Virgin threatens to sue Sky

"John Russell" wrote in message
...

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.

But they allow competitors to "use" this investment, thus saving them money.

I believe they are obliged to.

Why aren't Virgin just as open with their cables and box's?

Probably because they can get away with not doing so. Unlike Sky satellite, they
do own and control the platform.

That Sky did offer to directly charge Virgin's customers, but Virgin declined.


It would seem other companies don't want to risk starting up their own truly
independent subscription Sat service.

Certainly that has been the case. The introduction of Freesat, will make it
easier for an independent to be launched, so maybe someone will be tempted,
perhaps using HD.

Equally I'm not sure many people want a unique box for every Sat provider.

Quite, but an STB with multiple CAMs would likely be more acceptable.

--

Michael Chare

Quite, but an STB with multiple CAMs would likely be more acceptable.

Acceptable? More like extra complication for the average viewer!

In message , Agamemnon
writes

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.


But both cable and satellite were never set up as monopolies. If you
break them up, how do you stop a new monopoly forming? The market just
isn't suited to multiple companies competing on an equal footing,
especially when one player owns half the newspaper media so can
continually promote its content for free, owns the companies that make
most of the premium content, and is able to buy out all the premium
sports content.



--
Julian Barker

There is a coherent plan in the universe,
though I don't know what it is a plan for.
- Sir Fred Hoyle 1915-2001

"Julian Barker" wrote in message
...
In message , Agamemnon
writes

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.


But both cable and satellite were never set up as monopolies. If you
break them up, how do you stop a new monopoly forming? The market just
isn't suited to multiple companies competing on an equal footing,
especially when one player owns half the newspaper media so can
continually promote its content for free, owns the companies that make
most of the premium content, and is able to buy out all the premium
sports content.

And if we have true competition prices fall right? Not in an industry that's
all about Broadcast Rights! I don't notice those who own TV Sports Rights
offering a package for free to FTV TV. They are the ones who want to squeeze
every last penny out of the broadcasters if they can, at our expense.

"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
"John Russell" wrote in message
...

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.

But they allow competitors to "use" this investment, thus saving them
money.

I believe they are obliged to.

Why aren't Virgin just as open with their cables and box's?

Probably because they can get away with not doing so. Unlike Sky
satellite, they
do own and control the platform.

That Sky did offer to directly charge Virgin's customers, but Virgin
declined.


It would seem other companies don't want to risk starting up their own
truly
independent subscription Sat service.

Certainly that has been the case. The introduction of Freesat, will make
it
easier for an independent to be launched, so maybe someone will be
tempted,
perhaps using HD.

Equally I'm not sure many people want a unique box for every Sat
provider.

Quite, but an STB with multiple CAMs would likely be more acceptable.

Sky do not allow their decryption system to be sold as a CAM therefore it
has to be built in to the receiver and this is unfair to consumers who have
to buy a branded Sky box instead of just a normal satellite receiver and
plug in a different CAM to switch services. As far as I know Sky boxes do
not allow 3rd party CAMs.


--

Michael Chare

"John Russell" wrote in message
...

Quite, but an STB with multiple CAMs would likely be more acceptable.

Acceptable? More like extra complication for the average viewer!

The provision of two CAM slots on satellite receivers is not uncommon. If you
can understand the requirement for one, the idea that you might need an
additional one is not that difficult to grasp.

If the government has its way, we are all going to have to know what it costs to
drive down every road that we are likely to use, and how the cost varies by time
of day. Will people be able to cope with the complexity of that?

--

Michael Chare

"Beck" wrote in message
...

"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?

I'm not sure - I think it may be available through interactive but
interactive isn't available on HD IIRC. I tried using the radio but there is
a delay in digital signal of a couple of seconds, which meant the commentary
was in front of the action so I ended up turning off the radio commentary.


--
Regards

PLC
(Even Damnation is poisoned with Rainbows)

"John Russell" wrote in message
...

"Zimmy" wrote in message
...

"Doug Paulley" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 12:30:08 -0000, "Zimmy" wrote:

This doesn't make sense. People pay Sky the service provider, so how
does
Sky the content provider get any money?

The adverts?

It amazes me that I pay for the channels, and then they also have
advertising. I must be a mug.

Of course. It been a while since I had Sky One but the length and the
frequency of the ad breaks used to drive me crazy.
You're right they should all be free to anyone who will watch them. Maybe
Virgin has a point.

Z


You think SKY cut the programs down to squeeze in the ads? SKY ONE is
predominately a US sourced channel, and US programs on all channels are
now only 35-40 mins long to get more ads in a 60 min slot.

I doubt the ads can pay for the broadcast rights by themselves. TV

No, not at the over inflated prices that Sky are offering for them in order
to cut other broadcasters out of the market.

advertising has been hit bad. Many ad agencies don't just to want pay less
for TV, they think targeting people via specialist mags etc is more
effective and place many less TV ads.

There soon won't be any TV advertising when everyone has a PVR and sets it
to buffer every days programming in advance so that they can cut the adds
out and the 3/4 of an hour news interval the tosser keep putting in the
middle of films. Programmes will all have to become subscription or
sponsored by onscreen DOGs and if that happens people will wait to download
the DVD rip torrents.

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

"Beck" wrote in message
...

"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?

I'm not sure - I think it may be available through interactive but
interactive isn't available on HD IIRC. I tried using the radio but there
is a delay in digital signal of a couple of seconds, which meant the
commentary was in front of the action so I ended up turning off the radio
commentary.

Five Live commentary was available as an option with the Six Nations rugby
(on Freeview).

Z

In message ,
Beck Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

"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.

My understanding is that Sky made a large increase in the price they wanted
Virgin to pay for their channels. Virgin refused to pay this increase
(because, they said, they didn't want to have to pass these large increases
onto their customers...), so Sky said 'Fine' and took their channels away...

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)