In the 2005 Strategic Review of Telecoms, OFCOM identified that competition based on Local Loop Unbundling (LLU) is crucial to maintaining the progress of broadband to give the greatest benefits of lower pricing and faster innovation.
The Strategic Review also recognised that in some geographic areas LLU was unlikely to be as successful as in others, meaning less direct competition and that BT Wholesale will be the primary provider. It was decided that these areas would be regulated at a wholesale level and that areas which have a large amount of competition would be de-regulated.
A review of exchanges was undertaken and in May 2008 OFCOM announced four separate geographic regions defined as follows:-
Market 1 : Those areas covered by exchanges where BTw is the only operator.
Market 2 : Those areas covered by exchanges where that are 2 or 3 principal operators.
Market 3 : Those areas covered by exchanges where there are 4 or more principal operators.
Hull Area : Those areas covered by exchanges where KCOM is the only operator.
OFCOM then decreed that in the Market 3 areas, no operator holds a position of significant market power (SMP) and these exchanges could be de-regulated.
Depending upon where you live, it could very likely affect the price you pay for broadband.
LLU providers have always been allowed to set their own costs, but OFCOMs ruling for regulation has meant that BT Wholesale prices must be fixed at a certain rate.
Market 1 : IPStream adsl is provisioned by BT Wholesale only. Their prices are fixed by OFCOM and no cheaper alternative LLU is available.
Market 2 : Some LLU is available. BT Wholesale prices are fixed, but LLU providers are free to set their own (cheaper) pricing.
Market 3 : No operator has SMP and therefore the exchange becomes deregulated and BT Wholesale can reduce their prices in competition with the LLU providers.
Many people will think the above unfair, but those are the rules as defined by the regulatory bodies, which has now resulted in a 'two-tier' broadband in the UK where pricing may likely vary depending upon your location.
I think both Sky and BT, but particularly the former, overestimate the importance of football rights. I think there should be what is becoming g increasingly prevalent in the States: an OTT Premier League pass type service on streaming platforms where fans can have greater control of what they watch and are not tied down to their cable or satellite providers contracts
I've said for sometime that the OTT providers are the biggest threats to the likes of Sky , BT and VM in fact I believe this is the reason BT and Sky have paid huge amounts for EPL football. Let's be honest if you take sport away the OTT providers more than compete and at a fraction of the cost especially Netflix with its move into original content.
I think sky should now split its sports package into at least two parts: football and the rest. As a rugby fan, I object to subsidising the football when all I want is the rugby (and a bit of cricket). Fortunately, BT have got all of the premier league rugby so it won't be that hard a decision about what to do if the price of sky sports increases.
I think sky should now split its sports package into at least two parts: football and the rest. As a rugby fan, I object to subsidising the football when all I want is the rugby (and a bit of cricket). Fortunately, BT have got all of the premier league rugby so it won't be that hard a decision about what to do if the price of sky sports increases.
Every Sky customer will be subsidising the football regardless of whether you subscribe to the sports channels or not, how do you think the non-sports subscribers feel about this.
Every Sky customer will be subsidising the football regardless of whether you subscribe to the sports channels or not, how do you think the non-sports subscribers feel about this.
Even worse for the millions of BT customers who are paying over the odds for line rental/call charges/broadband and have no interest in BT Sport.
Imagine how many 'non switching' pensioners there must be with just a BT phone line.
Even worse for the millions of BT customers who are paying over the odds for line rental/call charges/broadband and have no interest in BT Sport.
Imagine how many 'non switching' pensioners there must be with just a BT phone line.
We already know that Sky customers cross subsidies the sports packages whether you take them or not - this is not a secret.
Do you have information that BT line rentals, call charges and BB are cross subsidising BT Sport? If so please demonstrate as I suspect the regulator would be interested in any information your have.
We already know that Sky customers cross subsidies the sports packages whether you take them or not - this is not a secret.
Do you have information that BT line rentals, call charges and BB are cross subsidising BT Sport? If so please demonstrate as I suspect the regulator would be interested in any information your have.
What does it have to do with a regulator?
YOU have already stated that BT Retail HAVE to charge a set amount for line rental (although I still don't believe this, I know the wholesale price is regulated by OFCOM though), so what do you think all these profits from high line rental go towards, toffees for the board members?
BT are paying, I believe, nearly £2 billion over 3 years for football rights, quick maths tells you they would need 5.5 millions subscribers all paying £10 a month to break even on that cost, if they don't get that, where does the shortfall come from?
If the whole country was fibre to the home there could be a phone out, an internet out and a TV out from the fibre node.
The TV out would be a different payment plan to internet but still allow on demand that way. Tv could then be truly IPTV multicast and the only linear things would be news and live events like sports. All regular programs could be placed on a server and 'go live at a certain point!
Tv licencing would love it as you could only have TV services that way if you paid your licence and the licence would be tied to your node!
The service could allow you to have just basic 'freeview/freesat' like services that only requires your TV licence, but also allows you to buy ether Sky, BT, Virgin or any other pay tv package all down the one line!
If you buy more than one you can split the signal to any box that the pay TV service gives you and a normal TV for the basic stuff, even daisy chain through the pay tv box, meaning all pay TV boxes would have to offer a pass through so would any TVs!
This would do away with dishes and aerials, expect perhaps using dishes as a way to get the multicast services if you didn't have fibre to your home for any reason, say if it was a mobile home? You could even get broadband and landline services though that method instead of having the satellites instead of using the satellite for direct to home tv broadcasts only.
That would also plug the lack of fibre to the home whist it was rolled out!
The government could initiate this kind of efficiency if they got off their behind and actually did some more meaningful stuff! (as if)
We all love to dream, but a dream it is and that is the way it will stay. Anyway, if every one decided to watch everything on line at the same time I am sure the system would break, the providers have problems as it is.
i do feel that online Tv is the future, but I think it will be after my time.
I was simply reminding those that scoffed when I said 3D was dead in the water for TV home entertainment. I was proved right and I suspect I may well be right about the present Sky subscription model being broken.
It will be years before that happens, Sky is still growing, still plenty of people with more money than they know what to do with, that will spend out on sky and some that do not have any money and yet still seem to have the whole package from sky.
BT is a thron in skys side, but that is all it is to be honest.
I liked the Top up TV way of doing things, it worked pretty well to be honest.
However, at the end of the day do I care? I saw the light and moved to FTA TV and it's the best thing I have done in a long time plus I have saved a shed load of cash.
I do not know if you care or not? I could say a saw the light and moved away from TV full stop. I now do not have to fund the BBC.
Agree with you about football. And yes, there is less choice on BT TV than Sky. However,I've been a Sky customer and the vast majority of channels Id never bother with. With BT I find it's more about quality than quantity.
[/quote]
One of the reasons i decided to do away with the TV licence is because I never watched much, no point in paying £145 a year for something I would watch about once every couple of days if that.
even with netflix I can go for a couple of days without using it, but at least it is cheaper than the TV licence.
One of the reasons i decided to do away with the TV licence is because I never watched much, no point in paying £145 a year for something I would watch about once every couple of days if that.
even with netflix I can go for a couple of days without using it, but at least it is cheaper than the TV licence.
I see that MP's want to change the TV Licence, they say it won't be replaced or stopped until sometime on the 2020's (they propose every house pays a levy charge), but want to make an urgent change so that it covers catch up TV now.
Any "profound changes" - such as abolishing the licence fee - should not be rushed, the report said. But it did say the BBC "must prepare for the possibility of a change in the 2020s.
"We recommend that as a minimum the licence fee must be amended to cover catch-up television as soon as possible."
I do think TV sub's are now almost ready to burst soon.
If we minus the Free to Air + Minus the +1's
there is still plenty left but then if we take 2 main channels networks like (sky movies) (Discover Network)
There is plenty of new stuff but then if we minus the repeated stuff there's now much left
The take into account that they show commercials too which they earn from too!
So i guess its down to personal tastes and needs
With Sky Sports I agree it is very expensive if you don't watch too many sports but I think its good value overall if you like the core sports.
I think really what upsets people is the fact they need to subscribe to say a basic package to be able to get sports or movies!
If i had a choice, it would be a pick and mix type pack where you can pay say £10 and choose 15 channels - but limited to so many per type of channels with the option the add extra say at £1 per channel per month on top
cos lets face it there are only a handful of channels anyone really wants, as for the channels that a junk, they will have to improve or close or go free to air,
although not fair to channels it fair to the end user
Every Sky customer will be subsidising the football regardless of whether you subscribe to the sports channels or not, how do you think the non-sports subscribers feel about this.
So why not dedicated football channels subscribed only by those who want to watch football at a subscription that was more conducive with the extensive cost of providing it.
I notice sports only going up £1 so everyone else paying for the football. I appears this whole country revolves around football and cannot manage without wall to wall football, time it was changed.
So why not dedicated football channels subscribed only by those who want to watch football at a subscription that was more conducive with the extensive cost of providing it.
I notice sports only going up £1 so everyone else paying for the football. I appears this whole country revolves around football and cannot manage without wall to wall football, time it was changed.
So why not dedicated football channels subscribed only by those who want to watch football at a subscription that was more conducive with the extensive cost of providing it.
I notice sports only going up £1 so everyone else paying for the football. I appears this whole country revolves around football and cannot manage without wall to wall football, time it was changed.
The wording of Sky's letters about price increases does always seem to imply to me that they think that the only reason anyone would ever have Sky, and certainly Sky Sports, is for the Premiere League football!
>:(
Every time the Sky price increase comes round we have the merchants of doom predicting the pay TV crash is upon us, and subscribers will ditch Sky on their droves.
And every year Sky's subscriber numbers continue to increase.
Every time the Sky price increase comes round we have the merchants of doom predicting the pay TV crash is upon us, and subscribers will ditch Sky on their droves.
Well I don't believe the starter of this thread has ever posted anything other than attacks on Sky
So why not dedicated football channels subscribed only by those who want to watch football at a subscription that was more conducive with the extensive cost of providing it.
I notice sports only going up £1 so everyone else paying for the football. I appears this whole country revolves around football and cannot manage without wall to wall football, time it was changed.
Sounds about right. Almost every time I turn the radio on there is something about that awful game. If there is something called the world cup on the country almost comes to a standstill, also something called the FA cup does the same thing.
You go into some pubs and they got it on. Thankfully the places I go to do not have TV.
Every time the Sky price increase comes round we have the merchants of doom predicting the pay TV crash is upon us, and subscribers will ditch Sky on their droves.
And every year Sky's subscriber numbers continue to increase.
That's because they include Now TV subcribers these days and won't split them, or say what the criteria for inclusion are, so we can no longer judge their success or otherwise by subscriber numbers.
That's because they include Now TV subcribers these days and won't split them, or say what the criteria for inclusion are, so we can no longer judge their success or otherwise by subscriber numbers.
Mental! How do they get away with that when they are a publically owned company?
Whilst there is no competition, Sly will always pay a crazy amount to show major sporting events etc & charge whatever they like for its services
If the people of GB & ROI were allowed to legally subscribe to alternative european broadcasters the yearly cost of subscribing to sly wouldnt be no where near as expensive as it is
I wouldnt be surprised at some point in the future to see a major change in the way we view TV
As broadband speeds increase across UK Im guessing companies such as Amazon, google, apple even mayl launch their own pay tv platforms which could seriously dent sly profits & slice of the cake
Whilst there is no competition, Sly will always pay a crazy amount to show major sporting events etc & charge whatever they like for its services
If the people of GB & ROI were allowed to legally subscribe to alternative european broadcasters the yearly cost of subscribing to sly wouldnt be no where near as expensive as it is
I wouldnt be surprised at some point in the future to see a major change in the way we view TV
As broadband speeds increase across UK Im guessing companies such as Amazon, google, apple even mayl launch their own pay tv platforms which could seriously dent sly profits & slice of the cake
Must have a bad keyboard but at lest it did not put $ky as that is annoying LOL
Comments
As the majority of this type of exchanges are serving smallish communities why would the regulator think this may encourage unbundling?
There's no money in it for the ISPs as not commercially viable so it's a lose lose for the consumer.
Well quite, but that's the reason they gave for doing it.
http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/broadband_access_market.htm
That is why I have always referred to them as 'Ofcon'.
They've certainly never done our M1 exchange any favours.
Every Sky customer will be subsidising the football regardless of whether you subscribe to the sports channels or not, how do you think the non-sports subscribers feel about this.
I found 85% of the stuff I was watching was free.
I bought a Freest recorder for £150 (3 months Sky)
And I pay £7 a month for Now TV which has all the stuff I was watching on Sky.
So Sky are still getting my money but no where near as much. The only thing I don't have now is movies but I only watched 20% of what was shown.
Even worse for the millions of BT customers who are paying over the odds for line rental/call charges/broadband and have no interest in BT Sport.
Imagine how many 'non switching' pensioners there must be with just a BT phone line.
We already know that Sky customers cross subsidies the sports packages whether you take them or not - this is not a secret.
Do you have information that BT line rentals, call charges and BB are cross subsidising BT Sport? If so please demonstrate as I suspect the regulator would be interested in any information your have.
What does it have to do with a regulator?
YOU have already stated that BT Retail HAVE to charge a set amount for line rental (although I still don't believe this, I know the wholesale price is regulated by OFCOM though), so what do you think all these profits from high line rental go towards, toffees for the board members?
BT are paying, I believe, nearly £2 billion over 3 years for football rights, quick maths tells you they would need 5.5 millions subscribers all paying £10 a month to break even on that cost, if they don't get that, where does the shortfall come from?
We all love to dream, but a dream it is and that is the way it will stay. Anyway, if every one decided to watch everything on line at the same time I am sure the system would break, the providers have problems as it is.
i do feel that online Tv is the future, but I think it will be after my time.
It will be years before that happens, Sky is still growing, still plenty of people with more money than they know what to do with, that will spend out on sky and some that do not have any money and yet still seem to have the whole package from sky.
BT is a thron in skys side, but that is all it is to be honest.
I liked the Top up TV way of doing things, it worked pretty well to be honest.
I do not know if you care or not? I could say a saw the light and moved away from TV full stop. I now do not have to fund the BBC.
[/quote]
One of the reasons i decided to do away with the TV licence is because I never watched much, no point in paying £145 a year for something I would watch about once every couple of days if that.
even with netflix I can go for a couple of days without using it, but at least it is cheaper than the TV licence.
I see that MP's want to change the TV Licence, they say it won't be replaced or stopped until sometime on the 2020's (they propose every house pays a levy charge), but want to make an urgent change so that it covers catch up TV now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31623659
If we minus the Free to Air + Minus the +1's
there is still plenty left but then if we take 2 main channels networks like (sky movies) (Discover Network)
There is plenty of new stuff but then if we minus the repeated stuff there's now much left
The take into account that they show commercials too which they earn from too!
So i guess its down to personal tastes and needs
With Sky Sports I agree it is very expensive if you don't watch too many sports but I think its good value overall if you like the core sports.
I think really what upsets people is the fact they need to subscribe to say a basic package to be able to get sports or movies!
If i had a choice, it would be a pick and mix type pack where you can pay say £10 and choose 15 channels - but limited to so many per type of channels with the option the add extra say at £1 per channel per month on top
cos lets face it there are only a handful of channels anyone really wants, as for the channels that a junk, they will have to improve or close or go free to air,
although not fair to channels it fair to the end user
So why not dedicated football channels subscribed only by those who want to watch football at a subscription that was more conducive with the extensive cost of providing it.
I notice sports only going up £1 so everyone else paying for the football. I appears this whole country revolves around football and cannot manage without wall to wall football, time it was changed.
Here here!!
>:(
And every year Sky's subscriber numbers continue to increase.
Well I don't believe the starter of this thread has ever posted anything other than attacks on Sky
Sounds about right. Almost every time I turn the radio on there is something about that awful game. If there is something called the world cup on the country almost comes to a standstill, also something called the FA cup does the same thing.
You go into some pubs and they got it on. Thankfully the places I go to do not have TV.
That's because they include Now TV subcribers these days and won't split them, or say what the criteria for inclusion are, so we can no longer judge their success or otherwise by subscriber numbers.
Mental! How do they get away with that when they are a publically owned company?
If the people of GB & ROI were allowed to legally subscribe to alternative european broadcasters the yearly cost of subscribing to sly wouldnt be no where near as expensive as it is
I wouldnt be surprised at some point in the future to see a major change in the way we view TV
As broadband speeds increase across UK Im guessing companies such as Amazon, google, apple even mayl launch their own pay tv platforms which could seriously dent sly profits & slice of the cake
Must have a bad keyboard but at lest it did not put $ky as that is annoying LOL