From today's Guardian:

John Plunkett - Wednesday March 14, 2007 - MediaGuardian.co.uk

Ofcom's consumer panel has asked the regulator to intervene in the row between Sky and Virgin Media, which it said was causing "serious consumer detriment".
The panel, which was established when Ofcom was set up four years ago, said viewers were losing out in the dispute because they were not getting the channels they paid for.

Virgin Media customers have not been able to watch hit shows such as 24 and Lost since Sky pulled its basic channels including Sky One from the cable network at the beginning of this month.

The consumer panel chairman, Collette Bowe, called on the Ofcom chief executive, Ed Richards, to "use your influence as the regulator of this market to facilitate an early resolution of this dispute in the interests of consumers".

"We realise, of course, that this situation arises because of a commercial dispute between two parties. However, this is but the latest of a series of disputes between operators in this sector," said Ms Bowe in a letter to Mr Richards.

"The panel is now concerned that problems for consumers are developing in this market that are not easy for consumers to resolve themselves directly - and which are therefore generating serious consumer detriment."

Virgin has threatened to take Sky to the high court of the two companies fail to strike a deal this month. Virgin claims Sky is guilty of "abuse of dominance" for pulling channels including Sky One and Sky Sports News from the Virgin Media network.

Sky said it would vigourously defend any court action and called on Virgin to return to negotiations. It said Virgin's attempt to portray its actions as being in the interests of consumers was "hollow".

The consumer panel said the consequences of the dispute were "obviously enough, that Virgin customers do not have access to some programmes on channels that are distributed by Sky.

"In such cases, customers would normally expect to have the option of switching their supplier so as to be able to continue to receive programmes. In this case, however, the option of switching to a different distribution channel is, at the very least, complex and time consuming.

"We are concerned, therefore, that there are, right at this moment, consumers who are being disadvantaged and who will find it difficult to use the normal mechanisms available in other market places to get what they want - and are paying for."

The consumer panel was set up under the Communications Act to "understand and respond to the interests and concerns of consumers in the communications market place".

[St@mmie]

Originally Posted by nojo608

From today's Guardian:

John Plunkett - Wednesday March 14, 2007 - MediaGuardian.co.uk



The consumer panel said the consequences of the dispute were "obviously enough, that Virgin customers do not have access to some programmes on channels that are distributed by Sky.

"In such cases, customers would normally expect to have the option of switching their supplier so as to be able to continue to receive programmes. In this case, however, the option of switching to a different distribution channel is, at the very least, complex and time consuming.

"We are concerned, therefore, that there are, right at this moment, consumers who are being disadvantaged and who will find it difficult to use the normal mechanisms available in other market places to get what they want - and are paying for."

.

Interesting times ahead,
one could interpret that as this panel want ofcom to open up their network to Sky.

[Kryptonson]

speaking as a virgin subscriber, I wouldn't support any move to allow sky to operate independently on the virgin network.

One could also interpret that as the panel wants a third party to value Sky One (or indeed, add it to the rate card) and if VM don't accept this "fair" price allow Sky to retail their channels directly on Virgin Media as a final resort.

[CABLEDUDE]

i dont understand this at all, SKY can be reached almost anywhere in the UK but Virgin Media can only be reached in 55% so why do OFCOM want to give sky acces to the cable network, it will obviously give sky even more of an unfair place in the british market.

Obviously OFCOM is on skys side or MR R M has given them a little bribe!

[Kryptonson]

Originally Posted by Sirius

One could also interpret that as the panel wants a third party to value Sky One (or indeed, add it to the rate card) and if VM don't accept this "fair" price allow Sky to retail their channels directly on Virgin Media as a final resort.

So pretty much what virgin proposed.

Originally Posted by CABLEDUDE

i dont understand this at all, SKY can be reached almost anywhere in the UK but Virgin Media can only be reached in 55% so why do OFCOM want to give sky acces to the cable network, it will obviously give sky even more of an unfair place in the british market.

Obviously OFCOM is on skys side or MR R M has given them a little bribe!

They don't. Regulators have looked into this twice before looked into the cable network and decided the way things stand are fine.

They do however want a settlement, which will happen when Sky One goes on the rate card/Sky cut their asking price.

Originally Posted by Kryptonson

So pretty much what virgin proposed.

In my interpretation, and in keeping consistent with previous rulings by various matters by various regulators, yes.

[paulschapman]

Originally Posted by Sirius

One could also interpret that as the panel wants a third party to value Sky One (or indeed, add it to the rate card) and if VM don't accept this "fair" price allow Sky to retail their channels directly on Virgin Media as a final resort.

Virgin have already said that they will accept the decision of an independent arbiter, so why will they not accept it if it happens as a result of OfCom?

Originally Posted by paulschapman

Virgin have already said that they will accept the decision of an independent arbiter, so why will they not accept it if it happens as a result of OfCom?

I think they would accept an OFCOM/OFT determined "fair price", I was just speaking hypothetically.

[Kryptonson]

I think what needs to be remembered here is a matter of consumer concern; there are areas of the country that simply can't have a dish attached. My parents house for example is a grade 1 listed building, which means no satellite dish, even if they wanted it; there's no particular desire to allow a dish to take up garden space and disrupt what is otherwise a beautifully maintained lawn, so what other options are there? Sky should remember that of those 3.3 million, there are a large number of people that go to cable precisely because the installers, if you get a decent one, are considerate of the english home. You get no such luck with a sky installer, they just pick a spot that's best for them, drill holes and even drill another set in some cases if they decide they've positioned it wrongly.

[JethroUK]

Originally Posted by Kryptonson

speaking as a virgin subscriber, I wouldn't support any move to allow sky to operate independently on the virgin network.

I would - seems like the logical solution - let the competition commence

[Babbage11]

Personally, I wouldn't like Sky to have access to the network, not unless they are gonna pump lots of money in to it.

The VM network is already showing signs of being at capacity, not being able to merge channel line ups, variable BB, etc. All these things seem to be problems in some areas and not others. From most of what I've read, main problems seem to be in exNtl areas.

I'm lucky to be in an exTW area, and no matter what has been added, had very few problems. BB is full tilt, except during shaping trial, VOD works, channels added without probs, Interactive works.

As a casual observer, it 'appears' the exNtl side of the network, is in need of serious investment.

Unless Sky are willing to stump up, IMO it is doubtful the network could take it, as the network stands today. And therefore, the additional load could be seriously detrimental to VM subscribers. Thus the immediate refusal?

IMO, VMs' immediate refusal could be a bad omen. I get the feeling they are not going to be upgrading the infrastructure unless they have to as their main focus seems to be acquiring content.

[steve_ludwig]

Television is slowly becoming the past. The internet is the future. Costs are lower and sources are greater with real on-demand options

[Kryptonson]

Originally Posted by steve_ludwig

Television is slowly becoming the past. The internet is the future. Costs are lower and sources are greater with real on-demand options

It'll be so when we get that lovely 1gb bandwidth the chinese are enjoying

[bleuh111]

Originally Posted by CABLEDUDE

i dont understand this at all, SKY can be reached almost anywhere in the UK but Virgin Media can only be reached in 55% so why do OFCOM want to give sky acces to the cable network, it will obviously give sky even more of an unfair place in the british market.

Obviously OFCOM is on skys side or MR R M has given them a little bribe!

You are of course overlooking the fairly frequent-mentioned fact that Sky's '95%' (I believe that's trhe figure Sky give, if not a little higher) coverage is geographic and not necessarily applicable to the population. That is to say, plenty of us live in flats where we can get cable but not Sky, because either our tenancy agreements or leasehold terms prevent any visible modifications to the exterior of the property, i.e. the installation of a Sky dish.

It is now simply impossible for me and many others to get Sky One, because it's only available on one platform that is literally not an option for us.

[Daveoc64]

Originally Posted by Babbage11

Personally, I wouldn't like Sky to have access to the network, not unless they are gonna pump lots of money in to it.

The VM network is already showing signs of being at capacity, not being able to merge channel line ups, variable BB, etc. All these things seem to be problems in some areas and not others. From most of what I've read, main problems seem to be in exNtl areas.

I'm lucky to be in an exTW area, and no matter what has been added, had very few problems. BB is full tilt, except during shaping trial, VOD works, channels added without probs, Interactive works.

As a casual observer, it 'appears' the exNtl side of the network, is in need of serious investment.

Unless Sky are willing to stump up, IMO it is doubtful the network could take it, as the network stands today. And therefore, the additional load could be seriously detrimental to VM subscribers. Thus the immediate refusal?

IMO, VMs' immediate refusal could be a bad omen. I get the feeling they are not going to be upgrading the infrastructure unless they have to as their main focus seems to be acquiring content.

I don't see why that would be the case.

VM were providing channels from Sky before, it's just channel bandwidth.

There shouldn't be any more or less strain on the network. People would just pay Sky direct and their box/viewing card would decrypt the channels.

The channels were being broadcast on VM until last month, it's not like the bandwidth isn't available.

I think that VM doesn't want Sky to control anything on the network, it could be confusing for customers and leaves a complicated situation if customers cancel VM, but not Sky.

"Access to the network" sounds complicated, but the reality of is different.

[St@mmie]

Originally Posted by Daveoc64

I don't see why that would be the case.

VM were providing channels from Sky before, it's just channel bandwidth.

There shouldn't be any more or less strain on the network. People would just pay Sky direct and their box/viewing card would decrypt the channels.

The channels were being broadcast on VM until last month, it's not like the bandwidth isn't available.

I think that VM doesn't want Sky to control anything on the network, it could be confusing for customers and leaves a complicated situation if customers cancel VM, but not Sky.

"Access to the network" sounds complicated, but the reality of is different.

I'm not saying its right but the situation wouldn't be anymore confusing than having different gas, electricity or phone suppliers down the one line.
VM will get their line rental (or rental for their box ) and other than their own channels the other money would go straight to the content providers.
Its all going to depend on if ofcom decide to extend the rate card or open up the network.
Now there is only one cable company in the UK and they have publically stated they will extend their reach via phonelines its a dangerous game VM are playiong,
why shouldn't their services have the same regulations applied when they have the same coverage as Sky?

[Babbage11]

Daveoc64,

Since the Sky channels went, only 3 in my area, they have been replaced by 3 'new' channels. So network is currently at the same capacity as it was before. Alledgely, further channels have been postponed due to bandwidth problems.

[timcox3477]

Originally Posted by Kryptonson

You get no such luck with a sky installer, they just pick a spot that's best for them, drill holes and even drill another set in some cases if they decide they've positioned it wrongly.

Sounds a bit sterotypical their, i think we can find "horror stories" from both side of the fench... after all both are human. However everyone i know who has had sky has never had an issues with the installer, they are useally very senestive to cable layout and polite and do ask you where you would like things to go. Please dont use stereotypical arguments.. we can find plenty of mishaps anywhere and virgin installers are not really superior in anyway.. ignore the brand.

[jauh]

Originally Posted by Babbage11

Alledgely, further channels have been postponed due to bandwidth problems.

Yet they have no issue promising 20Mbps and 50Mbps to cable modems in the near future... Something doesn't add up here...

Originally Posted by Daveoc64

"Access to the network" sounds complicated, but the reality of is different.

It is complicated when actors who didn't fund the network seek to seize it on some level.

At least with BT, 'we' the taxpaying public, have a right to rule on its use.

[Babbage11]

jauh,

Things don't add up to my mind either With the trials they've been running for 20,50 and even 100meg BB, the network should have been upgraded accordingly. Have been on the 20 meg trial for a while, and everything seems fine.

The introduction of the shaping trials between 4pm and midnight could be misinterpretid as freeing up 'necessary' bandwidth. It is almost guarenteed to be adopted network wide

I really had hoped VM would go more for the TW way of things, but to my mind it looks more like they're going the Ntl way

[Kryptonson]

Originally Posted by timcox3477

Sounds a bit sterotypical their, i think we can find "horror stories" from both side of the fench... after all both are human. However everyone i know who has had sky has never had an issues with the installer, they are useally very senestive to cable layout and polite and do ask you where you would like things to go. Please dont use stereotypical arguments.. we can find plenty of mishaps anywhere and virgin installers are not really superior in anyway.. ignore the brand.

Hi. Don't ever tell me what I can and can't do, it isn't stereotypical at all, I know a good few sky installers and I know they don't give a toss.

Moved