sky movies (excess profits)

[muppetman11]

Hope the OFCOM ruling gets better results than the sky sports fiasco. Were all better off after that , wholesale price but we still pay 22.50 when it was 20.50 fat lot of good OFCOM did.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Tod

My brother has broadband with AOL which is supplied on Virgin Media cable - so they do actuarily!

He was moved over completely around 2 years ago as he no longer pays AOL for his service and all Customer Service and Technical Support queries come through to Virginmedia.

Migration details can be found in this link. http://www.virginmedia.com/customers...ation-faqs.php

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Hope the OFCOM ruling gets better results than the sky sports fiasco.

Although the OFCOM remedy did get sky sports 1/2 on BT vision and top up tv for those who could not get it previously, and in the case of top up tv without a 12 month fixed contract,also it gave vm access to sky sports HD 1/2 for the first time so consumers did get some success there. Without the OFCOM ruling would sky have given these?,and vm has also managed to reduce the price it charges for sky sports on the lower packages.

But sky itself did put the price up so vm had to from £20.50-£22.50.

[LexDiamond]

Originally Posted by Big-Ted

Except that Sky have it tied up for years yet and always negotiate on the basis of linear and VOD as a package.

Unless there is intervention forcing the freeing up of VOD so internet streaming is opened up no-one will get a look in unless they spend mega bucks.

Going mainstream requires intervention or it just won't happen as the movie studios are happy with things the way they are in this country with the money they are getting from Sky.

The argument that VOD won't go mainstream because of Sky assumes that Sky won't be the force that takes the VOD service mainstream. However Sky does have the capability to further expand its current VOD service so I wouldn't think intervention would actually be necessary at this stage.

Originally Posted by richard1960

If you believe there is a proper market in pay tv in the uk in the first place,i for instance cannot get sky,thousands csannot get VM possibly millions,BT vision will not work where i live as ADSL only delivers a max of 2MB,some might call ofcom a meddler but to me ofcom are trying to even the situation out to try and benefit the person whose often least thought about whilst sky et al slog it out,yes thats right the consumer what a novel thought.

The "market" such as it is cannot work when you have one ultra dominent player with the financial clout to overpay or at least outbid most others due to its sheer financial clout as is the case here.

The market I'm referring to is the supplier market and not the consumer market.

As for the consumer market, the market doesn't have to be perfect to be competitive. There are many markets that are competitive which include consumers that do not have access to every product. But that is besides the point as no one VOD provider could provide its services to every household in the UK anyway.

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

The argument that VOD won't go mainstream because of Sky assumes that Sky won't be the force that takes the VOD service mainstream. However Sky does have the capability to further expand its current VOD service so I wouldn't think intervention would actually be necessary at this stage.



The market I'm referring to is the supplier market and not the consumer market.

As for the consumer market, the market doesn't have to be perfect to be competitive. There are many markets that are competitive which include consumers that do not have access to every product. But that is besides the point as no one VOD provider could provide its services to every household in the UK anyway.

Hi yes thats fair enough i can see where you are coming from and i would agree that no one supplier could provide VOD services to every houshold.

The only tnhing i would add as a consumer is this, if i watched a lot of VOD films for instance and ofcom balanced the system for example, with lovefilm it is rumoured vm might tie up for a TiVo VOD streaming deal via a sub,if one dominent supplier is hoovering up a lot of exclusive VOD rights it gives me as a consumer less ways in which to view content and is therefore restrctive in itself plus it could help to keep prices artificaially high,ofcom is charged with looking after the consumer wether it does properly is down to peoples point of view,i do notice however you seem to dislike ofcom.

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Hope the OFCOM ruling gets better results than the sky sports fiasco. Were all better off after that , wholesale price but we still pay 22.50 when it was 20.50 fat lot of good OFCOM did.

There hasn't been a reduction yet as the savings are going in to a escru account.

Any savings given from Virgin Media or BT Vision are from their own reduced profit margins. They still have to pay the previous price.

Sky have challenged the decision and are awaiting a court ruling

[LexDiamond]

Originally Posted by richard1960

Hi yes thats fair enough i can see where you are coming from and i would agree that no one supplier could provide VOD services to every houshold.

The only tnhing i would add as a consumer is this, if i watched a lot of VOD films for instance and ofcom balanced the system for example, with lovefilm it is rumoured vm might tie up for a TiVo VOD streaming deal via a sub,if one dominent supplier is hoovering up a lot of exclusive VOD rights it gives me as a consumer less ways in which to view content and is therefore restrctive in itself plus it could help to keep prices artificaially high,ofcom is charged with looking after the consumer wether it does properly is down to peoples point of view,i do notice however you seem to dislike ofcom.

I don't dislike Ofcom as such but sometimes they do a good job and other times they just try to interfere to make work for themselves.

In the case of VOD it begs the question why they have been reactive rather than proactive? They have just been an example of an organisation who sat around doing nothing about VOD rights for movies until they realised 'hey this could actually take off, time to get on Sky's back again'.

The issue of competition is complex. On a pay tv level it is not so complex because we look at Sky subs vs VM subs and VM are actually a major player. But then scratch beneath the surface and Sky premium appears. On the one hand Sky have a lot of premium content but on the other hand who else can actually pay for it? In this case surely its better for Sky to run Sky Movies and Sports because the consumer can pay for the one sub for each and is probably better off than having to pay premium subs to a number of channels who can only afford a small chunk of movies and sports. But then the argument becomes that even if it is cheaper for the consumer under how Sky currently work it actually reduces choice as we can't 'pick and mix' which part of the premium service we want. And then this argument is now carrying on to a level below linear which is VOD. The question really comes down to is it wrong for Sky to actually tie up linear and VOD rights (and IMO they do provide the service too for VOD)? Some would say it is the natural progression from linear to VOD and others hold your view.

Your point about Lovefilm is exactly what it comes down to in the long run. The question is whether Sky can develop a VOD service that is standalone or will they just hide their VOD among their linear programming. But they will need to make money from it somehow so someone will have to pay for it.

[mersey70]

I am not for one moment saying the likes of LoveFilm will not be available to UK Tivo customers. Not at all.

However I would draw your attention to the US Cable Operators who supply their own Tivo kit, like VM. Only one operator offers such a service (Blockbuster), they may even be part of the same group I don't know but every single other operator currently relies on their own On Demand film offer.

The likes of NetFlix, Amazon and Blockbuster are only widely available to consumers who use their Tivo box as a third party receiver which of course is allowed in the US, but subsequently they currently lose access to their cable operators own On Demand services.

But I cannot help but think already providing a service like Filmflex dosen't sit particularly well with the likes of LoveFilm. It dosen't seem to in the US anyway. I have read Cindy Rose's comments on the subject but it does seem an odd mix to me personally, just my opinion though.

We'll see.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

There hasn't been a reduction yet as the savings are going in to a escru account.

Any savings given from Virgin Media or BT Vision are from their own reduced profit margins. They still have to pay the previous price.

Sky have challenged the decision and are awaiting a court ruling

Did u mean escrow LOL

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Did u mean escrow LOL

I did lol

[muppetman11]

Anyone hoping for a miracle here , I wouldn't hold your breath if the Murdoch Sky takeover is anything to go by absolute joke of a decision.

---------- Post added at 22:10 ---------- Previous post was at 21:45 ----------

[QUOTE=mersey70;35185311]I am not for one moment saying the likes of LoveFilm will not be available to UK Tivo customers. Not at all.

However I would draw your attention to the US Cable Operators who supply their own Tivo kit, like VM. Only one operator offers such a service (Blockbuster), they may even be part of the same group I don't know but every single other operator currently relies on their own On Demand film offer.

The likes of NetFlix, Amazon and Blockbuster are only widely available to consumers who use their Tivo box as a third party receiver which of course is allowed in the US, but subsequently they currently lose access to their cable operators own On Demand services.

RCN don't carry netflix on there own RCN TIVO Premiere

http://www.rcn.com/dc-metro/help/cable-tv/tivo-premiere

[LexDiamond]

Evening Standard yesterday stated that Ofcom approved the BSkyB takeover. Just goes to show how useless they actually are.

[Tod]

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

Evening Standard yesterday stated that Ofcom approved the BSkyB takeover. Just goes to show how useless they actually are.

That of a chocolate fire-guard.

[mersey70]

[QUOTE=muppetman11;35186391]Anyone hoping for a miracle here , I wouldn't hold your breath if the Murdoch Sky takeover is anything to go by absolute joke of a decision.[COLOR="Silver"]

It does indeed seem a bit of a shoe in. I don't have a major objection to it personally but I still would have welcomed more throrough scrutiny by the Competition Commission, I was hoping they might take a good look at content access deals and the likes.

What is quite concerning is that media commentators predicted what was going to happen ages ago, almost chapter and verse.

I wonder if anything would have been different if stupid Dr Cable handn't let his preceived power go to his head and kept his bleeding grid shut!

Probably not.

[Tod]

[QUOTE=mersey70;35187059][I]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

I wonder if anything would have been different if stupid Dr Cable handn't let his preceived power go to his head and kept his bleeding grid shut!
Probably not.

That's what our political manipulators want you to believe in Tory HQ, so we don't blame them, even though they are all in bed with Murdoch and Co.

Don't hand them the excuse of blaming a Liberal - they are in power!