Indeed, and for that contract to have been broken Virgin Media would need to prove that British Telecommunications PLC (the legal entity which owns and operates BT Sport) has engaged in a wholesale agreement with itself, British Telecommunications PLC (the legal entity which owns and operates EE) for the supply of the same services in which VM pay for, in the same or substantially similar form, at an agreed price which is lower than that which is charged to Virgin Media.
That could be tricky to prove. On the face of it, Virgin can't bind BT from offering its own services to its own customers, otherwise BT wouldn't be able to offer the channels free with broadband, for example.
VM may not even be intending it to go all the way - but they may see it as useful to have litigation 'on the table' with a company that they're hoping to get a better deal from in some other area, as its discontinuation can form part of a wider, better, agreement that both sides are seeking. (e.g. Just as how VM discontinued their legal action(s) against Sky as part of the agreement under which Sky bought the Virgin Media TV channels.)
An interesting theory
In reality, if VM don't do something about their unusable TiVo, it won't matter as nobody will be watching it!
Many people (including myself after 16 years) are set to use the third price increase in a year to get shut.
We need to know what it says in the contract. The idea BT can do whatever it likes remains as ludicrous now as it was yesterday. These are already heavily regulated industries, without even considering that they have an existing contract kwith a customer to wholesale the product to it's customers on favourable terms.
The only issue is if the contract is written in such a way that a 'free for six months' contravenes the terms in any way. BT allowing EE to give its product on a free trial is no different to any other free trial or even Vodafone offering nowtv access to its customers..
BT bought EE with no restrictions imposed (they had a chance to do that). Ofcom can take years to reach any decision (look how long it took to allow sky sports on BTTV).
The only issue is if the contract is written in such a way that a 'free for six months' contravenes the terms in any way. BT allowing EE to give its product on a free trial is no different to any other free trial or even Vodafone offering nowtv access to its customers..
BT bought EE with no restrictions imposed (they had a chance to do that). Ofcom can take years to reach any decision (look how long it took to allow sky sports on BTTV).
The NowTV example is a good one, could Sky offer the same product to o2 on similar or the more favourable terms? Probably not, Vodafone would want to push that as some kind of USP and it'd be foolish if there wasn't some kind of clause in there to protect their interest. The question is how and to what extent Virgin's interest is protected in their contract. The fact BT now own EE could be largely irrelevant depending on the wording, or it could be a huge loophole Virgin could have anticipated but didn't. That's the obvious point of the challenge. It's far from simple as we don't know what it says.
…otherwise BT wouldn't be able to offer the channels free to its broadband customers, for example…
Legally they can, if Liberty Global agreed to allow BT to do so with specific services, or to ringfence existing offers which those were at the time the contract was signed.
… And since BT owns EE, EE's customers are BT's customers too, in exactly the same way.
Legally they are not, if the contract specifies specific restrictions dependent on particular products, or acquisitions, or size, or however else BT and Liberty Global decided to write the contract in such a way as to provide protection for Virgin Media. The existence of such protection being the only thing that seems not to be in doubt.
But we just do not know anything to make any reasonable guess. Legally it is quite possible that EE customers are very different to other BT customers, that EE is a very different product to BT Mobile. Maybe they are. Maybe they are not. We do not know.
So any sort of definitive statement about what either side can and cannot do is pointless, because legally BT can agree to all manner of impositions on themselves. Including ones which made sense at the time but do not with hindsight.
Indeed, and for that contract to have been broken Virgin Media would need to prove that British Telecommunications PLC (the legal entity which owns and operates BT Sport) has engaged in a wholesale agreement with itself, British Telecommunications PLC (the legal entity which owns and operates EE) for the supply of the same services which VM pay for, in the same or substantially similar form, at an agreed price which is lower than that which is charged to Virgin Media.
That could be tricky to prove. On the face of it, Virgin can't bind BT from offering its own services to its own customers, otherwise BT wouldn't be able to offer the channels free to its broadband customers, for example. And since BT owns EE, EE's customers are BT's customers too, in exactly the same way.
Ultimately the EE offering is not the same service (it's app-access only, quite specifically not TV, and apparently extra-jimmied to prevent Airplay or Chromecasting) and is in any case only a short-term offer - free for six months.
VM may not even be intending for this to go all the way - but they may see it as useful to have litigation 'on the table' with a company that they're hoping to get a better deal from in some other area, as its discontinuation can form part of a wider, better, agreement that both sides are seeking. (e.g. Just as how VM discontinued their legal action(s) against Sky as part of the agreement under which Sky bought the Virgin Media TV channels.)
The legal entity which conducts business under the EE brand is EE Limited not British Telecommunications pic. It's on EE's website. If the contracting company changed then EE would have to inform it's customers accordingly. EE Limited could rename itself eg to BT EE Limited but has not done so, at leat yet.
Legally they can, if BT agreed to such terms to restrict how they offer their services.
Legally they can, if Liberty Global agreed to allow BT to do so with specific services, or to ringfence existing offers which those were at the time the contract was signed.
You've split my sentence into two halves to disagree with them individually, which ignores the point which the sentence as a whole was making - namely that if Virgin had a contract which prevented BT itself from offering its services for 'free' to its own customers, then BT would not be able to do that, right now.
Since we know that they DO that, and that, as far as we know,Virgin has not complained about this in the last three years - we can assume that no such provision exists in the contract preventing such a thing from happening. VM will have known at the time they signed the agreement with BT that BT were offering the service 'free' to their own customers, as it had already been extensively promoted by then.
You've split my sentence into two halves to disagree with them individually, which ignores the point which the sentence as a whole was making - namely that if Virgin had a contract which prevented BT itself from offering its services to its own customers, then BT would not be able, right now, to offer that service to its own broadband customers.
No, I broke it down into its constituent parts to show why the overall point as a whole is wrong as the easiest way to explain why.
It is logically incorrect to say that were Liberty Global to have a contract which prevents BT from offering particular services to some of its customers than it necessarily prevents them offering such to any of its customers.
It is legally quite possible, which is why I was demonstrating how.
It is logically incorrect to say that were Liberty Global to have a contract which prevents BT from offering particular services to some of its customers than it necessarily prevents them offering such to any of its customers.
The demonstrated history of BT offering BT Sport to its broadband customers for 'free' indicates that there clearly can be no contractural barrier against that activity. It's not complicated.
VM will have known at the time they signed the agreement with BT that BT were offering the service 'free' to their own customers, as it had already been extensively promoted by then.
VM and BT may have agreed a definition of BT customers as those customers buying a BT-branded service. This would exclude Plusnet and EE customers. Plusnet customers pay for BT Sport so no issues there. EE customers now get a six-month free trial. Is this an issue? Possibly and BT could argue it's just a trial. Unless we see the contract and a lawyer, it's just speculation on our part.
Comments
An interesting theory
In reality, if VM don't do something about their unusable TiVo, it won't matter as nobody will be watching it!
Many people (including myself after 16 years) are set to use the third price increase in a year to get shut.
The only issue is if the contract is written in such a way that a 'free for six months' contravenes the terms in any way. BT allowing EE to give its product on a free trial is no different to any other free trial or even Vodafone offering nowtv access to its customers..
BT bought EE with no restrictions imposed (they had a chance to do that). Ofcom can take years to reach any decision (look how long it took to allow sky sports on BTTV).
The NowTV example is a good one, could Sky offer the same product to o2 on similar or the more favourable terms? Probably not, Vodafone would want to push that as some kind of USP and it'd be foolish if there wasn't some kind of clause in there to protect their interest. The question is how and to what extent Virgin's interest is protected in their contract. The fact BT now own EE could be largely irrelevant depending on the wording, or it could be a huge loophole Virgin could have anticipated but didn't. That's the obvious point of the challenge. It's far from simple as we don't know what it says.
Legally they can, if BT agreed to such terms to restrict how they offer their services.
Legally they can, if Liberty Global agreed to allow BT to do so with specific services, or to ringfence existing offers which those were at the time the contract was signed.
Legally they are not, if the contract specifies specific restrictions dependent on particular products, or acquisitions, or size, or however else BT and Liberty Global decided to write the contract in such a way as to provide protection for Virgin Media. The existence of such protection being the only thing that seems not to be in doubt.
But we just do not know anything to make any reasonable guess. Legally it is quite possible that EE customers are very different to other BT customers, that EE is a very different product to BT Mobile. Maybe they are. Maybe they are not. We do not know.
So any sort of definitive statement about what either side can and cannot do is pointless, because legally BT can agree to all manner of impositions on themselves. Including ones which made sense at the time but do not with hindsight.
Since we know that they DO that, and that, as far as we know,Virgin has not complained about this in the last three years - we can assume that no such provision exists in the contract preventing such a thing from happening. VM will have known at the time they signed the agreement with BT that BT were offering the service 'free' to their own customers, as it had already been extensively promoted by then.
No, I broke it down into its constituent parts to show why the overall point as a whole is wrong as the easiest way to explain why.
It is logically incorrect to say that were Liberty Global to have a contract which prevents BT from offering particular services to some of its customers than it necessarily prevents them offering such to any of its customers.
It is legally quite possible, which is why I was demonstrating how.
Apparently it is.
But having tried to helpfully explain how, if you wish to believe otherwise then so be it.
Unusable TiVo?
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2146098
Agreed, it'll be interesting to see how this pans out.