Excess Profit:

dowie said:
They don't have a monopoly on TV in general though this was specifically re: movies - if they've got exclusive contracts with major studios then there is danger of a monopoly - with no real competition specifically in that area then
that is where the regulator steps in - they're not just getting involved for ***** and giggles.
Click to expand...

Yet they have to supply those channels to Virgin, BT etc at regulated costs. So again, what are excessive profits?
 
All profit is 'excess profit', because profit is just the difference between what a worker gets payed and what the work they do is worth. It's surplus value, precisely the reason why money is merely the tool through which those who do little or no work can get richer off the backs of people who constantly do work and can end up no better off than when they started.
 
Castiel said:
Fairness and capitalism......that doesn't sound right! ;)
Click to expand...

Under fully functional markets, capitalism is perfectly fair and works well. Unfortunately we have been brought up to accept dysfunctional markets as being what capitalism is all about and at the moment the pay TV market is dominated by two players - Sky and BBC (which is so tightly regulated Sky has a monopoly in market segments such as newly released Movies), which makes it a dysfunctional market. This is why Sky fall under the noses of the Competition Commission, the BBC, as a state owned entity is regulated by the BBC Trust.
 
I don't really care about movie channels.

But sky do have a bit of amonopoly on sport and sattelite Tv in general. If people want to pay over the odds then fine. but when there is no other option...
 
Tefal said:
maybe the regulated costs where high (to compensate for risk) but now they feel they hsould be set lower?
Click to expand...

Greebo said:
Eaxactly. Didn;t Sky recently charge BT more per month then BT were charging the customers to force them to make a loss?
Click to expand...

Sky have to supply it's movie channels at wholesale cost to competitors.

BT actually charged less than cost to undercut Sky subscriptions not to simply compete.

Sky never forced anyone to do anything.
 
Castiel said:
Sky have to supply it's movie channels at wholesale cost to competitors.

BT actually charged less than cost to undercut Sky subscriptions not to simply compete.

Sky never forced anyone to do anything.
Click to expand...

That's not quite true: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jun/30/sky-raises-prices

BT's new prices (£20 a month for SS1, 2 and ESPN) are based on a deal struck with regulator Ofcom back in March, which ended years of wrangling between the company, Sky and Virgin Media and introduced reduced wholesale prices for Sky Sports 1 and 2. Ofcom demanded that Sky drop its prices by more than 20%. But it also linked the wholesale price it must charge its rivals for Sky Sports 1 and 2 with the price the broadcaster charges its own customers. Sky's rivals assumed that was designed to protect the satellite company from being undercut by other broadcasters. But in a dramatic move Sky revealed that it would actually increase its retail prices, which means its wholesale prices will increase accordingly.
Click to expand...

So basically Sky screwed their own customers so they could screw BT even more. That only happens in monopoly-land. Not that BT are angels in this regard, they probably invented such tactics.
 
I read something recently about a european law case that it was not illegal to "import" satellite services from abroad. This was on the back of a successful case where a pub was sued for using I think it was spanish satellite to show Premiership games at a lower cost than it costs from Sky.

Looks like they may have to allow cross border transmission for Europe as a single market (as the euro law sets out). Could be interesting to see if this sticks how there will be a price war across Europe for Satellite.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom