Should Sky make their channels available to others?

ChrisLUFC22 · 07-10-2010, 20:26

Basically, I wanted to know peoples opinions of whether Sky should, by force or otherwise, have to make their channels available to other platforms? There seems to be a big hoo-hah about how Sky should absolutely have to make their channels available, espescially HD.
My opinion is that they shouldn't have to make them available, simply because they pay for them, invest the big bucks etc., however I do think that they shouldn't be allowed to monopolise i.e Premier League rights.
Thoughts?

MutleyF · 07-10-2010, 20:35

Hmmm .... tricky one.

No, I dont think they should be forced. They have invested their money into their channels, so they should not be forced.

At the end of the day, we all (or most of us) have a choice. Go to Sky or go to Virgin.

I agree with you regarding football. As this is a national sport, sky should not monopolise.

ChrisLUFC22 · 07-10-2010, 20:43

If Virgin had a couple of Sports & Movie channels, and the opportunity to go evenly with Sky for the rights to live sports, I honestly think no one would be bothered what channels Sky have or don't have.

KenK · 07-10-2010, 20:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisLUFC22

Thoughts?

Sky should be split into a Content (channel provider, programme buyer/maker) company, and a Delivery company.

All Content providers should openly advertise the price for their various channels - including HD, 3D, Interactive options. All the competing Delivery companies (Sky Delivery, VM, BT, Freeview, Freesat, etc, etc) can then choose whether to pay it or not. There should be no exclusive deals between content and delivery companies.

Then let the customers decide which delivery company they want to use.

**Stuart** · 07-10-2010, 20:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by MutleyF

I agree with you regarding football. As this is a national sport, sky should not monopolise.

Why is football any more important than any other form of entertainment? I know that a lot of people enjoy football. Some even to the point they are obssessed by it. There are a lot of shows that are frequently watched by more people than any football match (including most of the soaps), but no one has decided that they need protecting from Sky.

Personally I think that the best way to ensure fair competition in the digital TV industry is to seperate the channels and the platform. Make it illegal for one company to operate both.

ChrisLUFC22 · 07-10-2010, 21:02

A few interesting thoughts - keep 'em coming!

Andrewcrawford23 · 07-10-2010, 21:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenK

Sky should be split into a Content (channel provider, programme buyer/maker) company, and a Delivery company.

All Content providers should openly advertise the price for their various channels - including HD, 3D, Interactive options. All the competing Delivery companies (Sky Delivery, VM, BT, Freeview, Freesat, etc, etc) can then choose whether to pay it or not. There should be no exclusive deals between content and delivery companies.

Then let the customers decide which delivery company they want to use.

I tihnk th content provider part should not have the backing of newscorp it should be using hte money it amkes from sellign the channels so giving it more reaosn to sell them at a reaosnbale price os it can makea profit an buy the rghts, and if it was liek this i perosnally couldnt care less if they got all the rihgts for all sports becuase then all chanensl would be avaiable soi can choose hte platform ig et them form

LondonRoad · 07-10-2010, 22:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenK

Sky should be split into a Content (channel provider, programme buyer/maker) company, and a Delivery company.

All Content providers should openly advertise the price for their various channels - including HD, 3D, Interactive options. All the competing Delivery companies (Sky Delivery, VM, BT, Freeview, Freesat, etc, etc) can then choose whether to pay it or not. There should be no exclusive deals between content and delivery companies.

Then let the customers decide which delivery company they want to use.

Yup.
There should be no reason for any content provider to want to withhold it's product from any platform other than for it's own commercial or artistic reasons.

It's fairly obvious to all that the main reasons for Sky's obvious reluctance to make all of it's content, as a provider, available to everybody is mainly due to the desire to drive the public onto the Sky delivery platform.

The Sky tactic of withdrawing channels from VM platforms had the short term effect of increasing numbers to the Sky platform.

The reduction of income to Sky the provider, however, was such that it was they who had to crawl back to VM and provide their channels on a basis that VM originally wouldn't have dreamed of suggesting.

LexDiamond · 08-10-2010, 07:39

I don't think they should be forced.

Sky are the ones generating the ideas and investing significantly in their network of channels, some of which are to a very high standard.

Henkesghost · 08-10-2010, 07:48

In an ideal world your tv provider should have roughly the same package on offer and leave it to the customer to make their choice. Sadly that ain't the way of it.

mersey70 · 08-10-2010, 09:53

Anyone is free to buy content and launch channels, including Virgin Media but they have made a business decision not to.

If the shoe was on the other foot and it was VM who owned shed loads of content does anyone think they wouldn't do exactly the same thing that Sky have so successfully done?, they already have to a lesser extent with Living HD. The reason the shoe isn't on the other foot is that VM would rather build up their network and reap the rewards from superior broadband.

If Sky are forced to provide their channels then VM should be forced to allow other ISP's access to their network.

---------- Post added at 10:53 ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisLUFC22

Basically, I wanted to know peoples opinions of whether Sky should, by force or otherwise, have to make their channels available to other platforms? There seems to be a big hoo-hah about how Sky should absolutely have to make their channels available, espescially HD.
My opinion is that they shouldn't have to make them available, simply because they pay for them, invest the big bucks etc., however I do think that they shouldn't be allowed to monopolise i.e Premier League rights.
Thoughts?

They can't monopolise Premier League rights, the EC ensured they were not allowed to have exclusive live rights in the UK. All that acheived was to increase the cost to subscribers wanting to watch all live TV games as they were then forced to have Sky Sports and Setanta/ESPN.

chienmort · 08-10-2010, 09:56

With recent changes, are we not now in a worse place in that VM now only provide a platform and SKY have a platform and most of the channels/content for both platforms?

If so I believe that Sky should be split so that there is on conflict of interest.

mersey70 · 08-10-2010, 10:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by chienmort

With recent changes, are we not now in a worse place in that VM now only provide a platform and SKY have a platform and most of the channels/content for both platforms?

If so I believe that Sky should be split so that there is on conflict of interest.

Are you saying Sky should be split because VM chose to be a platform only (and took a hefty sum for their channels AND got a 9 year carriage deal for Sky's channels?)

If so I couldn't disagree with you more.

ChrisLUFC22 · 08-10-2010, 14:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by mersey70

Anyone is free to buy content and launch channels, including Virgin Media but they have made a business decision not to.

If the shoe was on the other foot and it was VM who owned shed loads of content does anyone think they wouldn't do exactly the same thing that Sky have so successfully done?, they already have to a lesser extent with Living HD. The reason the shoe isn't on the other foot is that VM would rather build up their network and reap the rewards from superior broadband.

If Sky are forced to provide their channels then VM should be forced to allow other ISP's access to their network.

---------- Post added at 10:53 ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 ----------

They can't monopolise Premier League rights, the EC ensured they were not allowed to have exclusive live rights in the UK. All that acheived was to increase the cost to subscribers wanting to watch all live TV games as they were then forced to have Sky Sports and Setanta/ESPN.

Yes I know they can only have (I think) 4 of the 5 packages available (can't remember the exact numbers), what I'm saying is they should only be allowed, say, 2 of maybe 6 packages? ESPN could have 2, and, for arguments sake, VM could have 2.

mersey70 · 08-10-2010, 15:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisLUFC22

Yes I know they can only have (I think) 4 of the 5 packages available (can't remember the exact numbers), what I'm saying is they should only be allowed, say, 2 of maybe 6 packages? ESPN could have 2, and, for arguments sake, VM could have 2.

The rule is that no one broadcaster can hold all 6 packages, Sky currently hold 5 the other being held by ESPN. Anyone can bid for these packages when they come up for tender.

VM would not want any as they are not interested in content. I disagree that Sky should be told to separate their content division just because VM have decided that they want to concentrate solely on their platform, that's VM decision.

If people think Sky should be ordered to allow VM access to all their channels then VM should be ordered to allow Sky access to their broadband network, seems fair to me.