They could just agree a price that no on else could afford as is currently the case with ITV2/3/4 HD. It's Sky's size relative to its competitors not its vertical integration that's the issue.
As far as I know, the situation with ITV HD channels is not a cost issue but an exclusive carriage agreement with BSkyB. If carriage rights were platform specific, BSkyB would not have the option of writing exclusivity into a carriage agreement with a content provider.
Again, price fixing would be operating in restraint of trade and therefore illegal.
Vertical integration is very much the issue, that is what allows BSkyB to operate as a monopoly, only making content available to itself at a fair price.
Bit of an odd one this. Because of Sky's history as BSB Ofcom require it to have an open platform where any channel can pay to be added to the Sky EPG. But Sky does not really hold a monopoly. It does not own the satellites and non-Sky channels could buy slots from SES and Hotbird. Other satellites exist.
Virgin on the other hand owns its own infrastructure from cables in the street to signal distrinution and has exclusive boxes. That entitles it to offer whatever channels it wants. Yet it is Virgin that has a natural monopoly based on hardwired cables in the streets (partly paid for by the public carrying costs of original cable companies going bust).
It should really be the other way round.
But it's not just Sky Atlantic that is missing. There are few babe channels on Virgin and how many shopping, gambling and religious ones? You might not want those but have you been given a choice?
As far as I know, the situation with ITV HD channels is not a cost issue but an exclusive carriage agreement with BSkyB.
So there is nothing to stop Channels Co doing an exclusive carriage agreement like Sky Atlantic with Platform Co if the two were independent. BSkyB's scale (10m subscribers) has driven the ITV HD channels deal and this scale would drive similar deals like Sky Atlantic between Channels Co and Platform Co.
Bit of an odd one this. Because of Sky's history as BSB Ofcom require it to have an open platform where any channel can pay to be added to the Sky EPG. But Sky does not really hold a monopoly. It does not own the satellites and non-Sky channels could buy slots from SES and Hotbird. Other satellites exist.
Virgin on the other hand owns its own infrastructure from cables in the street to signal distrinution and has exclusive boxes. That entitles it to offer whatever channels it wants. Yet it is Virgin that has a natural monopoly based on hardwired cables in the streets (partly paid for by the public carrying costs of original cable companies going bust).
It should really be the other way round.
But it's not just Sky Atlantic that is missing. There are few babe channels on Virgin and how many shopping, gambling and religious ones? You might not want those but have you been given a choice?
VM is still sitting on a mountain of debt from building its own infrastructure, so it is hardly likely to open it up to everyone. It was probably a monopoly supplier in certain areas, although with the arrival of other fibre to the cabinet and fibre to the home providers, that is no longer the case. It was never a monopoly in a true sense as its service isn't universally available across the country.
The situation with Sky Atlantic is indeed different. Prior to the arrival of Sky Atlantic, HBO programmes were available on demand on VM. Sky bought exclusive rights to those programmes and wants to charge VM inflated prices to take the channel. In a non-monopolistic situation, VM would still be able to buy the content from HBO and continue to provide it on-demand on the platform. Sky hasn't made the programmes, just acquired the rights at an inflated price and then, presumably, offered it back to VM at a significantly higher price than they were paying before.
If VM could still buy the content direct, the demand for Sky Atlantic would be greatly reduced and Sky would have most likely offered the channel at a fair price already.
The difference is that VM is acting partially as a monopoly in areas where it has made significant investment in its own infrastructure. Sky, on the other hand, is acting as a monopoly supplier of content it hasn't even produced.
Fortunately, VM doesn't have any "phone a slapper" channels so far.
So there is nothing to stop Channels Co doing an exclusive carriage agreement like Sky Atlantic with Platform Co if the two were independent. BSkyB's scale (10m subscribers) has driven the ITV HD channels deal and this scale would drive similar deals like Sky Atlantic between Channels Co and Platform Co.
It's interesting that you try to suggest that if there was legislation introduced to prevent Platform Co from acting as a monopoly that it would then continue to act as a monopoly by forming a cartel and fixing prices, in restraint of trade.
Note that my original comment stated "carriage rights are also an issue, if they were platform specific it would help prevent a lot of the monopolistic behaviour". Any Platform Co would only be able to purchase non-exclusive rights for its own platform.
If we are to have prices fixed by the market, there has to be a fair market, not monopolies and price fixing cartels.
Virgin have Exclusive use of the cable network and withhold it from Sky which is down to pure greed. When Sky had no access to on-demand Virgin and its customers loved waving that fact about. When Sky had zero access to a high speed fibre broadband network Virgin loved shouting about it as did there customers.
It is their wholly owned network, they own it completely, they (although not as the company it is today) built that network up using their own money.
Unlike BT, they don't receive funding from the government and so don't have to open up their network.
Sky bought great TV content Virginmedia spent on creating a high speed broadband network. Sky have now caught up through innovation, Virginmedia are now struggling and within 2 years will be in third place behind BT.
BT are not going to get ahead of VM in terms of TV any time soon, their TV systems relies on the Freeview service with IPTV contributing it, for them to compete with VM they would have to vastly improve their Internet network to be able to cope with with streaming a lot more content over the internet.
So there is nothing to stop Channels Co doing an exclusive carriage agreement like Sky Atlantic with Platform Co if the two were independent. BSkyB's scale (10m subscribers) has driven the ITV HD channels deal and this scale would drive similar deals like Sky Atlantic between Channels Co and Platform Co.
There would be. The company would have to wholesale the channels to all providers that wanted them. OfCom would force this.
This would be the best thing to happen.
The ITV2 3 & 4 HD channels were subsidised by Sky to get ITV to launch them, so they could use HD channel offerings as USP.
Sky paid towards the cost of the HD channels, in return getting them exclusively on their system.
It was beneficial for both of them.
There would be. The company would have to wholesale the channels to all providers that wanted them. OfCom would force this.
This would be the best thing to happen.
Can't you have Sky where you live? if you can't that's a problem, if you can why not get Sky? I was in the same boat as you but instead of whinging I jumped ship, simple as that!
Anyway, as has been posted Atlantic programmes will soon be available to everyone with a broadband connection so the dish argument will be obsolete. You don't even need to be a Sky customer, you don't even need to sign a lengthy contract.
Available to all and sundry! So that one single, wholly owned Sky channel, whose content isn't available at all to VM customers will be available to all.
As I have explained before, I don't want Sky because I want the services that VM offer that Sky don't. There is no reason why any operator can't show any channel apart from Sky's intransigence.
I don't want to watch Sky Atlantic on my computer and I don't want to buy new equipment - why should I?
It's all about choice, and Sky are behaving as if they don't want us to exercise that choice. I'm a Sky customer as well, for heaven's sake, even subscribing to their premium channels! They should not treat their customers in this way. All I am asking is that they make the channel available for a wholesale price.
There are signs that this is happening, at last, so maybe I will be able to stop whingeing on about it before much longer.
As I have explained before, I don't want Sky because I want the services that VM offer that Sky don't. There is no reason why any operator can't show any channel apart from Sky's intransigence.
I don't want to watch Sky Atlantic on my computer and I don't want to buy new equipment - why should I?
It's all about choice, and Sky are behaving as if they don't want us to exercise that choice. I'm a Sky customer as well, for heaven's sake, even subscribing to their premium channels! They should not treat their customers in this way. All I am asking is that they make the channel available for a wholesale price.
There are signs that this is happening, at last, so maybe I will be able to stop whingeing on about it before much longer.
You never know, it might become available one day. Personally I would expect to see it available on BT first, Sky and BT will probably get their heads together to sort out content deals. They obviously both own rights that the other wants.
At least Virgin are adding other channels in the meantime like CBS Drama which is good to see.
I seem to remember when cable had channels that Sky didnt (such as Carlton Select and Carlton Cinema) - so what if Sky has channes within their package that Virgin don't - different platforms offer different things
If enough Virgin subscribers voice their opinions to Virgin maybe soon they will get Sky Atlantic
Everyone has a choice - they get what one is best for them
I seem to remember when cable had channels that Sky didnt (such as Carlton Select and Carlton Cinema) - so what if Sky has channes within their package that Virgin don't - different platforms offer different things
If enough Virgin subscribers voice their opinions to Virgin maybe soon they will get Sky Atlantic
Everyone has a choice - they get what one is best for them
I don't have a problem with one platform having channels that another doesn't. What I object to is the fact that Sky are deliberately withholding that channel by charging a ridiculous price for it.
That wouldn't be objectionable if Sky hadn't done exclusive deals with HBO and the like.
My position is that if a media company are doing exclusive deals with studios, they should be obliged by law to make that content available to other operators at a wholesale price on request.
If the deals are not exclusive, so that other channels can also purchase those programmes, then the operator would be permitted to have the channel as an exclusive.
I don't have a problem with one platform having channels that another doesn't. What I object to is the fact that Sky are deliberately withholding that channel by charging a ridiculous price for it.
That wouldn't be objectionable if Sky hadn't done exclusive deals with HBO and the like.
My position is that if a media company are doing exclusive deals with studios, they should be obliged by law to make that content available to other operators at a wholesale price on request.
If the deals are not exclusive, so that other channels can also purchase those programmes, then the operator would be permitted to have the channel as an exclusive.
I really think the situation may well change next year. There's a very good chance BT and BSkyB will be in programming negotiations as we speak.
Maybe they will agree good terms for BT Sport on Sky and in return BT will get full access to Sky's portfolio of channels? I think that's quite plausible.
I really think the situation may well change next year. There's a very good chance BT and BSkyB will be in programming negotiations as we speak.
Maybe they will agree good terms for BT Sport on Sky and in return BT will get full access to Sky's portfolio of channels? I think that's quite plausible.
BT have a great bargaining chip, they really do.
I know, mersey, but you shouldn't have to barter for these things, that's what money is for! There is a finite amount of decent content and it is not in anyone's interests that access is denied to people who just happen to be on a different platform.
Sky would not like it if BT withheld their football channels or charged them an outrageous price for them (not that BT would want to, with the amount of money they've paid for them, but you get my drift).
Maybe VM should commission other content providers to start up some exclusive channels on VM to get leverage, but they would just be playing the same game that many of us deplore.
I know, mersey, but you shouldn't have to barter for these things, that's what money is for! There is a finite amount of decent content and it is not in anyone's interests that access is denied to people who just happen to be on a different platform.
Sky would not like it if BT withheld their football channels or charged them an outrageous price for them (not that BT would want to, with the amount of money they've paid for them, but you get my drift).
Maybe VM should commission other content providers to start up some exclusive channels on VM to get leverage, but they would just be playing the same game that many of us deplore.
Things will open up next year i'm sure, certainly in the case of BT anyway purely because they have a great hand.
Sadly I suspect little will change with the other operators who all have a very poor hand, particularly Virgin Media who, by their own choice, gave up any bargaining chips they had some time ago.
Things will open up next year i'm sure, certainly in the case of BT anyway purely because they have a great hand.
Sadly I suspect little will change with the other operators who all have a very poor hand, particularly Virgin Media who, by their own choice, gave up any bargaining chips they had some time ago.
You never know, it may have a beneficial impact for VM because Sky would not be able to claim that the channel was exclusive. So they'd be losing income for no reason.
You never know, it may have a beneficial impact for VM because Sky would not be able to claim that the channel was exclusive. So they'd be losing income for no reason.
Perhaps, but personally I doubt it. I can well see BT and Sky being very cosy with eachother. I don't think that's very fair but I think it's on the cards.
I guess we'll have to wait and see. I have a feeling BT are going to be very aggressive towards Virgin as they are their only true competition for Fibre customers, which is where the real money is for both companies. BT's football rights were surely bought as nothing more than a Fibre battering ram.
Don't forget that all Sky do is resell BT's Fibre product so they make plenty from every Sky Fibre customer anyway.
Sadly I suspect little will change with the other operators who all have a very poor hand, particularly Virgin Media who, by their own choice, gave up any bargaining chips they had some time ago.
Yeah, selling their content division was kinda like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
But.... they have left channel 196 empty. Maybe they have reserved it for something special.
sky's viewing figures are falling. there are too many channels showing too little repeated too often.
i expect channels to be merged together. let sky over pay for shows to then put on barely watched channels, they will soon notice churn hasnt improved and they are wasting their money
I'm not sure Sky Atlantic is much good to me now, unless it's going to show things like Boardwalk Empire and Blue Bloods from the start. Or there are some really good brand new shows starting.
It would take me quite a while to catch up on the existing shows in other ways such as DVDs. Unless I'm missing something.
I'm not sure Sky Atlantic is much good to me now, unless it's going to show things like Boardwalk Empire and Blue Bloods from the start. Or there are some really good brand new shows starting.
It would take me quite a while to catch up on the existing shows in other ways such as DVDs. Unless I'm missing something.
There is a limited amount of content on Sky Atlantic that I would be interested in watching. To be honest I'd prefer to watch that content on demand rather than on a linear channel.
I seem to remember when cable had channels that Sky didnt (such as Carlton Select and Carlton Cinema) - so what if Sky has channes within their package that Virgin don't - different platforms offer different things
If enough Virgin subscribers voice their opinions to Virgin maybe soon they will get Sky Atlantic
Everyone has a choice - they get what one is best for them
This was in the analogue days and because Sky had to share with German broadcasters there was less room for UK Channels. Cable companies had total control on what channels were on their system meaning they could carry channels that weren't available on satelite.
This was in the analogue days and because Sky had to share with German broadcasters there was less room for UK Channels. Cable companies had total control on what channels were on their system meaning they could carry channels that weren't available on satelite.
And now its the other way round.
Sky buy all the rights, the DTT/Cable users get shafted. You can't have a dish or it don't work. you are shafted.
Comments
As far as I know, the situation with ITV HD channels is not a cost issue but an exclusive carriage agreement with BSkyB. If carriage rights were platform specific, BSkyB would not have the option of writing exclusivity into a carriage agreement with a content provider.
Again, price fixing would be operating in restraint of trade and therefore illegal.
Vertical integration is very much the issue, that is what allows BSkyB to operate as a monopoly, only making content available to itself at a fair price.
Virgin on the other hand owns its own infrastructure from cables in the street to signal distrinution and has exclusive boxes. That entitles it to offer whatever channels it wants. Yet it is Virgin that has a natural monopoly based on hardwired cables in the streets (partly paid for by the public carrying costs of original cable companies going bust).
It should really be the other way round.
But it's not just Sky Atlantic that is missing. There are few babe channels on Virgin and how many shopping, gambling and religious ones? You might not want those but have you been given a choice?
VM is still sitting on a mountain of debt from building its own infrastructure, so it is hardly likely to open it up to everyone. It was probably a monopoly supplier in certain areas, although with the arrival of other fibre to the cabinet and fibre to the home providers, that is no longer the case. It was never a monopoly in a true sense as its service isn't universally available across the country.
The situation with Sky Atlantic is indeed different. Prior to the arrival of Sky Atlantic, HBO programmes were available on demand on VM. Sky bought exclusive rights to those programmes and wants to charge VM inflated prices to take the channel. In a non-monopolistic situation, VM would still be able to buy the content from HBO and continue to provide it on-demand on the platform. Sky hasn't made the programmes, just acquired the rights at an inflated price and then, presumably, offered it back to VM at a significantly higher price than they were paying before.
If VM could still buy the content direct, the demand for Sky Atlantic would be greatly reduced and Sky would have most likely offered the channel at a fair price already.
The difference is that VM is acting partially as a monopoly in areas where it has made significant investment in its own infrastructure. Sky, on the other hand, is acting as a monopoly supplier of content it hasn't even produced.
Fortunately, VM doesn't have any "phone a slapper" channels so far.
It's interesting that you try to suggest that if there was legislation introduced to prevent Platform Co from acting as a monopoly that it would then continue to act as a monopoly by forming a cartel and fixing prices, in restraint of trade.
Note that my original comment stated "carriage rights are also an issue, if they were platform specific it would help prevent a lot of the monopolistic behaviour". Any Platform Co would only be able to purchase non-exclusive rights for its own platform.
If we are to have prices fixed by the market, there has to be a fair market, not monopolies and price fixing cartels.
Unlike BT, they don't receive funding from the government and so don't have to open up their network.
BT are not going to get ahead of VM in terms of TV any time soon, their TV systems relies on the Freeview service with IPTV contributing it, for them to compete with VM they would have to vastly improve their Internet network to be able to cope with with streaming a lot more content over the internet.
Sky do not own the satellites that their TV system uses.
They use the satellites owned by SES.
There would be. The company would have to wholesale the channels to all providers that wanted them. OfCom would force this.
This would be the best thing to happen.
The ITV2 3 & 4 HD channels were subsidised by Sky to get ITV to launch them, so they could use HD channel offerings as USP.
Sky paid towards the cost of the HD channels, in return getting them exclusively on their system.
It was beneficial for both of them.
Indeed.
I don't want to watch Sky Atlantic on my computer and I don't want to buy new equipment - why should I?
It's all about choice, and Sky are behaving as if they don't want us to exercise that choice. I'm a Sky customer as well, for heaven's sake, even subscribing to their premium channels! They should not treat their customers in this way. All I am asking is that they make the channel available for a wholesale price.
There are signs that this is happening, at last, so maybe I will be able to stop whingeing on about it before much longer.
You never know, it might become available one day. Personally I would expect to see it available on BT first, Sky and BT will probably get their heads together to sort out content deals. They obviously both own rights that the other wants.
At least Virgin are adding other channels in the meantime like CBS Drama which is good to see.
If enough Virgin subscribers voice their opinions to Virgin maybe soon they will get Sky Atlantic
Everyone has a choice - they get what one is best for them
That wouldn't be objectionable if Sky hadn't done exclusive deals with HBO and the like.
My position is that if a media company are doing exclusive deals with studios, they should be obliged by law to make that content available to other operators at a wholesale price on request.
If the deals are not exclusive, so that other channels can also purchase those programmes, then the operator would be permitted to have the channel as an exclusive.
I really think the situation may well change next year. There's a very good chance BT and BSkyB will be in programming negotiations as we speak.
Maybe they will agree good terms for BT Sport on Sky and in return BT will get full access to Sky's portfolio of channels? I think that's quite plausible.
BT have a great bargaining chip, they really do.
Sky would not like it if BT withheld their football channels or charged them an outrageous price for them (not that BT would want to, with the amount of money they've paid for them, but you get my drift).
Maybe VM should commission other content providers to start up some exclusive channels on VM to get leverage, but they would just be playing the same game that many of us deplore.
Things will open up next year i'm sure, certainly in the case of BT anyway purely because they have a great hand.
Sadly I suspect little will change with the other operators who all have a very poor hand, particularly Virgin Media who, by their own choice, gave up any bargaining chips they had some time ago.
Perhaps, but personally I doubt it. I can well see BT and Sky being very cosy with eachother. I don't think that's very fair but I think it's on the cards.
I guess we'll have to wait and see. I have a feeling BT are going to be very aggressive towards Virgin as they are their only true competition for Fibre customers, which is where the real money is for both companies. BT's football rights were surely bought as nothing more than a Fibre battering ram.
Don't forget that all Sky do is resell BT's Fibre product so they make plenty from every Sky Fibre customer anyway.
Yeah, selling their content division was kinda like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
But.... they have left channel 196 empty. Maybe they have reserved it for something special.
I think somebody on Cable Forum rather jokingly suggested The Knitting Channel
i expect channels to be merged together. let sky over pay for shows to then put on barely watched channels, they will soon notice churn hasnt improved and they are wasting their money
It would take me quite a while to catch up on the existing shows in other ways such as DVDs. Unless I'm missing something.
There is a limited amount of content on Sky Atlantic that I would be interested in watching. To be honest I'd prefer to watch that content on demand rather than on a linear channel.
And now its the other way round.
Sky buy all the rights, the DTT/Cable users get shafted. You can't have a dish or it don't work. you are shafted.