Will NTL ever catch up with Sky?

[etccarmageddon]

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 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.

I think they force their phone line as it is a low cost item to provide and the money used from this is profit which subsides the TV service - especially the cost of providing a Set Top Box 'rent free'. If you want no phone line bundled with the service then expect the price of the TV service to drop by only a small amount - perhaps £2 a month!

[Stuart]

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.

I don't know how much of the NTL network is capable of Multi screens. I suspect most of it is now..

However, I do agree with themelon: Sky should be required to seperate their channels and distribution system. They should not give preferential treatment to their own subscribers (which they would not be able to do if their distribution was a seperate company).

Maybe I am being a bit simplistic here, but I do think that if I pay money for a channel, I should get the exact same service across all distribution systems. Wether I am watching it on Cable or Satellite should be irrelevant. Subscribers to one system certainly shouldn't get this much less for the same price.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

I think they force their phone line as it is a low cost item to provide and the money used from this is profit which subsides the TV service - especially the cost of providing a Set Top Box 'rent free'. If you want no phone line bundled with the service then expect the price of the TV service to drop by only a small amount - perhaps £2 a month!

If you don't want the telephone line you still have to pay the full price for it if you want the DTV service.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

I think they force their phone line as it is a low cost item to provide and the money used from this is profit which subsides the TV service - especially the cost of providing a Set Top Box 'rent free'. If you want no phone line bundled with the service then expect the price of the TV service to drop by only a small amount - perhaps £2 a month!

Originally Posted by ianathuth

If you don't want the telephone line you still have to pay the full price for it if you want the DTV service.

A point I have been making for ages-no choice.

I still feel it's unfair for ntl to force their inferior (to BT) phone line on people.

[Edit]-At very least they should offer a discount if you don't want the phone line, but to just bundle it with no choice is poor IMO.

[Tristan]

Originally Posted by Neil

And what's wrong with that?

They are just protecting their investment.

What's wrong with it is that Sky are using their monopoly in one area -- broadcasting of live sports -- to influence another sector, namely the supply of digital TV to the home.

It's the same as if Microsoft produced an all-singing, all-dancing version of Word for Windows, but charged the same for a Mac version which was just a basic text editor. They would be guilty of anticompetetive behaviour, namely using their dominance in the field of Office applications to try to force people into using Windows.

The solution is to split BSkyB into separate broadcast and delivery companies, and let market forces take their course. Then Sky Broadcast would charge both Sky Digital and NTL per subscriber per channel -- and result in Sky Digital customers paying more (or, alternatively, Sky Broadcast offering the extra streams on NTL so as to increase their revenue).

In fact, it doesn't even have to be done. Just the threat of it would be enough. It's the threat of being split up that keep Microsoft making version of Office for the Mac that are equal (and some might say superior) to the Windows versions.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Tristan

What's wrong with it is that Sky are using their monopoly in one area -- broadcasting of live sports -- to influence another sector, namely the supply of digital TV to the home.

It's the same as if Microsoft produced an all-singing, all-dancing version of Word for Windows, but charged the same for a Mac version which was just a basic text editor. They would be guilty of anticompetetive behaviour, namely using their dominance in the field of Office applications to try to force people into using Windows.

But is it simply that Sky don't/won't offer it to the cable companies, or that the cable platform is not able/capable of delivering the full features of Sky Sports?

Originally Posted by Tristan

The solution is to split BSkyB into separate broadcast and delivery companies, and let market forces take their course. Then Sky Broadcast would charge both Sky Digital and NTL per subscriber per channel -- and result in Sky Digital customers paying more (or, alternatively, Sky Broadcast offering the extra streams on NTL so as to increase their revenue).

In fact, it doesn't even have to be done. Just the threat of it would be enough. It's the threat of being split up that keep Microsoft making version of Office for the Mac that are equal (and some might say superior) to the Windows versions.

But if the cable platform is not physically capable of carrying an identical version of Sky Sports (including full red button interactivity/player cam etc), then even threatening Sky would have no impact as they would just say that the cable platform cannot physically offer the features that Digital Satellite can?

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by scastle

I don't know how much of the NTL network is capable of Multi screens. I suspect most of it is now..

However, I do agree with themelon: Sky should be required to seperate their channels and distribution system. They should not give preferential treatment to their own subscribers (which they would not be able to do if their distribution was a seperate company).

Maybe I am being a bit simplistic here, but I do think that if I pay money for a channel, I should get the exact same service across all distribution systems. Wether I am watching it on Cable or Satellite should be irrelevant. Subscribers to one system certainly shouldn't get this much less for the same price.

I agree with your thinking but do we know beyond doubt if the NTL network is capable of supplying the same multi screen service as Sky. Do we know what NTL have to pay Sky for the channels and is this payment the same whether multi screen facilities are given or not. Are Sky refusing to give NTL the multi screen capability or is it NTL that is refusing to take it.

It could be that NTL only want to pay Sky for the main Sports channels without their multi screen capabilities but want to charge customers the same price as Sky charge theirs with multi screen.

Without the full facts we can only guess or assume what is going on. It may be Sky or it may be NTL that is causing the differences in what we get on the different platforms.

[Tristan]

Originally Posted by Neil

But is it simply that Sky don't/won't offer it to the cable companies, or that the cable platform is not able/capable of delivering the full features of Sky Sports?



But if the cable platform is not physically capable of carrying an identical version of Sky Sports (including full red button interactivity/player cam etc), then even threatening Sky would have no impact as they would just say that the cable platform cannot physically offer the features that Digital Satellite can?

If the cable network weren't capable of offering it, that would be one thing. But all the Sky Sports Interactive things are really are hidden screens and the occasional graphical overlay, which the NTL software can deal with (see the BBC Wimbledon app for example).

I think the issue really is multiplex space. If NTL offer Sky another 8 high-bitrate streams (they need to be high to show sports well), then that's probably the same space as could be filled by perhaps 12 regular channels. NTL would expect Sky (not unreasonably) to pay the going rate for this bandwidth -- after all, Sky have to rent this space on the satellite to broadcast to their own subscribers, so why not rent it on NTL? But since Sky will get the same amount of money from NTL Sky Sports subscribers regardless of whether they provide the extra streams or not, they surprisingly choose not to give money to their biggest rival. So somebody has to force the issue here.

[etccarmageddon]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

If you don't want the telephone line you still have to pay the full price for it if you want the DTV service.

might point is that if you did unbundle it then the cost of the TV service wouldnt drop by the cost of a phone line rental.



speaking of unfair practices - SKY are effectively using their platform to gain an advantage in the PVR market - they bundle their PVR option with either the choice of paying £10 a month or subscribing to premium channels.

they're all at it - both NTL and SKY try to lock you into a 'package' which has anti competitive elements.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Tristan

If the cable network weren't capable of offering it, that would be one thing. But all the Sky Sports Interactive things are really are hidden screens and the occasional graphical overlay, which the NTL software can deal with (see the BBC Wimbledon app for example).

I think the issue really is multiplex space. If NTL offer Sky another 8 high-bitrate streams (they need to be high to show sports well), then that's probably the same space as could be filled by perhaps 12 regular channels. NTL would expect Sky (not unreasonably) to pay the going rate for this bandwidth -- after all, Sky have to rent this space on the satellite to broadcast to their own subscribers, so why not rent it on NTL? But since Sky will get the same amount of money from NTL Sky Sports subscribers regardless of whether they provide the extra streams or not, they surprisingly choose not to give money to their biggest rival. So somebody has to force the issue here.

I think Tristan has hit the nail on the head. Do NTL have space to provide the extra channels needed for the up to eight extra streams for Champions League and Football First coverage considering that the space is only needed for a few hours now and then.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Tristan

If the cable network weren't capable of offering it, that would be one thing. But all the Sky Sports Interactive things are really are hidden screens and the occasional graphical overlay, which the NTL software can deal with (see the BBC Wimbledon app for example).

I think the issue really is multiplex space. If NTL offer Sky another 8 high-bitrate streams (they need to be high to show sports well), then that's probably the same space as could be filled by perhaps 12 regular channels. NTL would expect Sky (not unreasonably) to pay the going rate for this bandwidth -- after all, Sky have to rent this space on the satellite to broadcast to their own subscribers, so why not rent it on NTL? But since Sky will get the same amount of money from NTL Sky Sports subscribers regardless of whether they provide the extra streams or not, they surprisingly choose not to give money to their biggest rival. So somebody has to force the issue here.

So it appears to be a 'problem' on ntl's side rather than Sky's (lack of space and/or bandwidth)?

[themelon]

They do have space......its more a case that Sky dont want to pay for it as Tristan said. There will be ample space next year when VOD rolls out and NVOD closes down, 50ish channels.

In which case I dont want to pay for the Inferior Sky Sports Service.........and while im at it I will dump the movies as well because its mostly crap and repeats these days anyway. £20 odd saved! nice one Sky!

Not only do you **** me off sufficiently to dump you ****ty Shatellite service...you also stop me subscribing to your channels full top due to your monopolistic idiotic behaviour!

Great Business........I really do hope Skys greed is the cause of its demise in years to come, when people wise up and relaise what they can save.

Anyways for those interested a petition is here to sign, on getting some action taken.

http://www.petitiononline.com/of2c2004/petition.html

[Tristan]

Originally Posted by Neil

So it appears to be a 'problem' on ntl's side rather than Sky's (lack of space and/or bandwidth)?

No, I was suggesting that Sky were unwilling to pay the going rate for the space, rather than NTL not having the space available.

I beleive that NTL actually have a number of reserved "e-TV channels" hidden from view that are available for any broadcaster who's willing to pay for them. So far only the BBC have done so. Based on the e-TV content we've had so far, there are at least 6 of these available. There's no reason to think that NTL couldn't add more if the need was there. They're not full yet.

And themelon: the Front Row VOD service will use the space currently occupied by the NVOD streams. No bandwidth will be saved, at least initially.

[ikthius]

well if bbc can give us interactive for the olympics then why can't ntl give us the 8 channels of football, it is roughly the same, is it not?

so therefore, it comes down to a few things.

1. sky not letting ntl have it or if they do, they will be asking the earht for it, so that customers go to sky.
2. ntl just being lazy, and not even bidding for things like this, maybe not even listening to their customers needs/wants. but I don't think that ntl would would want to lose customers.
3. ofcom not taking a serious look at the whole, not just sky, but all parties in this.

the microsoft analogy does some it up, to be honest, but all I am asking for is the same. would sky and ntl get the finger out if everybody on ntl cancelled their subscription to sky sports (and maybe movies) for about 3 - 5 months, there for, ntl need money to pay sky, and sky want the money so as an incentive give out the extra features.

I have subscribed to sky sports package, the same as anyone on sky regardless what ntl pay sky, so I want the same features as sky customers, regardless of me being on cable. if it is ntls prob then they should pull their finger out.

so to the main sky lovers here, I am trying to show all sides not just sky or ntl, I am looking at it as a customer wanting what he paid for.........

do you agree?

ik

[themelon]

I cant honestly see why ntl wouldnt have it, it would be pure stupidity for them not to offer a service that they can offer, as they will lose customers.

Likelyhood is it will be the Sky end playing up as usual. I cant really see what negotiations need to be done really...........its part of the Sky Sports package we should get it, pure and simple. If its not part of the Sky Sports package it should be an optional extra to Sky Sports users on Digital Satellite too.