Originally Posted by Jason C:
“The consumer will win if they're the consumer who up to now have not been able to watch any premium sport because they've not been able to or willing to pay for Sky, as they will be able to access some premium sport from BT Sport at a cheaper price.
The consumer will not win if they're the consumer who up to now have been able to watch most of the premium sport through Sky, but will now find themselves having to subscribe to both Sky and BT to continue to access that same level of content - and I maintain that the cost of both subscriptions combined will be greater than a Sky subscription would have been even if they had still had their pre-BT rights monopoly.
And what if Sky consumers want to continue receiving their entertainment channels?
The fact of the matter is that this development puts all Sky Sports subscribers in the position of choosing whether to lose content or lose money.”
Yeah, I agree the cost of two subs initially will be higher, but that's because we've existed in an overinflated, monopoly market where Sky have been able to charge for subs, and bid for rights, pretty much what they like, and rights holders aren't going to suddenly drop their prices when they've already paid premium prices for those rights, but if they're now having to be more competitive against a rival broadcaster slowly over time they will have to. I find it shocking that people believe a monopoly market is better than all out competition. Brainwashed by Sky rhetoric for too many years.
If people want to have the Entertainment package then they'd be paying for the Entertainment package. Sky is a business and not going to give anything away for free, but at the moment you can't get the sports package without Entertainment, which is simply wrong. An example of a monopoly causing reduced choice, and higher overall cost.