[wwwebber]

Interesting stuff :-

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcas...ge-to-sky.html

It would be good if BT & the regulators could pull this off. How would they broadcast it though ? - answers on a postcard please

[betsvigi9]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwwebber

Interesting stuff :-

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcas...ge-to-sky.html

It would be good if BT & the regulators could pull this off. How would they broadcast it though ? - answers on a postcard please

Dunno how they would do it, but presumably the same way that Tiscali do and I don't know how they do it either!

I cannot see Sk$ agreeing to this without putting up a huge fight as it would represent serious competition for them. OK, they would get their wholesale fee for each subscriber, but they would miss out on the minimum extra £20 ish that they would get if they sold the whole Sk$ package. It would represent a proper alternative to having to get a satelite dish and presumably Virgin would follow suit.

Fighting talk, but sadly can't see it happening in 2010/11; add on a couple of years and maybe. However, with a likely change of government next year and the Tories outward hostility to Ofcom, not entirely without reason but not in this case, it will more likely just get kicked into the long grass. I'm sure Rupert will be spending some of his dosh lining the pockets of a few friendly MP's to make sure.

[MrInfo]

With a company like Sk$, the motto normally goes:

"If the price is right".... Anythings possible.

[stuntmaster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwwebber

Interesting stuff :-

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcas...ge-to-sky.html

It would be good if BT & the regulators could pull this off. How would they broadcast it though ? - answers on a postcard please

They'd broadcast it same way as tiscali do.

multicasting.

makes sense, rollout of ADSL2 seems to be in the works, testing of multicast channels proven (saw some screenshots of them here somewhere had setanta news on there)

offcome pushing sky to wholesale its channels....


all fits like a puzzle.

[intercept]

Here's the full Independent article. It hints at an evolutionary link between Vision and Project Canvas.

[paulpocket]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuntmaster

They'd broadcast it same way as tiscali do.

multicasting.

makes sense, rollout of ADSL2 seems to be in the works, testing of multicast channels proven (saw some screenshots of them here somewhere had setanta news on there)

offcome pushing sky to wholesale its channels....

all fits like a puzzle.

I was looking at the Tiscali TV website earlier. How do they broadcast the extra channels/what is multicasting?

is it just live channels down the internet rather than on demand?

[intercept]

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulpocket

IHow do they broadcast the extra channels/what is multicasting?

is it just live channels down the internet rather than on demand?

Yes. Multicasting is where a single stream is sent out by the servers to which many customers can 'connect'. Given sufficient network bandwidth many multicast streams can be sent, hence creating the effect of channels. But, just like normal TV, individual customers aren't able to control the programme start time or pause/FF/rew.

VOD requires a unicast stream to be sent to each customer. This requires more network bandwidth but gives customers more choice and control.

[stuntmaster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by intercept

Yes. Multicasting is where a single stream is sent out by the servers to which many customers can 'connect'. Given sufficient network bandwidth many multicast streams can be sent, hence creating the effect of channels. But, just like normal TV, individual customers aren't able to control the programme start time or pause/FF/rew.

VOD requires a unicast stream to be sent to each customer. This requires more network bandwidth but gives customers more choice and control.

so if BT Vision is already doing uni cast, thenw hats stopping them doing bog standard multicast!?

[wwwebber]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuntmaster

so if BT Vision is already doing uni cast, thenw hats stopping them doing bog standard multicast!?

Hardware.

Multicast hardware to be exact. Does Mediaroom support multicast ? -I dont know.

[stuntmaster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwwebber

Hardware.

Multicast hardware to be exact. Does Mediaroom support multicast ? -I dont know.

ahh you mean at their end.

well I think mediaroom probably does support it. I know Mio TV (singapore) uses mediaroom and they got live channels i think.

EDIT: checked their site and they do support live channels. seems to be cable driven. point is they use mediaroom.

I know media center can support web based TV. so why couldn't mediaroom?

cmon BT get the hardware in!

[Matterhorn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwwebber

Interesting stuff :-

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcas...ge-to-sky.html

It would be good if BT & the regulators could pull this off. How would they broadcast it though ? - answers on a postcard please

awful journalism and awful title.....

the story says 'BT plans to...' but then quotes MD Marc Watson as saying 'wants to..' .................drastically different.

regulators shouldn't get involved, and remember Marc Watson is a NEW CEO trying to make a splash. Dan Marks, a more experienced and arguably more talented exec left BT citing 'frustration with the pay TV market' ..... now Watson comes in with all this bluster about Sky sports. If Marks thought it was going to happen soon then why wouldn't he stay?

lots of talk but as yet no action..... typical BT.

As Virgin have announced a deal with ESPN today then maybe he should try and concentrate on that first? No chance with SKY if he can't do a deal with ESPN.

Seeing as ESPN will cost approx a tenner on Sky then there is ZERO chance that BT will get the full suite of SS for £15. The guy is having a giraffe.

Jeremy Darroch

He particularly claimed that BT and Virgin Media "do not deserve to be handed a reward at Sky's expense for their repeated failure to invest" and that Sky should not have to "compensate for the higher costs of less efficient platforms".

very true.... and then this news article...

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitalt...ky-sports.html

especially this...

The spokesperson explained: "The problem with Ofcom's proposals is that it expects Sky to go on making all the investments and taking all the risks, while the likes of BT get to buy Sky Sports at a knock-down, risk-free price that is less than the channels are really worth. That is neither fair, nor in the interests of competition."


cheapskates get what they deserve...

[Matterhorn]

oh and the EPL ain't too happy either...... so if it went to court, it would be Sky and the EPL and probably all the other sports (Rugby, Cricket etc..) versus Ofcom..!

hmmm.... tricky that one...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...TV-market.html

[Matterhorn]

more common sense...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...-on-BSkyB.html

[scotty2808]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matterhorn

more common sense...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...-on-BSkyB.html

i am all for Sky Wholesale so channels are separate from the distribution platform.

in the story linked the journo says it too

Quote:

If Virgin or BT want to show top-notch football they can either buy it off Sky wholesale or bid for the rights direct the next time the Premier League sells them.

come one Sky - get a proper wholesale model in place!

[spaceman05]

i get the feeling that matterhorn must hold shares in sky, seems to come into a bt vision forum bigging up sky all the time, and saying bt have no money, no matter what the thread is about

[samsung07]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matterhorn

more common sense...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...-on-BSkyB.html

Far better is this quote as it about sums up things from the head of Vision service

http://www.itvt.com/story/5289/bt-vi...res-television

"We have a great deal of respect for [BSkyB]," Watson continued, "both in terms of their corporation and their executives, we have very good personal relationships there. I think what we need is a grown-up, commercial, sensible relationship with them, going forward, in which we can sell their products, make them some money and make ourselves some money, too."

Seems to me that Sky are trying to cloud things by altering their price structure to try and give the illusion that their Sports package costs more than it does.

The whole argument is complex but boils down to one of equal access. No one is saying that Sky shouldn't reap then benefits of investment but when you are the dominent supplier then rightly things need to be looked at and there is no denying that Sky are in that position in the pay for view market.

Only someone as one sided as Matterhorn or who is influenced by the Murdoch press machine can't see that the setting of a realistic and regulated wholesale price would be a good thing for all.

[Matterhorn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samsung07

Far better is this quote as it about sums up things from the head of Vision service

http://www.itvt.com/story/5289/bt-vi...res-television

"We have a great deal of respect for [BSkyB]," Watson continued, "both in terms of their corporation and their executives, we have very good personal relationships there. I think what we need is a grown-up, commercial, sensible relationship with them, going forward, in which we can sell their products, make them some money and make ourselves some money, too."

Seems to me that Sky are trying to cloud things by altering their price structure to try and give the illusion that their Sports package costs more than it does.

The whole argument is complex but boils down to one of equal access. No one is saying that Sky shouldn't reap then benefits of investment but when you are the dominent supplier then rightly things need to be looked at and there is no denying that Sky are in that position in the pay for view market.

Only someone as one sided as Matterhorn or who is influenced by the Murdoch press machine can't see that the setting of a realistic and regulated wholesale price would be a good thing for all.

but no one really wants it..!!

the customers don't want it judging by Sky's increasing customer numbers and the pitiful numbers for both BTV and TUTV, the content owners certainly don't want it.

the only people who want it are the cheapskates both consumer and corporate.

Sky are happy to wholesale at a price that reflects their investment over the years and the risks they have taken to build THEIR business.... not just a price that reflects a perceived value now in a depressed market.

if Sky believes they are losing value in the market then they will simply pull the plug, who does that benefit?

no one.....

oh and Watson is clueless, Marks had some idea...probably why he has left.

....

Premium content is just that – premium. Why should any company, be it a newspaper or supermarket, be forced to wholesale their best selling products to rivals at prices set by the government? It's nonsensical.


Its not a complex issue at all. BT want/need more and better content and instead of building a business themselves they want the regulator to hand it to them.... it is a disgrace.

[stuntmaster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matterhorn

but no one really wants it..!!

the customers don't want it judging by Sky's increasing customer numbers and the pitiful numbers for both BTV and TUTV, the content owners certainly don't want it.

the only people who want it are the cheapskates both consumer and corporate.

Sky are happy to wholesale at a price that reflects their investment over the years and the risks they have taken to build THEIR business.... not just a price that reflects a perceived value now in a depressed market.

if Sky believes they are losing value in the market then they will simply pull the plug, who does that benefit?

no one.....

oh and Watson is clueless, Marks had some idea...probably why he has left.

....

Premium content is just that – premium. Why should any company, be it a newspaper or supermarket, be forced to wholesale their best selling products to rivals at prices set by the government? It's nonsensical.


Its not a complex issue at all. BT want/need more and better content and instead of building a business themselves they want the regulator to hand it to them.... it is a disgrace.

so we should all pay through the nose then?

I CANT GET A BLOODY DISH so I welcome it.

also its not just wholesale it also breaks the monopoly. so everyone gets a level playing field. sky active red button on sky sports is ONLY avaliable by the dish so. stop being a sky fanboy matterhorn.

[samsung07]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matterhorn

but no one really wants it..!!

the customers don't want it judging by Sky's increasing customer numbers and the pitiful numbers for both BTV and TUTV, the content owners certainly don't want it.

the only people who want it are the cheapskates both consumer and corporate.

Sky are happy to wholesale at a price that reflects their investment over the years and the risks they have taken to build THEIR business.... not just a price that reflects a perceived value now in a depressed market.

if Sky believes they are losing value in the market then they will simply pull the plug, who does that benefit?

no one.....

oh and Watson is clueless, Marks had some idea...probably why he has left.

....

Premium content is just that – premium. Why should any company, be it a newspaper or supermarket, be forced to wholesale their best selling products to rivals at prices set by the government? It's nonsensical.


Its not a complex issue at all. BT want/need more and better content and instead of building a business themselves they want the regulator to hand it to them.... it is a disgrace.

Well the only clueless one here is you as this post just sums up you and your one eyed pony stance. Marks left as he couldn't build the market share and that's the simple fact.

Sky show their contempt for it's subscribers by putting up it's prices and the use this as an opportunity to deflect the flack. As to any suggestion that Sky would pull the plug if anything threatened their market share then it really does show you up as a gullible sky fanatic who will believe any old c*** that Sky put out.

I could use the same argument about Sky and it's provision of ADSL where it just targets and creams the areas it makes the most profit from leaving others to take on the some of the more difficult delivery areas but I believe Ofcom did do something right to make the market bigger for all and that benefited Sky then. Now it is on the other foot then Sky don't like it but again Ofcom are doing the right thing as it will make the whole market better apart from in the eyes of a few rampant Sky fanatics like you.

[1andrew1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matterhorn

Its not a complex issue at all. BT want/need more and better content and instead of building a business themselves they want the regulator to hand it to them.... it is a disgrace.

BT do not want the regulator to hand them anything, they just want to pay a fair price.

This is accepted as good practice globally: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/cond...tv/annex11.pdf

Sat here as a consumer, call me old fashioned, I can only see this as a good thing!

[Matterhorn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

BT do not want the regulator to hand them anything, they just want to pay a fair price.

This is accepted as good practice globally: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/cond...tv/annex11.pdf

Sat here as a consumer, call me old fashioned, I can only see this as a good thing!

well its the definition of fair price then, putting aside the point that Ofcom can regulate this (which I think is crazy but still)

Sky want a price to reflect the risks taken and the expense they went to in the past to build their business. Sky's operating model is based on the basic package plus premium add ons (Movies, Sports etc.) and there is no way that Ofcom can accurately gauge the true wholesale cost. Add to that the fact that the EU have already ruled on Monopoly in the EPL.

Surely the rights holders themselves should have the greatest say? and they are more than happy with Sky.

As a consumer then how can this be a good thing?

If Sky are forced to concede ground then all that will happen is that overall investment in UK sport overall will drop, how anyone thinks thats good I really don't know. Clubs going bust?

tremendous..

[Matterhorn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuntmaster

so we should all pay through the nose then?

I CANT GET A BLOODY DISH so I welcome it.

also its not just wholesale it also breaks the monopoly. so everyone gets a level playing field. sky active red button on sky sports is ONLY avaliable by the dish so. stop being a sky fanboy matterhorn.

Pay through the nose?

BT broadband prices ring any bells here? Pot Kettle?

In Sky LLU areas it is MUCH cheaper to have everything with Sky rather than BT. In non LLU the value proposition is about the same...bearing in mind there is nothing on BTV that hasn't been on FREEview before.

You need to knock this Sky = expensive, BT = cheap argument on the head.... it is nonsense.

If you can't put a dish up then move, thats YOUR choice. I can't get cable, life isn't fair, it was never meant to be.

A level playing field , are you completely nuts?

Company A sets up, has a business model and investors and becomes successful and the dominant player in the market. It does this legally.

Company B then moans that it doesn't have any of A's products and so instead of creating it's own business in the area it goes to the government and requests intervention.

Where is the reward for investment/skill and innovation? Where is the free market economy?

what next.... facism??

again..

Premium content is just that – premium. Why should any company, be it a newspaper or supermarket, be forced to wholesale their best selling products to rivals at prices set by the government? It's nonsensical.

unarguable.

[Matterhorn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samsung07

Well the only clueless one here is you as this post just sums up you and your one eyed pony stance. Marks left as he couldn't build the market share and that's the simple fact.

Sky show their contempt for it's subscribers by putting up it's prices and the use this as an opportunity to deflect the flack. As to any suggestion that Sky would pull the plug if anything threatened their market share then it really does show you up as a gullible sky fanatic who will believe any old c*** that Sky put out.

I could use the same argument about Sky and it's provision of ADSL where it just targets and creams the areas it makes the most profit from leaving others to take on the some of the more difficult delivery areas but I believe Ofcom did do something right to make the market bigger for all and that benefited Sky then. Now it is on the other foot then Sky don't like it but again Ofcom are doing the right thing as it will make the whole market better apart from in the eyes of a few rampant Sky fanatics like you.

Marks couldn't build Market share and left and yet a less talented CEO full of hot air will?

hmm.. nice argument.


Didn't BT just recently put up line rental charges with what justification?

'we aren't very good, we are skint, can we have more money'

??

Contempt for subscribers?

Sky?

really? is that why they have just announced the biggest increase in subscriber numbers for 5 years? Lots of people voting with their feet there!

remember that this is in the face of more competition and in the biggest recession our generation will likely to face. It just makes all your points more ridiculous (if thats possible) than they already were.

Sky are actually taking core BT customers for bband and phone not the other way round.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitalt...y-profits.html

[scotty2808]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matterhorn

really? is that why they have just announced the biggest increase in subscriber numbers for 5 years? Lots of people voting with their feet there!

remember that this is in the face of more competition and in the biggest recession our generation will likely to face. It just makes all your points more ridiculous (if thats possible) than they already were.

Sky are actually taking core BT customers for bband and phone not the other way round.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitalt...y-profits.html

agreed but you fail to acknowledge

1. setanta going under will have driven people to take sky over the last 2months.

2. sky also put up prices for broadband

3. sky is the only place for proper HD right now. with costs plummeting on flat panels the market is coming to fruition and the only real place for those wanting HD content.

i think the HD side of things is the major growth factor, Setanta going bust will have helped boost subs in the final part of the reporting period.


as a side note - try to balance up your arguments as it's all one sided and monotonous tbh.

[Matterhorn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scotty2808

agreed but you fail to acknowledge

1. setanta going under will have driven people to take sky over the last 2months.

2. sky also put up prices for broadband

3. sky is the only place for proper HD right now. with costs plummeting on flat panels the market is coming to fruition and the only real place for those wanting HD content.

i think the HD side of things is the major growth factor, Setanta going bust will have helped boost subs in the final part of the reporting period.


as a side note - try to balance up your arguments as it's all one sided and monotonous tbh.

1. Disagree, Sky acknowledge the massive draw the EPL has for its subscribers. No EPL in the last 6-7 weeks means less of a reason to get a sports pack of any kind. The Ashes may be a draw to get Sky but they were never going to be anywhere else.

2. Did they? wasn't that only if you didn't take their line rental?

3. Agree about HD but HD penetration in the UK is still a minority figure, ally this to the lack of HD boxes (see Sky forums) then I suspect the growth here could have been much higher.