Ofcom sticking their nose in

[Dazza115]

BBC NEWS | Business | Sky may have to share TV channels

So Ofcom has decided that they want more competition in the showing of sports and are on the verge of forcing sky to sell their rights to their competition at reduced prices.

They have also decided that the next round of EPL bidding is their jurasdiction aswell and will try and force the rights to goto as many channels as possible.

So in a few years, you could see sports on other services at a cheaper price than the rights holders are showing it, that is of course if virgin has your area cabled, or you dsl is fast enough. Or you may be forced to have not just multiple channels, but multiple service providers altogether, instead of paying and extra tenner a month, you could be forced to spend an extra £40+ a month for the same games.

I thought with the end of setanta the world had wised up a little, but it seems Ofcom want to screw over every single customer out there. We're happy with the status quo, each provider has the opportunity to bid for the rights, when you start forcing them to goto other service providers altogether the value for money will drop altogether.

I hate this interfearing crap, interfearing for the sake of corporations rather than for the sake of the consumer is short sided and dangerous.

[Manxstar]

They'll have to get past Rupert Murdoch and his lawyers first!

[Munkey Boy]

Originally Posted by Dazza115

I hate this interfearing crap, interfearing for the sake of corporations rather than for the sake of the consumer is short sided and dangerous.

Hang on a minute, isn't the argument that they are interfering for the sake of the consumer? Ofcom's point of view is that not everyone has Sky, so what do you do if you want to watch football but don't have Sky Sports?

What they miss in this is the "hardcore" fan who wants every game on their personal TV. The idea behind making sure other channels had access to football was that you had choice other than Sky Sports.

I know this seems upside down if you have Sky Sports and want to see everything (that's me included by the way!), I didn't subscribe to Setanta for one, so missed all those games. But I know people who have Setanta who saw games who don't have SS.

It's funny, but after all this, pay-per-view actually seems the way to go. That way all games could be accessible rather than by subscription, and you choose what you want to watch.

[kopchoir]

Originally Posted by Munkey Boy

Hang on a minute, isn't the argument that they are interfering for the sake of the consumer? Ofcom's point of view is that not everyone has Sky, so what do you do if you want to watch football but don't have Sky Sports?

What they miss in this is the "hardcore" fan who wants every game on their personal TV. The idea behind making sure other channels had access to channels was that you had choice other than Sky Sports.

I know this seems upside down if you have Sky Sports and want to see everything (that's me included by the way!), I didn't subscribe to Setanta for one, so missed all those games. But I know people who have Setanta who saw games who don't have SS.

It's funny, but after all this, pay-per-view actually seems the way to go. That way all games could be accessible rather than by subscription, and you choose what you want to watch.

Fair point lawrence with regards to pay per view but if you remember prem plus charged you £50 a season or £6 a game so if the pay per view culture came in then normal householders would be ripped off further there is a reason why myslef yourslef and other pay sky their subscription IMO its worth it we dont have such competition when it comes to paying your tv licsence fee its compulsary so why single sports out i really dont mind paying for sky as i get value for money my only quarm is the not going to the game culture
so to conclude if you want to watch football then you have to subscribe to sky or go to the game it would be good to espn`s coverage of football because setanta`s was rubbish look at the champions league coverage on sky 8 games match choice its quality

[LFC_SL]

I do not know about everyone else but I am bored sometimes just by watching MOTD highlights. So I have no real desire to have access to every minute of every match

For the biggest games I prefer to go to the pub for the community atmosphere anyhow

[Dazza115]

I don't see how anyone could be in favour of PPV, sky were charging £6 a game, if you only watch one team over the course of the season, then im sure it would work out cheaper, but i like watching whatever games are on tv and going ppv would mean theres much less value for money.

The point is that, they wont be adding more choice, its not like at the end of the day they all have the same exact games on all the time, they will all have different games at different times meaning that even just to follow your own team you would need all the subscriptions to all the different channels/services. Even if it was PPV, BT would have one game PPV while sky would have a different one, same end result with needing multiple services.

I understand that not everyone has sky, but they have the CHOICE to have sky, i dont have the CHOICE to have virgin cause they aint cabled my area. At the end of the day, its the differences of what each service provides that drives the market forward, if they start forcing everything to share everything whats the point in choosing one over the other? Whats the incentive for one broadcaster to bother bidding for the rights when they can get them cheap from whoever wins them? It'll turn into the broadband market where quality doesnt matter anymore, sky wont get many subs if they employ the best pundits etc and charge more vs charging a fraction of the cost and employing the cheapest pundits.

I hope sky fight this all the way, i know they arent nescessarily fighting for the consumer, but we're the ones that will benefit most from it.

[Munkey Boy]

I was only saying pay per view was a good model, not that the previous pricing was fair. How much do we pay now for Sky Sports? It's about 25-30 a month? Surely be better to pay say 3 quid for every match you want to watch, so long as every match was available this way...

[Manxstar]

Originally Posted by LFC_SL

I do not know about everyone else but I am bored sometimes just by watching MOTD highlights. So I have no real desire to have access to every minute of every match

Yep, same here...Never watch MOTD, as IMO the Sky offering is by far superior.

[Manxstar]

Originally Posted by Munkey Boy

I was only saying pay per view was a good model, not that the previous pricing was fair. How much do we pay now for Sky Sports? It's about 25-30 a month? Surely be better to pay say 3 quid for every match you want to watch, so long as every match was available this way...

£3 for every match? I'll keep dreaming shall I?
As you know, ordering for one-off ppv such as boxing & Gaelic football was a rip-off, unless of course you were subscribed to that provider..

[Munkey Boy]

Originally Posted by Manxstar

£3 for every match? I'll keep dreaming shall I?
As you know, ordering for one-off ppv such as boxing & Gaelic football was a rip-off, unless of course you were subscribed to that provider..

I just think it's a fairer system, I never claimed any corporation would implement it of their own free will. What do I watch, something like 10 matches a month? So 30/10 = 3, that's my only logic.

It's what Ofcom should be pursuing if you ask me, that's all. If anyone charged too much for their match, people wouldn't watch it.

[kopchoir]

Originally Posted by Munkey Boy

I was only saying pay per view was a good model, not that the previous pricing was fair. How much do we pay now for Sky Sports? It's about 25-30 a month? Surely be better to pay say 3 quid for every match you want to watch, so long as every match was available this way...

then you get 10 matches a year maybe im a little different as that i have to watch everything ill book my shifts round world cups and watch all the matches and same goes for the premeir league and la liga hence the reason to pay for sky and setanta and around 7-10 home games a year and the odd away game at old trafford

[Munkey Boy]

Originally Posted by kopchoir

then you get 10 matches a year maybe im a little different as that i have to watch everything ill book my shifts round world cups and watch all the matches and same goes for the premeir league and la liga hence the reason to pay for sky and setanta and around 7-10 home games a year and the odd away game at old trafford

You've got a problem there mate! (and I said 10 a month, not year!) Shouldn't it be watch more, pay more anyway? As it is, less 'hardcore' viewers are subsidising your viewing...

Only an idea anyway, I may have to think this through a little more!

[kopchoir]

Originally Posted by Munkey Boy

You've got a problem there mate! (and I said 10 a month, not year!) Shouldn't it be watch more, pay more anyway? As it is, less 'hardcore' viewers are subsidising your viewing...

Oh yeah 10 games a month (do i watch ten games of football a month probably more i see where your coming from)
Sky have loads of games on the box if you took sky`s monopoly away from football then would it harm footbal(championship most defo)l??? i mean look at setanta it plowed all that cash into the game but couldnt match up with it if PQ was shocking, commentary was alommst as bad as david pleat on itv if you think about it you get hd match choice la liga champions league as well as other sports for me its worth it where as my bbc tax is not worth it IMO the freeview viewers get soccer saturday which is free to watch and its quality so im subing them with quality sky tv

[arthurdentpc]

Originally Posted by Dazza115

Or you may be forced to have not just multiple channels, but multiple service providers altogether, instead of paying and extra tenner a month, you could be forced to spend an extra £40+ a month for the same games.

Forced is a bit strong. You're forced to pay your electric bill, or top up home heating oil, etc - but you're not 'forced' to pay to watch football on TV. You can always pay for what you can afford, and not pay the rest.

[dazza74]

Having two subscription channels as we had with Sky / Setanta just works out a worse deal for the consumer and sadly I could see ESPN making the same mistake. I like Munkey Boy's suggestion that you make games available for £3 a pop