BT a bit nearer to getting Sky sport!

hanssolo · 17-01-2010, 00:24

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...h-with-me.html

jam2000 · 17-01-2010, 07:50

Wonder if they will also add Sky one as well?

BKM · 17-01-2010, 10:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by jam2000

Wonder if they will also add Sky one as well?

OFCOM's current review says nothing about the Sky basic channels - so perhaps unlikely!

warrior51 · 17-01-2010, 12:34

That's very considerate of you Mr.Patterson.Problem is in outlaying areas we are lucky to get 1Mb speed and in a local village they cannot use BT Broadband Friday evenings due to poor speed, and they get the usual apathetic BT response but they still take the same monthly fee for this poor service, so considering BT Vison is somewhat pointless.

...and Mr Branson, love to consider Virgin, pity that you never expanded the service to other rural areas too...

So whilst all this sabre rattling is good for cities and fast speed districts, some of us, not only have Sky but have no option but to do so. However, there is nothing wrong with competition and I hope it does result in a lowering of subscriptions, but Im content paying for the excellent HD sportchannels, not just Sky, but the Eurosport service too.

daved2424 · 17-01-2010, 13:03

dont mistake competition for trying to get something on the cheap.

sky sports are premium channels. they pay for the sports, they built up the channels.

while i agree competition is a good thing and should exist everywhere (except in places where you can't offer competition like railways), BT is demanding that sky hand over all their hard work on the cheap. if BT want to set up BT Sports 1, BT Sports 2 ... and pay for the rights themselves, then go ahead, but dont try and steal it. can you imagine other providers in the States demanding that HBO be given to them at a reduced rate? no. why? because it is ludicrous!

and on a side note BT is a dire company and it will be a shame when they go bust in a few years.

andrew164 · 17-01-2010, 13:24

After being with Sky for over 10 years I've just given them the bullet.

When I first became a subscriber I paid £34 for Sky World, but as it has now gone up to £48.50 is just too much.

There are hundreds of channels available on the platform that are just rubbish to be honest.

I'm now a BT Vision customer and prepared to give them a chance as there technology is fairly new and I can see big things happening for the service.

Regarding Sky & BT, Sky expect to utilise the copper wire infrastructure but don't want to give anything in return.

I understand that Sky aren't currently obliged to give access to channels to competition if they don't want to which seems totally anti competative. For example, when I subscribed to On Digital we only has access to SP1 initially, Sky then proceeded to put England cricket matches on SP2. Obviously they don't care about the viewers, just how much cash they can rake in.

Let's hope the vital decisions are made before the tories get in as they are up Rupert Murdochs a**e and will probably block any changes. Don't forget that they always look after rich business people.

Phew, got that off my chest.

littleboo · 17-01-2010, 13:25

Well lets hope that BT dont go bust, if it does, it will be us the tax payers footing the bill as we did with the banks.

The issue with Sky is that they control both the content and the delivery mechanism and that's what needs to change. Regardless of all the flag waving about what Sky have achieved, they have a virtual monopoly and it's not good for the consumer, so something will have to change. Cant wait.

jam2000 · 17-01-2010, 14:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by daved2424

dont mistake competition for trying to get something on the cheap.

sky sports are premium channels. they pay for the sports, they built up the channels.

while i agree competition is a good thing and should exist everywhere (except in places where you can't offer competition like railways), BT is demanding that sky hand over all their hard work on the cheap. if BT want to set up BT Sports 1, BT Sports 2 ... and pay for the rights themselves, then go ahead, but dont try and steal it. can you imagine other providers in the States demanding that HBO be given to them at a reduced rate? no. why? because it is ludicrous!

and on a side note BT is a dire company and it will be a shame when they go bust in a few years.

So Sky are allowed to use BT networks. Also BT were stopped by the governement for setting up channels when Sky first started.

knebworth85 · 17-01-2010, 14:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by jam2000

So Sky are allowed to use BT networks. Also BT were stopped by the governement for setting up channels when Sky first started.

A lot of people tend to forget that sky was given a big leg up whan the government stopped bt launching tv channels years ago.

But allowed sky to use bt networks for its BB and phone service,so sky are piggy backing on the hamstringing of other companies it would seem.

daved2424 · 17-01-2010, 14:46

there is a distinct difference between using BTs networks and giving them their channels on the cheap. BT had a monopoly on phone lines, sky had no choice (and are now actually building their own network following further deregulation). if BT want a TV channel then they can launch one.

knebworth85 · 17-01-2010, 14:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by daved2424

there is a distinct difference between using BTs networks and giving them their channels on the cheap. BT had a monopoly on phone lines, sky had no choice (and are now actually building their own network following further deregulation). if BT want a TV channel then they can launch one.

What about the govenment giving sky a leg up all those years ago by not letting bt launch tv channels that gave sky a head start that now makes it prohibitively expensive for any latecomers such as bt to compete.

Was that fair.

daved2424 · 17-01-2010, 14:54

i dont know about the circumstances, but it doesn't sound fair, but i imagine sky would like to have set up their own network earlier. if i want to set up a business i have to start from scratch, regardless of the unfair or difficult circumstances that i may have faced before. why should BT, who are a really and truely dire company, be given any special treatment?

has this "ban" only been lifted recently?

Matterhorn · 17-01-2010, 14:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by knebworth85

What about the govenment giving sky a leg up all those years ago by not letting bt launch tv channels that gave sky a head start that now makes it prohibitively expensive for any latecomers such as bt to compete.

Was that fair.

what about BT being given the entire phone network when they went private?

knebworth85 · 17-01-2010, 15:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by daved2424

i dont know about the circumstances, but it doesn't sound fair, but i imagine sky would like to have set up their own network earlier. if i want to set up a business i have to start from scratch, regardless of the unfair or difficult circumstances that i may have faced before. why should BT, who are a really and truely dire company, be given any special treatment?

has this "ban" only been lifted recently?

Hi, No trhe ban lasted for few years after privatisation and was there to stop bt with its vast reserves launching a tv service that would stop another company taking off.

When it was lifted sky already had the premiership under its wing and was making piles of cash.

But i would say however much bt is dire that if sky have the right to use bt lines for their services its only fair bt has the right to show sky sports on favourable terms.

Its not all a one way street in which sky gets plenty of access to bt without anything back.

knebworth85 · 17-01-2010, 15:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matterhorn

what about BT being given the entire phone network when they went private?

Thought that was owned by shareholders not bt as such,who after all bought the company off the government.

daved2424 · 17-01-2010, 15:09

i agree with everything you said. except what BT thinks is favourable, most other would call theft. i think that as a broadcaster and a platform sky should share their channels with other platforms, but they shouldnt be forced to give them cheaply to others, especially if it is at such a price where competitors can sell them for cheaper and still make a profit on it. does that sound like competition? not in the slightest!

knebworth85 · 17-01-2010, 15:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by daved2424

i agree with everything you said. except what BT thinks is favourable, most other would call theft. i think that as a broadcaster and a platform sky should share their channels with other platforms, but they shouldnt be forced to give them cheaply to others, especially if it is at such a price where competitors can sell them for cheaper and still make a profit on it. does that sound like competition? not in the slightest!

Bt will not be setting any prices only asking, ofcom presumably would,and skys own customers could even benefit as if bt can retail sports at lower prices then sky,sky might have to drop the price for its own subs which is also good for them.

Ofcom will know the pricing structure so know if sky can afford the drop or not.

littleboo · 17-01-2010, 15:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by daved2424

i agree with everything you said. except what BT thinks is favourable, most other would call theft. i think that as a broadcaster and a platform sky should share their channels with other platforms, but they shouldnt be forced to give them cheaply to others, especially if it is at such a price where competitors can sell them for cheaper and still make a profit on it. does that sound like competition? not in the slightest!

Thats why you have a regulator, to determine was is fair and reasonable. The same that regulator that sets the pries that BT can charge the likes of Sky for access to their network.

Matterhorn · 17-01-2010, 15:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by knebworth85

Thought that was owned by shareholders not bt as such,who after all bought the company off the government.

BT as a company, only had value to their sharehoders because they were given that Network.

letting any comnpany as bad as BT get something cheap now can only make things worse..

littleboo · 17-01-2010, 15:41

Sky will say cheap, BT will say fair, the regulator will decide. All the time Sky have control, prices will be artifically high.

17-01-2010, 15:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matterhorn

BT as a company, only had value to their sharehoders because they were given that Network.

letting any comnpany as bad as BT get something cheap now can only make things worse..

Make things worse for whom consumers,?

Matterhorn · 17-01-2010, 15:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by richard1960

Make things worse for whom consumers,?

everybody involved...

17-01-2010, 15:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matterhorn

everybody involved...

Er how if sky sports is available on more platforms surely consumers will benefit by having more choice.

Matterhorn · 17-01-2010, 15:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by littleboo

Sky will say cheap, BT will say fair, the regulator will decide. All the time Sky have control, prices will be artifically high.

Sky have always stated that they are willing to wholesale their channels.

The sticking point is that Sky want a fair price to reflect the costs and risks of seting it all up in the first place and NOT just a price that reflects the cost now.

I would hope and think that most people could understand that and think it's fair.

the untold damage to sport overall that would happen if Sky are forced to lower wholesale prices is unestimable.

Matterhorn · 17-01-2010, 15:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by richard1960

Er how if sky sports is available on more platforms surely consumers will benefit by having more choice.

its not as simple as either BT or Ofcom will report.

If their is less sport overall then how does that benefit anyone.?

less grassroots support?

less money for the EPL would mean worse players and clubs going bust.

the list could go on and on...

17-01-2010, 00:24	#1
hanssolo Forum Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 13,577	BT a bit nearer to getting Sky sport! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...h-with-me.html

17-01-2010, 07:50	#2
jam2000 Inactive Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Cambs Posts: 3,322	Wonder if they will also add Sky one as well?

17-01-2010, 10:47	#3
BKM Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,288	Quote: Originally Posted by jam2000 Wonder if they will also add Sky one as well? OFCOM's current review says nothing about the Sky basic channels - so perhaps unlikely!

17-01-2010, 12:34	#4
warrior51 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 533	That's very considerate of you Mr.Patterson.Problem is in outlaying areas we are lucky to get 1Mb speed and in a local village they cannot use BT Broadband Friday evenings due to poor speed, and they get the usual apathetic BT response but they still take the same monthly fee for this poor service, so considering BT Vison is somewhat pointless. ...and Mr Branson, love to consider Virgin, pity that you never expanded the service to other rural areas too... So whilst all this sabre rattling is good for cities and fast speed districts, some of us, not only have Sky but have no option but to do so. However, there is nothing wrong with competition and I hope it does result in a lowering of subscriptions, but Im content paying for the excellent HD sportchannels, not just Sky, but the Eurosport service too.

17-01-2010, 13:03	#5
daved2424 Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 224	dont mistake competition for trying to get something on the cheap. sky sports are premium channels. they pay for the sports, they built up the channels. while i agree competition is a good thing and should exist everywhere (except in places where you can't offer competition like railways), BT is demanding that sky hand over all their hard work on the cheap. if BT want to set up BT Sports 1, BT Sports 2 ... and pay for the rights themselves, then go ahead, but dont try and steal it. can you imagine other providers in the States demanding that HBO be given to them at a reduced rate? no. why? because it is ludicrous! and on a side note BT is a dire company and it will be a shame when they go bust in a few years.

17-01-2010, 13:24	#6
andrew164 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5	After being with Sky for over 10 years I've just given them the bullet. When I first became a subscriber I paid £34 for Sky World, but as it has now gone up to £48.50 is just too much. There are hundreds of channels available on the platform that are just rubbish to be honest. I'm now a BT Vision customer and prepared to give them a chance as there technology is fairly new and I can see big things happening for the service. Regarding Sky & BT, Sky expect to utilise the copper wire infrastructure but don't want to give anything in return. I understand that Sky aren't currently obliged to give access to channels to competition if they don't want to which seems totally anti competative. For example, when I subscribed to On Digital we only has access to SP1 initially, Sky then proceeded to put England cricket matches on SP2. Obviously they don't care about the viewers, just how much cash they can rake in. Let's hope the vital decisions are made before the tories get in as they are up Rupert Murdochs a**e and will probably block any changes. Don't forget that they always look after rich business people. Phew, got that off my chest.

17-01-2010, 13:25	#7
littleboo Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: South Coast Posts: 892	Well lets hope that BT dont go bust, if it does, it will be us the tax payers footing the bill as we did with the banks. The issue with Sky is that they control both the content and the delivery mechanism and that's what needs to change. Regardless of all the flag waving about what Sky have achieved, they have a virtual monopoly and it's not good for the consumer, so something will have to change. Cant wait.

17-01-2010, 14:31	#8
jam2000 Inactive Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Cambs Posts: 3,322	Quote: Originally Posted by daved2424 dont mistake competition for trying to get something on the cheap. sky sports are premium channels. they pay for the sports, they built up the channels. while i agree competition is a good thing and should exist everywhere (except in places where you can't offer competition like railways), BT is demanding that sky hand over all their hard work on the cheap. if BT want to set up BT Sports 1, BT Sports 2 ... and pay for the rights themselves, then go ahead, but dont try and steal it. can you imagine other providers in the States demanding that HBO be given to them at a reduced rate? no. why? because it is ludicrous! and on a side note BT is a dire company and it will be a shame when they go bust in a few years. So Sky are allowed to use BT networks. Also BT were stopped by the governement for setting up channels when Sky first started.

17-01-2010, 14:39	#9
knebworth85 Forum Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: in my flat Posts: 1,363	Quote: Originally Posted by jam2000 So Sky are allowed to use BT networks. Also BT were stopped by the governement for setting up channels when Sky first started. A lot of people tend to forget that sky was given a big leg up whan the government stopped bt launching tv channels years ago. But allowed sky to use bt networks for its BB and phone service,so sky are piggy backing on the hamstringing of other companies it would seem.

17-01-2010, 14:46	#10
daved2424 Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 224	there is a distinct difference between using BTs networks and giving them their channels on the cheap. BT had a monopoly on phone lines, sky had no choice (and are now actually building their own network following further deregulation). if BT want a TV channel then they can launch one.

17-01-2010, 14:49	#11
knebworth85 Forum Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: in my flat Posts: 1,363	Quote: Originally Posted by daved2424 there is a distinct difference between using BTs networks and giving them their channels on the cheap. BT had a monopoly on phone lines, sky had no choice (and are now actually building their own network following further deregulation). if BT want a TV channel then they can launch one. What about the govenment giving sky a leg up all those years ago by not letting bt launch tv channels that gave sky a head start that now makes it prohibitively expensive for any latecomers such as bt to compete. Was that fair.

17-01-2010, 14:54	#12
daved2424 Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 224	i dont know about the circumstances, but it doesn't sound fair, but i imagine sky would like to have set up their own network earlier. if i want to set up a business i have to start from scratch, regardless of the unfair or difficult circumstances that i may have faced before. why should BT, who are a really and truely dire company, be given any special treatment? has this "ban" only been lifted recently?

17-01-2010, 14:56	#13
Matterhorn Inactive Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 729	Quote: Originally Posted by knebworth85 What about the govenment giving sky a leg up all those years ago by not letting bt launch tv channels that gave sky a head start that now makes it prohibitively expensive for any latecomers such as bt to compete. Was that fair. what about BT being given the entire phone network when they went private?

17-01-2010, 15:06	#14
knebworth85 Forum Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: in my flat Posts: 1,363	Quote: Originally Posted by daved2424 i dont know about the circumstances, but it doesn't sound fair, but i imagine sky would like to have set up their own network earlier. if i want to set up a business i have to start from scratch, regardless of the unfair or difficult circumstances that i may have faced before. why should BT, who are a really and truely dire company, be given any special treatment? has this "ban" only been lifted recently? Hi, No trhe ban lasted for few years after privatisation and was there to stop bt with its vast reserves launching a tv service that would stop another company taking off. When it was lifted sky already had the premiership under its wing and was making piles of cash. But i would say however much bt is dire that if sky have the right to use bt lines for their services its only fair bt has the right to show sky sports on favourable terms. Its not all a one way street in which sky gets plenty of access to bt without anything back.

17-01-2010, 15:08	#15
knebworth85 Forum Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: in my flat Posts: 1,363	Quote: Originally Posted by Matterhorn what about BT being given the entire phone network when they went private? Thought that was owned by shareholders not bt as such,who after all bought the company off the government.

17-01-2010, 15:09	#16
daved2424 Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 224	i agree with everything you said. except what BT thinks is favourable, most other would call theft. i think that as a broadcaster and a platform sky should share their channels with other platforms, but they shouldnt be forced to give them cheaply to others, especially if it is at such a price where competitors can sell them for cheaper and still make a profit on it. does that sound like competition? not in the slightest!

17-01-2010, 15:15	#17
knebworth85 Forum Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: in my flat Posts: 1,363	Quote: Originally Posted by daved2424 i agree with everything you said. except what BT thinks is favourable, most other would call theft. i think that as a broadcaster and a platform sky should share their channels with other platforms, but they shouldnt be forced to give them cheaply to others, especially if it is at such a price where competitors can sell them for cheaper and still make a profit on it. does that sound like competition? not in the slightest! Bt will not be setting any prices only asking, ofcom presumably would,and skys own customers could even benefit as if bt can retail sports at lower prices then sky,sky might have to drop the price for its own subs which is also good for them. Ofcom will know the pricing structure so know if sky can afford the drop or not.

17-01-2010, 15:33	#18
littleboo Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: South Coast Posts: 892	Quote: Originally Posted by daved2424 i agree with everything you said. except what BT thinks is favourable, most other would call theft. i think that as a broadcaster and a platform sky should share their channels with other platforms, but they shouldnt be forced to give them cheaply to others, especially if it is at such a price where competitors can sell them for cheaper and still make a profit on it. does that sound like competition? not in the slightest! Thats why you have a regulator, to determine was is fair and reasonable. The same that regulator that sets the pries that BT can charge the likes of Sky for access to their network.

17-01-2010, 15:41	#20
littleboo Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: South Coast Posts: 892	Sky will say cheap, BT will say fair, the regulator will decide. All the time Sky have control, prices will be artifically high.

17-01-2010, 15:41	#21
richard1960 Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally Posted by Matterhorn BT as a company, only had value to their sharehoders because they were given that Network. letting any comnpany as bad as BT get something cheap now can only make things worse.. Make things worse for whom consumers,?

17-01-2010, 15:44	#22
Matterhorn Inactive Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 729	Quote: Originally Posted by richard1960 Make things worse for whom consumers,? everybody involved...

DS Forums

BT a bit nearer to getting Sky sport!

17-01-2010, 15:45	#23
richard1960 Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally Posted by Matterhorn everybody involved... Er how if sky sports is available on more platforms surely consumers will benefit by having more choice.

17-01-2010, 15:47	#24
Matterhorn Inactive Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 729	Quote: Originally Posted by littleboo Sky will say cheap, BT will say fair, the regulator will decide. All the time Sky have control, prices will be artifically high. Sky have always stated that they are willing to wholesale their channels. The sticking point is that Sky want a fair price to reflect the costs and risks of seting it all up in the first place and NOT just a price that reflects the cost now. I would hope and think that most people could understand that and think it's fair. the untold damage to sport overall that would happen if Sky are forced to lower wholesale prices is unestimable.

17-01-2010, 15:49	#25
Matterhorn Inactive Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 729	Quote: Originally Posted by richard1960 Er how if sky sports is available on more platforms surely consumers will benefit by having more choice. its not as simple as either BT or Ofcom will report. If their is less sport overall then how does that benefit anyone.? less grassroots support? less money for the EPL would mean worse players and clubs going bust. the list could go on and on...