Originally Posted by Radiomike:
“That legal team hasn't succeeded yet in getting any Sky Sports services on to their You View boxes/platform has it. SS5 will only be on the older BT Vision boxes.”
Indeed, I am not sure why you are telling me this though as I never suggested otherwise.
Originally Posted by promo-only:
“Suddenly, it's now a requirement to carry SS5 just because they're using that in place of SS3 and/or SS4?”
They are not using SS5 in place of SS3 and 4 though, a lot of what it is showing used to be on SS1 and 2. It is the primary channel for their European leagues and competitions with other channels (even including SS1 and 2) being used for alternative choices.
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Now Sky is putting the number 1 game on SS5 - so BT needs to get SS5 to maintain the status quo re the number 1 game - which (per mavreela, who I'm sure is right though I've not checked this myself) is required per Sky/BT contract as submitted in evidence to CAT appeal.”
Thanks, but unfortunately having quickly searched the hearing transcript to pull out the quote it seems I was wrong. Guarantees were only included in the original agreement for DTT distribution.
On page 64 BSkyB's counsel states "(After a pause) I am told that actually it is not a requirement under the WMO obligation. It is true that there was some protection given under the agreement which BT and Sky entered into, the original DTT distribution agreement… And the point we make is that no dispute as to that, or anything else, has arisen under the commercial agreement that could have been submitted to Ofcom under the WMO obligation."
Yet I must have overlook on page 34 where BT's counsel had said "Equally, we know they did the Cardinal IPTV deal with BT. We know that they took a tough line whereby not only did they get the rate card prices but also other protections, particularly the one that you, my Lord, thought would be obvious, that you would have to have in a commercial deal about not shifting content, they refused to give."
And on Page 63 BSkyB's counsel responded by saying: "It is worth noting, possibly also, that as far as Sky was prepared to offer comfort on content shifting again subject to reciprocity on that. I doubt you are going to go so far as to look at the term sheets but in tab 12 of bundle 6, you will find a term sheet with a reference to programming commitments, which will show you the position there."
Sadly obviously referring to confidential documents.
The hearing transcript is here:
http://www.catribunal.org.uk/files/1...g_230714-2.pdf
So it seems BT must have been willing to give up those protections in return for being able to transfer distribution from DTT to IPTV so they could launch BT Sport in its place. Although depending on the terms of the contract, even without specific content guarantees there could still be legal recourse if it constitutes a significant change overall.
It may be that BSkyB felt the need to offer SS5 to avoid that. And it would certainly go against them in the various legal proceedings if they are seen to be removing and withholding such content from BT.
Also BSkyB's position on why they offered a deal over IPTV, even though not required by the interim order, was that "if Sky were not prepared to ensure distribution by IPTV, that would have involved cutting off existing customers, which is not something that Sky wants to do." (p69) I suppose offering SS5 is consistent with that claim, where not offering it would have meant a significant reduction to those subscribers.