Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 08:36:21 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

Sky has a monopoly as far as Sky digibox users go.

This makes up nearly 100% of the UK sat viewer base.

Sky spent billions giving those digiboxes away. Why should other
channels be able to free-ride on the back of their investment?

There's no such thing as free (as Sky have proved)

If the ITC or those in control of supposedly controlled TV then ANY channel
could freely have access to some form of EPG without having to pay for it.

It's like the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 or 5 having to pay Grundig/Philips whoever
makes the TV to broadcast to it.

It should be up to the user to name the channel on the TV or Satellite box,
Simple!

Broadcaster broadcasts the signal, User then names the channel and places it
where he/she wants it, Nothing difficult in that.

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

Simon Finnigan wrote:

Well then for the purposes of comparison you would have to compare
Sky's charge to the charge made by cable operators for the same
service, wouldn't you.

Indeed, if they made a comparable charge. Given that it is impossible
to disassociate the carriage element of cable and the EPG element, I
doubt that they do have a comparable charge.

You doubt, but you don`t know?

That's what I wrote. It doesn't take a Mastermind to see that cable is
a very different beast to satellite.

However, I neither know nor care much about cable as I can't receive
it and probably never will.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC/ITV reception trouble? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

Sky has a monopoly as far as Sky digibox users go.

This makes up nearly 100% of the UK sat viewer base.

Sky spent billions giving those digiboxes away. Why should other
channels be able to free-ride on the back of their investment?

That's Sky's problem. They gave boxes away to encourage subscribers,
not broadcasters.
Anyway, the EPG provision is entirely separate to the pay programming
function (and this separation is enshrined in law and overseen by
Ofcom).

Also many people have bought their digiboxes and so got nothing from
Sky at all.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC/ITV reception trouble? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 08:14:18 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

Zero Tolerance wrote:

Sky has a monopoly as far as Sky digibox users go.

This makes up nearly 100% of the UK sat viewer base.

Sky spent billions giving those digiboxes away. Why should other
channels be able to free-ride on the back of their investment?

That's Sky's problem. They gave boxes away to encourage subscribers,
not broadcasters.
Anyway, the EPG provision is entirely separate to the pay programming
function (and this separation is enshrined in law and overseen by
Ofcom).

Also many people have bought their digiboxes and so got nothing from
Sky at all.

In the past 10 years have bought a total of 7 digiboxes & have never had a free or subsidised one.
--

Cheers

Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
Zero Tolerance wrote:

Sky has a monopoly as far as Sky digibox users go.

This makes up nearly 100% of the UK sat viewer base.

Sky spent billions giving those digiboxes away. Why should other
channels be able to free-ride on the back of their investment?

That's Sky's problem. They gave boxes away to encourage subscribers,
not broadcasters.
Anyway, the EPG provision is entirely separate to the pay programming
function (and this separation is enshrined in law and overseen by
Ofcom).

Also many people have bought their digiboxes and so got nothing from
Sky at all.


"thats their problem, not Sky's"

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
Tumbleweed wrote:

Everyone has a
monopoly if you reduce it enough...that newsagent window, they have a
monopoly on the display of cards in it,

Irrelevant, because there is another shop just down the road with a
similar window and the same people looking in it.


So if the shop down the road closed, would your pricing committe swing into
action?

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

Tumbleweed wrote:

Everyone has a
monopoly if you reduce it enough...that newsagent window, they have a
monopoly on the display of cards in it,

Irrelevant, because there is another shop just down the road with a
similar window and the same people looking in it.

So if the shop down the road closed, would your pricing committe swing into
action?

No, because there are other shops.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC/ITV reception trouble? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

"Carl Waring" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On 21 Mar 2007 09:00:57 -0700, "Tommo" wrote:



'Recent events have also drawn attention to the fact that cable is a
closed
network with substantial protections. In any market investigation,
we'd expect
Ofcom to look at the physical and legal barriers and business
practices that
shield Virgin Media from true competition and prevent consumers from
enjoying
lower prices in broadband and telephony and greater innovation and
choice in
television.'

I find it very difficult to sympathise with Sky's position on this
one when they have even withdrawn Freeview channels from cable.
*******.

Ofcom might have some difficulty finding Sky guilty of uncompetitive
behaviour without making at least some investigation into VM's
monopoly of the cable network. It could still turn out to Sky's
advantage.

The difference being that..

1. VM (in all its previous incarnations) paid for the whole of the Cable
system while Sky simply uses a third-party (ASTRA) satellite to broadcast
on.

2. Sky are not only the broadcasters but also buy the programmes as well.
(Okay, there's a better way to explain that one but I can't. Something to
do with seperating the two parts of the business!)

What two parts? Even Ofcom can't graps that SKY sell channels which have to
have programs on them. Who would subscribe to channels with no programs?
They do not own Sats. They happen to sell box's so that encrypted programs
can be seen , and offer the use of these to other Sat channel providers. Oh
and did I say they don't own or control who uses the Sats?