General : Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2015) Vol. 2

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by ozsat

But 10+ years ago the public were crying that the rights should not be with one broadcaster (Sky) and should be shared.

At the time the only other broadcasters were really BBC and ITV.

But those who complained got what they asked for - even if it wasn't what they meant.

Correct. This is not what they meant.

[Stop It]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

In my view, the Government should look closely at exclusivity contracts and ensure that the needs of the consumer are taken into account.

It is ridiculous that we have to pay multiple subscriptions and have numerous devices to ensure that we have all the content that we want.

I know that some on this forum seem happy with this situation, despite the fact that the current state of affairs is hitting them in the pocket as well, but we're not all made of money!

Virgin Media have the opportunity to rectify some of these issues by allowing multiple streaming services on their Tivo boxes, but so far have declined to do so. If this straight forward solution to achieve John Malone's stated goal of bringing maximum content to cable viewers from multiple providers cannot be achieved, surely there is an urgent need for the Government to step in and sort the problems of exclusivity and the existing situation of having to buy multiple devices just to access your required content.

If the Government won't step in, our only hope seems to be the EU, who seem less hesitant to tackle big business monopolies. Not that I'm a big fan of the EU!

But there aren't any monopolies to tackle.

Channel exclusivity is not a monopoly. All of the content on the channel must be either produced by the network who owns it, which is fair play, or bought from the content producers on the open market.

In fact, market differentiation is a sign of a good market, not the other way around. if everyone had all channels and content, there would be no need for competition and a monopoly would likely emerge, as we basically had with Sky in the football TV market until BT came along.

Also, there is no such thing as "required content". Pay TV is a luxury item, outside of the PSB there is no right, nor requirement for customers to have all content from a single source. If you want the content, you have the ability to buy it. The fact that it isn't from one box is frankly irrelevant.

[tassiekev]

Originally Posted by Stop It

But there aren't any monopolies to tackle.

Channel exclusivity is not a monopoly. All of the content on the channel must be either produced by the network who owns it, which is fair play, or bought from the content producers on the open market.

In fact, market differentiation is a sign of a good market, not the other way around. if everyone had all channels and content, there would be no need for competition and a monopoly would likely emerge, as we basically had with Sky in the football TV market until BT came along.

Also, there is no such thing as "required content". Pay TV is a luxury item, outside of the PSB there is no right, nor requirement for customers to have all content from a single source. If you want the content, you have the ability to buy it. The fact that it isn't from one box is frankly irrelevant.

Very well put.

As with, I would assume, the majority of others I'd like one box to show them all - but this isn't Lord Of The Rings. One box (preferably running off a rechargeable AA battery with 5 years between charges), one (low-cost) sub, UHD & a free telly - lead me to this place.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by tassiekev

Very well put.

As with, I would assume, the majority of others I'd like one box to show them all - but this isn't Lord Of The Rings. One box (preferably running off a rechargeable AA battery with 5 years between charges), one (low-cost) sub, UHD & a free telly - lead me to this place.

I'm sympathetic to the one box idea but in reality, capitalism does not work this way. Companies like Thomas Cook have exclusive hotels that its main competitor Tui don't have access to and this will always be the case.
However, I think there is some hope with the growing popularity of more open platforms like YouView and Android TV. I can see these platforms having the fullest range of apps in time. If these platforms have a wealth of apps, Sky and VM may feel compelled to increase the apps they offer.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'm sympathetic to the one box idea but in reality, capitalism does not work this way. Companies like Thomas Cook have exclusive hotels that its main competitor Tui don't have access to and this will always be the case.
However, I think there is some hope with the growing popularity of more open platforms like YouView and Android TV. I can see these platforms having the fullest range of apps in time. If these platforms have a wealth of apps, Sky and VM may feel compelled to increase the apps they offer.

Exclusivity happens in every industry , look at the new Apple music service they are signing all sorts of exclusive deals with artists etc.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Exclusivity happens in every industry , look at the new Apple music service they are signing all sorts of exclusive deals with artists etc.

It does not help the customer though as he or she ends up forking out more as these companies charge heaven and earth for the premium exclusivity.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by denphone

It does not help the customer though as he or she ends up forking out more as these companies charge heaven and earth for the premium exclusivity.

Sometimes it does though - do you want every shop and every website selling the same thing?

[denphone]

The more exclusivity you have the higher they inflate their prices Andrew as we see every day so all in all l don't think it is a good thing for the customer but sadly it ain't going to change anytime soon.

[theone2k10]

Have faith guys have faith you will see something by the end of this month.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Sometimes it does though - do you want every shop and every website selling the same thing?

Exactly in such a scenario the only thing a company would have as a differentiator is price which would soon lead to many going under.

[Bircho]

I think what they thought originally was that Sky would still keep the majority of the games at the price they were paying but another supplier would come in for the lesser games (perhaps a terrestrial channel) which would allow a wider audience to view them at a lower price.

Oops.

[Ultimate.Conj]

Originally Posted by theone2k10

Have faith guys have faith you will see something by the end of this month.

Sounds promising, theone

[nialli]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It was the EC that required the Premier League to sell its rights to more than one bidder. It was not Ofcom.
In a way, the sports pay-TV market was artificially skewed in Sky's favour by government regulation. Firstly, BT was not allowed to sell its own payTV service until 2001. Secondly, the cable companies were licensed on a town-by-town basis, not nationally. This kept them distracted by mergers and without the scale and buying power to purchase sports content successfully in the long term.
As a result of this regulation, Sky was able to keep a large number of sports rights for a long time and to use the rights to develop its market share at the expense of its competitors and to secure a 64% market share of the pay TV market. This dominant position is the reason for the must-wholesale obligations that it has placed on it for SS1 and SS2.

100% agree with you on this sir

[theone2k10]

Originally Posted by Ultimate.Conj

Sounds promising, theone

You'll like it not a lot but you'll like it.

[denphone]

We shall see.