sky ordered to cut wholesale prices .....

[admin_exported]

ofcom has told sky it must cut the price it charges to its rivals to show premium sports channels

they now have to sell sky sports 1 and 2 for up to 23% less to its rivals

sky said it will appeal the decision , the result of a 3 year enquiry , they said it was an unwarranted intervention , saying it will be "to the detriment of consumers"

does this mean they are going to tax their subscribers in some way ? to get back what they will lose ?

or maybe give the premier league less money ?poor players , doesnt ofcom know they are in a recession too

 

[Andy Clough]

Updated news story just published.

 

[Anonymous]

hmmm , just seen the premier league chief , richard scudamore on the news , moaning about the decision , saying its a free market etc , but what this ruling means is that sky sports will be much more available without a subscription , it should soon be available on freeview via a top up of some sort if im understanding correctly , surely thats great news for many hard up sports fans that cant afford , or dont want , a contract with sky ...

this decision has to be welcomed by all bar murdoch and his fat cat excecutives , and a few hundrded multi millionaire footballers ,

thanks ofcom , you have made my day

 

[ukdavej]

I know there will be a large number of people that are pleased about this announcement but for some reason I don't seem to share that view. I am not a fan of sky to be honest, nor am I a subscriber (I have Virgin media) but I cannot help but feel it somewhat unjust to force a company to share the spoils with its competitors. Like it or not, Sky have led the way in Sports broadcasting in the UK for the last decade and invested heavilly, not only in football but other sports as well. I cannot help but feel that rather than make it better for the consumer, we will end up worse off. Take, for example, the last time the powers that be meddled with the broadcasting of premier leagu football. Sky couldn't have all of it so others bought a collection of games and now, if you want to have all the premiere league games, as a consumer, you have to pay for Sky and ESPN. What disturbs me a little from the press statement is the following:

"However, if Sky implements the price cuts, it will be allowed to offer pay-TV services on Freeview, replacing Sky's current free channels."

Does this mean that those on the Freeviw platform who currenly enjoy, Sky sports news, Sky news, Sky 3 and the like will now not get those channels unless they have some form of top up TV. As Max points out, it may well be good for the hard up sports fans BUT....many people may be aghast at the fact that countless TV watchers don't watch the footy or don't even like watching sport and couldn't give a monkeys about any of this but are equally hard up and may end up disadvantaged themselves as a result.

 

[The_Lhc]

ukdavej:. Sky couldn't have all of it so others bought a collection of games and now, if you want to have all the premiere league games, as a consumer, you have to pay for Sky and ESPN.

And even then the number of times you sit down on a Saturday to find there's no Premier League football being broadcast at all is ridiculous.

Incidentally there was some speculation on Radio 4 this morning that Virgin, at least, may not pass on any savings at all, currently their profit margin on the sports channels is effectively nothing, so it's thought they may just leave their prices where they are and take the profit.

 

[Sorreltiger]

I also read an article which suggested that the really big games might be moved away from Sky Sports 1 or 2, so that they would only be available to 'Premium' subscribers. I'd be very surprised if Sky don't manage to work round the ruling somehow.

It's also true about dilution of coverage. If I want to carry on watching Premiership rugby at the same level as I do at present, I will have to subscribe to ESPN next season.

 

[Davro83]

I agree with UKdaveJ. I dont have sky, I have virgin but I dont see how someone can force another company to share its product just becuase its the most successful. Sky should beable to do what they want with their channels. A man/woman/company spends years building a company until they are the market leaders and someone comes along and says ' right thats enough. Its not fair on the competitors. You must share and reduce '. Its madness and unfair to sky.

 

[hammill]

Davro83:I agree with UKdaveJ. I dont have sky, I have virgin but I dont see how someone can force another company to share its product just becuase its the most successful. Sky should beable to do what they want with their channels. A man/woman/company spends years building a company until they are the market leaders and someone comes along and says ' right thats enough. Its not fair on the competitors. You must share and reduce '. Its madness and unfair to sky.I beg to differ. Companies being in a monopoly position are against the public interest. In the US, companies that become too powerful have regularly been dismantled and that is in the home of capitalism. Still, Murdoch has Cameron in his pocket ( Cameron has apparently already promised to reverse this decision) so there is a fair chance this cut will never happen.

 

[Anonymous]

Davro83:I agree with UKdaveJ. I dont have sky, I have virgin but I dont see how someone can force another company to share its product just becuase its the most successful. Sky should beable to do what they want with their channels. A man/woman/company spends years building a company until they are the market leaders and someone comes along and says ' right thats enough. Its not fair on the competitors. You must share and reduce '. Its madness and unfair to sky.i think you will find that sky didnt invent football

 

[Anonymous]

Saw on Sky News the info that Ofcom is regulating (controlling) charges from Sky to other suppliers of Sports programmes. So the questions are 1) how does this impact on you? and 2) how do you think it will hit (TV format) supplier business and 3) what will happen to Sport as a result.....

 

[Anonymous]

Let's kill this thread - Maxflinn got in first on the subject, so go with his post. Cheers!

 

[Anonymous]

hi wingedwonder , how are we going to respond ?? erm , a barbecue , a few beers , i could do a little jig , kiss my dogs

 

[Clare Newsome]

Thread now merged....

 

[Anonymous]

Is there anything to stop Sky putting the 'big' games on another premium channel, say Sky Movies, as they do for the Oscars, for instance?

 

[Davro83]

No sky didnt invent football. Dont see the relevance in that statement. I mean ESPN bought some rights to show matches. So can other channels. Why should sky have to be forced to lower their rates because other channels dont want to go for the rights themselves.

Oh and by the way im not saying im not happy with ofcoms decision, im just trying to give the viewpoint from the other side. I know if i owned sky, i wouldnt think it was fair. As in America when Microsoft had to split its company up as it was getting too big. Yes its good to do this from the point that a company can get so big no one else can stand a chance, but bad if you were the one who worked really hard to get where they are, just to be told your too successful. I mean why stop there. Why not take the money off the super rich and tell them to split it with the homeless.

 

[Anonymous]

I think it's absolutely outrageous that an un-elected body such as OFCOM can dictate policy to an open and free market. Although not investing sums themselves into the development of sport, BT and Virgin are quite willing to share in the spoils of a market that Sky have created over the last 20 years or so.

We all have a choice, subject to our own financial situation to either subscribe to Sky or not. That's part of a free market system, where subscriber levels decide how much they are willing to pay for something.

Some may consider that Sky subscriptions are high, but then consider this. A months subscription to Sky Sports 1 is £18. The average price for an adult entry to one FA Premier League game is about £35. Whose providing the best value for money? Think about all the other sports you get for your subscriptions and maybe £18/month starts to look quite good.

Sky have been innovators in this field, and whilst no one can claim BT and Virgin haven't been innovators, I don't see why Sky shouldn't reap the rewards of their heavy investment in sport, at all levels. Most people only see the Premier League and other top leagues, but the grass roots level of sport have also benefitted from Sky's subscribers' money!

The Conservatives haven't necessarily said they would reverse this decision, but they have said they would scrap OFCOM. I'm sure that most people would support fair play, but bodies like the OFCOM and the Competition Commission (and the EU) have far too much power and end up picking on easy, successful targets / companies. These companies are successful as they have provided something that people want at a price they want to pay!

The EU did fans of FA Premier League no service whatsoever, demanding that Sky lose it's monopoly. Now, if you want FAPL football you need two subscriptions! How is that in the public interest? The consumer didn't benefit at all!

 

[Anonymous]

oh yes , once the people that can afford sky keep paying for it , just let the ones who cant listen to radio 5 live , that will do them ..

innovation ? give me a break , what in the name of god did sky innovate ? more like cultivate , peoples money and all the footie rights...

the big match , match of the day , these programmes done what sky does before sky was a twinkle in don murdochs eye , how hard is it to get two or three pundits , stick em in a studio with a presenter and a couple of cameramen ?

innovation ? i think monopolization ....

 

[kena]

innovation ? i think monopolization .... Spot on - I'm sure Mr M. was thinking only about the poor viewing public when they bought their stake in ITV to stop other interests.

 

[ukdavej]

maxflinn:

oh yes , once the people that can afford sky keep paying for it , just let the ones who cant listen to radio 5 live , that will do them ..

innovation ? give me a break , what in the name of god did sky innovate ? more like cultivate , peoples money and all the footie rights...

the big match , match of the day , these programmes done what sky does before sky was a twinkle in don murdochs eye , how hard is it to get two or three pundits , stick em in a studio with a presenter and a couple of cameramen ?

innovation ? i think monopolization ....

But isn't that what a free market is all about? - I drive a Toyota Yaris but my next door neighbour has a BMW 5 series. Should BMW lower their price so I can afford one?

I really cannot believe I am taking the stand point I am to be honest, but I simply fail to agree. You have to admit its a bit more than a couple of cameras. The innovation is not with the product its how they have developed that product over the past however many years. They have invested heavilly, billions of pounds, in securing the broadcasting rights and taking the product forward. I shudder to think how many cameras are actually at each game now, but it's more than a couple. Before SKY came along, the only live footy we got was the Cup final - period. Maybe innovate is the wrong term and cultivate is more accurate but they stuck their neck out, invested and did it whilst the likes of BBC, funded by public money did nothing.

If sport is your thing, £20 quid a month is not a bad price when you consider what you get.

 

[Anonymous]

ukdavej:maxflinn:

oh yes , once the people that can afford sky keep paying for it , just let the ones who cant listen to radio 5 live , that will do them ..

innovation ? give me a break , what in the name of god did sky innovate ? more like cultivate , peoples money and all the footie rights...

the big match , match of the day , these programmes done what sky does before sky was a twinkle in don murdochs eye , how hard is it to get two or three pundits , stick em in a studio with a presenter and a couple of cameramen ?

innovation ? i think monopolization ....

But isn't that what a free market is all about? - I drive a Toyota Yaris but my next door neighbour has a BMW 5 series. Should BMW lower their price so I can afford one?

I really cannot believe I am taking the stand point I am to be honest, but I simply fail to agree. You have to admit its a bit more than a couple of cameras. The innovation is not with the product its how they have developed that product over the past however many years. They have invested heavilly, billions of pounds, in securing the broadcasting rights and taking the product forward. I shudder to think how many cameras are actually at each game now, but it's more than a couple. Before SKY came along, the only live footy we got was the Cup final - period. Maybe innovate is the wrong term and cultivate is more accurate but they stuck their neck out, invested and did it whilst the likes of BBC, funded by public money did nothing.

If sport is your thing, £20 quid a month is not a bad price when you consider what you get.

sky make an absolute fortune every year , as do the premier league footballers they bankroll , murdoch is ruthless , he would charge you for the air you breath if he could (sky air , hmmm , has a ring to it) , yes sky is undoubtedly a good service for those that choose to have it , whats the problem with yesterdays ruling ?? it just means more people can benefit from sky , more pensioners , more people that have lost their jobs , disabled people .. its a GOOD thing , and will only mean that murdoch will slip down the worlds wealthiest list by maybe a place or two .. after all that innovation and all , poor fella..

 

[Alantiggger]

maxflinn is quite right i'd say

It's quite different from 'what car you buy' ... the football is entertainment which is watched by millions and as such should be available to everyone and not to just 'who' can afford £20.00 a month. That sum might not seem so great but to many... it may be

 

[Andy TW]

Alantiggger:
maxflinn is quite right i'd say

It's quite different from 'what car you buy' ... the football is entertainment which is watched by millions and as such should be available to everyone and not to just 'who' can afford £20.00 a month. That sum might not seem so great but to many... it may be

Football is available to everybody, there's match of the day on BBC, FA cup and Champions league on ITV, europa cup on Five and for around £10 some Premier league on ESPN.Just because live football's popular why should it be available at a price fixed by OFCOM rather than market forces?
BT and Virgin are hardly small impoverished companies and could afford to bid for rights to Premiership Football and/or Films but instead chose to complain because Sky (which has invested money in building it's business) has bought the rights to most of the popular programing.Personally I think it is a bigger problem that Sky controls both the content and the distribution system making it very hard to break it's control over the pay TV market, particularly as Virgin and BT services are restricted in their availability.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Alantiggger:maxflinn is quite right i'd say

It's
quite different from 'what car you buy' ... the football is entertainment which is watched by millions and as such should be available to everyone and not to just 'who' can afford £20.00 a month. That sum might not seem so great but to many... it may be

Trying going down to your local Premier League ground and saying you can't afford the admission price, but because it's 'the people's game' and your birthright they should let you in for a quid...

 

[matthewpiano]

Sky revolutionised TV and, whether you like them or not, they have invested massive resources in maintaining market leadership. Of course it is all in the name of making money, but isn't that the purpose of business?

Why should BT and Virgin be able to fill their boots off the back of Sky's investment?

 

[Anonymous]

Whatever happened to Sky`s VOD (video on demand) service? Things seem to have gone very quiet over this lately.

http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-vod-services-must-pay-375000-to-regulate-themselves/

One possible hurdle migh be the ongoing battle with OFCOM, though there is some news form indiatelevision.com

http://www.indiantelevision.com/headlines/y2k10/apr/apr16.php