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?

NO! You will soon know when customers are expected to pay the costs of
legal action when the bills go up.

I am not sure of the legal ramifications of all this but are Sky legally
obliged to supply channels to other suppliers?

NO! They charge for supplying channels, but do not have to supply them to
anyone. What Virgin are afraid of is people taking action against them for
not supplying SKY channels. Virgin have made a promise and formed a
contract without fulfilling it. SKY asked for more money, Virgin said no,
so SKY said bugger off.
Virgin customers are now saying they were guaranteed SKY channels, but
Virgin are refusing to supply them. Simple as that. The customers contract
is with Virgin, not SKY.

Surely if Sky do not want them to have them then that is within their
rights?

"John" 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?

NO! You will soon know when customers are expected to pay the costs of
legal action when the bills go up.

I am not sure of the legal ramifications of all this but are Sky legally
obliged to supply channels to other suppliers?

NO! They charge for supplying channels, but do not have to supply them to
anyone. What Virgin are afraid of is people taking action against them
for not supplying SKY channels. Virgin have made a promise and formed a
contract without fulfilling it. SKY asked for more money, Virgin said no,
so SKY said bugger off.
Virgin customers are now saying they were guaranteed SKY channels, but
Virgin are refusing to supply them. Simple as that. The customers
contract is with Virgin, not SKY.

Thats pretty much what I thought. I mean Sky owns the channels they should
not be forced really to loan them to anyone.
However, information is scarce and if Sky have broken a contract they should
be forced to fulfill it or pay up. Whether they have or not, I do not know.
Also what I still do not know is whether Virgin removed the channels, or Sky
stopped supplying them. I think this is an important point with regards to
how Virgin customers may feel about this situation and where to direct their
anger. If Virgin pulled them by throwing a strop then that is far worse
than Sky pulling them.

Despite Sky being a greedy multi million pound company, they have spent a
huge amount in bringing digital TV to people and have invested in all sorts
of technology to bring HD to the fore. Plus the amount they spend on
securing the rights to shows like Lost, 24, etc., I do not blame them for
wanting money for them.

"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.

When it comes to satellite, the platform, i.e. the satellites at 28.2E and 28.5E
are not owned by Sky.

Sky have manged to get into a dominant position because they own/control the EPG
and the have 'given' everyone satellite STBs that will only work with their
encryption.

When the BBC/ITV service starts there will be a separate EPG, this will make it
a bit easier for a pay channel to start using a different encryption system.
Initially such a pay channel might find it an uphill struggle, however when the
BBC launches their HD service people would have to acquire a new STB anyway, in
this situation someone like Virgin Media might consider launching their own pay
HD channel.

You would then have a choice of suppliers from the one platform. - and there is
plently of capacity compared with Freeview.

I don't know whether you would be able to achieve a similar separation with
cable.

--

Michael Chare

"Beck" wrote in message
...

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 ;-)

Or turn the sound off and listen to the commentary on the radio :-)

--
Regards

PLC
(Even Damnation is poisoned with Rainbows)

"Paul Collins" wrote in message
. uk...

"Beck" wrote in message
...

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 ;-)

Or turn the sound off and listen to the commentary on the radio :-)

IIRC during BBC football in the world cup there was an option to choose
other commentating like Five Live. Is that available regularly?

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...

"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


Nothing is for Free! You show me a single SKY package that costs nothing and
includes SKY One.

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.

SKY are not a monopoly, and they don't own any Sat's. They are subscription
TV suppliers who chose to use proprietary encryption, and thus needed to
supply box's. They could have made the box SKY and FTV only. Instead they
sell the rights to competitors to use their encryption if they want, such as
Satana. This is far more open than Virgin, who refuse direct channels sales
via their cable, which they do own, unlike the Sat's which SKY hires
transponders on.

John Russell wrote:
"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...
"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

Nothing is for Free! You show me a single SKY package that costs nothing and
includes SKY One.


He means that Sky the content provider gives Sky the service provider
with the Sky1 channel for nothing. I don't know if that's actually true
or not, they might have some kind of internal market.

Stewart

"Stewart Smith" wrote in message
...
John Russell wrote:
"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...
"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

Nothing is for Free! You show me a single SKY package that costs nothing
and includes SKY One.

He means that Sky the content provider gives Sky the service provider with
the Sky1 channel for nothing. I don't know if that's actually true or
not, they might have some kind of internal market.

Stewart

IF that's true do you think SKY will say "fair cop" and let Virgin have it
for free? No, they will just end up with a payment between the SKY companies
which is cost neutral to the SKY customer.

A bit like Network Rail being in overall control of train lines, and train
companies leasing the lines?

SKY do not own their "track", but they have chosen to own their own rolling
stock rather than hire it from others. They are happy to sell the use of
their rolling stock to others who are in competition with them. They cannot
stop others buying rights to use the track from it's owners.


Virgin Media do own their track, and want to run their own trains, and hire
better rolling stock from others when appropriate. What they won't do is
let others operate trains of their own on the virgin track.