General : Underhand devious Sky

Originally Posted by Itshim

Sorry my point is supplier - be that any one- has the right to market products in anyway they see fit. Hence Tesco`s value will never be sold in your local independent shop or for that matter ASDA. Using your reference to Domestos. If unilever choose not to supply ASDA, I think they are within there rights, daft but with in them.

So why do posters here think that SKY has to place its products in rivals "shop". Virgin gave up the idea of buying TV shows,in favor of being a conduit.
I do not like it but if SKY or for that matter any other supplier choose not to use Virgin as a conduit so be it. Perhaps if they supplied it via Free-view at a cost, then perhaps I could see a case ( not a strong one but still ). As I see it there are two choices live with it or move.

You are ignoring the whole aspect of market dominance, which is well-established as a regulatory concern in the UK. Suppliers do not have the absolute right to market any product in any way they see fit. Our markets are regulated, each in a different way due to different circumstances within each.

Own-brand products do not distort the market in baked beans because there are a plethora of alternatives that are cheap and easy to come by. Own-brand TV channels are vastly more expensive to produce and distribute, are available in a far narrower market and thanks to the subscription models used by UK providers the market is a lot less fluid. Denial of certain channels to competing distributors presents a long-term risk of a monopoly of supply developing, something our business legislation actively seeks to prevent.

[andy_m]

If Virgin was struggling to create it's own channel in order to compete with Sky then market dominance might be an issue, but Virgin had channels and sold them. There's no case to answer here, Virgin have chosen not to complete in this area.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by andy_m

If Virgin was struggling to create it's own channel in order to compete with Sky then market dominance might be an issue, but Virgin had channels and sold them. There's no case to answer here, Virgin have chosen not to complete in this area.

VM not got money to compete with sky as no one else has either thats why sky got a near monopoly

[andy_m]

Virgin do compete with Sky, in some areas such as broadband and on demand they are arguably ahead. They've chosen not to compete on linear channels. I understand the need for regulation when competition can't be achieved, but two companies who choose to operate in different ways shouldn't be bought together by regulation just because one of them doesn't have access to a particular channel - you end up with 2 companies offering near identical products competing solely on price. That just results in cuts to quality.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by andy_m

Virgin do compete with Sky, in some areas such as broadband and on demand they are arguably ahead. They've chosen not to compete on linear channels. I understand the need for regulation when competition can't be achieved, but two companies who choose to operate in different ways shouldn't be bought together by regulation just because one of them doesn't have access to a particular channel - you end up with 2 companies offering near identical products competing solely on price. That just results in cuts to quality.

there can't compete on channels as sky pay very big money to make sure no one esle can compete with them

Originally Posted by andy_m

Virgin do compete with Sky, in some areas such as broadband and on demand they are arguably ahead. They've chosen not to compete on linear channels. I understand the need for regulation when competition can't be achieved, but two companies who choose to operate in different ways shouldn't be bought together by regulation just because one of them doesn't have access to a particular channel - you end up with 2 companies offering near identical products competing solely on price. That just results in cuts to quality.

Tell me.What do you think of the BBC?

[LexDiamond]

Originally Posted by Dave42

VM not got money to compete with sky as no one else has either thats why sky got a near monopoly

VM had good channels with good shows

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

VM had good channels with good shows

yes but could not afford to keep them sadly and had to sell them to get acces to sky premium HD channels they never have got them otherwise

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Tell me.What do you think of the BBC?

If you genuinely want to know, I think their news output is dreadful, but that some of their drama and documentaries are world class, and I think I player is excellent. I am, in general, against what I consider to be a tax imposed on everybody, regardless of whether they use the end product, albeit I am personally quite a heavy user. However, I am able to temper this by thinking of my elderly grandmother and contenting myself with the thought that she has access to simple, world class television for free.

In terms of the discussion, both Sky and Virgin are doing well in tough economic times despite the presence of a state funded broadcaster which provides 8 TV channels, numerous radio stations as well as online content, so it's hard to argue it has any impact on competition.

---------- Post added at 22:08 ---------- Previous post was at 22:05 ----------

Originally Posted by Dave42

yes but could not afford to keep them sadly and had to sell them to get acces to sky premium HD channels they never have got them otherwise

Exactly, they had a choice. They chose to only be a platform rather than a content provider. I don't understand why, having made the choice not to compete in this area they should now be given a helping hand to acquire channels they' chosen not to compete against.

Originally Posted by andy_m

If you genuinely want to know, I think their news output is dreadful, but that some of their drama and documentaries are world class, and I think I player is excellent. I am, in general, against what I consider to be a tax imposed on everybody, regardless of whether they use the end product, albeit I am personally quite a heavy user. However, I am able to temper this by thinking of my elderly grandmother and contenting myself with the thought that she has access to simple, world class television for free.

In terms of the discussion, both Sky and Virgin are doing well in tough economic times despite the presence of a state funded broadcaster which provides 8 TV channels, numerous radio stations as well as online content, so it's hard to argue it has any impact on competition.

---------- Post added at 22:08 ---------- Previous post was at 22:05 ----------



Exactly, they had a choice. They chose to only be a platform rather than a content provider. I don't understand why, having made the choice not to compete in this area they should now be given a helping hand to acquire channels they' chosen not to compete against.

Don't think I've suggested the latter..I'm just peeved that Sky has had the unfair advantage of the funding to outbid for INDIVIDUAL programmes to show on their premium channels due entirely to being the market leader because of lack of even handedness about issues of monopoly by the Murdochs.

Originally Posted by andy_m

Exactly, they had a choice. They chose to only be a platform rather than a content provider. I don't understand why, having made the choice not to compete in this area they should now be given a helping hand to acquire channels they' chosen not to compete against.

Because the point of the legislation is consumer choice and consumer protection. It's not about giving VM a helping hand per se - it's about ensuring the buying public is protected from monopolies, which are almost always a bad thing.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Dave42

there can't compete on channels as sky pay very big money to make sure no one esle can compete with them

Spot on Dave.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by denphone

Spot on Dave.

Next you will asking for a share of the license fee

I really can not understand why people here think its their god given right to access SKY channels. Via Virgin , why not via the BBC I player or ITVs net player. Come on lets start asking for all SKY channels on top up TV.

No other supplier of goods ( & that`s what it is) is told to whom they must supply. It is not that you can`t not get them, it is that you choose NOT to get them.

Perhaps I can access ASDAs goods via my local CO-OP (its closer to me). Sorry its time people started to get real. I do not like, not having the full range of SKY channels via Virgin, but there are a whole lot more that are the same & very few people complain about that ( Think news channels on freeview for a kick off -not on Virgin)

However I still choose Virgin over SKY - Why they cost about the same, both have plus & minus points, the reason I do is for the same sort of cost per month I get a box(es) & Modem I do not have to worry about
If that model changed that so would I.

Originally Posted by Itshim

Next you will asking for a share of the license fee

I really can not understand why people here think its their god given right to access SKY channels. Via Virgin , why not via the BBC I player or ITVs net player. Come on lets start asking for all SKY channels on top up TV.

No other supplier of goods ( & that`s what it is) is told to whom they must supply. It is not that you can`t not get them, it is that you choose NOT to get them.

Perhaps I can access ASDAs goods via my local CO-OP (its closer to me). Sorry its time people started to get real. I do not like, not having the full range of SKY channels via Virgin, but there are a whole lot more that are the same & very few people complain about that ( Think news channels on freeview for a kick off -not on Virgin)

However I still choose Virgin over SKY - Why they cost about the same, both have plus & minus points, the reason I do is for the same sort of cost per month I get a box(es) & Modem I do not have to worry about
If that model changed that so would I.

I will say this ONLY ONCE...I do not expect or demand to see Sky channels on VM.I also think that the OP doesn't expect that either.
What we are complaining about is the way programmes are placed on Sky channels because Sky has far more money and therefore bidding power than any of the other platforms.

Two examples.House and Lost.Both were being shown on other platforms and channels.Between one series and the next Sky outbid for them and they disappeared behind the Sky platform.Very hard on those who were watching them on Channel 5 and Channel 4 and had no access to Sky.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I will say this ONLY ONCE...I do not expect or demand to see Sky channels on VM.I also think that the OP doesn't expect that either.

And neither do I.

What we are complaining about is the way programmes are placed on Sky channels because Sky has far more money and therefore bidding power than any of the other platforms.

Two examples. House and Lost.Both were being shown on other platforms and channels. Between one series and the next Sky outbid for them and they disappeared behind the Sky platform.Very hard on those who were watching them on Channel 5 and Channel 4 and had no access to Sky.

"24" was another one.

For me it's these two points...


1. Because they were effectively forced to allow other platforms access to Sky1 at a reasonable rate, they now place a lot of new stuff that should (or at least would) have been on Sky1 onto Sky Atlantic which, by definition, is only supposed to show HBO programming.

2. They buy up but then do not use the FTA rights for many of their shows so that no other channel gets to have them.