Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

British Sky Broad. - Response to Ofcom statement
British Sky Broadcasting Group PLC
20 March 2007

BSkyB response to Ofcom statement

In response to Ofcom's announcement of a market investigation into the
pay-TV
industry, a Sky spokesman said:

'The marketplace for entertainment and communications services is
fiercely
competitive and changing fast. From the BBC to Google, BT to Apple and
Vodafone
to Virgin Media amongst many others, customers have never had a
broader set of
businesses competing for their time and custom.

'We note the references in Ofcom's statement to Sky's proposed pay-TV
service on
the DTT platform and the dispute with Virgin Media regarding the
availability of
Sky's basic channels.

'BT, Top Up TV and Setanta all have a commercial interest in
preventing Sky from
increasing customer choice by developing a new pay-TV service on the
DTT
platform.

'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.'

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

On 21 Mar, 11:06, "Ed" wrote:
British Sky Broad. - Response to Ofcom statement
British Sky Broadcasting Group PLC
20 March 2007

BSkyB response to Ofcom statement

In response to Ofcom's announcement of a market investigation into the
pay-TV
industry, a Sky spokesman said:

'The marketplace for entertainment and communications services is
fiercely
competitive and changing fast. From the BBC to Google, BT to Apple and
Vodafone
to Virgin Media amongst many others, customers have never had a
broader set of
businesses competing for their time and custom.

'We note the references in Ofcom's statement to Sky's proposed pay-TV
service on
the DTT platform and the dispute with Virgin Media regarding the
availability of
Sky's basic channels.

'BT, Top Up TV and Setanta all have a commercial interest in
preventing Sky from
increasing customer choice by developing a new pay-TV service on the
DTT
platform.

'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. *******.

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

On Mar 21, 4:00 pm, "Tommo" wrote:
On 21 Mar, 11:06, "Ed" wrote:





British Sky Broad. - Response to Ofcom statement
British Sky Broadcasting Group PLC
20 March 2007

BSkyB response to Ofcom statement

In response to Ofcom's announcement of a market investigation into the
pay-TV
industry, a Sky spokesman said:

'The marketplace for entertainment and communications services is
fiercely
competitive and changing fast. From the BBC to Google, BT to Apple and
Vodafone
to Virgin Media amongst many others, customers have never had a
broader set of
businesses competing for their time and custom.

'We note the references in Ofcom's statement to Sky's proposed pay-TV
service on
the DTT platform and the dispute with Virgin Media regarding the
availability of
Sky's basic channels.

'BT, Top Up TV and Setanta all have a commercial interest in
preventing Sky from
increasing customer choice by developing a new pay-TV service on the
DTT
platform.

'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. *******.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They're gonna withdraw the freeview channels from freeview in a couple
of months too!

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

Ed wrote:
On Mar 21, 4:00 pm, "Tommo" wrote:
On 21 Mar, 11:06, "Ed" wrote:





British Sky Broad. - Response to Ofcom statement
British Sky Broadcasting Group PLC
20 March 2007
BSkyB response to Ofcom statement
In response to Ofcom's announcement of a market investigation into the
pay-TV
industry, a Sky spokesman said:
'The marketplace for entertainment and communications services is
fiercely
competitive and changing fast. From the BBC to Google, BT to Apple and
Vodafone
to Virgin Media amongst many others, customers have never had a
broader set of
businesses competing for their time and custom.
'We note the references in Ofcom's statement to Sky's proposed pay-TV
service on
the DTT platform and the dispute with Virgin Media regarding the
availability of
Sky's basic channels.
'BT, Top Up TV and Setanta all have a commercial interest in
preventing Sky from
increasing customer choice by developing a new pay-TV service on the
DTT
platform.
'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. *******.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They're gonna withdraw the freeview channels from freeview in a couple
of months too!

If they do, they do. I don't see Ofcom allowing $ky to use an MPEG4
datastream on what is an MPEG2-based platform for the risk (however
slight) of the two data streams encountering transmission or reception
problems. $ky has blotted its copybook so to speak and its antics aren't
being well received right now. In theory, Ofcom are supposed to be
impartial but I think that $ky won't get their way here. If they do,
it's (for me) a loss of three channels I hardly ever watch anyway.
However, for Freeview, it devalues the platform at a time when the DTV
switchover is about to start. For any government this is a minefield, so
I don't reckon that $ky will be allowed to weaken the offering. We'll
see, I suppose.

$ky is definitely coming across as a 'nasty piece of work' right now.
They're not a company that I'd care to deal with, even if they had the
sole rights to everything new that I wanted to watch.


Clem

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

On 21 Mar 2007 09:00:57 -0700, "Tommo" wrote:

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

They haven't withdrawn anything from cable. Virgin failed to renew the
contract because Branson is trying to make a name for himself.
--

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

On 21 Mar, 18:45, Mike Henry wrote:
In . com, "Ed"

wrote:
On Mar 21, 4:00 pm, "Tommo" wrote:
I find it very difficult to sympathise with Sky's position on this one
when they have even withdrawn Freeview channels from cable. *******.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They're gonna withdraw the freeview channels from freeview in a couple
of months too!

False. Sky announced that they would ASK Ofcom to remove some of
their channels, but the press reported it as if it was going to happen.
The Freeview consortium (National Grid Wireless formerly Crown Castle,
the BBC, and Sky) were only awarded their Freeview licence on the
understanding that they would broadcast the channels that they do on
Freeview.

It would either involve Sky losing their Freeview licence and
someone else moving in to broadcast on that Mux, or Sky renegotiating
the terms of their licence with Ofcom.

False

Sky TOLD ofcom that is what they are going to do and as far as they
are concerned it is a rubber stamping exercise

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....773&highlight=

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

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!)

--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
DGLite: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=4&r=1495 - FREE!!!
http://www.snap-seo.co.uk/web-hostin...g-packages.php
Packages ranging from FREE to UNLIMITED!

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

On Mar 21, 8:28 pm, Mike Henry
wrote:
In .com, "Ed"





wrote:
On 21 Mar, 18:45, Mike Henry wrote:
In . com, "Ed"

wrote:
On Mar 21, 4:00 pm, "Tommo" wrote:
I find it very difficult to sympathise with Sky's position on this one
when they have even withdrawn Freeview channels from cable. *******.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They're gonna withdraw the freeview channels from freeview in a couple
of months too!

False. Sky announced that they would ASK Ofcom to remove some of
their channels, but the press reported it as if it was going to happen.
The Freeview consortium (National Grid Wireless formerly Crown Castle,
the BBC, and Sky) were only awarded their Freeview licence on the
understanding that they would broadcast the channels that they do on
Freeview.

It would either involve Sky losing their Freeview licence and
someone else moving in to broadcast on that Mux, or Sky renegotiating
the terms of their licence with Ofcom.

False

Er no, I am correct actually.

Sky TOLD ofcom that is what they are going to do

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....ol-newsArticle...

Did you read your own reference? Which part of

"The launch of the new service is subject to approval by Ofcom of the
necessary variations to licences held by Sky and National Grid Wireless,
which provides DTT transmission and multiplexing services to Sky."

...are you having difficulty with?


That is exactly the part that says to me that Sky consider this a fait
accompli.

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.

BT have been made by OFCOM to open up there Network to other service
providers, why shoudln't Virgin have to do the same?

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:30:38 GMT, "Carl Waring"
wrote:

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.

So Virgin have built a private closed-loop network monopoly whereas
Sky uses open satellites which anyone can broadcast from.

2. Sky are not only the broadcasters but also buy the programmes as well.

Exactly like Virgin do with their own channels, then.

--

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:30:38 GMT, "Carl Waring"
wrote:

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.

So Virgin have built a private closed-loop network monopoly whereas
Sky uses open satellites which anyone can broadcast from.

Yes, anyone can broadcast on Satellite, but if you want to be on the EPG (so
people can find you) you have to pay Sky THOUSANDS. If you don't want to be
FTA, or be part of Sky's line-up guess what, you have to pay Sky THOUSANDS!

2. Sky are not only the broadcasters but also buy the programmes as
well.

Exactly like Virgin do with their own channels, then.

Not exactly the same thing. It's to do with seperating the two parts of the
service. The EPG/encryption, etc. from the programme aquisition and
broadcast.

Damn! I'm sure someone else can explain this better. Check-out the relevant
threads on DS.

--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
DGLite: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=4&r=1495 - FREE!!!
http://www.snap-seo.co.uk/web-hostin...g-packages.php
Packages ranging from FREE to UNLIMITED!

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 08:52:38 GMT, "Carl Waring"
wrote:

Yes, anyone can broadcast on Satellite, but if you want to be on the EPG (so
people can find you) you have to pay Sky THOUSANDS. If you don't want to be
FTA, or be part of Sky's line-up guess what, you have to pay Sky THOUSANDS!

Yes, how disgraceful, because it's not as if people operating a
television channel will not have been spending HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
on things like satellite bandwidth, uplink, programming, etc...

2. Sky are not only the broadcasters but also buy the programmes as
well.

Exactly like Virgin do with their own channels, then.

Not exactly the same thing. It's to do with seperating the two parts of the
service. The EPG/encryption, etc. from the programme aquisition and
broadcast.

So exactly like Virgin do with their own cable network, then. Your
suggestion is, then, presumably that Virgin's platform should also be
separated such that they, as the operator of several television
channels, do not also control the cable EPG and cable encryption
system?
--

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

Yes, anyone can broadcast on Satellite, but if you want to be on the EPG (so
people can find you) you have to pay Sky THOUSANDS. If you don't want to be
FTA, or be part of Sky's line-up guess what, you have to pay Sky THOUSANDS!

Yes, how disgraceful, because it's not as if people operating a
television channel will not have been spending HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
on things like satellite bandwidth, uplink, programming, etc...

There's a huge difference. Broadcasters can choose their service
provider for all those other items. They can choose who to pay, and
they can negotiate how much. There are many options and much
competition.

The Sky EPG prices are excessive, are fixed by Sky, are not negotiable
and for broadcasters there is no alternative to paying them if they
want the 9 million Sky digibox users to see/hear their channel.

This is anti-competitive and monopolistic practice of the very worst
type. And yet people and governments ignore this and instead complain
about Microsoft bundling Media Player in Windows (for free, with no
obligation to use it, and without preventing anyone from installing a
similar product). Good grief.

--
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 in message
...
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 08:52:38 GMT, "Carl Waring"
wrote:

Yes, anyone can broadcast on Satellite, but if you want to be on the EPG
(so
people can find you) you have to pay Sky THOUSANDS. If you don't want to
be
FTA, or be part of Sky's line-up guess what, you have to pay Sky
THOUSANDS!

Yes, how disgraceful, because it's not as if people operating a
television channel will not have been spending HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
on things like satellite bandwidth, uplink, programming, etc...

2. Sky are not only the broadcasters but also buy the programmes as
well.

Exactly like Virgin do with their own channels, then.

Not exactly the same thing. It's to do with seperating the two parts of
the
service. The EPG/encryption, etc. from the programme aquisition and
broadcast.

So exactly like Virgin do with their own cable network, then. Your
suggestion is, then, presumably that Virgin's platform should also be
separated such that they, as the operator of several television
channels, do not also control the cable EPG and cable encryption
system?

Totally different....

Cable is UK ONLY, Sky HAS to encrypt to keep their monopoly (Who shopped the
Beeb for being FTA so they could nick *24*?)

Thankfully Virgin have given their *Two fingered salute* to Sky...and not
before time!

One can only hope more broadcasters start wising up and doing the same
thing.

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

Jomtien wrote:
Zero Tolerance wrote:

Yes, anyone can broadcast on Satellite, but if you want to be on
the EPG (so people can find you) you have to pay Sky THOUSANDS. If
you don't want to be FTA, or be part of Sky's line-up guess what,
you have to pay Sky THOUSANDS!

Yes, how disgraceful, because it's not as if people operating a
television channel will not have been spending HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
on things like satellite bandwidth, uplink, programming, etc...

There's a huge difference. Broadcasters can choose their service
provider for all those other items. They can choose who to pay, and
they can negotiate how much. There are many options and much
competition.

The Sky EPG prices are excessive, are fixed by Sky, are not negotiable
and for broadcasters there is no alternative to paying them if they
want the 9 million Sky digibox users to see/hear their channel.

This is anti-competitive and monopolistic practice of the very worst
type. And yet people and governments ignore this and instead complain
about Microsoft bundling Media Player in Windows (for free, with no
obligation to use it, and without preventing anyone from installing a
similar product). Good grief.

Thanks, J. That's the stuff I meant :-D

This is the thread I was meaning:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...d.php?t=554380

--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
DGLite: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=4&r=1495 - FREE!!!
http://www.snap-seo.co.uk/web-hostin...g-packages.php
Packages ranging from FREE to UNLIMITED!

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 08:41:39 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

The Sky EPG prices are excessive, are fixed by Sky, are not negotiable
and for broadcasters there is no alternative to paying them if they
want the 9 million Sky digibox users to see/hear their channel.

And yet, with the apparent exception of Rapture TV, not one single
television broadcaster has any difficulty in paying these unacceptably
onerous fees. How strange. Almost as if they don't think it's unfair
at all, isn't it.

--

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

In uk.media.tv.sky Jomtien wrote:

: The Sky EPG prices are excessive,

Says you!

: are fixed by Sky, are not negotiable

Actually they are fixed by OFCOM - but don't let that stand in your way!

Before OFCOM insisted on a rate card Sky *COULD* and *DID* offer deals
to the likes of the BBC and ITV. As this isn't now possible it is a large
part of why they went FTA.

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

The Sky EPG prices are excessive, are fixed by Sky, are not negotiable
and for broadcasters there is no alternative to paying them if they
want the 9 million Sky digibox users to see/hear their channel.

And yet, with the apparent exception of Rapture TV, not one single
television broadcaster has any difficulty in paying these unacceptably
onerous fees. How strange. Almost as if they don't think it's unfair
at all, isn't it.

You've missed the point. They have no choice if they want to remain a
viable channel. You would be hard put to find a single broadcaster who
would say that Sky's charges are reasonable and that they are happy to
pay them. You will find many who have had public run-ins with Sky.

Without an EPG entry few if any of the 9million Sky box users would
ever see these channels.

This is the worst type of commercial blackmail.

--
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
 

Brian McIlwrath wrote:

: The Sky EPG prices are excessive,

Says you!

And many broadcasters.


: are fixed by Sky, are not negotiable

Actually they are fixed by OFCOM

No, they aren't. Ofcom merely rubber-stamp Sky's decision, and make
noises about capping. Ofcom do NOT fix prices.


Before OFCOM insisted on a rate card Sky *COULD* and *DID* offer deals
to the likes of the BBC and ITV. As this isn't now possible it is a large
part of why they went FTA.

You are confusing the encryption charge and the EPG charge.

--
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 Mon, 26 Mar 2007 08:16:38 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

Without an EPG entry few if any of the 9million Sky box users would
ever see these channels.

Well if the Sky EPG number is such poor value for money, perhaps those
channels could spend the money on marketing their satellite frequency
and polarisation details instead?


--

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

Without an EPG entry few if any of the 9million Sky box users would
ever see these channels.

Well if the Sky EPG number is such poor value for money, perhaps those
channels could spend the money on marketing their satellite frequency
and polarisation details instead?

You are being deliberately obtuse, like the Sky EPG.

Virtually no one knows that channels can be added manually, and even
fewer will care to do so.

--
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 Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:34:53 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

Virtually no one knows that channels can be added manually, and even
fewer will care to do so.

So you admit that there is a commercial value in having an EPG number?

OK, so then given that the last time I checked, Sky was not a
registered charity, can you explain why Sky should not make a charge
for that valuable service?

And again I restate - if the charge was unreasonable, then many more
channels would advertise their frequency some other way.
--

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

Virtually no one knows that channels can be added manually, and even
fewer will care to do so.

So you admit that there is a commercial value in having an EPG number?

Only because Sky have made is deliberately difficult to tune and use
non-EPG channels.


OK, so then given that the last time I checked, Sky was not a
registered charity, can you explain why Sky should not make a charge
for that valuable service?

"A" charge, maybe. But not such as absurdly high one.

One bloke with a modest PC could run the entire EPG. And you're
telling me that makes it worth £70,000 per channel per year? Rubbish.


And again I restate - if the charge was unreasonable, then many more
channels would advertise their frequency some other way.

No, for the reasons I gave.

--
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
 

Dave wrote:

: The Sky EPG prices are excessive,

Says you!

And many broadcasters.

Show me anybody who likes paying for any service and doesn't think it
ought to be cheaper.

The difference here is that this is a monopoly, with prices fixed by
the only supplier.

--
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
 

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

Virtually no one knows that channels can be added manually, and even
fewer will care to do so.

So you admit that there is a commercial value in having an EPG number?

Only because Sky have made is deliberately difficult to tune and use
non-EPG channels.


OK, so then given that the last time I checked, Sky was not a
registered charity, can you explain why Sky should not make a charge
for that valuable service?

"A" charge, maybe. But not such as absurdly high one.

One bloke with a modest PC could run the entire EPG. And you're
telling me that makes it worth £70,000 per channel per year? Rubbish.

But you can`t make this arguement, it isn`t what something costs to run/make
that determines the value, it is what it is worth that sets the value.
Enough people seem to agree that it`s worth that level of cost, otherwise
they`d find an alternative.

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

Simon Finnigan wrote:

One bloke with a modest PC could run the entire EPG. And you're
telling me that makes it worth £70,000 per channel per year? Rubbish.

But you can`t make this arguement, it isn`t what something costs to run/make
that determines the value, it is what it is worth that sets the value.

Not necessarily.

This is why we have a Monopolies Commission and an OFT.

--
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
 

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
Simon Finnigan wrote:

One bloke with a modest PC could run the entire EPG. And you're
telling me that makes it worth £70,000 per channel per year? Rubbish.

But you can`t make this arguement, it isn`t what something costs to
run/make
that determines the value, it is what it is worth that sets the value.

Not necessarily.

This is why we have a Monopolies Commission and an OFT.

And have they got involved and forced Sky to reduce their fees?

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

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

Virtually no one knows that channels can be added manually, and even
fewer will care to do so.

So you admit that there is a commercial value in having an EPG number?

Only because Sky have made is deliberately difficult to tune and use
non-EPG channels.


OK, so then given that the last time I checked, Sky was not a
registered charity, can you explain why Sky should not make a charge
for that valuable service?

"A" charge, maybe. But not such as absurdly high one.

One bloke with a modest PC could run the entire EPG. And you're
telling me that makes it worth £70,000 per channel per year? Rubbish.

But you can`t make this arguement, it isn`t what something costs to
run/make
that determines the value, it is what it is worth that sets the value.
Enough people seem to agree that it`s worth that level of cost, otherwise
they`d find an alternative.

Cost is the amount is costs the producer to provide the goods or service.

Price is the amount the producer\wholesaler\retailer asks for the goods
or service.

Consumers will then determine whether that price represents good value
or not, by buying or not buying the product or service.

If theres a big difference between the manufacturing cost and the selling
price and a large demand, then other producers will enter the market and
offer the same goods at a lower price.

However, if the producer has or has purchased exclusive licencing rights
to some intellectual property, information, etc then they too will be part
of the production costs as well. And they can charge whatever the market
will bear. However having exclusive licencing rights doesn't usually
constitute
a restrictive monoply as prohibited by the legeislation, as otherwise no
authors, musicians etc would be able to claim the protection of copyright.


michael adams

....

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:

: The Sky EPG prices are excessive,

Says you!

And many broadcasters.

Show me anybody who likes paying for any service and doesn't think it
ought to be cheaper.

The difference here is that this is a monopoly, with prices fixed by
the only supplier.


How come lots of people are voting with their wallets and dropping SKy and
moving to Freeview? SUrely if Sky was a monopoly, they wouldnt be ableto do
that?

Or do you mean, Sky has a monopoly on Skys' programmes, just like Ford has a
monopoly of Ford cars. If you dont like Sky TV there are plenty of TV
alternatives.

--
Tumbleweed

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

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

Simon Finnigan wrote:

But you can`t make this arguement, it isn`t what something costs to
run/make
that determines the value, it is what it is worth that sets the value.

Not necessarily.

This is why we have a Monopolies Commission and an OFT.

And have they got involved and forced Sky to reduce their fees?

Ofcom did in fact make a half-arsed effort to do this. After much
twittering about "'market forces" (and how can you have market forces
without competition?) they ended up capping them.

The MMC and the OFT are currently looking at Sky.

The main problem here is that all UK government bodies are terrified
of Murdoch and will do nothing to upset him. The procedures and
organisations are in place to effectively and correctly regulate this
industry, but nothing ever happens.

--
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
 

Tumbleweed wrote:

Show me anybody who likes paying for any service and doesn't think it
ought to be cheaper.

The difference here is that this is a monopoly, with prices fixed by
the only supplier.


How come lots of people are voting with their wallets and dropping SKy and
moving to Freeview? SUrely if Sky was a monopoly, they wouldnt be ableto do
that?

Or do you mean, Sky has a monopoly on Skys' programmes, just like Ford has a
monopoly of Ford cars. If you dont like Sky TV there are plenty of TV
alternatives.

Neither. The discussion here is not about viewers or subscribers, it
is about broadcasters being required to pay excessive amounts for the
EPG.

--
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 Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:26:39 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

Neither. The discussion here is not about viewers or subscribers, it
is about broadcasters being required to pay excessive amounts for the
EPG.

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.

--

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

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

Show me anybody who likes paying for any service and doesn't think it
ought to be cheaper.

The difference here is that this is a monopoly, with prices fixed by
the only supplier.


How come lots of people are voting with their wallets and dropping SKy and
moving to Freeview? SUrely if Sky was a monopoly, they wouldnt be ableto
do
that?

Or do you mean, Sky has a monopoly on Skys' programmes, just like Ford has
a
monopoly of Ford cars. If you dont like Sky TV there are plenty of TV
alternatives.

Neither. The discussion here is not about viewers or subscribers, it
is about broadcasters being required to pay excessive amounts for the
EPG.


no, we are talking about a monoply situation (according to you) which means
that broadcasters are forced to pay f'too much' or the EPG. But they arent,
because they dont jave to be on sky, there are many other ways of
broadcasting,and will be more in future. Sky doesnt even have a monoply of
satellite brodcasting its just that, ATM, no one else chooses to.

--
Tumbleweed

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

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:26:39 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

Neither. The discussion here is not about viewers or subscribers, it
is about broadcasters being required to pay excessive amounts for the
EPG.

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.


When adjusted for audience figures and demographic, yes. Would be
interesting to know what it is. But J would probably say that VIrgin have a
monoply on cable (which they do, unlike Sky on satellite). Everyone has a
monopoly if you reduce it enough...that newsagent window, they have a
monopoly on the display of cards in it, it should have a price as specified
by Jomtiens soviet-era pricing committe.

--
Tumbleweed

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

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

Neither. The discussion here is not about viewers or subscribers, it
is about broadcasters being required to pay excessive amounts for the
EPG.

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.

Maybe you know different?

--
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
 

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.

--
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
 

Tumbleweed wrote:

we are talking about a monoply situation (according to you) which means
that broadcasters are forced to pay f'too much' or the EPG. But they arent,
because they dont jave to be on sky, there are many other ways of
broadcasting,and will be more in future. Sky doesnt even have a monoply of
satellite brodcasting its just that, ATM, no one else chooses to.

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

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

--
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
 

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

Neither. The discussion here is not about viewers or subscribers, it
is about broadcasters being required to pay excessive amounts for the
EPG.

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?

--
Items on ebay:
http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQsassZscousesifinQQhtZ-1

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:26:39 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

Neither. The discussion here is not about viewers or subscribers, it
is about broadcasters being required to pay excessive amounts for the
EPG.

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.

I would assume that VM don't make a charge for being on their EPG as you can
only *get* on the EPG if you're on the system anyway.

--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
DGLite: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=4&r=1495 - FREE!!!
http://www.snap-seo.co.uk/web-hostin...g-packages.php
Packages ranging from FREE to UNLIMITED!

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

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?

--