[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.

[McFaber]

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

[Steven]

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...

[McFaber]

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.

[McFaber]

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

[Rorifett]

Originally Posted by Dazza115

instead of paying and extra tenner a month, you could be forced to spend an extra £40+ a month for the same games.

Originally Posted by arthurdentpc

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.

If you read his comment properly you'd see he said you'd be forced to spend an extra £40+ a month for the same games. He didn't say that anyone was forcing him to pay for those games, purely that if he wanted the same service, it would cost £30+ on his monthly subscription compared to what it cost prior to Ofcom wanting Sky to give up the monopoly and revenue that they, by and large, created.

I always wonder if Ofcom would have made other companies pay off Sky's debts if the PL hadn't taken off like it did and Sky had gone bust... These things should really work both ways but they rarely do.

[mabo]

I keep hearing people saying that having more than one broadcaster for the game is "bad for the consumer" but i fail to see how. True it may be bad for some consumers but there are many who don't care to pay any money to Murdoch or have a satellite dish on their homes and are thus dependant on freeview services.

Surely more than one broadcaster gives such people more choice and it also increases the chances of prices diminishing for the spearate packages offered. If a second supermarket opens up in your town then prices usually decrease for similar products.

[kilvil]

my own take on this is its not the providers that wrong but the premier league and the fa. they sell 6 blocks of matches to the highest bidder, but if they where to let more than 1 provider for the same games more competition would come into play and bring down the cost of matches.

[hdsport]

Originally Posted by kilvil

my own take on this is its not the providers that wrong but the premier league and the fa. they sell 6 blocks of matches to the highest bidder, but if they where to let more than 1 provider for the same games more competition would come into play and bring down the cost of matches.

Firstly the FA have very little involvement in the Premier League (its not even the FAPL anymore) the rights are sold solely by the Premier League.

You could not have rights being sold on a non exclusive basis, their value would drop dramatically. It would be difficult for the clubs or the broadcasters to make it pay if two broadcasters were able to show the same game.

Although there is the deal between Arena and Premiere (soon to be SKY Deutschland) for Bundesliga rights but that's as much a platform issue if I remember rather than the rights being sold to two broadcasters. The closest we've come here is when Premiership + games were sold on ITV Digital under the ITV Sport Select banner.

Unless you mean break up the packages even more e.g I believe the French Ligue 1 rights are sold in 12 packages.

Setanta (and now possibly ESPN) can also be looked at as giving consumers a lower cost entry point into the Premium Sports TV market although of course those already with SKY Sports have to pay more.

Personally the hit wasn't too much as I was already paying for NASN (now ESPN America) which then merged with the Setanta package but I can understand frustration of those who used to just buy the Prem + season ticket.

[Dazza115]

The thing is the whole structure is there to make money, it isnt worth anyone investing in the packages unless they are gonna sell it, resulting in the fact that if more broadcasters have a chunk each the consumer must fork out for each package individually instead of as it is (mostly) a one off reasonable payment per month, that is extremely good value for money considering the additional sport and other features (full/almost full match repeats at night).

If you think that these packages would ever be free you are seriously deluded, the PL sells the packages, not gives them away, and the cost outlay far outstrips anything that could be made through advertising. The only companies that will bid serious money for the rights are those who are gonna charge one way or the other for the right to access those games.

As i said before, this dilutes the pool and makes the value for money equation that much less, either by forcing you to pay for half a dozen different channels / providers for the same access to games or for channels to severely cut back the quality of what they provide just to make ends meet. We saw what happened to setanta, and they were sticking an arm in price wise for 2 packages and still went bust even with what most of us would consider crap quality. If ofcom do this it changes the whole ball game and i dont see any way its for the better.

[Doctor_AB]

you havent read offcoms proposals. They have NOT proposed splitting the rights but have suggested that sky be forced to sell wholesale rights to premium sport content (eg premier footy) to other broadcasters eg virgin and bt. So no one pays any more but viewers without sky can also watch live footyfor a fee.

This is very different from the EU plan which split rights between different companies eg sky and setanta. The principal here was to introduce competition and prevent a dominant company (sky) preventing any other company gaining a foothold and thus arificially controlling the market. I am not supporting or opposing the plans but those are the facts.

[Dazza115]

Broadcasting - News - Ofcom warns Sky has "market power" - Digital Spy

"Finally, the watchdog will work with the English Premier League to review the current TV rights process in order to ensure that the next auction in 2012 complies with competition law."

Thats the other part reported in a few places which is where im getting the notion that they want to split the rights up further than they are, otherwise why would ofcom even mention how the rights are auctioned.

It's all well and good wanting to share the content out to other providers, but as i said in an earlier post it will just end up with each party trying to undercut each other and quality will suffer.

[arthurdentpc]

Originally Posted by Rorifett

If you read his comment properly you'd see he said you'd be forced to spend an extra £40+ a month for the same games. He didn't say that anyone was forcing him to pay for those games, purely that if he wanted the same service, it would cost £30+ on his monthly subscription compared to what it cost prior to Ofcom wanting Sky to give up the monopoly and revenue that they, by and large, created.

Well, OK, that's fair comment. But the point still stands as a basic principle - the price is what it is, if you want it and can afford it and can justify the cost to yourself, then pay it. If any one of those 3 tests fall down, then don't pay it.

To say that Ofcom created a greater price isn't necessarily true either. If Sky had continued with their monopoly, their charges might be much greater than they are at the moment.

[Rorifett]

Originally Posted by arthurdentpc

Well, OK, that's fair comment. But the point still stands as a basic principle - the price is what it is, if you want it and can afford it and can justify the cost to yourself, then pay it. If any one of those 3 tests fall down, then don't pay it.

To say that Ofcom created a greater price isn't necessarily true either. If Sky had continued with their monopoly, their charges might be much greater than they are at the moment.

How can you say that when evidence (i.e. the actual costs) shows that everything was cheaper when Sky, and Sky alone, had the monopoly.

[mabo]

Originally Posted by Rorifett

How can you say that when evidence (i.e. the actual costs) shows that everything was cheaper when Sky, and Sky alone, had the monopoly.

Having never subscribed to Sky, can you tell me what the difference was in prices?

[basser]

read today in the soaraway sun newspaper,that some tory journalist was complaining that gordon brownnose had made sky (owners of said daily rag) sell programs cheaply to their competitors.....stupid tosspiece is obviously ignorant of skys broadband service.....unbundled by british telecom

[Rorifett]

Originally Posted by mabo

Having never subscribed to Sky, can you tell me what the difference was in prices?

Setanta was £15 start up charge and standard about £12 a month. There were offers and whatnot kicking about but since Sky as a company are trying to keep customers right, left and centre you could pick up Sky for free in some cases so just going by standard pricing. Sky's pricing (for the full package or even just for the sports) has generally increased each year by £1 or £2 a month.

[dan1979]

The only bad thing about sky having all the games is you're forced to buy a package rather than just paying for the sport channel you actually want. If ofcom could sort that out...

[mabo]

Originally Posted by Rorifett

Setanta was £15 start up charge and standard about £12 a month. There were offers and whatnot kicking about but since Sky as a company are trying to keep customers right, left and centre you could pick up Sky for free in some cases so just going by standard pricing. Sky's pricing (for the full package or even just for the sports) has generally increased each year by £1 or £2 a month.

But how much was the Sky package which inlcuded all EPL games and how much did it decrease by (if any) when they lost the monopoly? I'm interested in how much more the combined package of Setanta and Sky was compared to the previous single Sky package.

[arthurdentpc]

Originally Posted by Rorifett

Setanta was £15 start up charge and standard about £12 a month. There were offers and whatnot kicking about but since Sky as a company are trying to keep customers right, left and centre you could pick up Sky for free in some cases so just going by standard pricing. Sky's pricing (for the full package or even just for the sports) has generally increased each year by £1 or £2 a month.

You're being a bit economical with the figures, there Rorifett . For a large part of their existence, Setanta were £10 for their whole package, normal price. IT went up to £13 (£15?) later on in a desperate bid to break even.
Sky's normal price (which you had to pay eventually, because you got limited deals as a subscriber) was / is around £35 for the basic package plus Sports. Since the basic package was / is around £20 (depending on how you make it up) on it's own, that means the Sports package is around £15 extra per month, which is more expensive than Setanta was, for the same number of channels. So actually Sky wasn't necessarily a cheaper option.
Also, Sky's prices have increased year on year since they went digital. They rose dramatically from about £25 (iirc) for the full package in 1998 to £45 now. But they havn't gone up just so much over the last few years - perhaps Setanta had something to do with that ?