Is There A Sky Subscribers Lobby Group ?

jaggiebunnet

Sky do not have a monopoly. There is nothing to stop other satellite companies setting themselves up as rivals. Would they do well? Probably not, but that does not make it a monopoly.

garrettod

garrettod wrote:

How can any one single entity control the majority of sporting events & new movie events & be permitted a free hand ?

As you know or should know,they don't contol them all, countries can and do have events considered important enough listed for terrestrial viewing.
E.U legislation provides for that-it is in effect regulation.
As regards the rest, they bid for them mostly and thats the way open to all.
You should take it up with the rights holders who put the events up for auction.

Sky TV have successfully managed to increase their subscriptions without any opposition every September for the last several years. This is while the company returned good profits, which might contribute / cover their initial investment

Again this is an over simplification.
Sky are a private company and charge what the market can bear, it's their service and as long as people are willing to pay for it, it will continue to rise in price from time to time untill such rises cause a drop in revenue.
When there is a company willing to invest in a satelite alternative and customers willing to be supplied by them, then that might change.
It would all depend on the customers willingness to change or go with the alternative though.
History has shown us that an alternative already lost out to Sky [BSB] and merged with them.
That was because not enough customers switched or went with the alternative.
That was in the early days of sky digital, and at this stage Sky digital is so embedded, it would probably not be financially feasable for another digital satelite alternative to emerge.
That said,it would or should be possible for the E.U to intervene where there is a strong player like sky.
There are precedents , for example where Eircom have been forced to provide their infrastructure to alternatives.
Sky could in theory be forced to do the same, but It would, I think involve a long legal battle.

BTW, as a long time Sky subscriber who has paid them thousands, over the years & without a problem I ask, why do the potential new subscribers get offers such as free Sky Sports for 6 months, while existing subscribers get nothing for their loyalty ? ... I fear the answer is simple, they don't have to give me anything, they just have to increase the direct debit every month !

Thats marketing for you, you could always leave and take up one of their please come back offers in a few months!

Its the same with banks, they offer their lowest interest rates to their new customers as do most business's to entice new customers.

jaggiebunnet

I would disagree on the Eircom point - The infrastructure for Eircom was put in place by the Government. It is part of the remit of Eircom to provide carraige on this infrastructure before they could become a private company. The same as all state owned telco's/electric/etc have been required to provide carriage over the Government created infrastructure. Created by the people tax money in otherwards.

There was no such provision made by any Government for Sky.

BrianD

jaggiebunnet wrote:

Sky do not have a monopoly. There is nothing to stop other satellite companies setting themselves up as rivals. Would they do well? Probably not, but that does not make it a monopoly.

They do have a monopoly position in the DSAT market. Yes, it is technically a free market but the barriers to entry are so high that it is difficult for any new players to enter.

jaggiebunnet

BrianD wrote:

They do have a monopoly position in the DSAT market. Yes, it is technically a free market but the barriers to entry are so how that it is difficult for any new players to enter.

Indeed they are difficult, but this is not due to any monopoly that sky has on the market.

jaggiebunnet

jaggiebunnet wrote:

I would disagree on the Eircom point - The infrastructure for Eircom was put in place by the Government. It is part of the remit of Eircom to provide carraige on this infrastructure before they could become a private company.

I thought the E.U countries own the frequencies which Sky or other digital satelite providers use.
While thats not infrastructure, it is leverage.
E.U law could very easily be adjusted to provide for other carriers to share sky's infrastructure.
Such a move though would be about as high on E.U legislators list as outlawing christmas.

BrianD wrote:

They do have a monopoly position in the DSAT market. Yes, it is technically a free market but the barriers to entry are so how that it is difficult for any new players to enter.

Errrr
I would have thought that we are back to the old chessnut of the monopoly of rights holders here and not that of satelite providers.
Foreign providers could easly serve the Irish and UK market with programmes in English with a simple tweaking of their footprint.
Rights holders won't allow them to do this (just like they are being used as a baseball bat in the UTV/Sky digital ROI situation)

Therefore it's more a problem caused by the greediness of satelite rights holders than anything else.
Sky digital are only a symptom of the problem, they are not the central problem.

BrianD

Let's clarify this. Sky Digital effectively have a monopoly position in the market because they have become the only realistic option for consumers to choice, the barriers to entry are high for any new entrants plus their critical mass will make it difficult for a new player to attract subscribers and channels. Perhaps describing them as the dominant DSAT player might be more appropriate though what other realistic options do DSAT consumers have?

In theory, if another DSAT provider came along the should be able to get roughly the same channel line ups (as there should be no programme rights issues). I am not talking about forigh DSAT co's tweaking their footprint (I don't believe that this is possible but if it was) but another Sky Digital set-up serving Ireland and the UK. Sky in their dominant position could probably bully some channels into exclusive DSAT distribution rights.

I don't see programme rights as being the central or key issue at all. We are discussing competition and consumer issues within the DSAT delivery platform. Programme rights issues may affect channel line ups of competing DSAT packages making one more attractive than the other (if there was competition). I think it is periperal to the issues raised in this post.

Tony

BrianD wrote:

They do have a monopoly position in the DSAT market. Yes, it is technically a free market but the barriers to entry are so high that it is difficult for any new players to enter.

#

Difficult but not impossible, whereas it is impossible to enter the cable market in Ireland because the country is divided into exclusive franchise areas as arranged by the infamous Minister Ray Burke

BrianD

BrianD wrote:

Let's clarify this. Sky Digital effectively have a monopoly position in the market because they have become the only realistic option for consumers to choice, the barriers to entry are high for any new entrants plus their critical mass will make it difficult for a new player to attract subscribers and channels. Perhaps describing them as the dominant DSAT player might be more appropriate though what other realistic options do DSAT consumers have?

They have the option not to subscribe if the price exceeds their desire to view.
laws of supply and demand really.
Customers also are free agents,and are free to move to any satelite competitior that may start up.
Fact of the matter is, people would be slow to move and ergo nobody wants to invest in the risk that people would be too lazy or couldnt be bothered moving.
That implies one of two things or a combination of both:
Customer satisfaction and / or customer laziness.
The former being the more dominant attribute as people are more satisfied than dissatisfied with a product if they are willing to keep it despite the price rising.

I don't see programme rights as being the central or key issue at all. We are discussing competition and consumer issues within the DSAT delivery platform. Programme rights issues may affect channel line ups of competing DSAT packages making one more attractive than the other (if there was competition). I think it is periperal to the issues raised in this post.

Ah come on now Brian, you can't defend the manipulative way programme rights holders are used/and use themselves to protect their products prices resulting in the lack of UTV on Sky in the ROI while at the same time be rating Sky for being the beneficiary.
It's also quite valid to raise the programme rights holders role in the restrictions on other DSAT bringing competition to the ROI market.
They already have the scale and the technology to compete with Sky here if they were allowed.
Thats very on topic and not peripheral at all.

Flukey

If you want an action group for Sky, the best thing is withdraw from it. I would never get Sky Sports/Movies etc. I have more sense. They run that ad that if you want Sky Sports, contact your local operator. It should be a slightly different kind of operator, one who carries out operations, namely a brain surgeon. Sky is a complete rip off. They have destroyed television. Time was you could see lots of sports on TV, now Sky have taken a lot of it off and to see it you have to pay through the nose. Their coverage is good, but if it is so good, why are they afraid to compete against the other channels? They do not compete, not really. They buy up the rights, which is not really competing based on their product. Their idea of competing is like saying "We will all have a race, but only the one who pays the most can run in it." Why don't they really compete and let other channels show the programmes too? Then we would have the choice of who to watch and if, as they say, their coverage is the best, we would all choose to watch theirs and so they could attract the best advertisers and still make money.

Then, having got your subscription, they start raising it to crazy rates. On top of that they introduce what they call "Pay for view" events. These channels are already pay for view, so they are really pay for pay for view events. It is a bit like going to a match and having paid through the first stile, you find yourself facing another one or going to a movie and having bought your ticket, when you come to the door of the actual cinema, where the guy takes your ticket, he charges you to actually go in. How can people be so stupid to do this? Then they ask you to get a friend to sign up to Sky! Why on earth would you get a friend deliberately ripped off?

Ok, they have poured a lot of money into sport, but as a result gone are the days when a man and his son(s) could go on a Saturday afternoon to support their local club, unless of course he is a CEO of some company or something. English soccer is suffering as the young players are not getting the chance to get in and play for the clubs because all of the foreign imports. Maybe the games are better to look at - if you can afford to pay in or are stupid enough to subscribe to Sky Sports - but is it really doing the sport any good? It has taken the heart of the game out of it in many ways. It is more a business than a sport. Go see a match in Croke Park and you will see more heart and passion, love of the game and players really playing for the love of the jersey and the people, than you will see at a Premiership game. That is what sport is all about. Some English soccer club managers have actually brought teams to GAA matches to show them the passion that these amateurs play with and requesting of their players that they do the same.

So if you want to see sport on TV and not be ripped off the action to take is to cancel your subscription with Sky. If enough people do that, that would be the best action that could be taken. We all remember the uproar when the FAI went to sell their soul and indeed sell out the fans to Sky. Only weeks after the high of the World Cup and the huge reception the teams got the FAI blew it. I just happened to be working for a brief time next door to the FAI HQ at the time. There was a sudden increase in the amount of times they left by the back door. We used to jeer them a bit saying things like "You said there was nothing you could do about the Sky deal. Do you not have a shredder?" Or "We just looked in your bins and we couldn't see the Sky deal anywhere!" Eventually something was done about it. That is the only way Sky could be brought to heel, but unfortunately there are too many people out there too stupid to do so and are continuing to be ripped off.

jaggiebunnet

Flukey - get off your high horse.

I have sky sports and feel that I get a very good deal from it. Even better before Scottish football got greedy and ended up off the air. But still, the coverage of the premiership is unsurpassed. The new highlights package will be as great as the choose any game option on the champions league last year.

if you don't like it then don't subscribe. Simple really.

As for it taking it off terrestial tv. It was never on there mate. Before sky you got a live game on tv once in a blue moon. The highlights were rotten and most of the coverage so poor that they missed goals, incidents etc.

Flukey

I know there wasn't the frequency and the quality, but at least you didn't have to pay through the nose for them and leave yourself open to further rip-offs. The quality of the terrestial coverage has improved since those days. I am a sports fan and there is more than enough on terrestial TV to keep me happy. I've seen some of SKy's coverage and yes, it is better than some of the other channels. But as I said, if Sky's coverage is so good, why are they afraid to compete?

just two points in relation to Flukeys post:
1. It's the sporting clubs/associations that have facilitated the lack of some sports on terrestrial TV by selling to the highest bidder.
They have the steering wheel there and no doubt feel they are entitled to the money.
2.The customer is always right. If he doesn't leave sky then his complaints are a little hollow.
The pricing complaints are valid, but those are the terms of the product provider, the customer is satisfied with the terms or the pricing if he is paying for it in my view.
Theres no other way to interpret the customers actions.
His/her wants( digital television ) are outweighing any dissatisfaction with the price.
There are of course signs that Sky digitals growth is slowing but it is only when you see the "churn" growing( the numbers leaving sky ) that you will see an end to anything other than inflation related rises in your subscription.

Flukey

I know the clubs are taking the money and you can't blame them for that, but that is part of my point, that the game itself has lost some of its character. As to the customers, people are going to pay to view the channels if they have no choice, which is the one thing Sky has taken away. Then having got the people in, they started asking for more money and introducing the pay for pay for view events. Like I keep saying, Sky are not competing and while Rupert Murdoch is laughing his way to the bank, the people are losing out. There are enough people there to keep them in business even though a lot of people have cancelled their subscriptions. I know everyone pulling out is not going to happen or either is Sky letting other channels show matches at the same time. That is the one power monopolies have. They have that element of blackmail over their customers. Unfortunately it is not going to change for the forseeable future, but I am not going to sign my name on a subscription whatever happens.

jaggiebunnet

I don't think it is strictly true that people will pay if that have no choice. I mean next season there will be no way for me to see the Scottish league unless I subscribe to Setanta.

Being Scottish this is a pain, but if the cost was reasonable then I would. However the cost, not to mention the service, is ridiculous and there is no way I will subscribe to them.

My ideal world of course would be the SPL back on bbc scotland, the premiership on rte and just use by FTA card. However, this is never gonna happen and I think the quality given by sky sports is well worth the 18 or whatever euro a month I pay.

Flukey

jaggiebunnet wrote:

I mean next season there will be no way for me to see the Scottish league unless I subscribe to Setanta.

That is my point. Unless it does go back on the BBC, you can't see the games without having to pay through the nose for it. This should not be done to Britain's national sports. It should be the right of people to be able to see them on terrestial television. At least the FA Cup is protected, but there should be some Premiership games on free to view television too, not exclusively on the satellites.