Will NTL ever catch up with Sky?

[Neil]

Originally Posted by ikthius

Why is it that sky will not let cable companies have the interactive services to see whatever match you want on sky sports extra? they want the customers for themselves to make more money.

And what's wrong with that?

They are just protecting their investment.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Neil

And what's wrong with that?

They are just protecting their investment.

I dunno. Maybe the fact that they get the money whether their viewers see it or cable viewers do? Remember, Sky do not give the sports channels to NTL for free. They do charge NTL for the viewers.

[themelon]

Originally Posted by Neil

And what's wrong with that?

They are just protecting their investment.

In which case they shouldnt be allowed to hold the rights for Premiership football or any football on Cable TV.

They shoud charge less for wholesale if the product the cable companies recieve is 1/8 of the full product.

Its anti competative.

Sky Sports as a channel should be the same, or similar on all platforms.

Sky Sports is a channel, we pay the same a Sky subscribers, we help to buy the rights for Sky Sports and should recieve the games.

I dont necessarily want the red button crap........just the 6-8 extra games we help pay for in our subscription! not too much to ask is it?

Another reason Sky should be split in to Content and service provider, the content producing the channel and selling at wholesale cost to the service provider as a seperate entity. That way Sky can not use the rights which its channels own.............to gain more customer which is anti competative and wrong in my opinion.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Neil

And what's wrong with that?

They are just protecting their investment.

So, you see nothing wrong with Sky keeping their interactive content to themselves so they gain/lure more customers, but you still have an issue with ntl bundling their DTV with Telco - surely ntl are just protecting their investment?

Where's the choice there? You want SSE or SS interactive, you have to get Sky.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by orangebird

So, you see nothing wrong with Sky keeping their interactive content to themselves so they gain/lure more customers, but you still have an issue with ntl bundling their DTV with Telco - surely ntl are just protecting their investment?

Where's the choice there? You want SSE or SS interactive, you have to get Sky.

There's a difference between Sky protecting their investment that they have ploughed millions into via development, & ntl forcing their phone line on DTV customers just because they know it's pretty much inferior to BT's in every way.

If ntl didn't force their phone lines on customers somewhere, no one would take them, as invariably the BT lines are superior due to the features that they are pretty much guaranteed to offer, as opposed to ntl's hit & miss affair of what they do/don't, offer & in what region-CLI being a good example.

[themelon]

Also Sky Sports isnt pureley a Sky Digital Investment.

Everyone who subscribes to Sky Sports be it on Cable or on Satellite, is helping them to buy the rights, all channle subsribers paying the same should recieve the same service (within reason, ie not exactly the same just including the games we pay for)

Sky Sports shouldnt really be anything to do with Sky Digital.........again the failings of the incompetatnt OFCOM!

Sky Digital = Service Provider
Sky Sports = Channel

Using Sky Sports to gain more subscribers for Digital Satellite is wrong.........pure and simple.........Their soul intention should be getting Sky Sports viewed by as many people as possible, not on what platform they are using.

If thats the way Sky wish to be then they should lose the football rights on Digital Cable.

[themelon]

Originally Posted by Neil

There's a difference between Sky protecting their investment that they have ploughed millions into via development, & ntl forcing their phone line on DTV customers just because they know it's pretty much inferior to BT's in every way.

If ntl didn't force their on customers somewhere, no one would take ntl phone lines, as invariably the BT lines are superior due to the features that they are pretty much guaranteed to offer, as opposed to ntl's hit & miss affair of what they do/don't offer & in what region.

OPINION ALERT (see above)

My ntl line is superior in every way, I couldnt give a flying F about 'advanced features' like caller ID...........all I want is a line that doesnt crackle and hiss.

I have had 2 houses where my BT Line crackles and hisses, and generally has a low volume.

In my experience my ntl Line is superior in every way because I can actually hear people on the other end which is nice!

Better than the BT bean can connection!

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by ikthius

thanks themelon, but although they have sent letters, what about something like that here.

is there anyone good at writing up letters, so that we can make our own petition, because the digital spy one from the above link only supplies the link to a petition you can make, there is not one there.
I for one am hopeless at such letter writting, or I would do it myself.

I would definitley sign it, cause I for one am fed up that I pay the same for sky sports as someone who has sky digital and sky sports, yet they get the 8 game interactive.

ik

You may be paying the same for Sky Sports to NTL that Sky customers pay to Sky for it, but who dictates the price that NTL charge? Could it be that you should be petitioning NTL for a reduction in the charge rather than having a go at Sky? At the same time you could ask NTL why they charge the same as Sky for the Family pack but do not have as many channels as Sky.

[ian@huth]

Sky is a business and like every other business it will do whatever it can to maximise revenue and profit. Sky ploughed money and took risks in developing Sky Sports and are entitled to use it as a marketing tool. Look what happened to ITV Digital when they dipped their toe in the water with Premiership Football coverage. There was nothing stopping NTL from launching NTL Sports and doing the same as Sky have done. In fact there was nothing AFAIK to prevent NTL from launching a satellite service in competition with Sky. Just think what NTL could do with a satellite service linked to its cable business.

I wish that all those people moaning about evil Sky were in full possession of all the facts before sounding off. Do they know all the ins and outs of the contracts involved, prices charges, technical ability to provide a multi screen service across the whole NTL network and all other factors involved. What would the moaners say if the boot was on the other foot and NTL had more content on a channel than Sky had and Sky customers were moaning.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

<snip>
I wish that all those people moaning about evil Sky were in full possession of all the facts before sounding off. Do they know all the ins and outs of the contracts involved, prices charges, technical ability to provide a multi screen service across the whole NTL network and all other factors involved. What would the moaners say if the boot was on the other foot and NTL had more content on a channel than Sky had and Sky customers were moaning.

Which in a circular way comes back to the Govt. and evil OFCOM.
If NTL or whomever had been able to cable the entire country, not parts then pickoff the rest, there would be a coherent infrastructure meaning providing multiscreen etc would be less technically challenging, sky certainly have a benefit of running a single platform.
OFCOM have let Sky railroad the country into digital sat broadcasting and thinking multichannel is the domain of sat broadcasting, compare to the US, where only now is Sat starting to get a foothold, and purely through price competition against the cable incumbants.

[themelon]

The charge for Sky Sports is determined by the wholesale cost. Which OFCOM approved after previously finding unfair............this was over 2 years ago, so is now outdated Sky have started 6 xtra sports channels since.

Sky make a minimum of 90% from every ntl Sky Sports Subscription.

So Sky are charging about 20 quid wholesale for sports and movies, this is still too much (especially when we dont over half of the football)

ntl need to be ble to make a mark up of some kind to make it worthwhile evn having the channels.

The majority arent really bothered about the channels, most of the worthwhile paid channels are in both family pack, it generally free special interest channels which you can get free anyway that are extra (except in a few cases) The major channels are on both.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by themelon

The charge for Sky Sports is determined by the wholesale cost. Which OFCOM approved after previously finding unfair............this was over 2 years ago, so is now outdated Sky have started 6 xtra sports channels since.

Sky make a minimum of 90% from every ntl Sky Sports Subscription.

So Sky are charging about 20 quid wholesale for sports and movies, this is still too much (especially when we dont over half of the football)

ntl need to be ble to make a mark up of some kind to make it worthwhile evn having the channels.

The majority arent really bothered about the channels, most of the worthwhile paid channels are in both family pack, it generally free special interest channels which you can get free anyway that are extra (except in a few cases) The major channels are on both.

Please post the links where you obtained those figures from. I doubt that Sky have ever published any such detail.

It is rather presumptious to say what people want to watch and what they aren't bothered about. I would imagine that NTL have cutomers for the God channel (otherwise why carry it) which costs £6 extra on NTL but is free on Sky.

[themelon]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

Sky is a business and like every other business it will do whatever it can to maximise revenue and profit. Sky ploughed money and took risks in developing Sky Sports and are entitled to use it as a marketing tool. Look what happened to ITV Digital when they dipped their toe in the water with Premiership Football coverage. There was nothing stopping NTL from launching NTL Sports and doing the same as Sky have done. In fact there was nothing AFAIK to prevent NTL from launching a satellite service in competition with Sky. Just think what NTL could do with a satellite service linked to its cable business.

I wish that all those people moaning about evil Sky were in full possession of all the facts before sounding off. Do they know all the ins and outs of the contracts involved, prices charges, technical ability to provide a multi screen service across the whole NTL network and all other factors involved. What would the moaners say if the boot was on the other foot and NTL had more content on a channel than Sky had and Sky customers were moaning.

I dont think they should use Sky Sports to market Sky Digital.

They should market Sky Sports as Sky Sports!

Sky have the backing of the biggest media tycoon in the world, noone can compete without getting burnt. ITV Digital (Granada Carlton biggest Commercial Broadcaster, got into a bidding war for prem rights and lost). There is no way another company can outbid them now.

The question that needs to be asked is why did Sky get away with bending the rules to gain an advantage in the late 80s, while cable was being crippled by the governments fabtastic idea of franchising.

There is nothing to Stop ntl launching a satellite service, but I think any revenue is best spent on sorting out what they have already. IP is the future anyway, so Satellite would be a shortsighted short term view, better to sort out what they have for the future.

The wholesale costs should cover Sky Sports as a channel (or group of), our susbscription helps pay for the rights to all these games...........so we should get all these games these are facts. Sky is not giving us what we pay for, they have two choices:

Lower wholesale costs which were last reviewed when only 3 Sky Sports Channels existed.

Or give us the content, Im not bothered (im sure many arent) about Interactive gumph, just the football matches on another channel (Xtra 1-6 for instance) which afterall our subscription to Sky Sports the channel helped to buy.

If ntl were doing the same it would still be wrong, if they cant be bothered to develop the Interactive application fair enough but at least provide us with the football.........which we are paying for!

Failing that reduce wholesale costs so ntl can charge less to us............and begin screwing Sky for subscribers too!

[themelon]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

Please post the links where you obtained those figures from. I doubt that Sky have ever published any such detail.

It is rather presumptious to say what people want to watch and what they aren't bothered about. I would imagine that NTL have cutomers for the God channel (otherwise why carry it) which costs £6 extra on NTL but is free on Sky.

They are available from OFCOM no specific link.

Maybe a press release from a few years back.

OFCOM judged it fair a couple of years agao but things have changed, so a reveiw is in order.

Channels viewer figures can be an indication of what the majority of people want to watch, Obviously the only way for the God Channel to be viable is for it to cost 6 quid on ntl, that will becuase the God Channel operators will need to pay ntl for space, this will need to be funded, probably the only way for the God Channel to afford these costs on ntl is via £6 due to its percentage viewers on Sky it may have a larger viewer base, so adverts could pay for the channel.

[themelon]

Umm............From a Sky Financial report

'Excluding the GBP4 million one-off receipt of audit monies from ntl in the comparable period, wholesale revenues increased by 8% to GBP52 million. This was driven by increases in the average number of cable subscribers and the average revenue per subscriber as a result of changes to wholesale pricing from January 2004. '

umm give us the same service else you lose this money! I will certainally be cancelling everything to do with Sky (Sports and Movies) unless they provide us with the same service..........very soon!