OFCOM ready to rule?

[Chrysalis]

I am in two minds about this.

1 - sky have invested heavily in sports and it is what is their driving force, if they are forced to reduce prices then I expect there will be a significant loss of quality, eg. sky may make cut backs on its sky broadband as their profits get slashed.
2 - on the other hand the main reason sky charge so much is because everytime they renew their deal they pay more for it even when they have next to no competition, its as if they deliberatly want footballers overpaid.

personally they have priced me out so I will gain from this. but I expect sky customers will feel the brunt when this happens as they will cut operational costs all over the place.

---------- Post added at 10:38 ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris Howell

Looks like Sky is gonna get away with it again.

All they have to do is move key footy games to SS2, SS3 or SS4, since OFCOM can't tell Sky what to show on its channels:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...eup-sky-sports

I remember watching some games on sky 1 and sky sports news when cable had lost those channels

What a hodge podge bunch of old bunkum! And if that sentence doesn't make any sense then your half way into understanding Ofcoms ruleing.

Why rule on only Sky Sports 1 & 2? Why no definitive price structure on either the red button or HD?

It leaves Sky so much wriggle room they will be able to worm their way out of it.

Having said that, I believe VM will use Ofcom's waffle to begin proper negotiations with Sky over Premium HD content. VM may well offer JUST above Ofcoms price to secure Sky HD... we'll see i guess.

But honestly... 3 years, millions of pounds for an ill thought out rueling with holes as large as Rupert Murdochs change pocket.

[mertle]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I am in two minds about this.

1 - sky have invested heavily in sports and it is what is their driving force, if they are forced to reduce prices then I expect there will be a significant loss of quality, eg. sky may make cut backs on its sky broadband as their profits get slashed.
2 - on the other hand the main reason sky charge so much is because everytime they renew their deal they pay more for it even when they have next to no competition, its as if they deliberatly want footballers overpaid.

personally they have priced me out so I will gain from this. but I expect sky customers will feel the brunt when this happens as they will cut operational costs all over the place.

---------- Post added at 10:38 ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 ----------



I remember watching some games on sky 1 and sky sports news when cable had lost those channels

My take on it is they charging VM MORE than what SKY users get as there charging VM a significant costs. Therefore using SKY platform as selling point if you want sport its cheaper here on ours.

Its no matter if they produce the content or pay for it they using other platforms as cash cow to support paying for it. On top they providing whether thats down to system or deliberate withhold inferior provisions.

I am disapointed OFCOM weakness to hit them harder and should linked Picnic as a if you accept findings you get picnic dont you get nothing.

This would held them to ransom to accept findings.

The movies is strange one its high subscribed but rubbish viewing and they attempted to rehash it several times. This must be costing them money I think this why OFCOM reluctant to do anything.

OFCOM could gone alot further and refer it to monopolies why content gets withhold shifting content sneakily so rivals cant watch it.

However I also feel VM shoots themselves in the foot they moan about SKY atitude withhelding content but look to consider selling there own channels to company who hell bent killing them.

[Joedm45]

I agree this ruling has led to more questions than answers as people on this thread have stated but one fact that has come to light interests me.

Sky sell Sky Sports to VM for £13.88 (Rates before this ruling, sorry can't remember the source but I'm sure I saw it somewhere)
VM sells Sky Sports to Customer for either £24 (TV M+ & L) or £20.50 (TV XL)

So if VM really thought about their customers then there is some room for improvement on their selling price and they can still make a profit!? Am I alone in thinking this?

PS. I am a loyal VM customer & hate $ky with a passion by the way.

[pedg]

Originally Posted by Joedm45

I agree this ruling has led to more questions than answers as people on this thread have stated but one fact that has come to light interests me.

Sky sell Sky Sports to VM for £13.88 (Rates before this ruling, sorry can't remember the source but I'm sure I saw it somewhere)
VM sells Sky Sports to Customer for either £24 (TV M+ & L) or £20.50 (TV XL)

So if VM really thought about their customers then there is some room for improvement on their selling price and they can still make a profit!? Am I alone in thinking this?

PS. I am a loyal VM customer & hate $ky with a passion by the way.

According to ofcom

Wholesaling Sky Sports 1 and 2: Sky is required to offer to wholesale standard definition versions of Sky Sports 1 and 2. This remedy – known as “wholesale must-offer” – will ensure fair and effective competition. Ofcom has set a wholesale price of £10.63 for each of Sky Sports 1 and 2, when sold on a standalone basis, which is 23.4% below the current wholesale price to cable operators. Most consumers currently buy packages which include Sky Sports 1 and 2 and the wholesale price for this service bundle has been reduced by 10.5% to £17.14.

So the current wholesale price of the bundle of just sky sports 1 and 2 must be about about 19.50. Add in the extra VM have to pay for 3 and 4 and you can see how they are not making much, if any, money on sky sports.

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by Joedm45

I agree this ruling has led to more questions than answers as people on this thread have stated but one fact that has come to light interests me.

Sky sell Sky Sports to VM for £13.88 (Rates before this ruling, sorry can't remember the source but I'm sure I saw it somewhere)
VM sells Sky Sports to Customer for either £24 (TV M+ & L) or £20.50 (TV XL)

So if VM really thought about their customers then there is some room for improvement on their selling price and they can still make a profit!? Am I alone in thinking this?

PS. I am a loyal VM customer & hate $ky with a passion by the way.

VM don't really make anything on the Sky Sports/Movies.

[gadge]

Seems top up tv are getting the ball rolling.

http://www.topuptv.com/register+interest

[neilo]

So how will the whole Sky Sports thing work for Cable customers? Will we still get Sky Sports 3 and 4??

[gadge]

Originally Posted by neilo

So how will the whole Sky Sports thing work for Cable customers? Will we still get Sky Sports 3 and 4??

Yes.
This seems intresting,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...n-media-bt-sky

[m419]

I'm sorry but Sky were the ones that invested 'so heavily' in sports, nobody told them to do that, and in this country we do not permit monopolies,so if they don't like it tough! They can take there Sky dishes and there over rated HD boxes together with there repeating channels back to Fox and take a hard long look in the mirror, because the prices they are charging people is disgusting, don't they realise people aren't as rich as them!

Besides, it may help themselves in the long run to lower wholsesale costs, if they lower the cost,more people will subscribe and what happens when a channels gets more 'potential' viewers? More TV commercials ect... which means fast money.

A clear example of this was seen when the Sky basic channels were switched off on Virgin Media, since they have been reinstated, the prices TV advertisers pay would have gone up since an extra 3 to 4 Million potential viewers can see the ads.

A monopoly? Imagine if BT held the same position over its phone service, imagine if BT had exclusive rights for offering calls to mobiles from landlines making it impossible for other phone companies to offer the same facility,i'm sure nobody would put up with that, well why should people put up with a dominant pay-tv company???

[mertle]

Originally Posted by m419

I'm sorry but Sky were the ones that invested 'so heavily' in sports, nobody told them to do that, and in this country we do not permit monopolies,so if they don't like it tough! They can take there Sky dishes and there over rated HD boxes together with there repeating channels back to Fox and take a hard long look in the mirror, because the prices they are charging people is disgusting, don't they realise people aren't as rich as them!

Besides, it may help themselves in the long run to lower wholsesale costs, if they lower the cost,more people will subscribe and what happens when a channels gets more 'potential' viewers? More TV commercials ect... which means fast money.

A clear example of this was seen when the Sky basic channels were switched off on Virgin Media, since they have been reinstated, the prices TV advertisers pay would have gone up since an extra 3 to 4 Million potential viewers can see the ads.

A monopoly? Imagine if BT held the same position over its phone service, imagine if BT had exclusive rights for offering calls to mobiles from landlines making it impossible for other phone companies to offer the same facility,i'm sure nobody would put up with that, well why should people put up with a dominant pay-tv company???

Interesting point raised how many people use digital TV all platforms in UK and how many love sport. If prices was in line to most people pocket and able to afford they could stand to MAKE more money. Maybe its greed they want to keep it artificially high and have millions pay the nose for it.

I see the premierrubbish are now moaning about ofcom. sorry mods but its linked to the story. Would sport be so crippled I doubt it just pay those prima donna balarinas (I mean those so called profesionals) less.


http://www.football365.com/story/0,1...067057,00.html

[zantarous]

Originally Posted by gadge

Yes.
This seems intresting,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...n-media-bt-sky

I am curious as to what security issues they have, for VM there is no issue as the currently broadcast the channels, weren't both BT and VM saying just a few weeks ago that they would be doing this by the summer.

In the end it just seems like a let down and the regulation didn't go far enough.

[Chrysalis]

to make this even more interesting I remember reading somewhere sky sports itself needs subsidising from basic subscriptions.

to clarify what I mean is the recent rises on the basic mix on sky tv is to compensate sky for people cancelling sky sports as subscriber numbers are falling. This also has the affect of reducing the gap between sky's normal mix prices and with sky sports added on. So there is a cross subsidy going on there. It may explain why the wholesale prices dont seem favourable.

[nialli]

All this talk in the papers about the sporting bodies weighing in, concerned that their revenues will drop as Sky will no longer pay the big bucks as they will no longer be able to promote the pay dish platform as the best (and for non-cable areas, only) place to view sport. Absolute tosh.
Why are people ignoring the impact ESPN is having on the sports rights market? With the deeper-than-Murdoch pockets of Disney backing it, it will be a far more competitive bidding process for most sports going forward than the unbalanced Sky v Setanta bidding of yore. Better we have two well-matched heavyweights in competition than a self-serving monopoly, surely?

Originally Posted by nialli

All this talk in the papers about the sporting bodies weighing in, concerned that their revenues will drop as Sky will no longer pay the big bucks as they will no longer be able to promote the pay dish platform as the best (and for non-cable areas, only) place to view sport. Absolute tosh.
Why are people ignoring the impact ESPN is having on the sports rights market? With the deeper-than-Murdoch pockets of Disney backing it, it will be a far more competitive bidding process for most sports going forward than the unbalanced Sky v Setanta bidding of yore. Better we have two well-matched heavyweights in competition than a self-serving monopoly, surely?

I think the impact of ESPN is very interesting a question i would ask is ESPN really in competition or are they too close to sky to really compete? Sky produce ESPNS football coverage using sky production facilities,and also sky do admin for ESPN seems like a very close relationship for two companies that are supposed to be fiercly in competition to me. Setanta was completely independant in a way ESPN are not at the moment.

As for the money sporting bodies will notionally lose,well if sky sports were available on freeview would that not more then make up for the revenue that may be lost by the price cut,i mean sky could potentially sell lots of subs either via picnic or top up tv. The sporting bodies really ought to get their nose out of skys backside they seem to be thinking of the cash cow rather then the public in all of this.