Virgin and BT square up to Sky on prices

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

But hey, it's Sky right? Monopoly, evil Rupert Murdoch, must be stopped at all costs. Which is fine except when a body that's supposed to foster competition is the one doing the stopping at all costs. Maybe a remedy is needed, maybe other operators just need to grow a pair and start bidding with Sky for the new content and either let Sky sell on their platform directly or pay up, either way this remedy that Ofcom want to employ is really very OTT. Who'd have thought a Labour dominated regulator would be overbearing and want to control everything because they know best

Yes. That is basically what it is all about.

Murdoch is just getting stronger and stronger to the point where he will have more power than the prime minister. We seen this in '97 when Blair had to kowtow to him because he thought he would lose the election without the support of Murdochs papers. I have heard tories say several times in parliament that no one knows what Blair promised him. Now we don't know what Cameron has promised to get Murdoch's papers on his side. I have even heard it said that Blair and Murdoch had many telephone conversations in the run up to the Iraq war. This is someone who is unelected misusing the power his vast media empire gives him.

Is it correct that the Tories have said they will change the legislation that mean broadcasters have to be impartial? Murdoch already said a couple of years ago that he would like Sky news to be more like Fox news and if he gets his way the BBC would also be gone. This man who does not live in this country and pays little or no tax will be the most powerful man in the land.

As for all the other 'poor old sky' stuff in your post, well whatever happens Sky will be laughing all the way to the bank. What I want to see is the consumers interest protected. Lets say for instance that I want Movie channels in HD (which I dont). Why should I be restricted to only one supplier? There is no way VM or BT could set up their own channels because Sky (and some credit to them here) have the market totally sewn up. Why should the richest company be able to buy up most of the sport and then tell me I can only watch it if I sign up to their sports channels. You can argue that is unfair on Sky but I dont have shares in Sky, it is the consumers interest I want protected. Left alone there would soon be only one company, which is bad enough for the tv consumer but that monopoly owned by Murdoch would be a disaster politically for this country.

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

Nope BSkyB have no say in what goes on their EPG, that's a condition of their Ofcom operating licence. Comply with the technical details, etc, and there's nothing Sky can do about it.



As I said above BT's next generation access network they voluntarily made open. This access network is either in no way built by the taxpayer or very little of it. That the taxpayer built the original network is also irrelevant it's the issues around replicating that infrastructure, it is a structural monopoly that are the reasons for the original legislations. BT wasn't just handed from government control to private control - they paid for it!



So what? Legislation appears to be perfectly acceptable on Sky to prevent them having a monopoly, so what does who built what, where, why and how have to do with things? Sky's platform was built with entirely private money, why should they be regulated if whomever built the networks is relevant. Virgin Media do, after all, have a total monopoly on cable access and in some areas a monopoly on high speed internet access. They are always talking about how superior their network is, surely it would be in the public's best interest to have more choice over that superior network? Infact the only party to whom it wouldn't be in the best interest is Virgin Media. They have the only large non-open distribution network in the UK.

Requiring allowing of access to cable networks is certainly not without precedent. It's happening now in the Netherlands for TV content and in the United States access to cable networks for 3rd party ISPs was done as long as 9 years ago. Then there is that ntl were wholesaling access to their cable network a while ago, albeit at extremely inflated prices which only one operator was stupid enough to pay.



Ofcom isn't just full of Labour sympathisers, it's full of Labour advisors, donors, etc. Stephen Carter leaves his jumped up PR position at ntl and goes to Ofcom then leaves there to come work for the government. Ed Richards his successor used to work for the government. That goes beyond sympathising to loading up the regulator for political reasons, and rest assured Ofcom have a strong policy role. They also appear to be lining up a nice lucrative spectrum auction, once again taking money from private enterprise, which we will have to pay back in higher bills, and putting it into government coffers, which is nice.

On the subject of monopolies Sky are already required to wholesale a large number of their channels, and if BT and VM want the content so badly why don't they simply bid for it themselves? The whole fear that if Ofcom don't force Sky to sell their channels cheaper there will be some kind of monopoly is ridiculous. No-one is stopping BT and VM from putting their hands in their pockets and bidding. If they are too scared to bid on their own they could form a conglomerate and put in a combined bid. If they are still too scared to sink their own money into the bidding process they obviously don't want the content that badly if they'd rather Sky bear the risk.

Easy to think of VM as aggrieved however if they think there is a demand for these channels they can simply pay for them, Sky did offer to discount substantially from previous levels however I believe Ofcom refused that deal on behalf of VM and everyone else as Sky wanted to sell pay-tv over DTT in return. If they think the price is unreasonable they negotiate. If they still can't get anything out of the deal they look into allowing Sky to sell the channels on their platform and charge Sky for access to their platform. This way they get to take none of the risk and can advertise the HD availability, however I guess due in no small part to the 'politics' between the two companies that isn't going to happen which is a shame. Homechoice had Sky channels which were sold by Sky and transported on their platform and it's a very common arrangement in a number of countries across many different cable networks and DTH platforms including Sky's own where ESPN et al are sold distinctly from Sky so I'm not sure what the issue is beyond the politics and/or VM not wanting to set precedent through allowing other operators any kind of access to their network.

This whole thing is about Ofcom wanting to shape the market to fit their view of how it should be, it's nothing to do with fostering choice or fair competition. Going by how well things went last time Ofcom did this with a market - broadband - I wouldn't feel too optimistic. Ofcom's enforced competition just left us with several hundred varieties of crap to choose from, LLU offerings largely centred around reducing costs rather than improving services, and no-one wanting to make serious investment in next generation technologies to compete with cable until this year.

If you want some more idea about how prejudiced against Sky this remedy is Sky will be obliged to offer the channels at a retail minus basis. In other words the more efficient Sky are and the lower they keep the prices to their own consumers through things like more automation, more use of online resource, etc, the less they get for the channels, punishing them for trying to keep their own consumers' prices down. This is ridiculous as it assumes a similar level of efficiency from whomever buys the channels, and everyone who buys them from a Virgin Media or BT right down to Smallworld pays the same. In addition when Sky come to increase their retail prices that means they increase the wholesale ones as well right? Nope, they have to seek consent from Ofcom before the wholesale price goes down and in any event Ofcom have a pricing system of how they want the charges to go in the future anyway. Under this system it's perfectly feasible that Virgin Media will be able to rebroadcast Sky's channels for less than the cost of making them.

But hey, it's Sky right? Monopoly, evil Rupert Murdoch, must be stopped at all costs. Which is fine except when a body that's supposed to foster competition is the one doing the stopping at all costs. Maybe a remedy is needed, maybe other operators just need to grow a pair and start bidding with Sky for the new content and either let Sky sell on their platform directly or pay up, either way this remedy that Ofcom want to employ is really very OTT. Who'd have thought a Labour dominated regulator would be overbearing and want to control everything because they know best

I wouldn't care about any of this if it wasn't for the fact of how much undue influence this one family has in the politics of the UK.It's undemocratic.No commercial organisation should have this much power to decide who gets into power and runs the country.That should be left to us the taxpayers and voters.I don't give a turd how much money the Murdochs make, I resent the fact that they can decide my future by whom they support in their bum wiping rags.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I wouldn't care about any of this if it wasn't for the fact of how much undue influence this one family has in the politics of the UK.It's undemocratic.No commercial organisation should have this much power to decide who gets into power and runs the country.That should be left to us the taxpayers and voters.I don't give a turd how much money the Murdochs make, I resent the fact that they can decide my future by whom they support in their bum wiping rags.

And regulating Sky's wholesale prices will do exactly nothing to change this I'm afraid.

---------- Post added at 17:36 ---------- Previous post was at 17:31 ----------

Originally Posted by ahardie

Yes. That is basically what it is all about.
<snip>

Yes well that should hold up in court no problem.

As for all the other 'poor old sky' stuff in your post, well whatever happens Sky will be laughing all the way to the bank. What I want to see is the consumers interest protected. Lets say for instance that I want Movie channels in HD (which I dont). Why should I be restricted to only one supplier? There is no way VM or BT could set up their own channels because Sky (and some credit to them here) have the market totally sewn up. Why should the richest company be able to buy up most of the sport and then tell me I can only watch it if I sign up to their sports channels. You can argue that is unfair on Sky but I dont have shares in Sky, it is the consumers interest I want protected. Left alone there would soon be only one company, which is bad enough for the tv consumer but that monopoly owned by Murdoch would be a disaster politically for this country.

Again the premium channels have no relevance to politics. If other platforms wish to either bid for rights or purchase the channels from Sky they are more than welcome to. BT can hardly plead poverty can they? Sky aren't the richest company and if they pay for the content they take the risk that they can make money from it, why shouldn't they receive some kind of reward. The remedy Ofcom are seeking will likely be challenged in the courts for the potential for material financial harm to Sky for heaven's sake. If it were a reasonable resolution Sky wouldn't even be able to appeal it.

The present situation has been the status quo for many years, I don't see there being only one company, indeed there are more options for television than ever before and more carriers carrying premium content.

I am not saying that something doesn't need to be done, but what Ofcom suggest certainly is not that something, it's just a perpetuation of the Labour obsession with controlling everything. The remedy should fit the market, reward investment and promote innovation in that market in order to improve the services available not try to reshape the market to how the regulator think it should be. The remedy being promoted offers no incentive to Sky to focus on efficiency or quality but instead to try and reduce production costs, reduce quality, reduce investment to try and improve the sums for this ridiculous retail-minus calculation Ofcom want to impose.

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

And regulating Sky's wholesale prices will do exactly nothing to change this I'm afraid.

Preventing them from using their influence unduly to make themselves richer at the expense of me suits me just fine...I resent the monopoly they have because they have so much money and the fact that they want to do away with state funded TV proves that to me..I'm sick of the way that monopoly laws are set up to protect us the consumer but are then undermined at every turn by the likes of the Murdoch empire.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Preventing them from using their influence unduly to make themselves richer at the expense of me suits me just fine...I resent the monopoly they have because they have so much money and the fact that they want to do away with state funded TV proves that to me..I'm sick of the way that monopoly laws are set up to protect us the consumer but are then undermined at every turn by the likes of the Murdoch empire.

It won't do that either, they'll simply lower production values to try and preserve their wholesale margin that way. You may want to read the documents so that you have some idea what Ofcom are actually proposing.

Thought this thread was about the dispute between Virgin, BT and Sky over wholesale pricing rather than a general invective of the evils of the Murdochs anyway?

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

It won't do that either, they'll simply lower production values to try and preserve their wholesale margin that way. You may want to read the documents so that you have some idea what Ofcom are actually proposing.

Thought this thread was about the dispute between Virgin, BT and Sky over wholesale pricing rather than a general invective of the evils of the Murdochs anyway?

That's a bit of a laugh given that a large proportion of your posts are about political appointees etc.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by ahardie

That's a bit of a laugh given that a large proportion of your posts are about political appointees etc.

Which was very relevant given I was framing the origins, organisation and machinations of Ofcom, the body that made this decision. No need to be so supercilious.

The basement has plenty of threads on the issue of the Murdochs generally if you just feel like a chat on their world domination aspirations, any chance we can keep this thread to the specific topic in hand - BT, VM, Sky, Ofcom's decision relating to them?

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

Which was very relevant given I was framing the origins, organisation and machinations of Ofcom, the body that made this decision. No need to be so supercilious.

The basement has plenty of threads on the issue of the Murdochs generally if you just feel like a chat on their world domination aspirations, any chance we can keep this thread to the specific topic in hand - BT, VM, Sky, Ofcom's decision relating to them?

I wasn't actually being supercilious. I was just surprised at you suggesting others were going off-topic when you were probably more off topic than anyone. What has political appointees for instance, got to do with whether offcom decisions are correct or not or for that matter whether there should be a regulatory body. You want others to stick to the narrow topic of wholesale pricing but hold forth about things like political appointees to justify the tories scrapping ofcom.

[Ignitionnet]

Well cheers for derailing said thread with the petty points scoring anyway.

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

Well cheers for derailing said thread with the petty points scoring anyway.

And with that I will leave this thread altogether. I rarely post in the forum anyway but it seems that you think you are in charge here not the mods or administrator. Carry on posting. You are obviously a man with a mission.