america's equivalent to sky?

[Borris]

But I can buy a non-sky dish, a non-Sky box, and point it at a non-sky satellite, and receive free-to-air / free-to-view channels.

 

[Visage]

Sky have a monopoly on Satellite, just like NTL now do on Cable. In some parts of the country, if you want digital, your only choice is Sky satellite. Neither cable nor freeview yet have the countrywide reach that satellite does. That, in my view, makes at least a partial monopoly.

In the states, as posted above, there are at least two major satellite providers - Dish and DirecTV.

In both cases, this concerns the means to receive the channels, rather than the channels themselves, which are in good proportion the same across all providers.

But the point is that Sky are obliged to carry any channel that is present on any transponder on the satellites (which are not owned by sky) on the EPG.

So if I had the money, I could set up a channel, rent space on a trasnponder, transmit that channel, and have it available on the EPG of anyone who has suitable equipment (none of which has to be sourced from Sky).

SO if at no point in the process SKy is ever involved, how can one say that they have a monopoly on satellite broadcast?

 

[Chronos-X]

But I can buy a non-sky dish, a non-Sky box, and point it at a non-sky satellite, and receive free-to-air / free-to-view channels.

Hardly a mainstream product though is it, doing it that way?

 

[Berserker]

But the point is that Sky are obliged to carry any channel that is present on any transponder on the satellites (which are not owned by sky) on the EPG.

I believe this applies only to the five main terrestrial channels. They pay for the space, but Sky is mandated to do a deal with them. The rest pay fees for EPG space and if you don't pay, you don't get on the system.

The consumer still has to pay for either the equipment if they want free satellite, or Sky's monthly subscription fees, and that's where the (partial) monopoly comes from.

Hardly a mainstream product though is it, doing it that way?

Absolutely - that'll get you (mostly) foreign-language channels and porn these days. It's not like the old days where most of the UK-based channels were unencrypted.

 

[Visage]

I believe this applies only to the five main terrestrial channels. They pay for the space, but Sky is mandated to do a deal with them. The rest pay fees for EPG space and if you don't pay, you don't get on the system.

No - its part of the terms of Sky's operating license that EPG space has to be provided for any channel on the platform. The costs for this must be 'reasonable' - i.e based on the cost of provision without commercial considerations, and are set by the regulator, not by Sky.

 

[Visage]

FYI, its covered in section 74 of the 2003 Communications act:

(2) The conditions that may be set by virtue of section 73(2) also include such conditions imposing obligations on a person providing facilities for the use of application programme interfaces or electronic programme guides as OFCOM consider to be necessary for securing-

(a) that persons are able to have access to such programme services provided in digital form as OFCOM may determine; and

(b) that the facility for using those interfaces or guides is provided on terms which-

(i) are fair and reasonable; and
(ii) do not involve, or tend to give rise to, any undue discrimination against any person or description of persons.

Basically Sky arent allowed to use their ownership of the platform to deter other broadcasters from using the EPG, as this would be an abuse of position, and thus outlawed under section 2(b)(i) as being not 'fair and reasonable'.

 

[Borris]

Hardly a mainstream product though is it, doing it that way?

Absolutely - that'll get you (mostly) foreign-language channels and porn these days. It's not like the old days where most of the UK-based channels were unencrypted.

I'm not 100% au fait with which channels are available by pointing a dish into the sky (note the lack of capitalisation - Murdoch doesn't own the blue bit above us just yet), so please bare with me.

My inference is that you think Sky is a monopoly as it provides a visibly larger mainstream content package.

I would contend that they aren't a monopoly, as anyone can broadcast on satellite - even of Sky's satellites, and there is plenty of content that is not encrypted by Murdoch.

The consumer still has to pay for either the equipment if they want free satellite, or Sky's monthly subscription fees, and that's where the (partial) monopoly comes from.

If I want to watch any TV, I have to pay for the equipment -Or am I missing your point? The Sky subs are to pay for Sky channels (or at least channels where Sky is the reseller). As before, I'm not totally clued up about this, but there are other subs based packages available - such as Film 4 etc...

It's my understanding that a provider is a monopoly when it can set prices at a level that produces super-normal profit, where it can enforce barriers to market entry (other than set-up / infrastructure costs) and there are little to no alternatives to using them.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Hardly a mainstream product though is it, doing it that way?

Oh boy, how little you know.

Thats my baby attached to a receiver called a Dreambox

 

[Berserker]

It's my understanding that a provider is a monopoly when it can set prices at a level that produces super-normal profit, where it can enforce barriers to market entry (other than set-up / infrastructure costs) and there are little to no alternatives to using them.

I do agree that Sky (capital S) are not a complete monopoly, but certainly a partial one (at least as far as the average Joe walking around the high street looking to purchase digital TV in an area that has neither Freeview nor Cable is concerned). What percentage of the population would you imagine know about any such alternative, or where they could get such. I'm pretty sure you won't find them on the vast majority of high streets. It's certainly the case that if you want the mainstream UK channels over satellite, you have to go with Sky. Back in the days of analogue satellite, that wasn't the case.

As for the platform, yes, anyone can purchase satellite transponder space from Astra or whoever, but if you want to go on the Sky 'platform' (i.e. the box most people would consider satellite), you'd better do a deal with Sky.

In the legal sense of the use of monopoly, you may well be right of course, which is part of the problem with the MMC.

 

[HEADRAT]

So it's simple really I want to watch all of the latest stuff from the U.S. (24, Malcolm in the Middle, Simpsons etc.) and I don't live in a cable area what option do I have:

1. SKY

in my mind that makes it a monopoly, also until very recently who had all the Premier Football?

Nuff Said.

HEADRAT

 

[Visage]

So it's simple really I want to watch all of the latest stuff from the U.S. (24, Malcolm in the Middle, Simpsons etc.) and I don't live in a cable area what option do I have:

1. SKY

in my mind that makes it a monopoly, also until very recently who had all the Premier Football?

Nuff Said.

HEADRAT

Thats like saying that Channel 4 are a monopoly because its the only place you can watch Big Brother - nonsensical.

 

[HEADRAT]

Not at all, channel 4 produce Big Brother, Sky doesn't produce any programmes it just purchases the rights to show them in the UK.

Sky have no competition in the UK, even the likes of NTL, Telewest etc. have to buy Sky1 content directly from Sky due to their massive purchasing power and exclusive deals with the companies that produce the content in the U.S.

Sky was forced not to have a monopoly over Premier Football as it unfair that only one company should have the rights to show all these games, how is that any different to 24, Malcolm in the Middle, Simpsons etc?

HEADRAT

 

[Grandmaster Fap!]

Here in Tx we have many cable and dish options, we use SuddenLink(formerly Cox communications) if you buy the full package you're looking at about 600 channels and a crap load of pay per view.

You get about 70 channels free on cable if you live in the dark ages and dont have a box

 

[Borris]

As for the platform, yes, anyone can purchase satellite transponder space from Astra or whoever, but if you want to go on the Sky 'platform' (i.e. the box most people would consider satellite), you'd better do a deal with Sky.

Isn't that just a circular argument? By defining satellite as meaning Sky, then Sky has a monopoly by default.

Just because the Great British Public is ignorant of the alternatives, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

From a business perspective, if Sky really were a monopoly (as opposed to just being the majority provider), there would be other companies baying for their blood, as the existance of a monopoly means that there is money to be made, and they want a piece. As it stands, there isn't a huge amount of cash to be made, so there is no queue of content resellers around for the GBP to see.

In the legal sense of the use of monopoly, you may well be right of course, which is part of the problem with the MMC.

I'm sure we can all agree that the MMC are useless.

 

[HEADRAT]

It's the content they have a strangle hold over, not the broadcast media, why would the likes of Telewest/NTL etc. carry Sky1 if they were able to buy the shows themselves.

HEADRAT

 

[SexyGreyFox]

It's the content they have a strangle hold over, not the broadcast media, why would the likes of Telewest/NTL etc. carry Sky1 if they were able to buy the shows themselves.

HEADRAT

Perhaps NTL/Telewest can buy the shows but why have channels like NTL1, NTL2, NTL3 etc when there are channels already for buying with all that stuff on.
I reckon NTL have taken the easiest and cheapest option.

 

[Borris]

It's the content they have a strangle hold over

You mean US shows? Like the Simpsons, 24, Stargate etc.? Fox network programmes?

Hmmm . . .

 

[HEADRAT]

You mean US shows? Like the Simpsons, 24, Stargate etc.? Fox network programmes?

Hmmm . . .

Well exactly, I wonder why they won't sell them to anybody else

Perhaps NTL/Telewest can buy the shows but why have channels like NTL1, NTL2, NTL3 etc when there are channels already for buying with all that stuff on.

I would imagine NTL would love to have their own lineup, I'm sure Sky makes them pay through the nose for Sky1

HEADRAT

 

[Visage]

Not at all, channel 4 produce Big Brother, Sky doesn't produce any programmes it just purchases the rights to show them in the UK.

Sky have no competition in the UK, even the likes of NTL, Telewest etc. have to buy Sky1 content directly from Sky due to their massive purchasing power and exclusive deals with the companies that produce the content in the U.S.

Sky was forced not to have a monopoly over Premier Football as it unfair that only one company should have the rights to show all these games, how is that any different to 24, Malcolm in the Middle, Simpsons etc?

HEADRAT

But SKy have those rights simply because they can afford to pay more for them than any other company - thats not a monopoly, thats simply capitalism.

Short of introducing legislation that compels tv programmes to be made readily available on one of the 5 mainstream channels (which would be illegal under competition rules), there's not a lot that can be done....

 

[Berserker]

Isn't that just a circular argument? By defining satellite as meaning Sky, then Sky has a monopoly by default.

Probably. I know what I mean but I'm having a hard time explaining it. Maybe I should go find a tin hat before Rupert Murdoch shuts me up for good.

Anyway, I do think that Sky have a monopoly in may areas (just look at the fact that the EU had to force the FA to split up the television rights - although I think they failed in their intended action - they just moved it from one PPV channel to another). Anyway, it's certainly not like the US system where you can go to the mall and pick from a selection of competing providers. I'm not saying the US system is better of course - most of these 'providers' are just resellers of someone's else's services, but it does at least introduce some competition.

I'll butt out now and leave this to those who can think straight.