Yes but Sky have a monopoly and so should be regulated.

No, they don't. They are not the only supplier for, well, anything. You can get high level sport on your TV without paying them. You can get HD without paying them. You can get satellite TV without paying them. What exactly do Sky have this 'monopoly' on?

So you can get premier league football? Cricket, golf, tennis, rugby union etc. Aside from the highlights not really.

HD Channels apart from BBC HD and Luxe HD (a crappy channel that I think is in French) (ITV HD doesn't even work on most boxes full stop so it's not even worth counting)
That is 2 channels, Sky has over 40 HD channels at the last count, they have encryption on the satellites so anyone without a sky box can't receive them. They also have encryption on the satellites transmitting Fiver and Five US so although you can get those on Freeview you can't on Freesat.... unless you use a sky box with a FSFS (FreeSat From Sky) card

They also have the transmission of E4 HD encoded and scrambled so you can't get it with a Sky HD box. If you want Fiver/Five US you have to use the FSFS system as I mentioned, that stops you getting a Freesat PVR as you are tied to a Sky+ box (which you then have to pay £10 a month for the privilege of use, after buying it)

Sky are a huge monopoly.

I don't watch any of those.

No, that's because Sky has bid for and acquired, the rights to broadcast those sports live to their subscribers. Just like ITV had the rights to broadcast the Grand Prix series until last year, when the BBC outbid them and now has the rights to the current series, and presumably the next few years as well. Channel 5 has the rights to the current Europa Cup matches, ITV has the rights to the Champions League, etc.. etc...

Sky has deep pockets, so can acquire the rights to more sports than other broadcasters, but retaining these programs for broadcast to your own subscribers is no more of a monopoly than, say, Apple has on its OS, or Esso on its petrol.

You may not like how Sky have been allowed to acquire the rights to these sports (I certainly don't) but it's not a monopoly.

Cheers, Pete.

Yes, on ESPN. Available on Sky, Virgin and Freeview.


Full coverage of certain tournaments e.g The Open, the Six Nations and Wimbledon are available on other networks. Mostly free to air. Cricket is an exception but that was a decision by the cricket authorities (to sell to only one provider) - the BBC bid to provide joint coverage was refused by the ECB. The Protected Events are a effective statement that there are important tournaments which must be available to all. Is all sport on free TV? No, but that doesn't mean Sky has a monopoly on those sports. In most of them it means it has none of the tournaments the majority of people actually care about.


Virgin Media has a decent selection of HD channels, Including ESPN HD if you like sport. Not as many as Sky but still I'm sure you're clever enough to know that having more of something doesn't count as a monopoly.


That is an absurd statement that simply doesn't follow from the evidence. Sky have a monopoly on one thing : the content that Sky itself produces. Everything else, it's in an open market in which there are other providers.

Be clear, I am no fan of Sky and particularly not of Rupert Murdoch, who I think has done more damage to British society than anyone else in the last 100 years, but that doesn't mean saying things about them that are just provably wrong is a good thing.

Jon

What about the other matches? What about mixed martial arts? Unless you like watching the highlights of pay per views 2 months after they happened on Channel 5 at something like 2am you don't have much choice.


So what content do Sky actually produce themselves then? They make feck all themselves except Sky News and Sky Sports News.

Pete: They were rapped for buying ALL the premier league matches a few seasons ago and were forced to let Setanta (now ESPN essentially) be able to get them. If you have everything in one area, and the only way to access it is through you, it's a monopoly.

No, it's a business; the manufacturers or rights-holders restrict access to their products, so that their customers have to buy from them. It's no different to only being able to buy Shell petrol in a Shell station, or Marks and Spencer ready meals in in M&S. When companies do end up being in a monopolistic position, e.g. as when Sky had the rights to all the premier matches, then as you say they get their knuckles rapped.

Pete.

Yes but Shell sell a homogonous product so you could get it from anywhere and it will not be that different. The same applies to M&S. You can get ready meals in any supermarket. If you want a M&S ready meal yes you are restricted but you could also get something similar elsewhere. With Premiership football amongst other sports you can only get them on Sky Sports, You do not necessarily get the same product elsewhere. You might get the highlights of some matches on Match of the Day but not necessarily the one that you want.

It's completely different.

Sky do not own the premier league, they do not own every football team and every footballer. You are looking at generic products and comparing it to a brand product. The Premier league is a brand. You can't take one brand and pass it off as another, you can't take Tescos own brand Tommy K and pass it off as Heinz ketchup.

No, it's exactly the same. And Sky don't need to 'own' the Premier league if the have the rights to broadcast it, any more than Shell need to 'own' their petrol if they have the rights to sell it. But if you want to buy Shell-branded petrol it is only available in Shell stations. Yes, you can buy other brands of petrol, just as there are other 'brands' of football you can watch. Ditto ready meals or ketchup. Yes, I understand that these alternatives I've referred to are homonegised products with little to choose between them, whereas one football match is totally different to another, but you're either missing my point or choosing to ignore it, so just once more...

If you want to watch live Premiership footie right now you have to do it on Sky, because they have bought the rights to it for a set period. When that period ends, other companies will be entitled to bid for the rights to broadcast, which is why it can't be classed as a monopoly. Nobody's trying to take one brand and pass it off as another.

Pete.

If it's exactly the same how come your homogeneous product you can only get from sky can in some very limited cases also be had on virgin or Freeview? Petrol is homogeneous, football matches are not. Football matches have different weights affecting value depending on the class of football, team etc so by the sheer fact of this they are . Homogeneous products do not have this. Homogeneous products are supply driven, sports are demand driven hence the price.

Even if this fact is true simply by controlling the current supply they have artificial control over the market which is what a monopoly does.

FYI, Tesco don't need their own petrol, neither do the supermarkets who get it from the main brands. So the petrol argument is pretty moot tbh.

I'm not missing your point, you are calling a football match homogenised when it's not, which makes the rest of your argument impossible to follow. In fact here is a better example, sticking to the homogeneous guns.

What if Asda bought ALL the milk and eggs in the UK? Would they have a monopoly on it? Of course they would. How about if Tesco bought all the ketchup, Morrisons all the Bread. They would all be a monopoly.

It's still a monopoly when one company can buy every single game at an artificially inflated cost to stop the others being able to afford it

I'm sorry, I don't see how that matters. No one supplier has a monopoly on Premier League Football. That's a patent fact. Whether a particular supplier has more or less is a separate argument. You can't have 'a bit of a monopoly'.


if you want to watch Countdown you don't have much choice other than to watch Channel 4. What exactly is your point?


I tell you what, why don't you go and look, as oppose to just blowing off? I'll even give you a couple of pointers - do a search for 'Strike Back' or 'The Colour of Magic'.

Look, if you're going to argue a position, you should at least argue one that has some evidence to back it up.

Channel 4 you can get with ANY supplier


It's a fact they make feck all compared to how much they show.
How about we look at what is on in the next 24 hours on Sky1 (well until 6am as that is as far as I can get quickly online)
WWE Smackdown r
Pineapple studios * r
Futurama (multiple) r
Simpsons (multiple) r
Back to the future 2
Glenn Martin r
Lie to me r
Fringe r
A League of their own * r
Road wars r
American Gladiator r
Are you smarter than a 10 year old? * r

r indicates the show is a repeat, * means it's Sky's own product. 3 shows (one of which is at 5.10am) and no original programming. They really have a lot there.

So I had a look at what else they do:

Road Wars.
Hairspray: the school musical
cruise with stelios.
Dream Team.

Well there isn't much there I would want to be proud of.