...according to Mediatique's Mathew Horsman on today's Media Show:
There is a dispute between BSkyB and BT over premiership football rights, which could have an impact on consumers. Both companies have some of the rights, but will viewers have to subscribe to Sky and BT Vision separately to see them all - or can they sign up to one and get both? And why does it matter so much to the broadcasters? Mathew Horsman of Mediatique has been looking at the background. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rvpv9
He also explains why BT are keen to retail their services separately from Sky.
...according to Mediatique's Mathew Horsman on today's Media Show:
There is a dispute between BSkyB and BT over premiership football rights, which could have an impact on consumers. Both companies have some of the rights, but will viewers have to subscribe to Sky and BT Vision separately to see them all - or can they sign up to one and get both? And why does it matter so much to the broadcasters? Mathew Horsman of Mediatique has been looking at the background. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rvpv9
He also explains why BT are keen to retail their services separately from Sky.
OnDigital refused to show Sky Sports ad's? So Sky complained to Ofcom about it, to eventually get them shown?
...according to Mediatique's Mathew Horsman on today's Media Show:
There is a dispute between BSkyB and BT over premiership football rights, which could have an impact on consumers. Both companies have some of the rights, but will viewers have to subscribe to Sky and BT Vision separately to see them all - or can they sign up to one and get both? And why does it matter so much to the broadcasters? Mathew Horsman of Mediatique has been looking at the background. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rvpv9
He also explains why BT are keen to retail their services separately from Sky.
Thanks - for the record:
- His explanation for the above is that if BT wholesales BT Sport to Sky and Sky then retails it BT never gets to find out the names and addresses of the customers - so can't then attempt to sell them other BT services.
- He says Sky wants a "wholesale / wholesale" or "retail / retail" arrangement - ie they both wholesale to each other or they can both retail to each other's customers. Horsman doesn't actually say it but obviously it's impossible for Sky to retail on BT platform.
But I guess if BT loses at Court of Appeal then this could be Sky's argument for withdrawing SS1/2 from BT - ie Sky would say "we will only wholesale SS1/2 to you if you wholesale BT Sport to us" - which BT obviously wouldn't want to do for reason above.
- He also says he thinks OFCOM will not uphold BT's complaint re Sky refusing to air BT Sport ads on Sky Sports. He doesn't really explain why other than to imply that Sky accepting the ads on other Sky channels is likely to be sufficient. However he also says that the OFCOM regulations in this area are very grey - ie capable of being interpreted in different ways.
Even though he was rushed into it, his conclusion was very wishy-washy. So he doesn't really know, and was only stating an opinion, not fact. All of course due to it being a 'grey area'. But decisions with previous incumbents (in this quoted case OnDigital) usually set precedent.
- His explanation for the above is that if BT wholesales BT Sport to Sky and Sky then retails it BT never gets to find out the names and addresses of the customers - so can't then attempt to sell them other BT services.
- He says Sky wants a "wholesale / wholesale" or "retail / retail" arrangement - ie they both wholesale to each other or they can both retail to each other's customers. Horsman doesn't actually say it but obviously it's impossible for Sky to retail on BT platform.
But I guess if BT loses at Court of Appeal then this could be Sky's argument for withdrawing SS1/2 from BT - ie Sky would say "we will only wholesale SS1/2 to you if you wholesale BT Sport to us" - which BT obviously wouldn't want to do for reason above.
- He also says he thinks OFCOM will not uphold BT's complaint re Sky refusing to air BT Sport ads on Sky Sports. He doesn't really explain why other than to imply that Sky accepting the ads on other Sky channels is likely to be sufficient. However he also says that the OFCOM regulations in this area are very grey - ie capable of being interpreted in different ways.
Even though he was rushed into it, his conclusion was very wishy-washy. So he doesn't really know, and was only stating an opinion, not fact. All of course due to it being a 'grey area'. But decisions with previous incumbents (in this quoted case OnDigital) usually set precedent.
That regulatory grey area might potentially open the way to a court case at some future stage given that so much is at stake here. Alternatively, BT might choose to take this case to the Competition Commission assuming that they can accept such a case.
Either way, this is going to be an interesting contest to follow, a bit like those Tyrannosaurus rex vs. Triceratops fights in old dinosaur movies.
Alternatively, BT might choose to take this case to the Competition Commission assuming that they can accept such a case.
It doesn't work like that - as I suspect we've been through before on here!
"All of the CC’s inquiries are undertaken following a reference made by another authority, most often the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) (which refers merger and market inquiries), or one of the sector regulators (which can refer markets within their sectoral jurisdictions or make regulatory references in relation to price controls and other licence modifications) or as a result of an appeal from a decision of one of the sector regulators."
If BT are unhappy about anything their route is OFCOM - which is the route they are going down.
It doesn't work like that - as I suspect we've been through before on here!
"All of the CC’s inquiries are undertaken following a reference made by another authority, most often the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) (which refers merger and market inquiries), or one of the sector regulators (which can refer markets within their sectoral jurisdictions or make regulatory references in relation to price controls and other licence modifications) or as a result of an appeal from a decision of one of the sector regulators."
If BT are unhappy about anything their route is OFCOM - which is the route they are going down.
You are indeed quite correct there, mlt11; I meant to say OFT (which could then take it to the Competition Competition). I'm sure that both sides' well paid legal teams* will be exploring every avenue possible to win this one.
Oh, and thanks for that, TelevisionUser. A very interesting listen.
At your service, VisionMan1. I think it's always worth taking a look at at the programme website http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00dv9hq each Wednesday evening to see if there's something interesting to listen to.
- He says Sky wants a "wholesale / wholesale" or "retail / retail" arrangement - ie they both wholesale to each other or they can both retail to each other's customers. Horsman doesn't actually say it but obviously it's impossible for Sky to retail on BT platform.
Thanks TelevisionUser and mlt11.
Sky cannot retail on the BT platform at the moment. But with the advent of the IPTV channels on YouView in the Summer, could it acquire channel capacity and sell to BT's customers this way? This would not give it access to BT Vision customers using the BT Vision Pace/Philips boxes but these will cease to be sold in the Summer.
Broadband TV News YouView CEO Richard Halton has said the hybrid broadcast service wants to deliver IP channels to all its households, regardless of whether they are connected to one of its shareholder ISPs.
Sky cannot retail on the BT platform at the moment. But with the advent of the IPTV channels on YouView in the Summer, could it acquire channel capacity and sell to BT's customers this way? This would not give it access to BT Vision customers using the BT Vision Pace/Philips boxes but these will cease to be sold in the Summer.
What a superb question that is. To which the short answer is no.
The long answer is that the new live channels will only be delivered via Multicast (as you already know). But Sky have not invested in any such technology. And Now TV is Unicast only for VoD only, atm. And I cannot imagine either TalkTalk or BT allowing them to 'piggy back' their own CDN Multicast networks to do so. So they would have to invest the billions it would cost to build their own network.
What a superb question that is. To which the short answer is no.
The long answer is that the new live channels will only be delivered via Multicast (as you already know). But Sky have not invested in any such technology. And Now TV is Unicast only for VoD only, atm. And I cannot imagine either TalkTalk or BT allowing them to 'piggy back' their own CDN Multicast networks to do so. So they would have to invest the billions it would cost to build their own network.
Thanks. Will there not be another IPTV entrance opening up into the YouView platform which Sky will be able to utilise without heavy investment? I believe YouView has said the Connect TV channels currently accessible by Freeview HD boxes will join the EPG this Summer too. Connect TV is now owned by YouView shareholder Arqiva who will be keen to ensure this is implemented.
What a superb question that is. To which the short answer is no.
The long answer is that the new live channels will only be delivered via Multicast (as you already know). But Sky have not invested in any such technology. And Now TV is Unicast only for VoD only, atm. And I cannot imagine either TalkTalk or BT allowing them to 'piggy back' their own CDN Multicast networks to do so. So they would have to invest the billions it would cost to build their own network.
So why can't Sky just purchase the BT Openreach/BTW product "Multicast for Generic Ethernet Access" and link it to their fibre or (later this year) adsl offerings?
If they have to purchase and install additional equipment in each unbundled exchange (or wherever the IP multicast terminates) to achieve this, fair enough, but it's just a matter of them making the business decison, ordering the gear, ordering the service, and waiting (perhaps a considerable time) for completion, isn't it?
I expect that they have contingency plans in place just in case they ever need to do this but of course, they would increase overheads if they had to start paying for an additional delivery mechanism so they'll try all possible means first to avoid it, I'd imagine.
By the way, I came across the following quote in that link above:
Successfully trialled during 2011 with multicast VLAN bandwidths up to 300Mbit/s (typically 30 high definition or 100 standard channels) with scope for higher bandwidths.
So BTR seem to have in effect no capacity constraints on how many channels they can multicast if they want to expand it, using BT Infinity. There will be channel limits on the adsl variant though, when introduced.
So why can't Sky just purchase the BT Openreach/BTW product "Multicast for Generic Ethernet Access" and link it to their fibre or (later this year) adsl offerings?
If they have to purchase and install additional equipment in each unbundled exchange (or wherever the IP multicast terminates) to achieve this, fair enough, but it's just a matter of them making the business decison, ordering the gear, ordering the service, and waiting (perhaps a considerable time) for completion, isn't it?
I expect that they have contingency plans in place just in case they ever need to do this but of course, they would increase overheads if they had to start paying for an additional delivery mechanism so they'll try all possible means first to avoid it, I'd imagine.
So BTR seem to have in effect no capacity constraints on how many channels they can multicast if they want to expand it, using BT Infinity. There will be channel limits on the adsl variant though, when introduced.
From your link -
"Product facts - Multicast for GEA is available over GEA FTTC and GEA-FTTP services."
And VLAN requires - "To physically replicate the functions of a VLAN would require a separate, parallel collection of network cables and equipment separate from the primary network. However, unlike physically separate networks, VLANs share bandwidth, so VLAN trunks may require aggregated links and/or quality of service priorization."
And its the Quality of Service protocols which are important here. And the fact offering such requires a separate CDN to do so. Which they would either have to pay another provider for, or create their own. So either way, it would cost them money.
Hence my suggestion in post #163 to use Connect TV if my original suggestion of using YouView's own IPTV channels is too expensive or takes too long. I don't know the costs of YouView's own IPTV channels and setting up your own infrastructure but according to Connect TV:
Connect TV The cost of having a channel on DTT, using the Connect TV service, is a great deal less than conventional DTT broadcast. Of course, there are fewer DTT connected devices able to receive these services, than the whole universe of DTT devices – but the numbers are growing fast. FutureSource Consulting predict over 14 million* Freeview HD devices in UK homes by the end of 2012 all of which are Connectable.
I assume the infrastructure you and Visionman1 have been discussing wouldn't be required if Connect TV was used as Connect TV would provide it all?
* I'm unsure how accurate that prediction was and if YouView boxes were included in the 14m.
Hence my suggestion in post #163 to use Connect TV if my original suggestion of using YouView's own IPTV channels is too expensive or takes too long. I don't know the costs of YouView's own IPTV channels and setting up your own infrastructure but according to Connect TV:
I assume the infrastructure you and Visionman1 have been discussing wouldn't be required if Connect TV was used as Connect TV would provide it all?
* I'm unsure how accurate that prediction was and if YouView boxes were included in the 14m.
I'm not sure about Connect TV. As it uses protocols that all Freeview HD boxes adhere to, which is MHEG-IC. But as the YouView box is not Freeview HD branded, it doesn't use MHEG-IC.
All YouView have said on the matter is "Arquiva is one of our shareholders and we're in discussions with them as to the best way to get their channels and content onto YouView, but these things take time."
Agreed. Sky is an excellent product in itself, without the need to spend millions on signing 'faces' to promote it. Indeed, I wonder how many advertising millions they have already spent to 'protect' their number one position?
Does anyone know Skys advert expenditure this year up to now? Because TV's getting battered by Sky's adverts, atm. Though why I don't know.
Does anyone know Skys advert expenditure this year up to now? Because TV's getting battered by Sky's adverts, atm. Though why I don't know.
Don't know about 2013, but as a starting point Sky was the UK's second largest advertiser with a spend of £145m and a total estimated marketing budget of £1bn in 2011. http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/wide/1059790/
You may have to check the accounts to see more recent details but they will probably only indicate past spend.
Don't know why the heavy spend is occurring now - is it cyclical or tactical ie before BT launches its service with YouView IPTV channels and cheap sports?
- His explanation for the above is that if BT wholesales BT Sport to Sky and Sky then retails it BT never gets to find out the names and addresses of the customers - so can't then attempt to sell them other BT services.
- He says Sky wants a "wholesale / wholesale" or "retail / retail" arrangement - ie they both wholesale to each other or they can both retail to each other's customers. Horsman doesn't actually say it but obviously it's impossible for Sky to retail on BT platform.
But I guess if BT loses at Court of Appeal then this could be Sky's argument for withdrawing SS1/2 from BT - ie Sky would say "we will only wholesale SS1/2 to you if you wholesale BT Sport to us" - which BT obviously wouldn't want to do for reason above.
- He also says he thinks OFCOM will not uphold BT's complaint re Sky refusing to air BT Sport ads on Sky Sports. He doesn't really explain why other than to imply that Sky accepting the ads on other Sky channels is likely to be sufficient. However he also says that the OFCOM regulations in this area are very grey - ie capable of being interpreted in different ways.
There is the little matter of the Data Protection Act and the Fair Use Principle. Simply knowing a customer's details as a result of selling them one channel does not automatically make it legal to use that data to bombard them with sales literature for different products.
The retail/retail argument also seems to blow a hole in the argument about access to customer data, even if it provides reciprocal access. It is quite simply not consistent to oppose access to customer data than go along with two way access. Businesses that the same size and offer the same product range today might not in future.
But Sky are not refusing to show the ads, just on those 4 channels, I think OnDigial was 'blanket' ban, but all this is cheap advertising for BT
They clearly consider those 4 channels to give access to premium customers, so it is important despite the small number of channels.
Sky are now a giant carrier and as such are expected to avoid distorting the market. It's not the same as Fred's garage refusing to carry ads for Dave's garage, neither garage is in the communications market or a giant with market dominance.
There is the little matter of the Data Protection Act and the Fair Use Principle. Simply knowing a customer's details as a result of selling them one channel does not automatically make it legal to use that data to bombard them with sales literature for different products.
I completely disagree with that opinion as a point of fact.
I have seen whole 'blocks' of customers moved from one company to another for the same product (sold). And then get 'adverts' from the new company for their other products. And in this case - its ESPN to ESPN. And the Data Protection Act and the Fair Use Principle don't cover advertising, either.
It's perfectly legal for a new company to make its new customers aware of the other products it sells.
There is the little matter of the Data Protection Act and the Fair Use Principle. Simply knowing a customer's details as a result of selling them one channel does not automatically make it legal to use that data to bombard them with sales literature for different products.
The retail/retail argument also seems to blow a hole in the argument about access to customer data, even if it provides reciprocal access. It is quite simply not consistent to oppose access to customer data than go along with two way access. Businesses that the same size and offer the same product range today might not in future.
In all the reports about BT and Sky I have not seen anyone suggest that anyone is arguing about access to customer data.
No such argument was mentioned on the Radio 4 Media Show.
VM currently sells Sky Sports to VM customers. Sky does not get access to that customer data. Nobody is saying they should.
BT currently sells Sky Sports to BT customers. Sky does not get access to that customer data. Nobody is saying they should.
If (hypothetically) Sky sold BT Sport to Sky customers then BT would not get access to that customer data. Nobody is saying they should.
Nobody is complaining or arguing about this - Sky isn't, BT isn't and VM isn't either.
Don't know how relevant this case from 2009/10 is. Sky Italia filed a lawsuit against competitor Mediaset which would not allow Sky Italia adverts on its three FTA channels. Mediaset also has about 10 pay channels which apparently it had accepted 3,107 Sky Italia adverts on. Sky Italia won its case but lost a subsequent case forcing Mediaset to free up advertising space.
News Corporation Press Releases
News Corporation expresses its satisfaction at the Milan Court ruling which prevents Mediaset from refusing to carry Sky Italia’s advertising.
London 26 October 2009 – News Corporation notes its satisfaction at the decision issued today by the Milan Court (Tribunale di Milano) that prevents Mediaset's advertising arm Publitalia Spa from refusing to accept Sky Italia's TV advertising.
On September 16th 2009, Sky Italia filed a lawsuit with the Court of Milan against RTI and Publitalia, both owned by the Mediaset Group, for violation of antitrust rules under article 82 of the European Treaty and for unfair competition.
In its ruling today, the Milan Court defined Publitalia's behaviour as "the execution of an anti-competitive agreement" with RTI and as being an act of unfair competition.
The judge has ordered that this decision be published in tomorrow's editions of some of the major Italian newspapers at the expense of Publitalia.
And the court could not compel Mediaset to free up advertising space stating this was a matter for commercial negotiations:
Mediaset Press Releases
Cologno Monzese, February 17, 2010. Advertising: Milan court rejects the requests made by Sky against Mediaset. The first section of the civil court of Milan issued a order on 16 February rejecting requests made by Sky against Mediaset concerning advertising.
Sky [Italia] had asked the Milan court to oblige Mediaset to supply advertising spaces for the satellite broadcaster, interpreting a previous court order issued on 26 October 2009.
The Milan court rejected the request by Sky [Italia] on the grounds that, among other things, an order of this kind would constitute "inadmissible interference on the part of the court in a area reserved for free negotiation between the parties concerned."
Consequently, also Sky [Italia] has been obliged to take note of the fact that the courts are not the appropriate place to conduct commercial negotiations and where one party can impose on another, in the absence of a contract, unilateral requests.
Today's court order once again confirms, and in highly authoritative terms, that Mediaset always operated according to the natural logic of commercial negotiation with all of its advertising partners, Sky [Italia] included.
Don't know how relevant this case from 2009/10 is. Sky Italia filed a lawsuit against competitor Mediaset which would not allow Sky Italia adverts on its three FTA channels. Mediaset also has about 10 pay channels which apparently it had accepted 3,107 Sky Italia adverts on. Sky Italia won its case but lost a subsequent case forcing Mediaset to free up advertising space.
I guess it illustrates that even if BT does win at OFCOM and OFCOM orders Sky to put BT Sport ads on Sky Sports then there is still all kinds of scope for mucking about.
eg. Sky may say they will comply but it may just happen that all the best ad slots on Sky Sports (ie the best slots during live PL programmes) are all now fully booked. Who knows, Sky may be making sure right now that they are all fully booked up.
It obviously would not be credible / realistic to do that for an indefinite period of time but I could easily see Sky saying that all prime ad spots for the first few weeks of next season are no longer available.
Comments
There is a dispute between BSkyB and BT over premiership football rights, which could have an impact on consumers. Both companies have some of the rights, but will viewers have to subscribe to Sky and BT Vision separately to see them all - or can they sign up to one and get both? And why does it matter so much to the broadcasters? Mathew Horsman of Mediatique has been looking at the background.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rvpv9
He also explains why BT are keen to retail their services separately from Sky.
OnDigital refused to show Sky Sports ad's? So Sky complained to Ofcom about it, to eventually get them shown?
Ha ha ha!
Thanks - for the record:
- His explanation for the above is that if BT wholesales BT Sport to Sky and Sky then retails it BT never gets to find out the names and addresses of the customers - so can't then attempt to sell them other BT services.
- He says Sky wants a "wholesale / wholesale" or "retail / retail" arrangement - ie they both wholesale to each other or they can both retail to each other's customers. Horsman doesn't actually say it but obviously it's impossible for Sky to retail on BT platform.
But I guess if BT loses at Court of Appeal then this could be Sky's argument for withdrawing SS1/2 from BT - ie Sky would say "we will only wholesale SS1/2 to you if you wholesale BT Sport to us" - which BT obviously wouldn't want to do for reason above.
- He also says he thinks OFCOM will not uphold BT's complaint re Sky refusing to air BT Sport ads on Sky Sports. He doesn't really explain why other than to imply that Sky accepting the ads on other Sky channels is likely to be sufficient. However he also says that the OFCOM regulations in this area are very grey - ie capable of being interpreted in different ways.
That regulatory grey area might potentially open the way to a court case at some future stage given that so much is at stake here. Alternatively, BT might choose to take this case to the Competition Commission assuming that they can accept such a case.
Either way, this is going to be an interesting contest to follow, a bit like those Tyrannosaurus rex vs. Triceratops fights in old dinosaur movies.
It doesn't work like that - as I suspect we've been through before on here!
"All of the CC’s inquiries are undertaken following a reference made by another authority, most often the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) (which refers merger and market inquiries), or one of the sector regulators (which can refer markets within their sectoral jurisdictions or make regulatory references in relation to price controls and other licence modifications) or as a result of an appeal from a decision of one of the sector regulators."
If BT are unhappy about anything their route is OFCOM - which is the route they are going down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_Commission_(United_Kingdom)
You are indeed quite correct there, mlt11; I meant to say OFT (which could then take it to the Competition Competition). I'm sure that both sides' well paid legal teams* will be exploring every avenue possible to win this one.
*much more than I've ever earned, lol
At your service, VisionMan1. I think it's always worth taking a look at at the programme website http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00dv9hq each Wednesday evening to see if there's something interesting to listen to.
Sky cannot retail on the BT platform at the moment. But with the advent of the IPTV channels on YouView in the Summer, could it acquire channel capacity and sell to BT's customers this way? This would not give it access to BT Vision customers using the BT Vision Pace/Philips boxes but these will cease to be sold in the Summer.
What a superb question that is. To which the short answer is no.
The long answer is that the new live channels will only be delivered via Multicast (as you already know). But Sky have not invested in any such technology. And Now TV is Unicast only for VoD only, atm. And I cannot imagine either TalkTalk or BT allowing them to 'piggy back' their own CDN Multicast networks to do so. So they would have to invest the billions it would cost to build their own network.
But Sky are not refusing to show the ads, just on those 4 channels, I think OnDigial was 'blanket' ban, but all this is cheap advertising for BT
So why can't Sky just purchase the BT Openreach/BTW product "Multicast for Generic Ethernet Access" and link it to their fibre or (later this year) adsl offerings?
If they have to purchase and install additional equipment in each unbundled exchange (or wherever the IP multicast terminates) to achieve this, fair enough, but it's just a matter of them making the business decison, ordering the gear, ordering the service, and waiting (perhaps a considerable time) for completion, isn't it?
I expect that they have contingency plans in place just in case they ever need to do this but of course, they would increase overheads if they had to start paying for an additional delivery mechanism so they'll try all possible means first to avoid it, I'd imagine.
By the way, I came across the following quote in that link above: So BTR seem to have in effect no capacity constraints on how many channels they can multicast if they want to expand it, using BT Infinity. There will be channel limits on the adsl variant though, when introduced.
From your link -
"Product facts - Multicast for GEA is available over GEA FTTC and GEA-FTTP services."
And VLAN requires - "To physically replicate the functions of a VLAN would require a separate, parallel collection of network cables and equipment separate from the primary network. However, unlike physically separate networks, VLANs share bandwidth, so VLAN trunks may require aggregated links and/or quality of service priorization."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_LAN
And its the Quality of Service protocols which are important here. And the fact offering such requires a separate CDN to do so. Which they would either have to pay another provider for, or create their own. So either way, it would cost them money.
* I'm unsure how accurate that prediction was and if YouView boxes were included in the 14m.
I'm not sure about Connect TV. As it uses protocols that all Freeview HD boxes adhere to, which is MHEG-IC. But as the YouView box is not Freeview HD branded, it doesn't use MHEG-IC.
All YouView have said on the matter is "Arquiva is one of our shareholders and we're in discussions with them as to the best way to get their channels and content onto YouView, but these things take time."
Does anyone know Skys advert expenditure this year up to now? Because TV's getting battered by Sky's adverts, atm. Though why I don't know.
You may have to check the accounts to see more recent details but they will probably only indicate past spend.
Don't know why the heavy spend is occurring now - is it cyclical or tactical ie before BT launches its service with YouView IPTV channels and cheap sports?
There is the little matter of the Data Protection Act and the Fair Use Principle. Simply knowing a customer's details as a result of selling them one channel does not automatically make it legal to use that data to bombard them with sales literature for different products.
The retail/retail argument also seems to blow a hole in the argument about access to customer data, even if it provides reciprocal access. It is quite simply not consistent to oppose access to customer data than go along with two way access. Businesses that the same size and offer the same product range today might not in future.
They clearly consider those 4 channels to give access to premium customers, so it is important despite the small number of channels.
Sky are now a giant carrier and as such are expected to avoid distorting the market. It's not the same as Fred's garage refusing to carry ads for Dave's garage, neither garage is in the communications market or a giant with market dominance.
I completely disagree with that opinion as a point of fact.
I have seen whole 'blocks' of customers moved from one company to another for the same product (sold). And then get 'adverts' from the new company for their other products. And in this case - its ESPN to ESPN. And the Data Protection Act and the Fair Use Principle don't cover advertising, either.
It's perfectly legal for a new company to make its new customers aware of the other products it sells.
In all the reports about BT and Sky I have not seen anyone suggest that anyone is arguing about access to customer data.
No such argument was mentioned on the Radio 4 Media Show.
VM currently sells Sky Sports to VM customers. Sky does not get access to that customer data. Nobody is saying they should.
BT currently sells Sky Sports to BT customers. Sky does not get access to that customer data. Nobody is saying they should.
If (hypothetically) Sky sold BT Sport to Sky customers then BT would not get access to that customer data. Nobody is saying they should.
Nobody is complaining or arguing about this - Sky isn't, BT isn't and VM isn't either.
Source: http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_433.html
And the court could not compel Mediaset to free up advertising space stating this was a matter for commercial negotiations:
Source: http://www.mediaset.it/corporate/salastampa/2010/comunicatostampa_5401_en.shtml
Interesting info.
I guess it illustrates that even if BT does win at OFCOM and OFCOM orders Sky to put BT Sport ads on Sky Sports then there is still all kinds of scope for mucking about.
eg. Sky may say they will comply but it may just happen that all the best ad slots on Sky Sports (ie the best slots during live PL programmes) are all now fully booked. Who knows, Sky may be making sure right now that they are all fully booked up.
It obviously would not be credible / realistic to do that for an indefinite period of time but I could easily see Sky saying that all prime ad spots for the first few weeks of next season are no longer available.