[delder51]

Much of the content (particularly US sports content) broadcast by Setanta is filmed in high Definition ("HD"). When Setanta starts broadcasting live FAPL matches in the UK from august this year, it would like to provide viewers with the option of watching that coverage in HD.

In order for a Setanta HD sports channel to be viable, it needs access to the satellite platform. That platform is, however, controlled by Setanta's principal competitor, Sky.

Whilst sky currently provides conditional access services to Setanta to enable it to distribute its standard definition channels on satellite, Sky has refused to provide conditional access to Setanta for a new HD channel. It has, however, indicated that it may be willing to retail a Setanta HD sports channel on the satellite platform to its subscribers - an arrangement which would eliminate retail price competition between such a channel and Sky's own channels (including its exciting HD sports channels).

Sky is therefore, inhibiting Setanta's ability to introduce better quality broadcasts for its viewers.


http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2...ubmission1.pdf

[jam2000]

Originally Posted by delder51

Much of the content (particularly US sports content) broadcast by Setanta is filmed in high Definition ("HD"). When Setanta starts broadcasting live FAPL matches in the UK from august this year, it would like to provide viewers with the option of watching that coverage in HD.

In order for a Setanta HD sports channel to be viable, it needs access to the satellite platform. That platform is, however, controlled by Setanta's principal competitor, Sky.

Whilst sky currently provides conditional access services to Setanta to enable it to distribute its standard definition channels on satellite, Sky has refused to provide conditional access to Setanta for a new HD channel. It has, however, indicated that it may be willing to retail a Setanta HD sports channel on the satellite platform to its subscribers - an arrangement which would eliminate retail price competition between such a channel and Sky's own channels (including its exciting HD sports channels).

Sky is therefore, inhibiting Setanta's ability to introduce better quality broadcasts for its viewers.


http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2...ubmission1.pdf

Typical of Sky, scared of competition!
Why don't Ofcom act, as surely this is being anti-competitive?

Maybe you boy's want to have a look at this thread

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...d.php?t=706500


more info to do with Ofcom's review and companies submissions

[bignoise]

Originally Posted by delder51

Sky is therefore, inhibiting Setanta's ability to introduce better quality broadcasts for its viewers.

I notice you don't link to Sky's denial of the claim:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2007/03/sky.pdf

[Hewjars]

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story to bash Sky with.

[beardedwonder]

Originally Posted by jam2000

Typical of Sky, scared of competition!
Why don't Ofcom act, as surely this is being anti-competitive?

The platform and channels should be split up.

[beardedwonder]

Originally Posted by Hewjars

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story to bash Sky with.

As far as we can tell from the document it's a case of 'he said she said'.

[starsailor123]

Originally Posted by Hewjars

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story to bash Sky with.

The problem is that the facts are not clear and transparent from probably all sides and that is why ofcom is currently undertaking a review or watching brief of this area along with the ITV shareholding and Sky Basics Court Case

Hopefully Ofcom will start to operate in a way a regulator should, make decisions and if necessary remedies and then draw a line under the matter

Somehow I don't see OFCOM doing that. Like most regulators its a talk shop which has significantly less power and political muscle than the powers that its manages ( see water ,electric, gas and rail to see that the companies have free rein to shaft consumers as much as they like over the long term without impunity )

[CRTHD]

Originally Posted by beardedwonder

The platform and channels should be split up.

The "platform" is seperate. Sky do not own, control or operate the Astra satellite or it's transponders.

As far as I can tell the only thing Sky can be accused of is restricting access to it's EPG?

If Setanta want to beam a HD signal from Astra to my dish Sky can't stop them can they?

[ariusuk]

Originally Posted by CRTHD

The "platform" is seperate. Sky do not own, control or operate the Astra satellite or it's transponders.

As far as I can tell the only thing Sky can be accused of is restricting access to it's EPG?

If Setanta want to beam a HD signal from Astra to my dish Sky can't stop them can they?

The platform is the EPG.

Setanta are quite able to beam an HD signal from Astra - however their complaint is that they are not being allowed to have that HD signal added to the Sky EPG, and without the EPG, they miss out on subscribers.

[Reckless]

Originally Posted by ariusuk

The platform is the EPG.

Setanta are quite able to beam an HD signal from Astra - however their complaint is that they are not being allowed to have that HD signal added to the Sky EPG, and without the EPG, they miss out on subscribers.

BFD! Certainly the consumer doesn't benefit in this instance which is a pain in the butt but then a competing company can hardly demand concessions be made to allow them to be in a position to compete better can they?!

If Setanta want to spend a truck load of cash and bring out a competitive subscription service using their own infrastructure then cool for them.... nah, i didn't think they'd have that in their gameplan!

Not sure the UK could sustain such an investment mind you but it'd sure be good to have a real competitor to Sky - not the pathetic '5%' cable coverage of Virgin (ex 'dozen+' companies who merged to take the fight to... noone but existing customers!) and Freeview (which is pretty laughable when compared to Sky's FTA content).

[SilentLoner]

I somehow doubt that this is all sky's fault I am sure there are two sides to the story.

[toycollector]

Originally Posted by Silent85

I somehow doubt that this is all sky's fault I am sure there are two sides to the story.

Murdoch was alledgedly once quoted as saying
"a monopoly is a terrible thing till you have one"
Skys platform may not be a monopoly as yet. But their aren't many alternatives in my area.
We cann't even get channel 5!

[ElMarko]

Originally Posted by CRTHD

The "platform" is seperate. Sky do not own, control or operate the Astra satellite or it's transponders.

As far as I can tell the only thing Sky can be accused of is restricting access to it's EPG?

If Setanta want to beam a HD signal from Astra to my dish Sky can't stop them can they?

If they dealt with Astra directly, absolutely not.

The only thing they could do is restrict access to the EPG

Edit: Beaten

[stevebrown]

Originally Posted by ariusuk

The platform is the EPG.

Setanta are quite able to beam an HD signal from Astra - however their complaint is that they are not being allowed to have that HD signal added to the Sky EPG, and without the EPG, they miss out on subscribers.

I'm not that clued up on Sky/satellite systems, but looking at the problem as quoted above surely there is some sort of competition/monopoly laws broken there by Sky? To me, it seems clear that they are blocking Setanta HD because they don't want the competition for their own sports HD channels - that has to be breaking some sort of law surely?

Originally Posted by stevebrown

I'm not that clued up on Sky/satellite systems, but looking at the problem as quoted above surely there is some sort of competition/monopoly laws broken there by Sky? To me, it seems clear that they are blocking Setanta HD because they don't want the competition for their own sports HD channels - that has to be breaking some sort of law surely?

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2007/03/sky.pdf

pg 51 of the pdf contains Sky's response to setantapoints 6.1 to 6.5 constitute another side of the argument

[KeiranW]

OK. So they cant launch on Sky. Why not have a HD channel on Virgin Media?

They seem to be having a great relationship with Virgin Media at the moment, Wouldnt it be best to launch a HD Variant on the VM platform?

[unisoft]

Oh come on, are the people defending BSkyB staff members ?!!!

Virgin, Setanta et al are all ganging up against Sky ?

I do not think so !!!

Just like Sky won't open up to Condtional Access Modules (CAMs) so that Microsoft can make Media Center work with encrypted channels.

The EPG system now a lottery because of alleged bad specifications on "old" boxes.

Bumping subscription charges up way above inflation virtually every year.

You could argue that Sky+ and HD charges are for development of the platform but no other broadcaster who would have implemented this technology would have charged premiums. Sky just did it 3 years earlier and continued to charge through the nose.

Do you Sky Boy fans seriously wear rose tinted glasses ????

Best thing is if UKTV goes Free To Air on freesat, that would stuff up the base subscription figures.

Sky's idea of "continuing negotiations" means wear the broadcaster down until they give in and pay a ransom.

In rules of competition the platform - the tech and EPG in this case and codong format should be controlled by government body or Public Service Broadcaster. It then alleviates arguments about impartiality during commercial interests !!!!

[Si101]

Originally Posted by unisoft

Oh come on, are the people defending BSkyB staff members ?!!!

Maybe, but I'm not. I'm also not so blinded by their competitors whinging to not know that there are two sides to this and every other dispute between companies.

The EPG system now a lottery because of alleged bad specifications on "old" boxes.

Nobody, including Sky, could have imagined that there would be about 1000 channels and services on the Sky Digital platform in less than 10 years. Give me a single example of technology which was completely future proof when it was launched. I can't think of a single one.

Bumping subscription charges up way above inflation virtually every year.

The last time I had a subscription increase it was either 50p or a pound... not exactly what can be called "way above inflation".

You could argue that Sky+ and HD charges are for development of the platform but no other broadcaster who would have implemented this technology would have charged premiums. Sky just did it 3 years earlier and continued to charge through the nose.

How can you possibly know what might have happened if another broadcaster would have done? Standard Sky Digital boxes are still free (to my knowledge) as they have been for years. Where exactly do you think the money to pay for them comes from? The fact that the Sky+ and HD boxes cost £100 surely simply covers the costs over what a standard Sky box costs.
Why should Sky have to develop and create everything possible without charging the other broadcasters which benefit from the expense they have put into it? You wouldn't ask Mercedes to develop brand new technology for their cars then give it free to any other car manufacturer that wanted it, would you?

In rules of competition the platform - the tech and EPG in this case and coding format should be controlled by government body or Public Service Broadcaster. It then alleviates arguments about impartiality during commercial interests !!!!

Yeah right, cos when a government has control of things, they always do a really good job The billions of pounds of investment needed, which was never undertaken by previous governments, in the rail system shows how much a UK government can be trusted. And frankly, the BBC as a "public service broadcaster" does more to crush competition than should be allowed.

Besides, the "coding format" is not owned by Sky they licence it from News Datacom, so shouldn't really be brought into this discussion.

Si.

[russellelly]

Originally Posted by Si101

Maybe, but I'm not. I'm also not so blinded by their competitors whinging to not know that there are two sides to this and every other dispute between companies.

But in such an environment there should be no room for dispute. A fair price is set by Sky for conditional access and EPG and Setanta take it or leave it.

Either Setanta are lying or Sky are playing dirty. With their vested interests I suspect its the latter.

[IanDF]

Good to see the Sky fan-boys and apologists are out with their usual fleet of red-herrings such as

* NDS is a separate company - but also owned by News Corp (a company that seems to specialise in having a maze of subsiduaries) - with News Corp pay-tv subsiduaries making up the backbone of its business.

* Channels dont need to deal with Sky to broadcast on Astra 2 - but how many subscription channels broadcast to the UK via DSat and are not on Sky's EPG...

...and precisely how does a new entrant enter the market given that Sky control every last aspect of the 7m or so Sky boxes in the UK.

* News Corp dont own 100% of Sky - but still own enough to parachute Murdoch's mini-me onto the board.

[d'@ve]

It's the way of the digital World, Sky bashers. Unless and until iTunes (for example) are made to open up or licence their their downloads formats to their competitors, Sky can't justifiably be criticised for restricting competitors' access to their systems as they are doing no more harm to consumers' interests than are iTunes.

iTunes is a more important "anti-competition" problem to try and solve than this one, IMO... shades of Microsoft too. OK, they are similar problems to solve - Sky, Apple, Microsoft but frankly, it's hard to see how any of them can be solved satisfactorily, no matter how much we all whinge about it (and I include myself in that).

[carl.waring]

Originally Posted by Reckless

Not sure the UK could sustain such an investment mind you but it'd sure be good to have a real competitor to Sky - not the pathetic '5%' cable coverage of Virgin ..

I think you'll find that VM coverage is quite a bit more than 5% of the UK (assuming that's what you meant?) Not to mention the fact, in areas where it is available, it beats Sky for subscribers in in almost all of them

[IanDF]

Originally Posted by Si101

Maybe, but I'm not. I'm also not so blinded by their competitors whinging to not know that there are two sides to this and every other dispute between companies.

You say competitors, but we are increasingly struggling to find a single other broadcaster in the country with a good thing to say about Sky's position. The fact that a government that has spend the last 10 years cowering in fear at the Murdoch empire has finally come to the realisation that it needs to find its balls and do something, says everything IMHO.

Nobody, including Sky, could have imagined that there would be about 1000 channels and services on the Sky Digital platform in less than 10 years. Give me a single example of technology which was completely future proof when it was launched. I can't think of a single one.

But there are no where near 1000 channels on the EPG*, this is the great marketing myth perpetuated by Sky - aided by lots of gaps for "future expansion" in the EPG. I'm still to be convinced that if the boxes were really so short on memory that they couldnt hold the extra details memory couldnt be found elsewhere - what about all of the "phone home" data? The oldest Sky boxes must have more than paid for themselves by now.

How can you possibly know what might have happened if another broadcaster would have done? Standard Sky Digital boxes are still free (to my knowledge) as they have been for years. Where exactly do you think the money to pay for them comes from?

The money Sky makes from selling the details harvested from your Sky box when it "phones home" at night .

The fact that the Sky+ and HD boxes cost £100 surely simply covers the costs over what a standard Sky box costs.
Why should Sky have to develop and create everything possible without charging the other broadcasters which benefit from the expense they have put into it?

There is charging and abusing your position to over-charge and stiffle any attempt by a competitor to enter the market.

* See this post** made by myself a few months ago.
** Note for those desperate to find a straw to clutch to, where I say "channels not available elsewhere", I actually mean channels not available FTA elsewhere".

[andyk22]

Setanta don't want to launch a HD channel that is linked to taking out a HD (£10/month sub) but at the same time don't want to broadcast FTA.

Since no current option is around it means that SSSL have to hammer out a charging structure to reflect the use of CA for such a HD channel. Since it would be an additional premium channel on top of the current package extra charges may need to be worked out as well. The charges have to be fair and reasonable as already laid down.

If Setanta if unhappy with the charges met they can appeal against them to test if they are fair and reasonable or not.