This article mentions that a solution would be to limit the way that Hollywood studios are allowed to sell movies to UK TV services, basically limiting the percentage of content that each service is permitted to buy the rights to......WELL THATS JUST LOVELY
This MAY be a great idea for Virgin, so that they can buy up half the movies and make them available only to Virgin viewers.....great competition, especially as Virgin is only available in CABLE homes.....
So viewers go from being able to enjoy ALL the movies to only being able to see what their service is allowed to buy.......WONDERFUL
Does NO ONE give a shit about the viewers?
You can slag of Sky all you like, but at least they put EVERYTHING in one place for you, movies, sports, series, documentaries etc etc etc.....
Yes, it costs money, maybe too much, but you pays your money and takes your chance.....if these idiots get their way you wont even be able to do THAT!
Yes I agree. A month ago that was impossible due to the Murdoch's political influence. Now, hopefully, anything is possible. Perhaps it is even possible that politicians might put the interest of their constituents before the businessmen they having slap up dinners with. Or is that too much to hope?
On an ancillary note is it right that one company either owns or has a controlling stake in both our largest broadcast company (SKY) and the most popular papers. This is what has given him the political power which has led to both major parties being far too close and too ready to kowtow to his every whim.
On an ancillary note is it right that one company either owns or has a controlling stake in both our largest broadcast company (SKY) and the most popular papers. This is what has given him the political power which has led to both major parties being far too close and too ready to kowtow to his every whim.
Yes I believe that is going to be looked into now, along with whether the Murdoch's are fit and proper to have their large stake in BSkB. Happy days.
Sky Movies etc should be independent of BSkyB the service provider so it is in Sky Movies interests to be on as many platforms as possible - there should not be a conflict of interests whereby they would want to be exclusively on BSkyB satellite as they would prefer at the moment.
We need a model for satellite that is more like Freeview albeit with a greater emphasis on subscribing to channels (channels not the service).
But we know the 'pick and mix' concept will end up with those who want what they get now, will pay more.
English Premier League and USPGA golf rights proved that.
How would a film studio be able and expected to sell their product to more than one company? How would the bidding work? They would expect to take a mighty drop in the contract price if they can't offer exclusivity.
So in the end, the film companies suffer. Is that fair?
But we know the 'pick and mix' concept will end up with those who want what they get now, will pay more.
English Premier League and USPGA golf rights proved that.
How would a film studio be able and expected to sell their product to more than one company? How would the bidding work? They would expect to take a mighty drop in the contract price if they can't offer exclusivity.
So in the end, the film companies suffer. Is that fair?
Shouldn't we be more concerned about what is fair for the consumer not the film studios and BSkyB. The status quo isn't working in our interests and the competition commission report will show that.
There are ways of making this fair for all anyway. Perhaps for instance breaking up BSkyB into content and delivery platforms and regulating the price they charge would be more to your liking?
Anyway, whatever happens, the CC report will show that the current monopoly situation isn't working in our interests and has to change.
How would a film studio be able and expected to sell their product to more than one company? How would the bidding work? They would expect to take a mighty drop in the contract price if they can't offer exclusivity.
So in the end, the film companies suffer. Is that fair?
It might work in the same way film studio sell the rights to air their movies to cinemas. The cost could be a fixed fee, with studios and the TV stations having to estimate how many times the films would be watched. Or, in the case of pay per view, it could be linked to the number of people buying a viewing of the film.
The film companies might not suffer, because there would be more potential outlets for their films. They might lose the ability to do exclusive deals with Sky. The idea would be that the films would be available to viewers through multiple outlets, with some variation in price (the same way you can go and see a film for £13 in central London, or for £10 in a cinema further out).
"One third of the UK's £15m pay TV households subscribe to Sky Movie"
Anyone else think "£15m" is a typo, and they mean just "15m", ie 15 million UK households have pay TV? That's a new number, I had though previous estimates were lower.
...
I think that's about right. 10m+ Sky homes, 3m+ VM homes and whatever BTV etc are now at probably adds up to pretty close to 15m.
Shouldn't we be more concerned about what is fair for the consumer not the film studios and BSkyB. The status quo isn't working in our interests and the competition commission report will show that. There are ways of making this fair for all anyway. Perhaps for instance breaking up BSkyB into content and delivery platforms and regulating the price they charge would be more to your liking?
Anyway, whatever happens, the CC report will show that the current monopoly situation isn't working in our interests and has to change.
Nice to see you are keeping an open mind and not prejudging what the CC report will show.:D
The trouble with bureaucracies is that quite often they achieve the opposite of what they set out to do - the law of unintended consequences.
My concern about your own views is that they appear to be more anti-Sky / Murdoch than pro consumer.
Sky clearly have a dominant position so far as subscription movie services are concerned and in that regard the CC should look closely at wholesale pricing to other platforms who have no alternate source of subscription movie services.
VOD is a different area and there may be more scope for competition there. It perhaps shouldn't be possible to obtain exclusive rights for that type of service.
I don't like the idea of limiting what proportion of a studio's output can be acquired by say Sky Movies for subscription services though. The danger there for consumers is that you either end up being denied access to some films on your platform or you have to pay for multiple services to see the films you want. at greater cost.
Let us not forget that this has little to do with consumer's interests and far more to do with the interests of one commercial supplier over another.
But we know the 'pick and mix' concept will end up with those who want what they get now, will pay more.
English Premier League and USPGA golf rights proved that.
How would a film studio be able and expected to sell their product to more than one company? How would the bidding work? They would expect to take a mighty drop in the contract price if they can't offer exclusivity.
So in the end, the film companies suffer. Is that fair?
Veering slightly off topic, but, is it fair that the same film companies push out 3D movies which weren't even designed to be shown in 3D? And then have the nerve to ask us to pay extra?
These companies make millions of pounds, yet prevent me from fast-forwarding though trailers on DVDs I've paid good money to rent (and then they wonder why people pirate films!), so, my heart isn't bleeding for them yet.
Back on topic.....weren't ITV going to start a movie channel I few years ago? I guess they realised that there was nothing to show due to Sky's 'content-warehousing' policy and canned the idea.
They might lose the ability to do exclusive deals with Sky. The idea would be that the films would be available to viewers through multiple outlets, with some variation in price (the same way you can go and see a film for £13 in central London, or for £10 in a cinema further out).
Those prices makes the £8 per month I pay for a dozen Sky Movies/MGM HD/Disney Cinemagic channels look very good.
If Virgin want a fair playing field for THEM and their business then they should give a fair playing field to the viewers too.....
In other words, if they want EXCLUSIVE content for their business they SHOULD be forced to offer their services to EVERYONE.....
And if that means they have to spend BILLIONS on investing in expanding their cables to the 50% of the nation they don't cover then so be it......
With a few expections 100% of the country can get Sky if they want it......if they want exclusive then thats fine, everyone, or pretty much everyone, can access it.
Christ, the idea of exclusive content on cable is SICK......its like having the latest blockbuster movie and ONLY showing it in a cinema in Grimsby.....great if you live there, screwed if you dont.
Erm I don't think anyone has talked about cable exclusive content - just the option for other operators to have access to the content.
Sky have bought up ALL the rights for a lot of movies for years, knowing they themselves have zero ability to utilise those rights, but that their competition have the ability to.
How is that good for the consumer?
It's like Tesco buying up every shop in the town centre as they become available, then leaving them empty, as a spoiler to stop Morrisons from being able to open a shop there (IIRC there was actually a question about that a couple of years ago, where Tesco had reportedly been buying up land that they could not use, purely to stop other supermarkets).
In short Sky's tactics have been to actively hamper progress in the market, and against the interests of the consumer (they've known for years they can't possibly compete in true VOD, so they've taken the attitude that they'll do everything they can to hamper the competition).
This MAY be a great idea for Virgin, so that they can buy up half the movies and make them available only to Virgin viewers.....great competition, especially as Virgin is only available in CABLE homes.....
In short Sky's tactics have been to actively hamper progress in the market, and against the interests of the consumer (they've known for years they can't possibly compete in true VOD, so they've taken the attitude that they'll do everything they can to hamper the competition).
Yep. Before Sky Anytime+ was launched, Sky were buying up VOD rights to content when they didn't even have a VOD service.
Film companies don't supply copies exclusively to just one rental company i.e. LoveFilm, so why should they be able to get away with it through your TV?
Nice to see you are keeping an open mind and not prejudging what the CC report will show.:D
The trouble with bureaucracies is that quite often they achieve the opposite of what they set out to do - the law of unintended consequences.
My concern about your own views is that they appear to be more anti-Sky / Murdoch than pro consumer.
Sky clearly have a dominant position so far as subscription movie services are concerned and in that regard the CC should look closely at wholesale pricing to other platforms who have no alternate source of subscription movie services.
VOD is a different area and there may be more scope for competition there. It perhaps shouldn't be possible to obtain exclusive rights for that type of service.
I don't like the idea of limiting what proportion of a studio's output can be acquired by say Sky Movies for subscription services though. The danger there for consumers is that you either end up being denied access to some films on your platform or you have to pay for multiple services to see the films you want. at greater cost.
Let us not forget that this has little to do with consumer's interests and far more to do with the interests of one commercial supplier over another.
Firstly, I am speculating on the Guardian article like everybody else in this thread including you. How does that make me any less open minded than everyone else in this thread? It's worth noting as well that many of the people posting in this thread in favour of the status quo are the same ones who have been sticking up for Murdoch in the threads about tapping Milly Dowler's phone and bribing police etc. etc. If I am anti-Murdoch it is because of the corruption in his companies and the undue influence he and his employees have had over our politicians, including threats to carry out character assassinations in their newspapers if they didn't act in Murdoch's interests. Shouldn't we all be against that and want the Murdoch empire reigned in?
Sky clearly have a dominant position so far as subscription movie services are concerned and in that regard the CC should look closely at wholesale pricing to other platforms who have no alternate source of subscription movie services.
That's putting a sticking plaster on the problem. Sky Movies (or other movie/sport channels etc) should not be linked to a platform. Whoever owns Sky Movies should not be part of the BSkyB platform i.e. supplying boxes, fitting dishes etc or taking a general subscription for the service.
If you do that it is then in Sky Movies interests to be on as many platforms as possible and there is less conflict with them not wanting to be on Virgin because they'd rather Virgin customers moved to BSkyB.
At the moment it's a bit like Tesco controlling food production and if you wanted to buy food from Sainsbury then Tesco would arrange the wholesale price that Sainsbury could buy it at. Far better to have independent food suppliers and that is how it should be for TV content provision.
I'd also like to see an end to the packaging deals which "force" people to get all their services from one supplier. Such deals are in my opinion anti-competitive. You should be able to choose say Virgin for broadband BSkyB for TV (without content of course) and BT for telephone without being penalised for it.
I'd also like to see an end to the packaging deals which "force" people to get all their services from one supplier. Such deals are in my opinion anti-competitive. You should be able to choose say Virgin for broadband BSkyB for TV (without content of course) and BT for telephone without being penalised for it.
You are not forced to get all of the packages from Sky or Virgin Media. Your are able to take TV from one, BB from another supplier and phone from a third if you wish. The only exception is BT Vision which requires you to have all 3 services from BT.
When I had Sky TV, my BB was (and still is) with O2 and my phone was (but is now with my BB) with BT.
Virgin Media do charge more for the TV if you don't have your phone line rental with them though and Sky charge slightly more if you only have BB but no tv package.
You are not forced to get all of the packages from Sky or Virgin Media. Your are able to take TV from one, BB from another supplier and phone from a third if you wish. The only exception is BT Vision which requires you to have all 3 services from BT.
When I had Sky TV, my BB was (and still is) with O2 and my phone was (but is now with my BB) with BT.
Virgin Media do charge more for the TV if you don't have your phone line rental with them though and Sky charge slightly more if you only have BB but no tv package.
You obviously missed my quotes around "force". I obviously wasn't suggesting that you couldn't have your services from different suppliers (I do as well) just that it is more expensive and thus "forces" (note the quotes) people to be with one supplier even though they aren't the best at all of them.
I currently have VM for broadband and phone which comes with "free TV" even though the STB never has been nor never will be plugged in - it's a nonsense.
You obviously missed my quotes around "force". I obviously wasn't suggesting that you couldn't have your services from different suppliers (I do as well) just that it is more expensive and thus "forces" (note the quotes) people to be with one supplier even though they aren't the best at all of them.
I currently have VM for broadband and phone which comes with "free TV" even though the STB never has been nor never will be plugged in - it's a nonsense.
Last time I looked pay-tv was an OPTION and not manditory......
Yes, Sky IS expensive, and Yes I choose to pay for it..........
In the same way that some people choose to pay a lot of money for foreign holidays, fancy cars, fancy designer clothes, watches, perfumes etc etc etc
Should Ferrari be forced to reduce its prices so everyone can have one?
Should "The Fat Duck" reduce its prices down to match KFC so everyone can afford to eat there?
Should Thomas Cook be forced to slash its Caribbean All Inclusive holidays so that we can ALL go for two or three weeks?
There are a LOT of things that cost a lot of money, but for some reason we feel we have a God given right to have cheap tv.....
Well we do...BBC, ITV, Channel Four, Channel Five and a good number of other FTA channels that are available on Freeview at no cost at all, other than your licence fee.
People should stop thinking that they have this divine right to Pay TV and view it as a luxury and selective product.
I don't smoke, I don't drink and I can't remember my last foreign holiday, although I could go if I felt like it, but I don't......
I DO choose to pay for Sky TV, because that is what I want to spend my money on.
You spend yours where you want to, be all means, but please people, stop complaining that you can't afford to pay for Sky whilst at the same time blowing thousands of pounds a few on booze, ****, designer clothes, perfume and two or three holidays a year etc etc etc etc etc
And before you start about not having that many holidays a year, research shows that the average Sky viewer DOES take between two and three holidays a year.....NOT my figures, market research done by Skymedia for the ad sales....
So if Sky IS soo expensive, I suggest you stay home more and watch it lol
A while back, I saw an item, on the BBC, I think, where a family who existed entirely on benefits, said they couldn't cope on what they were getting, but had a large screen tv (50inch, IIRC) and most of them were shown smoking. :rolleyes:
A while back, I saw an item, on the BBC, I think, where a family who existed entirely on benefits, said they couldn't cope on what they were getting, but had a large screen tv (50inch, IIRC) and most of them were shown smoking. :rolleyes:
I'm not saying it was but the large screen TV may have been bought during better times or is on loan or is rented or was paid for in installments (example being bought from a catalogue) or was saved up for and may not necessarily be new (you can pay for items in installments from places like Cash Converters). Not forgetting that they are not as expensive as they used to be.
Cigarettes are a drug though and its not easy to quit for some.
Film companies don't supply copies exclusively to just one rental company i.e. LoveFilm, so why should they be able to get away with it through your TV?
That’s not actually true, you will not find any universal studio films on lovefilm to rent. Universal didn’t like what lovefilm where willing to pay them.. So bye bye movies.
End of the day anyone can bid but looks like only sky are willing to .. BT are just as profitable as sky and if they really wanted to kick ass they could but why would they? They would rather sky pay for everything, then try and get it on the cheap, making an easy buck.
If u don’t mind cancelling sky for 2 months u can get some great deals.. I pay £36 a month for the full package + hd and £100 off making it £28 a month
That’s not actually true, you will not find any universal studio films on lovefilm to rent. Universal didn’t like what lovefilm where willing to pay them.. So bye bye movies.
I only used LoveFilm as an example I could have quite easily said Blockbuster or another company.
The point was they don't have exclusivity deals in that market so why should they in another.
If Virgin want a fair playing field for THEM and their business then they should give a fair playing field to the viewers too.....
In other words, if they want EXCLUSIVE content for their business they SHOULD be forced to offer their services to EVERYONE.....
And if that means they have to spend BILLIONS on investing in expanding their cables to the 50% of the nation they don't cover then so be it......
With a few expections 100% of the country can get Sky if they want it......if they want exclusive then thats fine, everyone, or pretty much everyone, can access it.
Christ, the idea of exclusive content on cable is SICK......its like having the latest blockbuster movie and ONLY showing it in a cinema in Grimsby.....great if you live there, screwed if you dont.
Quite, but they don't want to spend billions, they want to cream off the top, and get some for themselves, without having to stump up the initial outlay.
OK Sky have a stranglehold on Pay TV, there could have been rivals, but there wasn't no-one wanted to stump up the cash for a decent alternative in case they lost money.
By now every town and village should have cable, or be on the cards to have it, but Virgin are not interested as it will cost them money, and not guaranteed to see a return, but then neither was Sky back in 1988/89!
It seems no-one has the balls to set up a new platform, maybe from 23.5 and start afresh, and getting their own deals with TV / Film Production Companies.
Equally would anybody be arsed to buy a new box and move / buy a new dish etc ?
Quite, but they don't want to spend billions, they want to cream off the top, and get some for themselves, without having to stump up the initial outlay.
OK Sky have a stranglehold on Pay TV, there could have been rivals, but there wasn't no-one wanted to stump up the cash for a decent alternative in case they lost money.
By now every town and village should have cable, or be on the cards to have it, but Virgin are not interested as it will cost them money, and not guaranteed to see a return, but then neither was Sky back in 1988/89!
It seems no-one has the balls to set up a new platform, maybe from 23.5 and start afresh, and getting their own deals with TV / Film Production Companies.
Equally would anybody be arsed to buy a new box and move / buy a new dish etc ?
The comparison doesn't work because of the differences between satellite and cable. Launch a satellite and the vast majority of householders can subscribe. A rural subscriber doesn't cost any more than a city subscriber. With cable you have to spend millions just to get a few subscribers if you install into rural areas.
Comments
Well said!!
On an ancillary note is it right that one company either owns or has a controlling stake in both our largest broadcast company (SKY) and the most popular papers. This is what has given him the political power which has led to both major parties being far too close and too ready to kowtow to his every whim.
Yes I believe that is going to be looked into now, along with whether the Murdoch's are fit and proper to have their large stake in BSkB. Happy days.
But we know the 'pick and mix' concept will end up with those who want what they get now, will pay more.
English Premier League and USPGA golf rights proved that.
How would a film studio be able and expected to sell their product to more than one company? How would the bidding work? They would expect to take a mighty drop in the contract price if they can't offer exclusivity.
So in the end, the film companies suffer. Is that fair?
Shouldn't we be more concerned about what is fair for the consumer not the film studios and BSkyB. The status quo isn't working in our interests and the competition commission report will show that.
There are ways of making this fair for all anyway. Perhaps for instance breaking up BSkyB into content and delivery platforms and regulating the price they charge would be more to your liking?
Anyway, whatever happens, the CC report will show that the current monopoly situation isn't working in our interests and has to change.
It might work in the same way film studio sell the rights to air their movies to cinemas. The cost could be a fixed fee, with studios and the TV stations having to estimate how many times the films would be watched. Or, in the case of pay per view, it could be linked to the number of people buying a viewing of the film.
The film companies might not suffer, because there would be more potential outlets for their films. They might lose the ability to do exclusive deals with Sky. The idea would be that the films would be available to viewers through multiple outlets, with some variation in price (the same way you can go and see a film for £13 in central London, or for £10 in a cinema further out).
K
Nice to see you are keeping an open mind and not prejudging what the CC report will show.:D
The trouble with bureaucracies is that quite often they achieve the opposite of what they set out to do - the law of unintended consequences.
My concern about your own views is that they appear to be more anti-Sky / Murdoch than pro consumer.
Sky clearly have a dominant position so far as subscription movie services are concerned and in that regard the CC should look closely at wholesale pricing to other platforms who have no alternate source of subscription movie services.
VOD is a different area and there may be more scope for competition there. It perhaps shouldn't be possible to obtain exclusive rights for that type of service.
I don't like the idea of limiting what proportion of a studio's output can be acquired by say Sky Movies for subscription services though. The danger there for consumers is that you either end up being denied access to some films on your platform or you have to pay for multiple services to see the films you want. at greater cost.
Let us not forget that this has little to do with consumer's interests and far more to do with the interests of one commercial supplier over another.
Veering slightly off topic, but, is it fair that the same film companies push out 3D movies which weren't even designed to be shown in 3D? And then have the nerve to ask us to pay extra?
These companies make millions of pounds, yet prevent me from fast-forwarding though trailers on DVDs I've paid good money to rent (and then they wonder why people pirate films!), so, my heart isn't bleeding for them yet.
Back on topic.....weren't ITV going to start a movie channel I few years ago? I guess they realised that there was nothing to show due to Sky's 'content-warehousing' policy and canned the idea.
Those prices makes the £8 per month I pay for a dozen Sky Movies/MGM HD/Disney Cinemagic channels look very good.
Erm I don't think anyone has talked about cable exclusive content - just the option for other operators to have access to the content.
Sky have bought up ALL the rights for a lot of movies for years, knowing they themselves have zero ability to utilise those rights, but that their competition have the ability to.
How is that good for the consumer?
It's like Tesco buying up every shop in the town centre as they become available, then leaving them empty, as a spoiler to stop Morrisons from being able to open a shop there (IIRC there was actually a question about that a couple of years ago, where Tesco had reportedly been buying up land that they could not use, purely to stop other supermarkets).
In short Sky's tactics have been to actively hamper progress in the market, and against the interests of the consumer (they've known for years they can't possibly compete in true VOD, so they've taken the attitude that they'll do everything they can to hamper the competition).
VM stopped being a content owner ages ago.
Yep. Before Sky Anytime+ was launched, Sky were buying up VOD rights to content when they didn't even have a VOD service.
Firstly, I am speculating on the Guardian article like everybody else in this thread including you. How does that make me any less open minded than everyone else in this thread? It's worth noting as well that many of the people posting in this thread in favour of the status quo are the same ones who have been sticking up for Murdoch in the threads about tapping Milly Dowler's phone and bribing police etc. etc. If I am anti-Murdoch it is because of the corruption in his companies and the undue influence he and his employees have had over our politicians, including threats to carry out character assassinations in their newspapers if they didn't act in Murdoch's interests. Shouldn't we all be against that and want the Murdoch empire reigned in?
That's putting a sticking plaster on the problem. Sky Movies (or other movie/sport channels etc) should not be linked to a platform. Whoever owns Sky Movies should not be part of the BSkyB platform i.e. supplying boxes, fitting dishes etc or taking a general subscription for the service.
If you do that it is then in Sky Movies interests to be on as many platforms as possible and there is less conflict with them not wanting to be on Virgin because they'd rather Virgin customers moved to BSkyB.
At the moment it's a bit like Tesco controlling food production and if you wanted to buy food from Sainsbury then Tesco would arrange the wholesale price that Sainsbury could buy it at. Far better to have independent food suppliers and that is how it should be for TV content provision.
I'd also like to see an end to the packaging deals which "force" people to get all their services from one supplier. Such deals are in my opinion anti-competitive. You should be able to choose say Virgin for broadband BSkyB for TV (without content of course) and BT for telephone without being penalised for it.
When I had Sky TV, my BB was (and still is) with O2 and my phone was (but is now with my BB) with BT.
Virgin Media do charge more for the TV if you don't have your phone line rental with them though and Sky charge slightly more if you only have BB but no tv package.
You obviously missed my quotes around "force". I obviously wasn't suggesting that you couldn't have your services from different suppliers (I do as well) just that it is more expensive and thus "forces" (note the quotes) people to be with one supplier even though they aren't the best at all of them.
I currently have VM for broadband and phone which comes with "free TV" even though the STB never has been nor never will be plugged in - it's a nonsense.
A while back, I saw an item, on the BBC, I think, where a family who existed entirely on benefits, said they couldn't cope on what they were getting, but had a large screen tv (50inch, IIRC) and most of them were shown smoking. :rolleyes:
Cigarettes are a drug though and its not easy to quit for some.
That’s not actually true, you will not find any universal studio films on lovefilm to rent. Universal didn’t like what lovefilm where willing to pay them.. So bye bye movies.
End of the day anyone can bid but looks like only sky are willing to .. BT are just as profitable as sky and if they really wanted to kick ass they could but why would they? They would rather sky pay for everything, then try and get it on the cheap, making an easy buck.
If u don’t mind cancelling sky for 2 months u can get some great deals.. I pay £36 a month for the full package + hd and £100 off making it £28 a month
I only used LoveFilm as an example I could have quite easily said Blockbuster or another company.
The point was they don't have exclusivity deals in that market so why should they in another.
Quite, but they don't want to spend billions, they want to cream off the top, and get some for themselves, without having to stump up the initial outlay.
OK Sky have a stranglehold on Pay TV, there could have been rivals, but there wasn't no-one wanted to stump up the cash for a decent alternative in case they lost money.
By now every town and village should have cable, or be on the cards to have it, but Virgin are not interested as it will cost them money, and not guaranteed to see a return, but then neither was Sky back in 1988/89!
It seems no-one has the balls to set up a new platform, maybe from 23.5 and start afresh, and getting their own deals with TV / Film Production Companies.
Equally would anybody be arsed to buy a new box and move / buy a new dish etc ?
The comparison doesn't work because of the differences between satellite and cable. Launch a satellite and the vast majority of householders can subscribe. A rural subscriber doesn't cost any more than a city subscriber. With cable you have to spend millions just to get a few subscribers if you install into rural areas.