sky movies (excess profits)

[Rattus]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

So long as this and the other regulatory actions on both Sky and BT are taken as part permitting News Corp to get their hands on the other 61% of Sky, and that Virgin's network is opened up on an active and/or passive level I'm cool with it.

Regulation of unbalanced markets is just fine so long as it's not unbalancing them the other way.

EDIT: We have one of the best pay TV packages anywhere, it's also one of the most expensive. There is always a concern however that we the customer will suffer in terms of quality of services in return for receiving them at a lower rate, just as happened with the highly regulated broadband market.

Why should cable have to open up it's network? They built it paid for by themselves. It's theirs end of story.

Sky buying up VOD rights that it can't use is the major issue here. They effectively act as a cock block for technology development because their system can never sustain any significant VOD. The whole purpose of them buying it is to stop anyone else doing it. That's anti competitiveness in a nutshell and will be stopped imo.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

So long as this and the other regulatory actions on both Sky and BT are taken as part permitting News Corp to get their hands on the other 61% of Sky, and that Virgin's network is opened up on an active and/or passive level I'm cool with it.

Regulation of unbalanced markets is just fine so long as it's not unbalancing them the other way.

EDIT: We have one of the best pay TV packages anywhere, it's also one of the most expensive. There is always a concern however that we the customer will suffer in terms of quality of services in return for receiving them at a lower rate, just as happened with the highly regulated broadband market.

Indeed, this is why I said we should be careful what we wish for.

You don't always get the desired end result.

---------- Post added at 10:28 ---------- Previous post was at 10:25 ----------

Originally Posted by Rattus

Why should cable have to open up it's network? They built it paid for by themselves. It's theirs end of story.

Sky buying up VOD rights that it can't use is the major issue here. They effectively act as a cock block for technology development because their system can never sustain any significant VOD. The whole purpose of them buying it is to stop anyone else doing it. That's anti competitiveness in a nutshell and will be stopped imo.

Why can't Sky use the VOD content they have bought up? Genuine question.

BT Vision seems to manage perfectly well, I had it before VM and it was just fine.

My brother is using Anytime+ on Sky and says it isn't bad at all, there's a bit of delay when loading but they certainly seem to be using their content.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Rattus

Why should cable have to open up it's network? They built it paid for by themselves. It's theirs end of story.

Same reason Sky are obliged to resell the content they purchase. Who paid for it is nothing to do with it. If we went down that route BT would have every right to refuse to resell any infrastructure built since privatisation and Sky would have no obligation to offer EPG space. As it is BT are obliged to resell their new NGA portfolio and even greenfield areas, built exclusively with private funds, carry the exact same obligations on open access as brownfield areas built pre-privatisation.

It doesn't work that way, who built / pays for the stuff isn't the issue, but it's the usual argument given when people all too keen for BT to open up their network and Sky to open up their content and delivery platform are confronted with the prospect of Virgin Media being forced to actually give some regulatory concessions instead of just lobbying for them on others.

Fairness goes both ways, Virgin have been beneficiaries of regulation for quite long enough.

As a last example Virgin have over 50% penetration in their passed areas, however because they only cover about 50% of the country they are judged not to have significant market power in the areas they pass. Rather than taking their coverage within their own areas their coverage is taken a as percentage of the entire country. That's how tenuous the arguments are to try and keep VM free of regulation, makes no sense as all. Kingston Communications cover 100% of Hull and 0% of anywhere else and have SMP in Hull, VM should by any sensible definition be adjudged to have SMP in their own areas however the definition is applied differently depending on the operator in contravention of the rules as they stand.

EDIT: Here you go - http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35129429-post14.html

god and here was me thinking we live in a capitalistic society. Sky only make so much cuz people are prepared to pay for it. The consumer has a right to vote with its feet and if enough did they Sky would have to change or go out of business

All these independant bodies and enquires only end up costing us anyway

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by ooogemaflop

god and here was me thinking we live in a capitalistic society.

Sheesh whatever made you think that?

I gave up on that train of thought a while ago, hence reluctant acceptance of the regulation so long as it goes both ways, which it rarely does.

[Big-Ted]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Same reason Sky are obliged to resell the content they purchase. Who paid for it is nothing to do with it. If we went down that route BT would have every right to refuse to resell any infrastructure built since privatisation and Sky would have no obligation to offer EPG space. As it is BT are obliged to resell their new NGA portfolio and even greenfield areas, built exclusively with private funds, carry the exact same obligations on open access as brownfield areas built pre-privatisation.

It doesn't work that way, who built / pays for the stuff isn't the issue, but it's the usual argument given when people all too keen for BT to open up their network and Sky to open up their content and delivery platform are confronted with the prospect of Virgin Media being forced to actually give some regulatory concessions instead of just lobbying for them on others.

Fairness goes both ways, Virgin have been beneficiaries of regulation for quite long enough.

As a last example Virgin have over 50% penetration in their passed areas, however because they only cover about 50% of the country they are judged not to have significant market power in the areas they pass. Rather than taking their coverage within their own areas their coverage is taken a as percentage of the entire country. That's how tenuous the arguments are to try and keep VM free of regulation, makes no sense as all. Kingston Communications cover 100% of Hull and 0% of anywhere else and have SMP in Hull, VM should by any sensible definition be adjudged to have SMP in their own areas however the definition is applied differently depending on the operator in contravention of the rules as they stand.

EDIT: Here you go - http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35129429-post14.html

A couple of problems with your argument.

Firstly Sky with movies and sport are a monopoly and without intervention from Ofcom etc there would be no compitition from anyone else. They have to do certain things like have open epg etc as part of getting a licence to transmit signals.


As to BT and VM etc, BT's network was almost completely paid for by us, the taxpayers prior to privitisation, thats why LLU went through and wholesale available for others to supply ADSL etc.

BT's new network is under the same rules as for the rest of its network so should be open for others to get wholesale. Plus they are getting / applying for grants etc to help rollout like the millions they are getting to sort out Cornwall and Wales.


As to VM, the network was paid for by private companies and is their property. Or d you think I should be able to park my car on the drive of any private house or that I could just go to any business and be able to demand access to their equipement just because I want to.

Tell you what, give us your address so we can come round any time we like and use your stuff and I will accept that you believe in universal access.

---------- Post added at 11:22 ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 ----------

Originally Posted by ooogemaflop

god and here was me thinking we live in a capitalistic society. Sky only make so much cuz people are prepared to pay for it. The consumer has a right to vote with its feet and if enough did they Sky would have to change or go out of business

All these independant bodies and enquires only end up costing us anyway

But no point in doing so unless you live in a VM area or if BT Vision good enougth for you.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by Big-Ted

A couple of problems with your argument.

Firstly Sky with movies and sport are a monopoly and without intervention from Ofcom etc there would be no compitition from anyone else. They have to do certain things like have open epg etc as part of getting a licence to transmit signals.


As to BT and VM etc, BT's network was almost completely paid for by us, the taxpayers prior to privitisation, thats why LLU went through and wholesale available for others to supply ADSL etc.

BT's new network is under the same rules as for the rest of its network so should be open for others to get wholesale. Plus they are getting / applying for grants etc to help rollout like the millions they are getting to sort out Cornwall and Wales.


As to VM, the network was paid for by private companies and is their property. Or d you think I should be able to park my car on the drive of any private house or that I could just go to any business and be able to demand access to their equipement just because I want to.

Tell you what, give us your address so we can come round any time we like and use your stuff and I will accept that you believe in universal access.

---------- Post added at 11:22 ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 ----------




But no point in doing so unless you live in a VM area or if BT Vision good enougth for you.

Sky have a monopoly on Sports do they?

News to me. That little piddly organisation called ESPN may well disagree, and the European Commission. Barclays Premier League, Clydesdale Bank Premier League, Europa League, FA Cup, Aviva Premiership and on and on but of course it attracts a separate subscription. Not to mention Formula 1, NPower Football league, FA Cup, UEFA Champions League, Carling Cup, 6 Nations, Horseracing, The Open, Wimbledon etc etc on terrestrial amongst many other sports.

And what about Filmflex, Picturebox, BT Vision PPV movies.

It's EVERYONES prices that need looking at in my opinion.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Big-Ted

<Snip>

A major problem with your entire post, just like VM you want it both ways. You want to be able to claim private money built private networks so shouldn't be opened up then you want to scream monopoly.

You want to highlight how Sky monopolise content and raise the barriers to entry while ignoring how high the barriers are to entry should anyone decide they want to compete on similar terms to Virgin Media - they are far higher.

You comment on BT building their new network and it being subject to the same restrictions as their publicly built network but don't actually say why beyond mentioning the public funding they are receiving in Cornwall. Outside of Cornwall and other areas where some public subsidy is being provided where's the case to force open access?

Ebbsfleet and all other BT new builds are required to be open access yet BT are the only company that would have this restriction applied, VM could be the sole provider of TV / telco / broadband services and don't have to open up their network.

Where people are barred from putting up dishes people have a choice of VM or BT Vision, yet it's perfectly fine for VM to keep their network closed even in this case. Why?

You can't have it both ways. Either regulation is fair and applies to everyone evenly or it's arbitrary. The constant ignorance of those cases where VM hold over 51% of the retail and wholesale (to themselves) markets while coming down hard on Sky and BT are arbitrary - there is a perfectly reasonable case to regulate both, even Europe are pursuing it, yet the regulator here constantly turns a blind eye despite being ahead of the rest of Europe with regulation of BT and Sky.

The other odd comment focuses on how regulating Sky Movies is good for the consumer, so should be pursued. Surely mandating access to Virgin Media's network, allowing others to offer differentiating products or reducing the barrier to a third party deploying FTTH/B, is also a good thing for the consumer?

It's really quite perverse how many people are pro-consumer when it comes to Sky and BT but get defensive when it comes to Virgin Media. Let's get those ducts opened up and see who comes to put some glass to our homes - think of what an effect on our market a real fibre optic network will have.

[Tod]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

A major problem with your entire post, just like VM you want it both ways. You want to be able to claim private money built private networks so shouldn't be opened up then you want to scream monopoly.

You want to highlight how Sky monopolise content and raise the barriers to entry while ignoring how high the barriers are to entry should anyone decide they want to compete on similar terms to Virgin Media - they are far higher.

You comment on BT building their new network and it being subject to the same restrictions as their publicly built network but don't actually say why beyond mentioning the public funding they are receiving in Cornwall. Outside of Cornwall and other areas where some public subsidy is being provided where's the case to force open access?

Ebbsfleet and all other BT new builds are required to be open access yet BT are the only company that would have this restriction applied, VM could be the sole provider of TV / telco / broadband services and don't have to open up their network.

Where people are barred from putting up dishes people have a choice of VM or BT Vision, yet it's perfectly fine for VM to keep their network closed even in this case. Why?

You can't have it both ways. Either regulation is fair and applies to everyone evenly or it's arbitrary. The constant ignorance of those cases where VM hold over 51% of the retail and wholesale (to themselves) markets while coming down hard on Sky and BT are arbitrary - there is a perfectly reasonable case to regulate both, even Europe are pursuing it, yet the regulator here constantly turns a blind eye despite being ahead of the rest of Europe with regulation of BT and Sky.

The other odd comment focuses on how regulating Sky Movies is good for the consumer, so should be pursued. Surely mandating access to Virgin Media's network, allowing others to offer differentiating products or reducing the barrier to a third party deploying FTTH/B, is also a good thing for the consumer?

It's really quite perverse how many people are pro-consumer when it comes to Sky and BT but get defensive when it comes to Virgin Media. Let's get those ducts opened up and see who comes to put some glass to our homes - think of what an effect on our market a real fibre optic network will have.

I don't think you can pull the "monopoly" card on Virgin when it has massive debts because of the cabling they did. If they were making huge profits you might have a case in the future. Virgins cable IS their business however.

[Big-Ted]

Originally Posted by mersey70

Sky have a monopoly on Sports do they?

News to me. That little piddly organisation called ESPN may well disagree, and the European Commission. Barclays Premier League, Clydesdale Bank Premier League, Europa League, FA Cup, Aviva Premiership and on and on but of course it attracts a separate subscription. Not to mention Formula 1, NPower Football league, FA Cup, UEFA Champions League, Carling Cup, 6 Nations, Horseracing, The Open, Wimbledon etc etc on terrestrial amongst many other sports.

And what about Filmflex, Picturebox, BT Vision PPV movies.

It's EVERYONES prices that need looking at in my opinion.

You know what I meant with my post about the monopoly bit.

For most people if you want certain sports you need Sky sub or you are limited to whats available, ESPN havn't been around long enough to really have an impact but may in the future.

Sky have for years been buying up all the premium content on sports they can and have done the same for movies, its why they are on the rate card so have to be sold at a reasonable rate in comparison to what they charge their own subscribers.

What we really need is for Sky to be broken up into content and provision with content having to treat all customers equally on price and access.

BT should have the same with infrastructure and provision seperate with all having access to BT network for the same price.

You could then have an argument for VM being the same, until that then opening up VM to others will put them at a disadvantage especially to Sky who have no infrastructure of their own beyond LLU that anyone else could access.

---------- Post added at 13:48 ---------- Previous post was at 13:41 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

A major problem with your entire post, just like VM you want it both ways. You want to be able to claim private money built private networks so shouldn't be opened up then you want to scream monopoly.

You want to highlight how Sky monopolise content and raise the barriers to entry while ignoring how high the barriers are to entry should anyone decide they want to compete on similar terms to Virgin Media - they are far higher.

You comment on BT building their new network and it being subject to the same restrictions as their publicly built network but don't actually say why beyond mentioning the public funding they are receiving in Cornwall. Outside of Cornwall and other areas where some public subsidy is being provided where's the case to force open access?

Ebbsfleet and all other BT new builds are required to be open access yet BT are the only company that would have this restriction applied, VM could be the sole provider of TV / telco / broadband services and don't have to open up their network.

Where people are barred from putting up dishes people have a choice of VM or BT Vision, yet it's perfectly fine for VM to keep their network closed even in this case. Why?

You can't have it both ways. Either regulation is fair and applies to everyone evenly or it's arbitrary. The constant ignorance of those cases where VM hold over 51% of the retail and wholesale (to themselves) markets while coming down hard on Sky and BT are arbitrary - there is a perfectly reasonable case to regulate both, even Europe are pursuing it, yet the regulator here constantly turns a blind eye despite being ahead of the rest of Europe with regulation of BT and Sky.

The other odd comment focuses on how regulating Sky Movies is good for the consumer, so should be pursued. Surely mandating access to Virgin Media's network, allowing others to offer differentiating products or reducing the barrier to a third party deploying FTTH/B, is also a good thing for the consumer?

It's really quite perverse how many people are pro-consumer when it comes to Sky and BT but get defensive when it comes to Virgin Media. Let's get those ducts opened up and see who comes to put some glass to our homes - think of what an effect on our market a real fibre optic network will have.

Simple answer is BT network was built with tax payers money and so why shouldn't we have access.

As to Ebbsfleet etc they signed the deal, if they didn't like it they didn't have to.

And what is pro consumer allowing Sky to get access to VM network and selling BB at a loss like they do now on BT network leaving VM customers with a poorer service due to contention issues.

If others want a fiber network like VM then do what they did and BT are doing, build your own.

Lastly if public mone is used then access should be granted to the network. Or do you want to pay for something you can't use, I don't.....

[mersey70]

All Pay TV rights holders need to have their prices investigated, and if need be regulated. There's no doubt about that.

To me as a end user it matters not one jot who holds the rights so long as they are not abusing their position and overcharging. I don't have a view on the platform/content argument other than any change in rules should apply to everyone, not just Sky.

What I don't want to see is us having to obtain multiple subscriptions which will surely end up costing more.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Tod

I don't think you can pull the "monopoly" card on Virgin when it has massive debts because of the cabling they did. If they were making huge profits you might have a case in the future. Virgins cable IS their business however.

Oh I see, so being a monopoly is fine so long as you accumulated debt to get there?

The law and every other definition of a monopoly disagrees. Financial state is totally irrelevant to monopoly status. Virgin's debt is more than manageable according to their financial results.

Also of note is that a proportion of Virgin's debt is due to the acquisition of Virgin Mobile, most of the debt from acquisition of cable franchises. That's what the cost was, not the construction of them but overpaying on acquisitions, and most of this was wiped off in debt for equity swaps by ntl and Telewest.

Bad business decisions and being the poster child for the .com boom does not a company immune to monopoly status make.

[Big-Ted]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Oh I see, so being a monopoly is fine so long as you accumulated debt to get there?

The law and every other definition of a monopoly disagrees. Financial state is totally irrelevant to monopoly status. Virgin's debt is more than manageable according to their financial results.

Also of note is that a proportion of Virgin's debt is due to the acquisition of Virgin Mobile, most of the debt from acquisition of cable franchises. That's what the cost was, not the construction of them but overpaying on acquisitions, and most of this was wiped off in debt for equity swaps by ntl and Telewest.

Bad business decisions and being the poster child for the .com boom does not a company immune to monopoly status make.

How can VM be a monopoly when Sky and BT are available to almost everyone in the areas they cover ?

You are a monopoly if you are the only one available.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Big-Ted

What we really need is for Sky to be broken up into content and provision with content having to treat all customers equally on price and access.

BT should have the same with infrastructure and provision seperate with all having access to BT network for the same price.

You could then have an argument for VM being the same, until that then opening up VM to others will put them at a disadvantage especially to Sky who have no infrastructure of their own beyond LLU that anyone else could access.

While it's fine for VM to remain vertically integrated and take advantage of Sky's content and BT's network to reach outside their passed areas. How very fair.

Originally Posted by Big-Ted

Simple answer is BT network was built with tax payers money and so why shouldn't we have access.

I see no disagreement here.

Originally Posted by Big-Ted

As to Ebbsfleet etc they signed the deal, if they didn't like it they didn't have to.

They had no choice in the matter due to regulation.

Originally Posted by Big-Ted

And what is pro consumer allowing Sky to get access to VM network and selling BB at a loss like they do now on BT network leaving VM customers with a poorer service due to contention issues.

The more I read this the less it makes sense. So Sky making consumers pay less for broadband is anti-consumer?

Sky's broadband network doesn't affect other consumers using BT capacity nor should it affect those of VM customers. Why would Sky choosing to take a loss on wholesale access to cable cause VM issues so long as VM price the wholesale package appropriately?

Why would passive infrastructure access cause VM customers issues?

We're into one rule for one, another rule for others territory there. By that token it's anti-consumer that BT Wholesale should have to sell to anyone apart from BT Retail as other ISPs are consuming bandwidth and reducing the amount available for BT Retail which is of course a ridiculous argument.

Originally Posted by Big-Ted

If others want a fiber network like VM then do what they did and BT are doing, build your own.

If Virgin Media want access to the content Sky have they can do what Sky did, buy their own.

Barriers to obtaining that content are far lower than those of building a rival cable infrastructure to Virgin Media yet you seem to think it's absolutely appropriate that Sky are forced to sell their content at a regulated price and that indeed they should be separated to ensure equivalence of access to this content due to Sky's financial resources.

If we are playing the game of barriers to entry they are far higher for cable than for Sky's content deals, that's a total non-starter.

Originally Posted by Big-Ted

Lastly if public mone is used then access should be granted to the network. Or do you want to pay for something you can't use, I don't.....

I pay for many things I can't use though that's not really the issue here, no-one said that BT should keep their legacy network to themselves, it is however a perfectly valid question why BT should have to open up services that are not taxpayer funded and why Sky should have to resell at regulated rates despite not receiving any money from the taxpayer while VM get to keep their network at passive and active level to themselves.

If we are opening up their rivals' networks at active and passive level and regulating wholesale content prices it seems to me that all the regulation is favouring one party which isn't the point, it's supposed to be favouring us as consumers.

[Rattus]

VM has their network built primarily by Telwest and NTL. However if anyone else wants to start a cable network up they are able to do so.

The key is tax payer money, BT have always had and always will have an advantage that they started as a national company. They would not have the network they currently do were it not for the taxpayer.

I've said for a long time the flaw with sky has always been they control both content and infrastructure. Originally when you got a sat dish and box you could see all the sky channels and european channels. In theory you could get a card for whatever you wanted (eg canal+ sport). However now sky block you from seeing anything else, although the signal is there without a separate box/dish. The current model of sat provision isn't what was originally envisaged, the question is will the EU make them open it up.

I really do think you should be allowed to subscribe to both sky and EU channels should you wish, on one box.

TV provision in this county is screwed up.. we pay extra for HD.. seriously why is it more for HD. Why indeed do we have separate channels? All channels should just be HD and the box outputs whatever you're TV is capable of watching. There is no need for separate channels other than to charge extra for HD.