Jump to content

Sky Sports to non Sky customers.


Guest toonlass
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest toonlass

I cancelled Sky last year, but someone was saying Sky Sports have been told that they have to sell the Sky Sports packages to other providers so that they do not have a monopoly and that BTVision and Virgin will have Sky Sports in the next coming season. Is this right? I do hope so, because I have BTVision and like their package but miss having all the football.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Virgin have already got Sky Sports, or they've got them back should I say after they lost them for a while due to a disagreement.

 

IIRC the ruling said they have to sell the packages to resellers like Virgin and BT for cheaper, something which Sky are going to appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest toonlass

You've always been able to get Sky Sports via Virgin havent you?  I know I had it last year in my house I was living in.  BT Vision I am unsure of, first I have heard of it.

 

You definitely can't get it on BTVision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest toonlass

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar/31/ofcom-sky-sports-price-cut

 

The media regulator Ofcom today ordered BSkyB to reduce the amount it charges rivals to offer Sky Sports by more than 20%.

 

BSkyB must reduce the wholesale price at which it sells Sky Sports 1 and Sky Sports 2 to rivals such as Virgin Media and BT by 23.4% from the current £13.88 to £10.63 per subscriber per month. On the basis that most subscribers buy packages including the sports channels, the reduction for a bundle is 10.5% from £19.15 to £17.14.

 

The new wholesale pricing is effective immediately, the regulator said, and BSkyB now has six weeks from today to make a "reference offer", effectively a template contract, to other pay-TV providers. BSkyB, however, intends to apply to the Competition Appeal Tribunal for a stay on implementing the ruling.

 

Ofcom also said today that BSkyB is restricting the distribution of premium movie rights, with a knock-on effect for the subscription video-on-demand market, and is proposing to refer the issue to the Competition Commission.

 

The City responded positively to the ruling in early trading. BSkyB's share price stood at 599.5p at 8.21am, up 3.01% over last night's close.

 

The ruling will spark a high-profile legal challenge from BSkyB, likely to be accompanied by appeals from sports governing bodies, including the Football Association and the England and Wales Cricket Board, who believe that it will irreparably harm their businesses.

 

Rivals such as BT and Virgin Media have promised to cut the prices that their users pay for Sky Sports channels, but are also concerned that BSkyB may be able to exploit loopholes in the ruling such as shifting key sports content to channels not covered by the ruling.

 

Ofcom said that it would counter any move by BSkyB if it tried to shift content to channels not covered by the ruling "to any material extent".

 

"Ofcom recognises that a potential response to the remedy from Sky could be to attempt to undermine it by shifting content onto channels not covered by the remedy," it said. "If Sky was to do this to any material extent, Ofcom would review the remedy and would consider extending it to include the relevant channels."

 

Ofcom has also said that BSkyB must offer wholesale high-definition versions of Sky Sports 1 and 2 to rivals but stopped at setting a price. "To help to promote future innovation Ofcom ... requires them to be offered on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms."

 

As part of the ruling BSkyB has been granted permission to launch Picnic, the service to bring pay-TV channels to Freeview, which it mothballed two years ago, subject to the satellite company agreeing to the sports channels deal.

 

The proposed Picnic service would see BSkyB's three free-to-air channels on Freeview – Sky News, Sky3 and Sky Sports News – replaced with a pay service.

 

Within minutes of the announcement this morning BSkyB confirmed that it would lodge an appeal with the CAT over what it regards an "unprecendented and unwarranted intervention".

 

"There should be no doubt that Ofcom's actions represent an unprecedented and unwarranted intervention," said a Sky spokesman. "This is a marketplace where customers are well served with high levels of choice and innovation. Consumers will not benefit if regulators blunt incentives to invest and take risks. We now look forward to a judicial process which will apply impartial analysis and clear legal standards."

 

BT, one of the original "gang of four" that triggered the review with a submission to Ofcom in 2007 – along with Top Up TV, Virgin Media and now-defunct Setanta - said today's ruling was "disappointing but a step in the right direction".

 

"We aim to offer Sky Sports 1 and 2 at lower prices than those which have been available," said the BT Retail chief executive, Gavin Patterson. "However, Ofcom should have gone much further than it did. They have dropped movie channels, which should have been included. They should have included all Sky Sports channels, not just two [and] the wholesale price for the two sports channels is higher than the regulator had previously suggested."

 

Pubs and clubs should also have been offered some help over what they are forced to pay for Sky Sports channels, Patterson added.

 

Neil Berkett, the chief executive of Virgin Media, argued that "significant loopholes" remain that BSkyB could use to "further undermine" competition in the pay-TV market.

 

Virgin Media argued along with others that the exclusion of BSkyB's movie channels from Ofcom's proposals today meant that rivals could not create as attractive packages to entice consumers. In addition the failure to include Sky Sports 3 and Sky Sports 4 in the ruling, and no "meaningful restrictions" around what channels BSkyB might make pay-TV on Freeview through Picnic, means that there is "plenty of room for Sky to entrench further its control of the pay-TV market".

 

"The Ofcom wholesale arrangements are a step in the right direction and should be welcomed by sports fans," said Berkett. "It is disappointing, however, that some significant loopholes remain which provide an opportunity for Sky to further undermine competition."

 

Top Up TV, which offers a range of pay services on Freeview, said that it feared BSkyB would dominate Freeview with Picnic.

 

"Ofcom's decision to overturn two prior prohibitions by its predecessor and allow Sky to leverage its dominant position into the Freeview platform is at odds with its principal statutory duty to promote effective competition," said David Chance, chairman of Top Up TV.

 

"Top Up TV has been denied wholesale access to Sky's premium channels (under any terms) for almost five years, today's decision from Ofcom is good news for consumers as it will lead to lower prices with more flexible packages for Sky Sports 1 and 2."

 

Last week it emerged that six of the largest sports governing bodies – the Rugby Football Union, the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Professional Golfers' Association, the Football Association, the Premier League and the Rugby Football League – had a written a letter to the Ofcom board warning of "serious consequences" for sport and "irreparable damage" at grassroots level.

 

BSkyB says that it spent £944m in sport last year and claims its rights budget will be affected by Ofcom's decision.

 

"We have designed the remedy to minimise the potential risk of any negative impact on the value of sports rights," said Ofcom. "The wholesale revenue available to Sky to pay for sports rights should not be reduced, and should in fact increase as the market expands."

 

Media analyst Enders has predicted that the market impact will be small in the first three to five years but could be "significant" after that. Sports bodies have argued that Sky's rivals will not invest extra profits into competing for rights and will simply end up paying Sky less.

 

"The other broadcasters whose bidding behaviour has driven rights values in the past should not be materially affected," said Ofcom. "And in the longer term the emergence of new retailers, with significant numbers of subscribers, should increase competition for rights, given the various benefits associated with direct control of those rights."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently they have to offer Skysports 1 and 2 to freeview and freesat, aswell as BTVision and AppleTV.

 

Sky have responded by saying they will show the Premiership games on Skysports 3 and 4 instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently they have to offer Skysports 1 and 2 to freeview and freesat, aswell as BTVision and AppleTV.

 

Sky have responded by saying they will show the Premiership games on Skysports 3 and 4 instead.

 

And rightly so - they pay a fucking fortune for them, which is only sustainable if they attract enough subscribers.

 

There's another thread on this btw Blef.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why you should have to have Skysports on free to view TV, epecially the football games. Loads of people pay a high price to enable them to watch those games and other offerings Skysports have, so why should people be able to watch it for free?

 

If you want to watch the football so much either pay for it or go down to a pub or somewhere that offers it, if not then stop complaining. I'm pretty sure it would be the same set of complainers complaining if the BBC got the football and they felt it was a waste of TV licence payers money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why you should have to have Skysports on free to view TV, epecially the football games. Loads of people pay a high price to enable them to watch those games and other offerings Skysports have, so why should people be able to watch it for free?

 

If you want to watch the football so much either pay for it or go down to a pub or somewhere that offers it, if not then stop complaining. I'm pretty sure it would be the same set of complainers complaining if the BBC got the football and they felt it was a waste of TV licence payers money.

you aren't understanding it quite right. it will not be free to air but will be available for people to buy as a subscription,like top-up tv.

 

what sky are trying to do is not even allow users of other sytems to pay sky for just sky sports while having virgin,bt etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why you should have to have Skysports on free to view TV, epecially the football games. Loads of people pay a high price to enable them to watch those games and other offerings Skysports have, so why should people be able to watch it for free?

 

If you want to watch the football so much either pay for it or go down to a pub or somewhere that offers it, if not then stop complaining. I'm pretty sure it would be the same set of complainers complaining if the BBC got the football and they felt it was a waste of TV licence payers money.

 

Well I think there's something to be said for it being a bit cheaper, or a handful of games being on terrestrial telly.  I haven't had a hope in hell of being able to afford it since moving down South after graduating, but maybe I'll be able to stretch to it now I've got a better job.

 

I think you're being a bit flippant about it really - whatever happened to it being a working class sport?  From a business point of view, if they could double their audiences by making it a bit more affordable then surely the increased advertising revenue would help make up the shortfall, would it not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why you should have to have Skysports on free to view TV, epecially the football games. Loads of people pay a high price to enable them to watch those games and other offerings Skysports have, so why should people be able to watch it for free?

 

If you want to watch the football so much either pay for it or go down to a pub or somewhere that offers it, if not then stop complaining. I'm pretty sure it would be the same set of complainers complaining if the BBC got the football and they felt it was a waste of TV licence payers money.

 

Well I think there's something to be said for it being a bit cheaper, or a handful of games being on terrestrial telly.  I haven't had a hope in hell of being able to afford it since moving down South after graduating, but maybe I'll be able to stretch to it now I've got a better job.

 

I think you're being a bit flippant about it really - whatever happened to it being a working class sport?  From a business point of view, if they could double their audiences by making it a bit more affordable then surely the increased advertising revenue would help make up the shortfall, would it not?

sky pay a very large amount of cash to clubs and maintain a good service the other broadcasters pay nothing into clubs but just piggy back off sky's service why should sky sell their product cheap to the other companies?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why you should have to have Skysports on free to view TV, epecially the football games. Loads of people pay a high price to enable them to watch those games and other offerings Skysports have, so why should people be able to watch it for free?

 

If you want to watch the football so much either pay for it or go down to a pub or somewhere that offers it, if not then stop complaining. I'm pretty sure it would be the same set of complainers complaining if the BBC got the football and they felt it was a waste of TV licence payers money.

 

Well I think there's something to be said for it being a bit cheaper, or a handful of games being on terrestrial telly.  I haven't had a hope in hell of being able to afford it since moving down South after graduating, but maybe I'll be able to stretch to it now I've got a better job.

 

I think you're being a bit flippant about it really - whatever happened to it being a working class sport?  From a business point of view, if they could double their audiences by making it a bit more affordable then surely the increased advertising revenue would help make up the shortfall, would it not?

sky pay a very large amount of cash to clubs and maintain a good service the other broadcasters pay nothing into clubs but just piggy back off sky's service why should sky sell their product cheap to the other companies?

because they bid originally on the terms that they would sell on to other providers. it was a condition of sale.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Brummiemag

You can get Sky Sports on Virgin, have had it for years but at the moment you cannot get it in High Definition

Link to post
Share on other sites

sky pay a very large amount of cash to clubs and maintain a good service the other broadcasters pay nothing into clubs but just piggy back off sky's service why should sky sell their product cheap to the other companies?

 

Really cant stand this comment about SKY giving football clubs money they can only do this because of there customers, I am pumping approx £50 per month into them. It is football fans that make Sky forget movies geeks, other sport fans or any splinter group it is football fans that enable SKY to dominate. I wish fellow football fans, clubs & players would understand this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sky pay a very large amount of cash to clubs and maintain a good service the other broadcasters pay nothing into clubs but just piggy back off sky's service why should sky sell their product cheap to the other companies?

 

Really cant stand this comment about SKY giving football clubs money they can only do this because of there customers, I am pumping approx £50 per month into them. It is football fans that make Sky forget movies geeks, other sport fans or any splinter group it is football fans that enable SKY to dominate. I wish fellow football fans, clubs & players would understand this.

i'been saying for a while that sky is fucked without the premier league and the premier league is fucked without sky.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest toonlass

Its rather unfair for people who hardly watch any telly to have to pay for a damn Sky subscription and then Sky Sports package just so they can see the football. If Sky just charged a set price of say £15 a month for anyone to subscribe to Sky Sports I know I would go for that. But I don't want Sky 1 and all the other shit channels just so I can watch the football. As it is I am lucky if I watch more than BBC2, Channel 4 and FIVE a couple of times a month. I don't need another million channels too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest LukeT

If the Tories get in this will definitely get overturned. Murdoch will have them get rid of Ofcom and proceed to rule the media.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sky pay a very large amount of cash to clubs and maintain a good service the other broadcasters pay nothing into clubs but just piggy back off sky's service why should sky sell their product cheap to the other companies?

 

Really cant stand this comment about SKY giving football clubs money they can only do this because of there customers, I am pumping approx £50 per month into them. It is football fans that make Sky forget movies geeks, other sport fans or any splinter group it is football fans that enable SKY to dominate. I wish fellow football fans, clubs & players would understand this.

 

Bollocks. Football fans, or any other sports fans would never have bought into the SKY concept if they didn't provide something which no other company does. One year without SKY has only reinforced my opinion that no one does it better. Fucking hell those BBC highlights were a disgrace. Incidentally I pump a lot more than that a month into Sky but those kids channels and movies, not to mention cheap broadband and HD are well worth it compared to the alternative packages out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before everyone starts feeling sorry for Sky, I'd like to point out that they probably made about a £1bn profit last year. I did a fair bit of research about BSkyB for my masters including interviewing a couple of their top management and they're a brilliantly run company, but whatever you do never feel pity for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before everyone starts feeling sorry for Sky, I'd like to point out that they probably made about a £1bn profit last year. I did a fair bit of research about BSkyB for my masters including interviewing a couple of their top management and they're a brilliantly run company, but whatever you do never feel pity for them.

 

Yep, I've worked for some pretty large organisations but without doubt, in my short time at Sky, they were by far the best run firm I've come across. Working for them was an absolute pleasure and as long as they keep up quality of football coverage and movie selection I'm happy to pay what I pay at the minute. There are far bigger cost injustices than that of Sky (see: pints of beer, packs of cigarettes, petrol).

 

As an aside, when at Sky I met the person with what some on here may consider the best job in the world. He sat all day, watching 3 screens of porn, to ensure that no regulations were breached. We were told it looked fun but it got monotonous after a while. When we queried how long he'd been doing it, we were told give or take he had been there 8 years in the same job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sky pay a very large amount of cash to clubs and maintain a good service the other broadcasters pay nothing into clubs but just piggy back off sky's service why should sky sell their product cheap to the other companies?

 

Really cant stand this comment about SKY giving football clubs money they can only do this because of there customers, I am pumping approx £50 per month into them. It is football fans that make Sky forget movies geeks, other sport fans or any splinter group it is football fans that enable SKY to dominate. I wish fellow football fans, clubs & players would understand this.

 

Bollocks. Football fans, or any other sports fans would never have bought into the SKY concept if they didn't provide something which no other company does. One year without SKY has only reinforced my opinion that no one does it better. f***ing hell those BBC highlights were a disgrace. Incidentally I pump a lot more than that a month into Sky but those kids channels and movies, not to mention cheap broadband and HD are well worth it compared to the alternative packages out there.

 

SKY only does what it can because of football fans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...