[Transient1]

Originally Posted by Like_I_care

What competition do they have for 100mb broadband? I know I have emailed OFCOM saying it needs to be looked into again.

Why are you happy for Sky to have a monopoly with sports and movies but unhappy about Virgin having faster broadband speeds? If one issue needs sorting out then so should the other. I would be happy for action to be taken against Sky's competitors as long as Sky's monopoly were broken up. Perhaps if it were done in such a way it would benefit the customer. What you are suggesting is to give the dominant player in the market even more of a monopoly.

[Like_I_care]

Originally Posted by Transient1

I thought your 16mb Sky broadband was as good as VM's 100mb? That is the impression you want to give anyway. You can't have it both ways Like_I_Care.

I wouldn't have VM again but thats personal choice, All I'm doing is adding to the debate and what do you mean both ways?

I can actually have both as I live in a cabled area, I choose Sky and doubt I will ever go back to VM as Sky should have 80mb unlimited/unmanaged fibre in my area by 30th June.

[BenMcr77]

Originally Posted by Like_I_care

What competition do they have for 100mb broadband? I know I have emailed OFCOM saying it needs to be looked into again.

What competition?

Sky, BT and TalkTalk
http://www.productsandservices.bt.co...?topicId=33828
http://recombu.com/digital/news/sky-...et_M10333.html

[Like_I_care]

Originally Posted by Transient1

Why are you happy for Sky to have a monopoly with sports and movies but unhappy about Virgin having faster broadband speeds? If one issue needs sorting out then so should the other. I would be happy for action to be taken against Sky's competitors as long as Sky's monopoly were broken up. Perhaps if it were done in such a way it would benefit the customer. What you are suggesting is to give the dominant player in the market even more of a monopoly.

If you read my post I said Sky SHOULD be forced to offer Movies/Sports at a reasonable price. I don't know if I will have Sky forever.

I may move to house that cannot receive Sky or isn't allowed a Sat-Dish due to local council laws. So if I can't have Sky I want my next provider to have Sports/Movie at a sensible cost.

Sky should be allowed some exclusive content as thats al it has as a USP. Once everyone can get 100Mb bb etc then I would agree with perhaps splitting Sky.

Split it into content owner, creator and content delivery platform. It should then sell all its content to all providers. But as long as eachcompany has its own USP (Skys being content) then it will and should be allowed some exclusive content.

[Transient1]

Originally Posted by Like_I_care

If you read my post I said Sky SHOULD be forced to offer Movies/Sports at a reasonable price. I don't know if I will have Sky forever.

I may move to house that cannot receive Sky or isn't allowed a Sat-Dish due to local council laws. So if I can't have Sky I want my next provider to have Sports/Movie at a sensible cost.

Sky should be allowed some exclusive content as thats al it has as a USP. Once everyone can get 100Mb bb etc then I would agree with perhaps splitting Sky.

Split it into content owner, creator and content delivery platform. It should then sell all its content to all providers. But as long as eachcompany has its own USP (Skys being content) then it will and should be allowed some exclusive content.

Well then we are in agreement except I don't see why one of Sky's competitors has to be first to give up their USP. Sky is the dominant player. Split them up first or at the same time. Why damage one of their competitors when they are so dominant?

[PeacockAntony]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The costs were incurred by giving away or heavily subsidising satellite receivers and installation plus taking a punt on football rights.
Sky is a very well-run company and did not make the kind of mistakes that ONDigital did. However, it was considerably aided by regulations that tied its competitors' hands behind their backs:
* BT was not allowed to sell television services until very recently.
* Cable TV was held back as initially incumbent Redifussion was limited to the services it could deliver. When the cable industry was eventually reformed, it was via a flawed series of local franchises. This led to the fragmentation of an industry that had spent billions laying cable networks meaning its content acquisition and marketing costs did not enjoy the scale that Sky could.
* Satellite competitor BSB which was officially UK licensed was compelled by regulations to use expensive technology and to purchase and launch two satellites. Whereas Sky could use existing technology and just rent space on Astra.

ONDigital failed because of News Corp and NDS hacking the system to make it fail so they removed their competition.

Originally Posted by Like_I_care

OFCOM do a great job, VM Customers need to understand why OFCOM are there and its to ensure where things are unfair they help make it fair.

So Sky have most of the movies and most of the football that is unfair,as they could over charge BT/Virgin/Smallworld but OFCOM ensure the price is reasonable.

But TV is not really that essential as every gets access to the BBC/ITV/C4/C5 ect for free. Premium TV is a money making business and Sky need a selling point. A reason why people in the 50% of the UK in cabled areas will choose Sky.

They can't compete on broadband speeds, they don't have TiVo as its exclusive to Virginmedia so they have to use content. Virginmedia just want an unlevel playing field where Virgin have exclusive TiVo all Sky channels whilst at the same time locking out anyone from access to the 12 million home homes on there cable network.


Lets look at the choice for a home in the cable network area.

Virginmedia.
upto 100Mb BB
Tivo
All Sky sports and movie channels

Sky
Average use get 6mb
No Tivo
Sky atlantic and a few other HD channels.

THAT IS PERFECTLY FAIR

Sky competition for TV.

Freeview
Freesat
Virginmedia
BT vision


Virginmedias competition for 100mb
????? NONE!

BT are rolling out their own fibre network, it is not VM's fault that they currently have no competition for 100mb internet though is it.

Originally Posted by Like_I_care

If you read my post I said Sky SHOULD be forced to offer Movies/Sports at a reasonable price. I don't know if I will have Sky forever.

I may move to house that cannot receive Sky or isn't allowed a Sat-Dish due to local council laws. So if I can't have Sky I want my next provider to have Sports/Movie at a sensible cost.

Sky should be allowed some exclusive content as thats al it has as a USP. Once everyone can get 100Mb bb etc then I would agree with perhaps splitting Sky.

Split it into content owner, creator and content delivery platform. It should then sell all its content to all providers. But as long as eachcompany has its own USP (Skys being content) then it will and should be allowed some exclusive content.

Sky set the wholesale price on Sky Sport for other providers, to make it less favourable over Sky itself, it has nothing to do with Virgin Media.

So Sky are allowed to have USP in exclusive content, but Virgin Media are not allowed to have USP in fast fibre broadband? You sir, are a hypocrite.

[Transient1]

Originally Posted by PeacockAntony

ONDigital failed because of News Corp and NDS hacking the system to make it fail so they removed their competition.

I think Ondigital failed for several reasons although card piracy must have been a factor. Whether NDS were involved in that is unproven though. I agree with your point about USP's though. Some forum members seem to want the most dominant player to keep theirs whilst taking away their competitors. It doesn't make sense.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by PeacockAntony

ONDigital failed because of News Corp and NDS hacking the system to make it fail so they removed their competition.

This did not help but Sky did not make ONDigital's mistakes - poor EPG, weak signal in many areas, set top boxes sold at below cost with no means of enforcing subscription, over-paying for football league rights.

Originally Posted by PeacockAntony

Sky set the wholesale price on Sky Sport for other providers, to make it less favourable over Sky itself, it has nothing to do with Virgin Media..

The wholesale prices for SkySports 1 & 2 SD are set by Ofcom. The other sports channels including HD are negotiated between the platform owners (Virgin Media, TalkTalk) and Sky. Why would Sky or anyone else make things less favourable for themselves?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Transient1

Some forum members seem to want the most dominant player to keep theirs whilst taking away their competitors. It doesn't make sense.

I agree - competition's a positive thing and it's kept the UK at the forefront of pay tv. If Sky had no competition it would not need to innovate.

[BenMcr77]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The wholesale prices for SkySports 1 & 2 SD are set by Ofcom. The other sports channels including HD are negotiated between the platform owners (Virgin Media, TalkTalk) and Sky. Why would Sky or anyone else make things less favourable for themselves?

Actually Sky Sports HD 1 & 2 are now also regulated by OFCOM - it's why Virgin Media get them but not HD 3 and 4.

It's Sky Movies HD which isn't OFCOM regulated - and Virgin got them as part of the deal for selling Living TV to Sky

[Transient1]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

This did not help but Sky did not make ONDigital's mistakes - poor EPG, weak signal in many areas, set top boxes sold at below cost with no means of enforcing subscription, over-paying for football league rights.

The wholesale prices for SkySports 1 & 2 SD are set by Ofcom. The other sports channels including HD are negotiated between the platform owners (Virgin Media, TalkTalk) and Sky. Why would Sky or anyone else make things less favourable for themselves?

I'm not sure that is true is it? I thought OFCOM had told Sky to reduce the price they charge other platforms but Sky had appealed against the decision?

[BenMcr77]

Originally Posted by Transient1

I'm not sure that is true is it? I thought OFCOM had told Sky to reduce the price they charge other platforms but Sky had appealed against the decision?

They appealed but still had to reduce it in the meantime http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-slashed.html

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by BenMcr77

They appealed but still had to reduce it in the meantime http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-slashed.html

Did Sky lose the appeal or is it still ongoing since 2010?

[Transient1]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Did Sky lose the appeal or is it still ongoing since 2010?

I've been googling that to try and find out. I can't find anything which might suggest it is still ongoing.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by BenMcr77

Actually Sky Sports HD 1 & 2 are now also regulated by OFCOM - it's why Virgin Media get them but not HD 3 and 4.

It's Sky Movies HD which isn't OFCOM regulated - and Virgin got them as part of the deal for selling Living TV to Sky

Interesting, thanks Ben. Makes me wonder why a certain prospective satellite TV platform did not propose to show SkySports 1 & 2 in HD but that's another kettle of fish altogether!

[BenMcr77]

Originally Posted by Transient1

I've been googling that to try and find out. I can't find anything which might suggest it is still ongoing.

Indeed http://www.catribunal.org.uk/237-654...g-Limited.html

The appeals in Cases 1156/8/3/10, 1157/8/3/10, 1158/8/3/10 and 1159/8/3/10 were heard together between 9 May 2011 and 15 July 2011. Judgment is pending.

[Transient1]

Originally Posted by BenMcr77

Indeed http://www.catribunal.org.uk/237-654...g-Limited.html

Thanks.

[carl.waring]

Originally Posted by Like_I_care

Sky built its own TV network from almost bankruptcy and £billions of debt.

So a lot like VM then; who have only this year actually turned a profit for the first time

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by BenMcr77

The appeals in Cases 1156/8/3/10, 1157/8/3/10, 1158/8/3/10 and 1159/8/3/10 were heard together between 9 May 2011 and 15 July 2011. Judgment is pending.

How long does it take to make a judgment? I assume it's normal and there's stuff happening in the background but a year is a long time in the media business.

[brynhyfrydd]

I think VM are stupid by not opening up their network.

If VM pass say 12 Million homes but only serve about 4 Million then that is loss of a potential 8 Million homes. Surely if VM opened up the network then it would benefit themselves the most as they would at least be earning additional revenue.

[BenMcr77]

Originally Posted by brynhyfrydd

Surely if VM opened up the network then it would benefit themselves the most as they would at least be earning additional revenue.

How? If people don't want cable from Virgin Media, why would they suddenly want it from another company

[gother]

Originally Posted by BenMcr77

How? If people don't want cable from Virgin Media, why would they suddenly want it from another company

Better customer service?
sorry couldn't resist

[BenMcr77]

Originally Posted by gother

Better customer service?
sorry couldn't resist

Personally I'd think introducing a 3rd party would make it worse

Having two companies involved to arrange an install or fix a fault must be worse that one as there is more to go wrong

[gother]

Originally Posted by BenMcr77

Personally I'd think introducing a 3rd party would make it worse

Having two companies involved to arrange an install or fix a fault must be worse that one as there is more to go wrong

Not really here's where VM could make a killing do the same as most ADSL providers only BT Openreach install new lines and do repairs. So VM could maybe have it that only VM engineers install new lines , do repairs ect.
VM get to make more profit whilst customers have more choice which can only be good as it could make fibre optic broadband cheaper for the consumer whereas still keeping VM maintaining the network themselves ect.

[BenMcr77]

Originally Posted by gother

Not really here's where VM could make a killing do the same as most ADSL providers only BT Openreach install new lines and do repairs. So VM could maybe have it that only VM engineers install new lines , do repairs ect.
VM get to make more profit whilst customers have more choice which can only be good as it could make fibre optic broadband cheaper for the consumer whereas still keeping VM maintaining the network themselves ect.

ntl did exactly that with AOL many years ago. It did not go well

Also, I can't see why it would be more profit for Virgin, they would make less per connection than they currently do, nor can I see why it would make broadband cheaper.

Virgin Media already compete with most other ISPs in their coverage areas and broadband is already very cheap for the speed/cost ratio

Anyway, Virgin's cable network is build differently to BTs. It would be fairly difficult to stop different provider's traffic from affecting each other.