Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6421419.stm

Do Virgin have a leg to stand on?

I am not sure of the legal ramifications of all this but are Sky legally
obliged to supply channels to other suppliers? Surely if Sky do not want
them to have them then that is within their rights?

Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

Beck wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6421419.stm

Do Virgin have a leg to stand on?

I'd imagine this would depend on the contract between the two companies.
Obviously there would have been an agreement for sky to supply programming
for a given cost and almost certainly clauses covering when the rates can be
amended (and possibly by how much).

Are Sky's demands in accordance with this contract or not?

--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

"Dr Zoidberg" wrote in message
...
Beck wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6421419.stm

Do Virgin have a leg to stand on?

I'd imagine this would depend on the contract between the two companies.
Obviously there would have been an agreement for sky to supply programming
for a given cost and almost certainly clauses covering when the rates can
be amended (and possibly by how much).

Are Sky's demands in accordance with this contract or not?

I really have no idea what the contracts were like. In fact Virgin and Sky
seemed to have been tight lipped quite a lot on this matter and only giving
the bare minimum of information. I keep reading conflicting information.
Some say Virgin cut off the services, others say Sky cut off the services, I
have no idea who to believe.
Its handbags at dawn with a smidging of mascara. This one is going to run
and run.

Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

"Beck" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6421419.stm

Do Virgin have a leg to stand on?

I am not sure of the legal ramifications of all this but are Sky legally
obliged to supply channels to other suppliers? Surely if Sky do not want
them to have them then that is within their rights?

The law needs to be changed so that channel suppliers/makers, subscription
companies and network/satellite providers cannot be owned or managed by the
same person or company.

In other words if Virgin wants to act as a company selling channel packages
to the subscriber then it should not be allowed to operate the cable network
or own the satellite frequencies the channels are broadcast on nor should it
be allowed to make programmes or manage the television channels on the
network/satellite service. Similarly if BSkyB wants to sell subscriptions to
any of the channels on Astra then is must be forced to sell of all of its
channels to an independent company or companies and that company must be
given full access to the NTL cable network so that it can place its channels
on there independently of Virgin Media. This will give the viewer the choice
of either subscribing with BSkyB or with Virgin or with some other company
for the same channels on any network.

In simple terms Virgin Media must be broken up into the orginal NTL and
Virgin where NTL manages the network and Virgin sees to the subscription
service and BSkyB must be broken up into BSB a subscription service and Sky
a programme maker/channel packager. Any company should be free to offer
subscription services for any channel on any network and all programme
maker/channel packager's must charge the same rate to all subscription
service providers for each of their channels without discrimination.

This will destroy Sky's monopoly in an instant and also put and end to the
Premiership being given billions for exclusive football rights since Sky
Sports could be sold to subscribers by any company which wanted to put it in
its package.

Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

"Dr Zoidberg" wrote in message
...
Beck wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6421419.stm

Do Virgin have a leg to stand on?

I'd imagine this would depend on the contract between the two companies.
Obviously there would have been an agreement for sky to supply programming
for a given cost and almost certainly clauses covering when the rates can
be amended (and possibly by how much).

Are Sky's demands in accordance with this contract or not?


Virgin has a case for forcing Sky to provide its channels at the same rate
it provides them to Sky, in other words for free, and Sky has a case for
forcing Virgin to give Sky independent access to its network. What really
needs to happen for the good of the consumer is for both companies to be
broken up.


--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...

"Beck" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6421419.stm

Do Virgin have a leg to stand on?

I am not sure of the legal ramifications of all this but are Sky legally
obliged to supply channels to other suppliers? Surely if Sky do not want
them to have them then that is within their rights?

The law needs to be changed so that channel suppliers/makers, subscription
companies and network/satellite providers cannot be owned or managed by
the same person or company.

In other words if Virgin wants to act as a company selling channel
packages to the subscriber then it should not be allowed to operate the
cable network or own the satellite frequencies the channels are broadcast
on nor should it be allowed to make programmes or manage the television
channels on the network/satellite service. Similarly if BSkyB wants to
sell subscriptions to any of the channels on Astra then is must be forced
to sell of all of its channels to an independent company or companies and
that company must be given full access to the NTL cable network so that it
can place its channels on there independently of Virgin Media. This will
give the viewer the choice of either subscribing with BSkyB or with Virgin
or with some other company for the same channels on any network.

In simple terms Virgin Media must be broken up into the orginal NTL and
Virgin where NTL manages the network and Virgin sees to the subscription
service and BSkyB must be broken up into BSB a subscription service and
Sky a programme maker/channel packager. Any company should be free to
offer subscription services for any channel on any network and all
programme maker/channel packager's must charge the same rate to all
subscription service providers for each of their channels without
discrimination.

This will destroy Sky's monopoly in an instant and also put and end to the
Premiership being given billions for exclusive football rights since Sky
Sports could be sold to subscribers by any company which wanted to put it
in its package.

A bit like Network Rail being in overall control of train lines, and train
companies leasing the lines?
Maybe a silly analogy, just trying to get clear in my head what you are
saying.

I agree that Sky should not have a monolopy (I am a sky subber) and that if
other broadcasters want the football for example, they should be free to
purchase the rights rather than one company. But instead of having the
rights split up like they do now between say Sky, BBC, Setanta or whoever,
allow any broadcaster to pay and any channel being allowed to show them at
the same time. The downside to that is they will probably lose advertising
because most customers are more likely to choose BBC airing the programme
than any channel with adverts. Unless John Motson is commentating then
people will choose the advert option ;-)

Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...


Virgin has a case for forcing Sky to provide its channels at the same rate
it provides them to Sky, in other words for free, and Sky has a case for
forcing Virgin to give Sky independent access to its network. What really
needs to happen for the good of the consumer is for both companies to be
broken up.

I suppose it depends on the value of such channels.
I don't watch Sky one, but I am sure it has more customer worth than
Virgin's Living TV.

Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

"Beck" wrote in message
...

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...

"Beck" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6421419.stm

Do Virgin have a leg to stand on?

I am not sure of the legal ramifications of all this but are Sky legally
obliged to supply channels to other suppliers? Surely if Sky do not want
them to have them then that is within their rights?

The law needs to be changed so that channel suppliers/makers,
subscription companies and network/satellite providers cannot be owned or
managed by the same person or company.

In other words if Virgin wants to act as a company selling channel
packages to the subscriber then it should not be allowed to operate the
cable network or own the satellite frequencies the channels are broadcast
on nor should it be allowed to make programmes or manage the television
channels on the network/satellite service. Similarly if BSkyB wants to
sell subscriptions to any of the channels on Astra then is must be forced
to sell of all of its channels to an independent company or companies and
that company must be given full access to the NTL cable network so that
it can place its channels on there independently of Virgin Media. This
will give the viewer the choice of either subscribing with BSkyB or with
Virgin or with some other company for the same channels on any network.

In simple terms Virgin Media must be broken up into the orginal NTL and
Virgin where NTL manages the network and Virgin sees to the subscription
service and BSkyB must be broken up into BSB a subscription service and
Sky a programme maker/channel packager. Any company should be free to
offer subscription services for any channel on any network and all
programme maker/channel packager's must charge the same rate to all
subscription service providers for each of their channels without
discrimination.

This will destroy Sky's monopoly in an instant and also put and end to
the Premiership being given billions for exclusive football rights since
Sky Sports could be sold to subscribers by any company which wanted to
put it in its package.

A bit like Network Rail being in overall control of train lines, and train
companies leasing the lines?
Maybe a silly analogy, just trying to get clear in my head what you are
saying.

Yes, more or less or Transco owning the gas pipes, another company supplying
the gas and Scottish Power reading the meter even in Cornwall.


I agree that Sky should not have a monolopy (I am a sky subber) and that
if other broadcasters want the football for example, they should be free
to purchase the rights rather than one company. But instead of having the
rights split up like they do now between say Sky, BBC, Setanta or whoever,
allow any broadcaster to pay and any channel being allowed to show them at
the same time. The downside to that is they will probably lose
advertising

Yes, that is exactly what the EU should have forced the Premiership to do
and then people would not have to pay though their noses and a bunch of
uncivilised ******* would not be getting paid millions just for kicking an
air filled simulated pigs skin leather bag around.

because most customers are more likely to choose BBC airing the programme
than any channel with adverts. Unless John Motson is commentating then
people will choose the advert option ;-)

Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

"Beck" wrote in message
...

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...


Virgin has a case for forcing Sky to provide its channels at the same
rate it provides them to Sky, in other words for free, and Sky has a case
for forcing Virgin to give Sky independent access to its network. What
really needs to happen for the good of the consumer is for both companies
to be broken up.

I suppose it depends on the value of such channels.
I don't watch Sky one, but I am sure it has more customer worth than
Virgin's Living TV.

Well obviously Virgin would have to sell of Living TV and maybe the buyer
might make something better of it if they want to make money from it,
instead of like now, it being used as filler in Virgins subscription
packages which no one actually watches. With more subscriptions companies
operating in the same way as ISP's people would be able to choose the
individual channels in their package one by one or else move to another
service provider who offers a better package.

Virgin threatens to sue Sky
 

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...


Well obviously Virgin would have to sell of Living TV and maybe the buyer
might make something better of it if they want to make money from it,
instead of like now, it being used as filler in Virgins subscription
packages which no one actually watches. With more subscriptions companies
operating in the same way as ISP's people would be able to choose the
individual channels in their package one by one or else move to another
service provider who offers a better package.

I would imagine if people were able to pick and choose channels, many
channels would go out of business. There's no point to most of the channels
on Sky (and for other services for that matter).
We have Sky sports because my dad has it, and I really do not like having to
pay for a load of crud I do not use.

I would like one package - sky sports, news channels, BBC1,2,3,4, ITV1,2,3,
C4, C5, Zone reality, documentaries and UKTV channels. Thats all we really
watch between us.