General Sky Sports pricing dispute: appeal ruling looms - Page 6

LexDiamond · 08-08-2012, 22:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emel

I think basically Sky lost. The court said Ofcom was wrong to begin with but that Ofcom still have the right to tell Sky to reduce their prices.

Directly from the findings:

In point 16 it says that Sky was wrong for questioning Ofcom's authority.
Furthet in point 19 Sky is proven wrong again on its basis of contention.

But then if you read point 28, the conclusion was basically that Ofcom had no clue as to what actually happened.

Point 30 then states that they found no evidence that Sky is against the wholesale of its channels.

Point 32 is the killer blow. It says that the assertion that Sky is against the supply to cable is unfounded.

This is damning evidence for VM. The evidence shows that VM are lacking in bringing services to its platform.

Emel · 08-08-2012, 22:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenMcr

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...-channels.html

Don't like the sound of this bit

"The ruling from CAT could see rivalsâ€™ customers be priced out of access to prime sports coverage unless they move to BSkyB, critics suggested."

BenMcr · 08-08-2012, 22:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

This is damning evidence for VM. The evidence shows that VM are lacking in bringing services to its platform.

No it doesn't. It's OFCOM's view that they are saying is wrong.

In the Judgement the CAT say:

Quote:

In our view the evidence overall demonstrates that VM is rightly regarded by Sky as a serious, well-established rival capable of constraining Sky’s actions in the market, and that it does in fact compete effectively with Sky in the retail supply of packages which include CPSCs. We therefore conclude that Ofcom’s finding as to the effect of the rate card prices on VM’s incentives and competitive effort is not justified. Nor indeed is customer choice likely to be adversely affected to any real extent. Existing customers of VM who wish to take CPSCs can do so without switching, and at prices which are comparable with those on DTH satellite.

denphone · 08-08-2012, 22:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

Directly from the findings:

In point 16 it says that Sky was wrong for questioning Ofcom's authority.
Furthet in point 19 Sky is proven wrong again on its basis of contention.

But then if you read point 28, the conclusion was basically that Ofcom had no clue as to what actually happened.

Point 30 then states that they found no evidence that Sky is against the wholesale of its channels.

Point 32 is the killer blow. It says that the assertion that Sky is against the supply to cable is unfounded.

This is damning evidence for VM. The evidence shows that VM are lacking in bringing services to its platform.

And what services dear Lex in your mind are lacking as this just sounds just like another anti-Virgin post in my mind.

Chad · 08-08-2012, 22:36

Will Virgin be making some kind of announcement about this to their customers?

BenMcr · 08-08-2012, 22:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chad

Will Virgin be making some kind of announcement about this to their customers?

The process hasn't completed yet. Sky have won the right to appeal OFCOM's judgement - the appeal itself hasn't happened yet

Quote:

In the light of the Tribunal’s conclusions, Sky’s appeal must be allowed, but the Tribunal will hear the parties in due course on the appropriate ruling

So until there is actual outcome one way or the other, there isn't anything to communicate to customers

LexDiamond · 08-08-2012, 22:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenMcr

No it doesn't. It's OFCOM's view that they are saying is wrong.

In the Judgement the CAT say:

Paragraph 29 clearly states that abondment was not Sky's fault.

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone

And what services dear Lex in your mind are lacking as this just sounds just like another anti-Virgin post in my mind.

Sorry Den but your anti Sky assertion is wrong in this case. Looking at negotiations, the conclusion is that it was not Sky that is the reason that these services are not there on counter party platforms.

Chad · 08-08-2012, 22:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenMcr

The process hasn't completed yet. Sky have won the right to appeal OFCOM's judgement - the appeal itself hasn't happened yet

So until there is actual outcome one way or the other, there isn't anything to communicate to customers

I just thought Virgin would release something to clear up their stance on the matter. The story is being covered by most news websites, and paints a very confusing picture. SKY have a statement on their site, and the fact this thread has almost 2000 views in 7 hours suggests Virgin customers want as much clarity as possible, ideally directly from our service provider.

Is that too much to ask? As a customer I'd like my provider to tell me something, even if it's just some kind of holding statement.

BenMcr · 08-08-2012, 22:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

Sorry Den but your ant Sky assertion is wrong in this case. Looking at negotiations, the conclusion is that it was not Sky that is the reason that these services are not there on counter party platforms.

Eh?

The appeal is in regards to OFCOM's ruling about the price reduction.

denphone · 08-08-2012, 22:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

Paragraph 29 clearly states that abondment was not Sky's fault.

Sorry Den but your ant Sky assertion is wrong in this case. Looking at negotiations, the conclusion is that it was not Sky that is the reason that these services are not there on counter party platforms.

The clear reason that some channels are not on Virgin are one Sky's clear intent to withhold certains channels and their variants and two is their clear policy of asking ridiculous carriage fees for some of their channels as well.

BenMcr · 08-08-2012, 22:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chad

Is that too much to ask? As a customer I'd like my provider to tell me something, even if it's just some kind of holding statement.

From the Telegraph article:

Quote:

Virgin Media said it was “simply not credible that the Competition Appeal Tribunal has concluded there are no problems in a market which Ofcom spent three years investigating”.

Telly_ · 08-08-2012, 22:53

Look, Sky is the best UK pay tv provider.

Let the large players,BT talktalk build their content, and the small players Smallworld and Virginmedia cry to OFCOM because they are buried in debt and will never come to anything. Problem solved

LexDiamond · 08-08-2012, 22:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Eh?

The appeal is in regards to OFCOM's ruling about the price reduction.

And paragraph 29 clearly discredits Ofcoms assertion on which its whole case is based.

Chad · 08-08-2012, 22:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenMcr

From the Telegraph article:

All we need now is for all Virgin customers to visit the Telelgraph website

andy_m · 08-08-2012, 22:55

Its laughable that anyone can think Sky have won this. The judgment that they aren't against the wholesaling of their channels at competitive prices might give them the opportunity to say "we told you so", but it also means that their channels have to remain available at competitive prices or it'll give their competitors the opportunity to say it back. In reality little will change here-there will continue to be little difference in sports package pricing across the various platforms, the majority of customers wanting to watch sport will continue to do so on Sky's platform and only a minority of Virgin customers will subscribe. Basically a case of "move along, nothing to see here".