General : Exclusive TV rights.

[arcimedes]

Originally Posted by anap

Who is going to film the sport? Are you suggesting that sky, virginmedia, bt etc. all have their own camera crew at games?

F1 have their own camera crew and provide the feeds to everyone else but the individual companies add their own commentators and a camera or two so it could be done but I dont think easily.

[Kymmy]

All "race footage" is supplied by F1, the individual companies can only show pre/post race footage via their own cameras.

[MovedGoalPosts]

Exclusive TV rights aren't necessarily the problem.

Do we really need to go back to the days when BBC, ITV etc all were competing against each other, both covering the same football match but with different commentary teams? Of course if you really loathe the team from one provider swapping to another might be an option, but realistically duplicating coverage just dilutes the value and reduces choice of everyone else to the alternative.

The problem of exclusivity is simply one of price. The highest bidder is the one with deepest pockets. They may well have overvalued their option to get that exclusivity. They then need to offset that, hopefully from their direct advertising and subscriptions. But they also hope they can get similar subscription levels from other providers who might wish to take their content. That is where the problem lies. Other providers may attribute less value, albeit some value, to the rights holder.

What would perhaps separate things is to split transmission network and associated infrastructure from the content provision, even if this is only by a process of chinese walls in the same way that BT wholesale is split from retail. VM is effectively already in such demarcation by having sold it's stakes in channels like Gold and Living. Sky as content provider and distributor in one, perhaps isn't as transparent and perhaps one side of it's offering can offset or add value to the other, to the disadvantage of other networks that might wish to distribute content at an economical cost.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Rob

Exclusive TV rights aren't necessarily the problem.

Do we really need to go back to the days when BBC, ITV etc all were competing against each other, both covering the same football match but with different commentary teams? Of course if you really loathe the team from one provider swapping to another might be an option, but realistically duplicating coverage just dilutes the value and reduces choice of everyone else to the alternative.

The problem of exclusivity is simply one of price. The highest bidder is the one with deepest pockets. They may well have overvalued their option to get that exclusivity. They then need to offset that, hopefully from their direct advertising and subscriptions. But they also hope they can get similar subscription levels from other providers who might wish to take their content. That is where the problem lies. Other providers may attribute less value, albeit some value, to the rights holder.

What would perhaps separate things is to split transmission network and associated infrastructure from the content provision, even if this is only by a process of chinese walls in the same way that BT wholesale is split from retail. VM is effectively already in such demarcation by having sold it's stakes in channels like Gold and Living. Sky as content provider and distributor in one, perhaps isn't as transparent and perhaps one side of it's offering can offset or add value to the other, to the disadvantage of other networks that might wish to distribute content at an economical cost.

Well said.

I dont see any issue with content providers being a separate entity from the distributor.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Rob

The problem of exclusivity is simply one of price. The highest bidder is the one with deepest pockets.

And in the UK, that's Sky. Game over. (Pun not intended!)

Originally Posted by Rob

Sky as content provider and distributor in one, perhaps isn't as transparent and perhaps one side of it's offering can offset or add value to the other, to the disadvantage of other networks that might wish to distribute content at an economical cost.

Which is why I agree they need splitting. Good luck in getting them to actually do that though.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Exactly They can, and do, outbid everybody for their content.

Ignoring Sport and Movies for a moment, my main issue with Sky is when they find US import on Terrestrial TV that has been a success and then outbid everyone for the second (and/or more) season.

As if that weren't enough, for any TV shows they buy themselves they always purchase both the PayTV rights and the FTA rights; but then never use the latter. This means that no other channel can ever (for life of contract at least) show it. That's fine because, of course, Sky have PickTV that is FTA don't they? They could show it on there a year or two later, couldn't they? Well yes. They could. But they don't.

Now I'm all for Sky having "first run PayTV rights" if they want them but there is no need to buy the FTA rights and not use them. That's just wrong.

Just been looking on Pick TV and I see , Spartacus Blood and Sand , Strike Back , Star Trek the next generation to name a few so the points highlighted aren't strictly true.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by anap

Who is going to film the sport? Are you suggesting that sky, virginmedia, bt etc. all have their own camera crew at games?

My thought exactly.

& as most of the shows that are complained about seem to be from the USA
who is going to enforce it.
Sky, you can`t say that is as close as you are going to get.

I sell a number of products them at a high price, or to who knows how many at a lower price - may be. Nice idea unworkable but a nice idea

---------- Post added at 15:54 ---------- Previous post was at 15:53 ----------

Originally Posted by carlwaring

And in the UK, that's Sky. Game over. (Pun not intended!)


Which is why I agree they need splitting. Good luck in getting them to actually do that though.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Just been looking on Pick TV and I see , Spartacus Blood and Sand , Strike Back , Star Trek the next generation to name a few so the points highlighted aren't strictly true.

Interesting observation MM. I've criticized Sky for that in the past, so it's good to know some shows are getting a FTA showing and that I was mistaken about the situation. TBH, I don't think that I've ever checked the Pick TV listings, because of having Living and One.

I still find the situation of a couple of Atlantic shows being added to Living and One an interesting and very good development. Let's hope that continues.

---------- Post added at 16:30 ---------- Previous post was at 16:24 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

Well said.

I dont see any issue with content providers being a separate entity from the distributor.

I'm sure that we all agree on that. I think the sad thing is that we all agree that it will never happen.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Just been looking on Pick TV and I see , Spartacus Blood and Sand , Strike Back , Star Trek the next generation to name a few so the points highlighted aren't strictly true.

Fair enough. Perhaps they're beginning to change.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Fair enough. Perhaps they're beginning to change.

Yes usually a leopard usually never changes its spots but perhaps it is suddenly becoming a cuddly teddy bear.