I'll believe it when i see it...

Sky has been ordered to reduce the cost of its sports and film
packages for rivals by media regulator Ofcom.

The watchdog wants the satellite broadcaster to sell its premium
output at more competitive rates, in a move that could spark a pay-TV
price war. It could also lead to blockbuster films and Premier League
football matches being broadcast on a range of platforms, including
digital terrestrial services such as Freeview.

In December last year, rival broadcasters Setanta, Virgin Media TV, BT
Vision and Top Up TV complained to Ofcom that Sky had an unhealthy
dominance in the UK pay-TV market. The regulator has agreed that Sky
was distorting the market. It said the broadcaster was likely to limit
the distribution of premium sports and films to its rivals, because of
a 'desire to limit the ability of other retailers to compete
properly'.

It also suggested Sky had been able to set wholesale prices to rivals
'above a competitive level'.

Ofcom is now launching a consultation about whether to regulate the
prices set by BskyB for content on its Sky channels. It warned it
would use the Communications Act to ensure that the satellite
broadcaster met its requirements.

A senior source said: 'Consumers will benefit hugely if Sky is forced
to sell its output to rivals at more competitive prices. What it will
mean is that a larger number of service providers will be able to
offer the same content, which will almost certainly bring down prices.
It also means that audiences have a wider choice of what technology
they use to watch premium sport and film.'

In its consultation document, Ofcom stated that content is the main
factor influencing consumers in their choice of pay TV subscriber. In
particular, access to live sporting events and premiere screenings of
blockbuster films proved the biggest draws.

The problem for other broadcasters is that BskyB currently owns almost
all the rights for film output. Sky also owns the rights to more than
two-thirds of premier league matches.

BSkyB, which now has close to nine million subscribers, said it had
already made its content available on rival platform Virgin Media. It
is also developing its own service, Picnic, which will allow viewers
to watch its premium content on digital terrestrial TV via an aerial.

Ed wrote:

> 
> BSkyB, which now has close to nine million subscribers

Well considering they been going for nearly 20 years, that's not very 
many, I bet evil old Murdoch thought that he would have everyone signed 
up by now!

Notice BSB viewing figures compared to income from subscriptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Sky_Broadcasting

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 02:29:14 -0700, Ed wrote:

> I'll believe it when i see it...
> 
> Sky has been ordered to reduce the cost of its sports and film packages
> for rivals by media regulator Ofcom.

Then slash the cost of the BBC tax. Hmm, doesn't sound that likely now 
does it.

jon wrote:
> Well considering they been going for nearly 20 years, that's not very
> many, I bet evil old Murdoch thought that he would have everyone
> signed up by now!

That's presumably 9 million households though, rather than 9 million people? 
A quick Google search shows that there are about 25 million houses in the 
UK, so that's 1 in 3 -- not too bad! (Though I accept that this is a vast 
simplification and probably not hugely accurate)

-- 

(O)enone

In article 
, Ed 
 writes
>I'll believe it when i see it...
>
>Sky has been ordered to reduce the cost of its sports and film
>packages for rivals by media regulator Ofcom.
>
>The watchdog wants the satellite broadcaster to sell its premium
>output at more competitive rates, in a move that could spark a pay-TV
>price war. It could also lead to blockbuster films and Premier League
>football matches being broadcast on a range of platforms, including
>digital terrestrial services such as Freeview.
>
>In December last year, rival broadcasters Setanta, Virgin Media TV, BT
>Vision and Top Up TV complained to Ofcom that Sky had an unhealthy
>dominance in the UK pay-TV market. The regulator has agreed that Sky
>was distorting the market. It said the broadcaster was likely to limit
>the distribution of premium sports and films to its rivals, because of
>a 'desire to limit the ability of other retailers to compete
>properly'.
>
Maybe they can also have a word with Setanta about the prices they 
charge, as the Prem games that they now show as part of their £13 per 
month, crap picture quality sub, used to cost £50 for the whole season 
(in HD too).
-- 
Sean Black

On Oct 1, 1:37 pm, Sean Black  wrote:
> In article
> , Ed
>  writes
>
>
>
> >I'll believe it when i see it...
>
> >Sky has been ordered to reduce the cost of its sports and film
> >packages for rivals by media regulator Ofcom.
>
> >The watchdog wants the satellite broadcaster to sell its premium
> >output at more competitive rates, in a move that could spark a pay-TV
> >price war. It could also lead to blockbuster films and Premier League
> >football matches being broadcast on a range of platforms, including
> >digital terrestrial services such as Freeview.
>
> >In December last year, rival broadcasters Setanta, Virgin Media TV, BT
> >Vision and Top Up TV complained to Ofcom that Sky had an unhealthy
> >dominance in the UK pay-TV market. The regulator has agreed that Sky
> >was distorting the market. It said the broadcaster was likely to limit
> >the distribution of premium sports and films to its rivals, because of
> >a 'desire to limit the ability of other retailers to compete
> >properly'.
>
> Maybe they can also have a word with Setanta about the prices they
> charge, as the Prem games that they now show as part of their £13 per
> month, crap picture quality sub, used to cost £50 for the whole season
> (in HD too).
> --
> Sean Black- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Did anyone really believe that allowing BT and sultana to get some
rights would do anything other than force people to pay twice or even
thrice for the same content?

OFCOM is about as useful as a cardboard teapot

In article 
, Ed 
 writes
>On Oct 1, 1:37 pm, Sean Black  wrote:
>> In article
>> , Ed
>>  writes
>>
>>
>>
>> >I'll believe it when i see it...
>>
>> >Sky has been ordered to reduce the cost of its sports and film
>> >packages for rivals by media regulator Ofcom.
>>
>> >The watchdog wants the satellite broadcaster to sell its premium
>> >output at more competitive rates, in a move that could spark a pay-TV
>> >price war. It could also lead to blockbuster films and Premier League
>> >football matches being broadcast on a range of platforms, including
>> >digital terrestrial services such as Freeview.
>>
>> >In December last year, rival broadcasters Setanta, Virgin Media TV, BT
>> >Vision and Top Up TV complained to Ofcom that Sky had an unhealthy
>> >dominance in the UK pay-TV market. The regulator has agreed that Sky
>> >was distorting the market. It said the broadcaster was likely to limit
>> >the distribution of premium sports and films to its rivals, because of
>> >a 'desire to limit the ability of other retailers to compete
>> >properly'.
>>
>> Maybe they can also have a word with Setanta about the prices they
>> charge, as the Prem games that they now show as part of their £13 per
>> month, crap picture quality sub, used to cost £50 for the whole season
>> (in HD too).
>> --
>> Sean Black- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Did anyone really believe that allowing BT and sultana to get some
>rights would do anything other than force people to pay twice or even
>thrice for the same content?
>
The idiots in the EU must have, presumably. As it was their stupid idea 
in the first place.
-- 
Sean Black

On Oct 1, 3:27 pm, Sean Black  wrote:
> In article
> , Ed
>  writes
>
>
>
> >On Oct 1, 1:37 pm, Sean Black  wrote:
> >> In article
> >> , Ed
> >>  writes
>
> >> >I'll believe it when i see it...
>
> >> >Sky has been ordered to reduce the cost of its sports and film
> >> >packages for rivals by media regulator Ofcom.
>
> >> >The watchdog wants the satellite broadcaster to sell its premium
> >> >output at more competitive rates, in a move that could spark a pay-TV
> >> >price war. It could also lead to blockbuster films and Premier League
> >> >football matches being broadcast on a range of platforms, including
> >> >digital terrestrial services such as Freeview.
>
> >> >In December last year, rival broadcasters Setanta, Virgin Media TV, BT
> >> >Vision and Top Up TV complained to Ofcom that Sky had an unhealthy
> >> >dominance in the UK pay-TV market. The regulator has agreed that Sky
> >> >was distorting the market. It said the broadcaster was likely to limit
> >> >the distribution of premium sports and films to its rivals, because of
> >> >a 'desire to limit the ability of other retailers to compete
> >> >properly'.
>
> >> Maybe they can also have a word with Setanta about the prices they
> >> charge, as the Prem games that they now show as part of their £13 per
> >> month, crap picture quality sub, used to cost £50 for the whole season
> >> (in HD too).
> >> --
> >> Sean Black- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Did anyone really believe that allowing BT and sultana to get some
> >rights would do anything other than force people to pay twice or even
> >thrice for the same content?
>
> The idiots in the EU must have, presumably. As it was their stupid idea
> in the first place.
> --
> Sean Black- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Your first five words give the game away, unfortunately.

jon wrote:
> Ed wrote:
> 
>>
>> BSkyB, which now has close to nine million subscribers
> 
> Well considering they been going for nearly 20 years, that's not very 
> many

Eh?

That's going to be something covering close to half the population - pretty 
good considering that there is cable, Freesat and Freeview as competition.

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 02:29:14 -0700 (PDT), Ed
 wrote:

>I'll believe it when i see it...
>
>Sky has been ordered to reduce the cost of its sports and film
>packages for rivals by media regulator Ofcom.

Ofcom?  LOL!  Toothless and useless.

In uk.media.tv.sky Ed  wrote:

: Sky has been ordered to reduce the cost of its sports and film
: packages for rivals by media regulator Ofcom.

This is a misleading post with a very misleading title! It implies that OFCOM
have made up their mind - when they are still consulting!

In article <gc0nhq$jo1$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>, Brian McIlwrath  wrote:
>In uk.media.tv.sky Ed  wrote:
>
>: Sky has been ordered to reduce the cost of its sports and film
>: packages for rivals by media regulator Ofcom.
>
>This is a misleading post with a very misleading title! It implies that OFCOM
>have made up their mind - when they are still consulting!

tbf its the headline the (non murdoch) media went with this morning, and 
the pr spin that sultana etc have been playing all today.

of course as consumers we want to pay less, but the regulators have never 
explained how splitting the stuff between multiple content providers, who 
all use bespoke systems, all charge individual subscriptions, ever ends up 
saving the consumer money.

Aw

Ar wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 02:29:14 -0700, Ed wrote:
>
>> I'll believe it when i see it...
>>
>> Sky has been ordered to reduce the cost of its sports and film
>> packages for rivals by media regulator Ofcom.
>
> Then slash the cost of the BBC tax. Hmm, doesn't sound that likely now
> does it.

What has that got to do with this subject?

-- 
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:18:56 +0100, Carl Waring wrote:

>> Then slash the cost of the BBC tax. Hmm, doesn't sound that likely now
>> does it.
> 
> What has that got to do with this subject?

Having Sky is voluntary, the BBC tax is not.

In article , 
"awavey@yahoo.com"  writes
>In article <gc0nhq$jo1$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>, Brian McIlwrath 
> wrote:
>>In uk.media.tv.sky Ed  wrote:
>>
>>: Sky has been ordered to reduce the cost of its sports and film
>>: packages for rivals by media regulator Ofcom.
>>
>>This is a misleading post with a very misleading title! It implies that OFCOM
>>have made up their mind - when they are still consulting!
>
>tbf its the headline the (non murdoch) media went with this morning, and
>the pr spin that sultana etc have been playing all today.
>
>of course as consumers we want to pay less, but the regulators have never
>explained how splitting the stuff between multiple content providers, who
>all use bespoke systems, all charge individual subscriptions, ever ends up
>saving the consumer money.
>
The only fair way to do it, would be to make everything available on all 
platforms and then let them fight it out with each other to give the 
best deals, of course it'll never happen.
-- 
Sean Black

"Ar"  wrote in message 
news:48e489ca$0$2922$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:18:56 +0100, Carl Waring wrote:
>
>>> Then slash the cost of the BBC tax. Hmm, doesn't sound that likely now
>>> does it.
>>
>> What has that got to do with this subject?
>
> Having Sky is voluntary, the BBC tax is not.

What you actually mean, of course, is that while you don't /have/ to 
susbscribe to Sky's services, you do require a TV Licence in order to 
legally watch them if you /do/ subscribe.


-- 
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

wrote in message 
news:a6CdncFHwZcNdX7VnZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> In article <gc0nhq$jo1$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>, Brian McIlwrath 
>  wrote:
>>In uk.media.tv.sky Ed  wrote:
>>
>>: Sky has been ordered to reduce the cost of its sports and film
>>: packages for rivals by media regulator Ofcom.
>>
>>This is a misleading post with a very misleading title! It implies that 
>>OFCOM
>>have made up their mind - when they are still consulting!
>
> tbf its the headline the (non murdoch) media went with this morning, and
> the pr spin that sultana etc have been playing all today.
>
> of course as consumers we want to pay less, but the regulators have never
> explained how splitting the stuff between multiple content providers, who
> all use bespoke systems, all charge individual subscriptions, ever ends up
> saving the consumer money.

Because the regulator thinks that you only want to watch one match per 
weekend.

tim

"Sean Black"  wrote in message 
news:FxoRoqAamI5IFwQ0@virgin.net...
> In article , 
> "awavey@yahoo.com"  writes
>>In article <gc0nhq$jo1$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>, Brian McIlwrath 
>> wrote:
>>>In uk.media.tv.sky Ed  wrote:
>>>
>>>: Sky has been ordered to reduce the cost of its sports and film
>>>: packages for rivals by media regulator Ofcom.
>>>
>>>This is a misleading post with a very misleading title! It implies that 
>>>OFCOM
>>>have made up their mind - when they are still consulting!
>>
>>tbf its the headline the (non murdoch) media went with this morning, and
>>the pr spin that sultana etc have been playing all today.
>>
>>of course as consumers we want to pay less, but the regulators have never
>>explained how splitting the stuff between multiple content providers, who
>>all use bespoke systems, all charge individual subscriptions, ever ends up
>>saving the consumer money.
>>
> The only fair way to do it, would be to make everything available on all 
> platforms and then let them fight it out with each other to give the best 
> deals, of course it'll never happen.
> -- 
> Sean Black

If subscription sport is made available on all formats then it makes a 
nonsense for SKY or the BBC or any other company to bid for them. They might 
as well form a consortium, like Racing UK, and make a low "take it or leave 
it" offer. That would reduce subscriptions on all platforms and reduce the 
income into English Football.

In article <48e7824f$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, John Russell 
 writes
>
>"Sean Black"  wrote in message
>news:FxoRoqAamI5IFwQ0@virgin.net...
>> In article ,
>> "awavey@yahoo.com"  writes
>>>In article <gc0nhq$jo1$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>, Brian McIlwrath
>>> wrote:
>>>>In uk.media.tv.sky Ed  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>: Sky has been ordered to reduce the cost of its sports and film
>>>>: packages for rivals by media regulator Ofcom.
>>>>
>>>>This is a misleading post with a very misleading title! It implies that
>>>>OFCOM
>>>>have made up their mind - when they are still consulting!
>>>
>>>tbf its the headline the (non murdoch) media went with this morning, and
>>>the pr spin that sultana etc have been playing all today.
>>>
>>>of course as consumers we want to pay less, but the regulators have never
>>>explained how splitting the stuff between multiple content providers, who
>>>all use bespoke systems, all charge individual subscriptions, ever ends up
>>>saving the consumer money.
>>>
>> The only fair way to do it, would be to make everything available on all
>> platforms and then let them fight it out with each other to give the best
>> deals, of course it'll never happen.
>> --
>> Sean Black
>
>If subscription sport is made available on all formats then it makes a
>nonsense for SKY or the BBC or any other company to bid for them. They might
>as well form a consortium, like Racing UK, and make a low "take it or leave
>it" offer. That would reduce subscriptions on all platforms and reduce the
>income into English Football.
>
>
Which is why the EU should have kept there noses out in the first place. 
There was nothing wrong with things the way they were, it's not improved 
things at all.

If I could just buy a season ticket to watch ALL my teams games, home 
and away (on whatever platform) I'd be perfectly happy :-)
-- 
Sean Black

Sean Black wrote:
> In article <48e7824f$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, John Russell
>  writes
>>
>> "Sean Black"  wrote in message
>> news:FxoRoqAamI5IFwQ0@virgin.net...
>>> In article ,
>>> "awavey@yahoo.com"  writes
>>>> In article <gc0nhq$jo1$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>, Brian McIlwrath
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> In uk.media.tv.sky Ed  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sky has been ordered to reduce the cost of its sports and film
>>>>>> packages for rivals by media regulator Ofcom.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a misleading post with a very misleading title! It
>>>>> implies that OFCOM
>>>>> have made up their mind - when they are still consulting!
>>>>
>>>> tbf its the headline the (non murdoch) media went with this
>>>> morning, and the pr spin that sultana etc have been playing all
>>>> today. of course as consumers we want to pay less, but the regulators
>>>> have never explained how splitting the stuff between multiple
>>>> content providers, who all use bespoke systems, all charge
>>>> individual subscriptions, ever ends up saving the consumer money.
>>>>
>>> The only fair way to do it, would be to make everything available
>>> on all platforms and then let them fight it out with each other to
>>> give the best deals, of course it'll never happen.
>>
>> If subscription sport is made available on all formats then it makes
>> a nonsense for SKY or the BBC or any other company to bid for them.
>> They might as well form a consortium, like Racing UK, and make a low
>> "take it or leave it" offer. That would reduce subscriptions on all
>> platforms and reduce the income into English Football.
>>
>>
> Which is why the EU should have kept there noses out in the first
> place. There was nothing wrong with things the way they were, it's
> not improved things at all.

Indeed. I now have to pay two subscriptions to two different companies to
watch football now, plus put up with Sultana's very low bit-rate when
watching a match on one of their channels! Pure rubbish. Fucking EU
bastards! It was ok the way it was.

"Stephen O'Connell"  wrote in message 
news:gcd47u$tjq$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Sean Black wrote:
>> In article <48e7824f$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, John Russell
>>  writes
>>>
>>> "Sean Black"  wrote in message
>>> news:FxoRoqAamI5IFwQ0@virgin.net...
>>>> In article ,
>>>> "awavey@yahoo.com"  writes
>>>>> In article <gc0nhq$jo1$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>, Brian McIlwrath
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>> In uk.media.tv.sky Ed  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sky has been ordered to reduce the cost of its sports and film
>>>>>>> packages for rivals by media regulator Ofcom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a misleading post with a very misleading title! It
>>>>>> implies that OFCOM
>>>>>> have made up their mind - when they are still consulting!
>>>>>
>>>>> tbf its the headline the (non murdoch) media went with this
>>>>> morning, and the pr spin that sultana etc have been playing all
>>>>> today. of course as consumers we want to pay less, but the regulators
>>>>> have never explained how splitting the stuff between multiple
>>>>> content providers, who all use bespoke systems, all charge
>>>>> individual subscriptions, ever ends up saving the consumer money.
>>>>>
>>>> The only fair way to do it, would be to make everything available
>>>> on all platforms and then let them fight it out with each other to
>>>> give the best deals, of course it'll never happen.
>>>
>>> If subscription sport is made available on all formats then it makes
>>> a nonsense for SKY or the BBC or any other company to bid for them.
>>> They might as well form a consortium, like Racing UK, and make a low
>>> "take it or leave it" offer. That would reduce subscriptions on all
>>> platforms and reduce the income into English Football.
>>>
>>>
>> Which is why the EU should have kept there noses out in the first
>> place. There was nothing wrong with things the way they were, it's
>> not improved things at all.
>
> Indeed. I now have to pay two subscriptions to two different companies to
> watch football now, plus put up with Sultana's very low bit-rate when
> watching a match on one of their channels! Pure rubbish. Fucking EU
> bastards! It was ok the way it was.
>
>
A bidding war already existed driving up prices. The EU should have done 
what ofcom want to see happen now, and made it clear whoever won the bidding 
would have to offer the programs on all platforms. Why bid millions to gain 
an advantage in programming if you then have to offer them to your 
competitors?  You might as well let another company win the bid and then 
force them to sell them on to you for bugger all in order to comply with 
ofcom's requirement!