OFCOM ready to rule?

[Ignitionnet]

I understood HD was offered a while ago, though at a price VM really didn't like.

More from Premier League:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...y-ofcom-rights

[pedg]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

I understood HD was offered a while ago, though at a price VM really didn't like.

More from Premier League:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...y-ofcom-rights

Some might say there is little difference between not offering HD at all and offering it at a ridiculously high price.

As to the PL they are obviously complaining because their buddies at sky told them to. They seam to think there is a direct link between what sky can charge for their channels and the money they get where as, in reality sky will charge as much as they can get away with to maximise their profits and pay as little as they can for football rights. The PL need to remember that the only reason they got so much money last time was because of the competition of setanta and that one of these days sky may find they don't have any serious competition and could end up getting their PL matches at a knock down price which would have major implications for their finances.

Have no sympathy for people who pay their employees £100,000's a week....

It might actually bring some common sense in the amount proffesional footballers are paid.

But thats another matter i guess...

---------- Post added at 16:17 ---------- Previous post was at 16:16 ----------

Indeed, an artificially inflated offer is no offer at all.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

When l was in Florida, a couple of years ago, and l was talking to a few people in the queue, l was actually telling them what we pay for Satellite and Cable, and they could not believe the price - it was far to high.

In USA, they get more channels then anything, and they don't pay half as much as we do.

Erm, Arthur - when you say "we", I think you mean "you".

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I would love to see a price reduction on Sky, I have a multi room with Sky, and it is nearly £80.00 per month, I also have VM especially for the free ESPN channel and phone line etc, and l pay 50.00 and l have two boxes. BUT we did have mutli room on VM at the same price.

IF Sky reduced the price in line with all the others, then there would be good compitition and customers could then choose what is the best service to choose.

I don't pay £130 a month for Sky and VM, and I don't know anyone who does.....

[newbie1001]

Originally Posted by pedg

Some might say there is little difference between not offering HD at all and offering it at a ridiculously high price.

As to the PL they are obviously complaining because their buddies at sky told them to. They seam to think there is a direct link between what sky can charge for their channels and the money they get where as, in reality sky will charge as much as they can get away with to maximise their profits and pay as little as they can for football rights. The PL need to remember that the only reason they got so much money last time was because of the competition of setanta and that one of these days sky may find they don't have any serious competition and could end up getting their PL matches at a knock down price which would have major implications for their finances.

There is nothing stopping Virgin from been the next Setanta and actually bidding for the rights. If it wasn't for Sky not only Football,but Darts,Snooker,Cricket,Golf,Rugby League and mny other sports would not be succesfull as they are now. Sky put a lot of money into these and quite rightly expect a return. By forcing them to lower prices will just have an impact into all sports sky provide to because no one else wants to bid anything significant for them.

[gadge]

I woudnt say snooker the only thing on sky sports is the prem snooker league everything else is on the bbc and eurosport but i do expect that too change now that barry hearn is involved.

[pedg]

Originally Posted by newbie1001

There is nothing stopping Virgin from been the next Setanta and actually bidding for the rights. If it wasn't for Sky not only Football,but Darts,Snooker,Cricket,Golf,Rugby League and mny other sports would not be succesfull as they are now.

By football being successful you mean spiralling debts and possible administration for a number of teams? Oh yes, they never had it so good have they?

Originally Posted by newbie1001

Sky put a lot of money into these and quite rightly expect a return. By forcing them to lower prices will just have an impact into all sports sky provide to because no one else wants to bid anything significant for them.

If you read the ofcom report you would see that ofcom set the prices so that sky could continue to invest as much as they do now and make a reasonable return. At no point have ofcom come out and said it would involve sky spending less or sky not making a profit. Indeed they have reason to believe that with a lowering of the price an increase in subscribers would have a minimal impact on the money that skys broadcasting arm would make. Thus if they make the same money as before there is no reason why sky should not continue as they are at the moment.
Remember ofcom are not telling sky to open up their HD channels for free. VM and BT would have to pay extra for these which would add to skys income. The only reason they have not done so so far is to drive customers to skys delivery system and its stopping this abuse of power that is, to me, the best thing about the ofcom report not a 20% reduction in the cost of my subscription (nice though that would be, I might even put the money saved to pay for the HD channels!).

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by pedg

By football being successful you mean spiralling debts and possible administration for a number of teams? Oh yes, they never had it so good have they?



If you read the ofcom report you would see that ofcom set the prices so that sky could continue to invest as much as they do now and make a reasonable return. At no point have ofcom come out and said it would involve sky spending less or sky not making a profit. Indeed they have reason to believe that with a lowering of the price an increase in subscribers would have a minimal impact on the money that skys broadcasting arm would make. Thus if they make the same money as before there is no reason why sky should not continue as they are at the moment.
Remember ofcom are not telling sky to open up their HD channels for free. VM and BT would have to pay extra for these which would add to skys income. The only reason they have not done so so far is to drive customers to skys delivery system and its stopping this abuse of power that is, to me, the best thing about the ofcom report not a 20% reduction in the cost of my subscription (nice though that would be, I might even put the money saved to pay for the HD channels!).

Well said PEDG

[jtaylor06]

All I'll be happy with is just a fair price on the channels.

HD would be a bonus, but we've managed without it for a while now so it's best to have patience and Virgin will soon make deals

[broadbandking]

I can see why people want HD but I did think when you watch football its for game not the picture, OFCOM ruling I can see will do nothing as Sky will appeal and it will be a long drawn out battle, by then VM will have more HD and the ruling will be worthless.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by pedg

According to guardian

The satellite broadcaster is expected to launch an immediate legal attack on any moves to cut its prices but the regulator will use its powers to introduce the measures while the lawyers make their arguments.

So if (and hopefully when) they do that it would mean that the price would have to drop immediately so it would be a brave Cameron to reverse something like that immediately he takes office.

Personally I am not so much interested in the price as having things like the HD channels and the 'other games on the red button' streams. Assuming that is covered by the same rules then we could get them soon and again it would be a brave politician to come in and say "Sorry cable and BT viewers but I am going to take those channels away".

But the election is only four months away. "Dave" has also promised to dismantle OFCOM, so there will be nothing to stand in Murdoch's way.

[nexy33]

Originally Posted by Morden

What goes around comes around. on one hand SKY were happy to expand their broadband based on piggy backing on BT's national network after OFCOM had previously ruled that BT must open up its network which spent billions and years of work on. If BT had not invested in their network upgrading exchanges, lines, etc, over a number of the last few decades then the only broadband would be Virgins. BT had to allow others access just like SKY will have to now. That access obviously dented BT's monopoly on telecoms just like this will dent SKY's monopoly on sports.

Scuse me it wasn't bts network it was the taxpayers so everyone has a right to it . You didn't hear bt complaining when they were making obscene amounts in profit back in the 80 and early 90s , the sad part is bt did minimum amounts to its infrastructure when they were making huge profits. The only real advances came when cable laid its own telco network to challenge bts dominance and price gouging. So please cry me a river on the bt line it wont wash if you want real spending look at how much by and ntl spent and the smalelr cable firms they went billions into debt by building from scratch.

[Cablefan]

Originally Posted by TheDon

No they don't.

Sky WILL NOT sell the HD varients, or red button services to VM. The information in the pay tv consultation makes that perfectly clear.

Add in that they wont allow Virgin to offer a Sky Movies On Demand service - obviously because it would kick ass over the current set up and make the Sky Movies offering on Virgin VASTLY superior to the one on the Sky! Split all content providers from platform operators, it's the best option but it'll never happen unfortunately.

Originally Posted by newbie1001

There is nothing stopping Virgin from been the next Setanta and actually bidding for the rights. If it wasn't for Sky not only Football,but Darts,Snooker,Cricket,Golf,Rugby League and mny other sports would not be succesfull as they are now. Sky put a lot of money into these and quite rightly expect a return. By forcing them to lower prices will just have an impact into all sports sky provide to because no one else wants to bid anything significant for them.

You know I don't think throwing billions at sports has improved them at all.I really think they have been ruined by greed,avarice resulting in lousy sportsmanship on and off the sports grounds.