| Welcome to bcfcforum.co.uk. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Ofcom Ruling On Sky Bsb; about ******* time too!!! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 31 2010, 10:34 AM (295 Views) | |
| Lewis | Mar 31 2010, 10:34 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Paul Tait
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar/3...ports-price-cut this ruling does not go far enough for the well being of media in the UK, but at least it's a start. It would be better if market forces (i.e. people power) had put a restriction on these megalomaniacs, but somehow some folk just seem to find it OK to be ripped off for a very substandard service. Today the public should have all live and archived items (sport and general entertainment) on a menu system, which you can buy off the electronic shelf. The technology has been there for some time now, and it is only the likes of Sky (particularly) who manage to dictate what they are willing to allow the public to have. Appalling restrictive practice. Why do you (those that do) put up with it? If on Saturday you wanted to watch WW v Arsenal (to see if they carry on the 'Let's all do the Wenger' if nothing else), then you should be able to get a ticket and go see it live, or sit at home and pay something far less than a live ticket to watch it there and then. Without having to second guess who would have it on and additionally pay a general subscription for all the rest of the dross they want to dump on you. About time we the public demanded what we should have, and stop putting up with second or third best. |
![]() |
|
| valleyblue | Mar 31 2010, 11:50 AM Post #2 |
|
Paul Tait
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I know it's only the wholesale prices that they have been ordered to cut and the chances are they'll recoup it some other way and I understand where you are coming from, but there's a problem! Sky set their offer for football rights based on the number of subscribers to Sky Sports (I know not completely but it's large part of it) now if the model you suggest was put in to place so that every game was up for pay-per-view they'd have to reduce the amount they bid for the rights in the first place. Imagine the chaos that would cause, Portsmouth would only be the tip of the iceberg. Realistically you're not going to get many people pay to watch say Bolton v Stoke whereas you know as well as I do that Man U v Chelsea would draw in a good few more. So how do you divide the income? at least at the moment it's split pretty much evenly among all 20 clubs with ppv you'd see the likes of Man U demanding more of the revenue and the gap between the rich and poor clubs would grow even wider. In an ideal world there'd be a sum paid for the rights split among all clubs and then all ppv income over the season would be divided in the same, sadly the world is never going to be so ideal. |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Mar 31 2010, 02:07 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Paul Tait
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Many many more people would subscribe to off the shelf offerings than today subscribe to the 'barriers to entry' style marketing that Sky offer, that would balance out some of the revenue if not all of it. If it didn't then that is far more in line with true market forces, a principle that is supposed to hold true in a capitalist structure. If there was far less revenue, which I do not think would be the case at all, but is what you are suggesting, then another of my pet issues might be addressed, that of the over-funding of the higher rewarded clubs. That current status is totally out of kilter, and I know in the short term rectifying it would hurt the likes of Portsmouth, but overall it would be very good for the game and might even return our game to being a sport rather than a 'buy success' business. |
![]() |
|
| pooley | Mar 31 2010, 03:03 PM Post #4 |
|
The Icon
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think its ok as it is to be fair |
![]() |
|
| Blooboy | Mar 31 2010, 03:11 PM Post #5 |
|
Unregistered
|
how many would subscibe to a Blues TV channel?? i know i would straight away. |
|
|
| pooley | Mar 31 2010, 03:19 PM Post #6 |
|
The Icon
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I would, I love seeing reserve games when I get the time off and these could be televised |
![]() |
|
| blueblood | Mar 31 2010, 04:19 PM Post #7 |
|
Johnny Vincent
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But how much would you be willing to pay for it because theres no way it would be sustainable with our small fan base. Theres a reason theres only MUTV, LFC TV and Celtic TV. |
![]() |
|
| djguinness | Mar 31 2010, 04:40 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Garry Pendrey
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You have to be a fool to think this is good news. less money to Sky = Less money to the Premier league clubs. Its that simple. |
![]() |
|
| Blooboy | Mar 31 2010, 05:27 PM Post #9 |
|
Unregistered
|
i'd pay at least £15 a month possibly more if it featured live first team and reserve games which i'm sure it would, and i'm pretty sure Blues could get at least 20'000 world wide, thats 3.6 million a year i think just on those figures, not to mention you'd get advertising money. I would even think the audience would be more than that, 20,000 i'm trying to be conservative. |
|
|
| valleyblue | Mar 31 2010, 05:27 PM Post #10 |
|
Paul Tait
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The thing is you can't just look at this from a football only position. Subscription to Sky Sports gets you Cricket, Darts, American Football, Tennis, Rugby (both codes) and many more sports. OK so you may not want to watch some of those (I can't abide Tennis) but they come as part of the deal. If all sports were to be made ppv some undoubtedly would suffer drastic loses of income. The capitalist system also works in favour of Sky. - There is no easy answer. |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Mar 31 2010, 05:28 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Paul Tait
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So I'm a fool. |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Mar 31 2010, 05:32 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Paul Tait
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But the capitalist system is not what Sky are using, they are using a perversion of capitalism which suits Sky. Free market, supply demand, fair competition is what capitalism is about. It is not about getting a key technology, building up a fortune with that technology and then (the non capitalist piece) building a wall around your market such that no-one else can get in, and so that they can rip off customers because there is no competition to create market lead pricing. |
![]() |
|
| valleyblue | Mar 31 2010, 06:10 PM Post #13 |
|
Paul Tait
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hold on - Sky don't own the technology to transmit satellite TV they simply took the gamble a good few years ago now to use the satellites (not sure they own them or just lease usage) at a time when people were saying the only way to make it with a TV station was the traditional terrestrial method. Virgin use cable but that is so slow to get to places that it's hardly a serious competitor, Freeview and Freesat are both available to anyone for the price of a set top box. So Sky don't have a total monopoly. They outbid everyone for the rights to sports because other broadcasters couldn't or wouldn't enter the market at the same level. You still have the "Crown Jewels" Wimbledon, Cup Final etc. Plus they have raised the profile of a good few "minority" sports considerably. I can think of Ice Hockey and Netball straight off both of which have benefited from exposure on Sky sports. You may not like it, I didn't and resisted subscribing to Sky for many years but when I moved to Wales and was basically stuck with just 3 channels plus S4C I gave in. Now we never watch ITV pick and choose which BBC programmes we watch and I'd say 80% plus of what we watch is Sky/Digital broadcast. Then there is online BBC Iplayer etc. which at present accounts for maybe 5% but that is growing rapidly as the content increases. The harsh reality is that unless another broadcaster is prepared to pump in money at the same level then Sky will always be the market leader. |
![]() |
|
| username | Mar 31 2010, 08:51 PM Post #14 |
![]()
Alex Govan
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
possibly less money to the players pockets means savings for the fans they already have too much power, not as though they are short of a few bob now is it |
![]() |
|
| djguinness | Mar 31 2010, 09:52 PM Post #15 |
![]()
Garry Pendrey
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Nope, look at Portsmouth, Just because the clubs have less money, doesn't mean the players demand any less. In fact this could cripple the premier league, which is already losing talent to La Liga. |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Apr 1 2010, 09:32 AM Post #16 |
![]()
Paul Tait
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I can see why it is important to you and why you are using sattellite services, very logical and practical. But your use of satellite is not the issue at hand, it is the bundling and restrictive practices that Sky employ. I am delighted that Ofcom agree with that, and it is just a pity that Ofcom's rules means they are restricted in how much they can restrain Sky?BSB in what they are doing. I note that they, Ofcom that is, have referred the matter to the monopolies commission, which is where I believe the matter should have been dealt with in the first instance. Going back to your own position, what I propose would actually enhance your viewing options and reduce your costs significantly. I still cannot understand why the public is so reluctant to move away from Sky as it stands today, and why they are so happy paying out the extortionate amounts that they do to that company. (people in your situation do not have much choice until the public that can change do change in fact) By the way, in the bad old days I was a Sky subscriber, using their Analogue service throughout its' life, and the digital service for a few years as well. I used Sky as a freeview backup for many years as well, only stopping that back up system when they wanted £20 for a new card. Time has just moved on now, and it is time Sky were stropped from milking the fatted calf. |
![]() |
|
| morgan_Le_Fay | Apr 1 2010, 12:44 PM Post #17 |
|
Garry Pendrey
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
BT were told to cut their prices 10 years ago. They were told to open up their exchanges to competition 10 years ago. Just like SKY they held a monopoly and when companies like Freeserve and UKOnline first started BT charged them the earth + more. Now with that competition we have decent competitive rates from numerous companies offering Broadband etc going through BT exchanges. BT and the Post Office before them built up the telephone system over 60 years and had to accept the Ofcom rulings. SKY built up their sports monopoly over 15 years and will go to court and cost us all millions to challenge this ruling. SKY are in really bad shape and in America FOX is costing them a fortune. In the UK they are building paywalls around their websites. You will have to PAY to visit the Times or Sunday Times online. Even at the cheapest rates, if you pay to read either of those papers for a year, online, it will cost you nearly as much as a TV licence. SKY are going down the tubes - talking of which, YouTube may also close as SKY can't get the revenue from it, so it's a lame duck. Unfortunately as long as there are people prepared to pay £400+ a year to watch football on TV - and then complain about paying £20 to support their team, SKY will laugh all the way to the bank. But not for much longer thank goodness. And just think how far seeing our board are - setting up alternative revenue streams so they don't have to rely upon SKY money to pay wages and consultancy fees. :kiss: |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Apr 2 2010, 09:10 AM Post #18 |
![]()
Paul Tait
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes BT were ordered to become competitive and reduce barriers to entry as well in fact. Rightly so. BT came from a very different background though, and the problems remained as a carry over from the old GPO Telecomms, only show in town, days (I was employed by the old company for 9 years infact, up to 1974, but that's a whole other story). If we are gong to have a capitalist system, then companies have to abide by the rules. It has taken far too long for Ofcom, and now a very delayed actions by monopolies to correct what Sky have been doing. |
![]() |
|
| TiltonRoad | Apr 5 2010, 03:36 PM Post #19 |
|
Martin Taylor
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I love that there's a virgin media ad at the bottom of this page. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · General Chat · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






6:57 PM Jul 11