OFCOM ready to rule?

[pedg]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

But the election is only four months away. "Dave" has also promised to dismantle OFCOM, so there will be nothing to stand in Murdoch's way.

Hopefully what will happen is that ofcom will force through the changes in April. Sky will appeal but the rules apparently say that the price cut will stay until the appeal is settled. At that point there may be a change of government but they would be rather foolish to interfere with an ongoing court case. If sky's position wins out then he can happily reverse the ofcom decision but if the court come out against sky then it would be difficult to see what he could do to change it.

The next stage however will be that sky will try to corner the market in 3D sports TV and so exactly the same with that as they have done with HD sport except this time there will not be a powerful enough regulator to force them to share it. I know 3D is very niche at the moment, but then so was HD tv when it first came out.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I agree with newbie1001, the trouble is VM don't have that sort of dosh, and the way they haggle over cost of everything, l wouldn't hold your breath on HD channels either.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

When l was in Florida, a couple of years ago, and l was talking to a few people in the queue, l was actually telling them what we pay for Satellite and Cable, and they could not believe the price - it was far to high.

In USA, they get more channels then anything, and they don't pay half as much as we do.

Really Arthur?

Directv - https://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/new_c...oternavtype=-1 is the main satellite company. Note the special 1 year deals on the packs, apart from the lowest Family pack they are all $26/month more expensive on the regular price, so for their equivalent of Sky's HD, movies and sport you're looking at $109.99 + $10 for HD + $6 for DVR = $125.99 = just over 77GBP. Just for TV, no broadband internet or telephone service.

Cablevision isn't hugely cheaper - http://www.optimum.com/io/pricing.jsp

RCN, who actually overbuild onto existing cable companies' areas and compete: http://www.rcn.com/boston/digital-ca...es-and-pricing

Cox - http://ww2.cox.com/residential/palos.../tv/cox-tv.cox - Basic TV (73 channels) $50.99, right up to $104.89 for 251 channels, only the $104.89 TV pack includes PVR service. Just to repeat again that is for TV only. For the top TV package, equivalent of XL phone and 10Mbps traffic shaped internet a mere $157.28.

Comcast - http://www.comcast.com - the largest cable company in the world.

Digital Starter
On Demand with tons of free movies
Over 80 digital cable channels. $61.99 per month

Digital Preferred
Over 100 channels and tons of free movies with On Demand
100+ digital cable channels.
Over 10,000 movies and shows–most free–ready to play as you please with On Demand. $78.94 per month

Digital Preferred Plus
Includes HBO and Starz, and their On Demand libraries
150+ digital cable channels.
Over 10,000 movies and shows–most free–ready to play as you please with On Demand. $112.94 per month

Digital Premier
Includes HBO, Showtime, Starz and Cinemax, along with their multiplexes and On Demand libraries, plus the Sports Entertainment Package
200+ digital cable channels.
Over 10,000 movies and shows –most free– ready to play as you please with On Demand. $127.94 per month

Bundles:

Starter XF Triple Play
NEW SUBSCRIBERS: Get the Starter XF Triple Play today for this special price:
$99 a month for 12 months
$114.99 a month for months 13-24

Includes:
Over 80 digital cable channels.
Thousands of On Demand movies and shows.
Internet speeds that are way faster than DSL. (12Mbps)
Comprehensive Security Suite.
Unlimited nationwide calling – rated #1 in call clarity.
Voice mail and 12 popular calling features, including Caller ID and Call Waiting.

HD Preferred Plus XF Triple Play
NEW SUBSCRIBERS: Get the HD Preferred Plus XF Triple Play today for this special price:
$139.99 a month for 12 months
$154.99 a month for months 13-24

Includes:
Free HD – no HD access fees or HD equipment fees.
Over 160 digital cable channels, including HBO and Starz.
Thousands of On Demand movies and shows.
Faster Internet speeds. (16Mbps)
Comprehensive Security Suite.
Unlimited nationwide calling – rated #1 in call clarity.
Voice mail and 12 popular calling features, including Caller ID and Call Waiting.


HD Premier XF Triple Play
NEW SUBSCRIBERS: Get the HD Premier XF Triple Play today for this special price:
$179.99 a month for 12 months
$189.99 a month for months 13-24

Includes:
Free HD DVR – no HD access fees or equipment fees.
Sports Entertainment Package.
Over 200 digital cable channels, including HBO, Starz, Cinemax and Showtime.
Over 17,000 On Demand movies and shows.
Faster Internet speeds. (24Mbps)
Comprehensive Security Suite.
Unlimited nationwide calling – rated #1 in call clarity.
Voice mail and 12 popular calling features, including Caller ID and Call Waiting.

Just TV and HSI / broadband:

Digital Starter with Performance High-Speed Internet
On Demand with tons of free movies + downloads up to 15Mbps with PowerBoost®. PowerBoost provides bursts of download and upload speeds for the first 10 MB and 5 MB of a file, respectively. The speeds are actually 12Mbps downstream and 2Mbps upstream.
Over 80 digital cable channels.
Downloads up to 15Mbps, uploads up to 3Mpbs with PowerBoost®.
All the speed you need for downloading music and movies, and uploading photos and streaming video.
Offer limited to residential customers satisfying applicable eligibility criteria.

For these 80 channels, approximately equivalent to the M Plus VM tier, and an Internet service roughly equivalent to XL, the bargain price of...

$69.99 for the first 6 months
$109.90 per month thereafter

Or if you like 42.85 for the first 6 months then 67.27 in pounds.

They were shocked at how much we pay huh? The ones I speak to on http://www.dslreports.com are indeed shocked, but by how cheap it is here.

---------- Post added at 22:12 ---------- Previous post was at 22:01 ----------

Originally Posted by Cablefan

Add in that they wont allow Virgin to offer a Sky Movies On Demand service - obviously because it would kick ass over the current set up and make the Sky Movies offering on Virgin VASTLY superior to the one on the Sky! Split all content providers from platform operators, it's the best option but it'll never happen unfortunately.

If Virgin want the rights to the movies they can always, you know, pay the studios for them? It's not like those rights are owned by Sky by default. Virgin will never have Sky Movies On Demand, Sky Movies is just the name of a linear channel, they simply pay for the rights to the content and can show it whenever they please.

[zantarous]

IIRC Sky and BSB bought up all the movie rights with exclusive deals for insane amounts of cash back in the 90s. I would suspect that they still hold exclusive rights for pay tv. The only thing that BT and cable can do is buy up VOD rights.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

If Virgin want the rights to the movies they can always, you know, pay the studios for them? It's not like those rights are owned by Sky by default. Virgin will never have Sky Movies On Demand, Sky Movies is just the name of a linear channel, they simply pay for the rights to the content and can show it whenever they please.

Sky movies might be the name of a linear channel, but they don't just have the linear channel rights to the movies they air though, they have the subscription vod rights to them as well as they're contained in the same deal.

It's something ofcom looked into, and decided that if the industry wants to develop those rights and monetise them to a greater extent then they can seperate the two themselves. I'd expect that to happen the next time the rights go up for grabs.

As for VM creating their own movie channels, there's only really room for one set in the market tbh, splitting movie rights by studio isn't anywhere near ideal for the consumer, so they'd have to gain the entire set of rights, and then we'd be in the same situation now, but with VM instead of Sky.

Of course the alternative would be the end to exclusive deals, but I doubt the studios feel they can make as much money that way.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by TheDon

Of course the alternative would be the end to exclusive deals, but I doubt the studios feel they can make as much money that way.

Indeed!

[Cablefan]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

If Virgin want the rights to the movies they can always, you know, pay the studios for them? It's not like those rights are owned by Sky by default. Virgin will never have Sky Movies On Demand, Sky Movies is just the name of a linear channel, they simply pay for the rights to the content and can show it whenever they please.

The point is, if (Sky) Movies was not owned by the platform operator the content provider would no doubt tailor its offering to the platform operators requirements in order to generate maximum subscribers. Sky won't do this as it would give its competitors an advantage over its linear service. Although I'm sure once Sky gets an on demand strategy in place Sky Movies will no doubt be available on demand to Sky subscribers.

Originally Posted by TheDon

Sky movies might be the name of a linear channel, but they don't just have the linear channel rights to the movies they air though, they have the subscription vod rights to them as well as they're contained in the same deal.

It's something ofcom looked into, and decided that if the industry wants to develop those rights and monetise them to a greater extent then they can seperate the two themselves. I'd expect that to happen the next time the rights go up for grabs.

I don't think it will happen to be honest as I think it would result in the total amount of cash going to studios being less than the current set up. For me the better option would be for the studios to get together (along the lines of Film Flex) and cut Sky out of the loop i.e. a separation of content provider and platform operator.

[sakiblateef]

If Virgin opened up their closed network we would have had more channels today including HD. Sky would happily launch their HD channels on the platform and pay Virgin a lot of money for each epg slot they occupy for their channels.

At the end of the day its VM's fault why there is a lack of HD/SD channels.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Cablefan

The point is, if (Sky) Movies was not owned by the platform operator the content provider would no doubt tailor its offering to the platform operators requirements in order to generate maximum subscribers. Sky won't do this as it would give its competitors an advantage over its linear service. Although I'm sure once Sky gets an on demand strategy in place Sky Movies will no doubt be available on demand to Sky subscribers.

The content provider isn't really Sky though, the content provider is the studios with Sky packing it up and reselling it wholesale. Sky purchased the rights to the content and up to them how they use it from there. Can't blame Sky altogether for this, they offered the most money, the studios took it. If the studios wanted to tailor their content to generate maximum subscribers they wouldn't have agreed exclusivity with Sky.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by sakiblateef

If Virgin opened up their closed network we would have had more channels today including HD. Sky would happily launch their HD channels on the platform and pay Virgin a lot of money for each epg slot they occupy for their channels.

At the end of the day its VM's fault why there is a lack of HD/SD channels.

I thought VM paid SKY for the content, not the other way round.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

The content provider isn't really Sky though, the content provider is the studios with Sky packing it up and reselling it wholesale. Sky purchased the rights to the content and up to them how they use it from there. Can't blame Sky altogether for this, they offered the most money, the studios took it. If the studios wanted to tailor their content to generate maximum subscribers they wouldn't have agreed exclusivity with Sky.

They're both content providers, just to different people. The studios are content providers to Sky, sky are content providers to the consumer.

You can't blame sky for it, but you can make sure they don't use a monopoly in one area to further their business in another. That is essentially the entire basis upon which the anti-competitive lawsuit against microsoft was made.

There's nothing illegal about having a monopoly, there is about using shady business practices that leverage that monopoly in other areas to cripple your competitors, which is the very reason the must-offer obligations exist for sports and movies.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I thought VM paid SKY for the content, not the other way round.

They pay one another for different content and provide it to one another.

[Morden]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

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 .

But all BT's investment in broaddand was as a private company and there are other examples of markets being investigated e.g. supermarkets, banks where accusations of monolopolys or price fixing were made.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by Morden

But all BT's investment in broaddand was as a private company and there are other examples of markets being investigated e.g. supermarkets, banks where accusations of monolopolys or price fixing were made.

The argument is about the cost of laying the actual cable for a network that reaches everywhere in the UK. It's that part that costs the money, far far more than what they've invested in broadband.

If you already have the cables laid to reach the homes it's then trivial to invest in broadband, as you don't have to engage in a massive road digging program and instead just have to upgrade the tech in your existing exchanges.

[beeman]

Originally Posted by TheDon

The argument is about the cost of laying the actual cable for a network that reaches everywhere in the UK. It's that part that costs the money, far far more than what they've invested in broadband.

If you already have the cables laid to reach the homes it's then trivial to invest in broadband, as you don't have to engage in a massive road digging program and instead just have to upgrade the tech in your existing exchanges.

But the government didnt give BT away they SOLD it to the stock market. They SOLD the exchanges, the copper, the telegraph poles, the monopoly etc. So the fact that the network was build with public funds carrys no weight in the argument as the public have been reimbersed for that investment.

The opening up of BT's network has nothing todo (officially) with it being build with public funds but purly about proventing a company abusing its monoply position. Which is the position were now in with sky (and fyi sky wasbuild with public money, ASTRA (the company that ownes the sattelites and (some of) the uplink stations, bascally the expensive infrastructure that sky uses) was funded by the eu