06 ---------- Previous post was at 23:04 ----------

Originally Posted by zantarous

I used be a part of the why should sky seller stuff to the competition for cheaper as the made the investment but have come to this conclusion, all manufactures sell at a whole sale price to retailers, Pay TV should be no exception to this. After all Virgin and BT are selling a service that Sky make money form and they too should be able to make some money from it as well.

I think we need to take a look at the US model where content is much more freely available and you chose your cable or satellite company on price rather then what channels they maybe able to carry.

Content is available, just as Sky's content is available, however the price for carriage of the channels is individually negotiated between content provider and broadcaster.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Toto

If this is announced in March as the article suggests, it will not likely mean prices will start to fall. Sky have said they intend to challenge this legally, and they are adept in doing that.

They still have their 17% stake in ITV, despite being told to reduce it to at least 7% over a year ago.....this is as a direct legal challenge to that ruling.

I wouldn't hold your breath. If "Dave Camera-on" gets in, he'll give Murdoch what he wants anyway.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by TheDon

Go take a look at America for an example of how much of a bad idea it is... oh wait their cable and satellite companies seem to have huge competition, with hundreds of channels (and hundreds of them in hd), and with local areas having their own providers which can still compete with the big players because of equal access to content.

Their channels don't seem to be doing too badly either! Amazing how they seem to be able to fund the likes of 24 and lost with no certainty of where they're going to find their return (except for ofc the same carriage contracts that every other non-sky and non-VM owned channel currently uses to gauge such a thing).

Obviously it's a terrible idea though and would never work.

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.

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.

---------- Post added at 23:22 ---------- Previous post was at 23:17 ----------

Originally Posted by naeskydish

I was having a look at earlier reports last year. Something has to be done. Who has the b*lls to do it?



Anything that puts even a slight dent in the global media power of the arrogant tool Rupert Murdoch can only be a good thing. Something has to be done.

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?

[pedg]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I wouldn't hold your breath. If "Dave Camera-on" gets in, he'll give Murdoch what he wants anyway.

According to guardian

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.

So if (and hopefully when) they do that it would mean that the price would have to drop immediately so it would be a brave Cameron to reverse something like that immediately he takes office.

Personally I am not so much interested in the price as having things like the HD channels and the 'other games on the red button' streams. Assuming that is covered by the same rules then we could get them soon and again it would be a brave politician to come in and say "Sorry cable and BT viewers but I am going to take those channels away".

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by pedg

According to guardian

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.

So if (and hopefully when) they do that it would mean that the price would have to drop immediately so it would be a brave Cameron to reverse something like that immediately he takes office.

Personally I am not so much interested in the price as having things like the HD channels and the 'other games on the red button' streams. Assuming that is covered by the same rules then we could get them soon and again it would be a brave politician to come in and say "Sorry cable and BT viewers but I am going to take those channels away".

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!

EDIT: Incidentally all this stuff about BSkyB charging VM more for the channels than their own customers pay isn't true, at least for the bundle. For individual packages beyond this a comparison is 'tricky' as I suspect Sky take a hit on SS1 as they know so few customers take it on its' own.

According to The Guardian VM pay 23.40 for the Sports and Movies bundle, Sky charge their customers 25.50. Further, the costs to VM of carriage of these channels specifically over and above the rest of their selection is marginal. Perhaps they are trying to justify their upselling price strategy on TV?

£37.00 a month with TV Size:M
£33.50 a month with TV Size:M+
£32.50 a month with TV Size:L
£27.50 a month with TV Size:XL

Again the timing of it all seems odd until one notes an election coming up, the Guardian got it spot on. This is Ofcom waving its' willy before it gets chopped off.

But Ofcom is desperate to prove itself as the consumer's champion at a time when the Conservatives have made it clear they would dramatically reduce its ability to set policy if they were in power.