Probe launched into Sky TV content deals

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Probe launched into Sky TV content deals

SiliconAudio

97 posts

Master Geek

#102520 16-May-2012 11:13

About bloody time if you ask me!
NZ Herald Article here

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

937 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#625986 16-May-2012 11:37

Sky's content deals although smart business from them are a huge reason of stunted growth in the NZ industry of delivering online video content and as much as I would like to see it I do not see there being a content provider to ever match them in NZ. Even with a inquiry and or sanctions I don't see much changing never worked for Telecom.

I would settle for a decent competitor for online delivery and really hope that Quickflix keep increasing their catalogue as quick as possible so we can actually have a realistic (legal) alternative to Sky TV in NZ. Either that or that Netflix decide to add NZ to their countries that can access list (without a VPN or alternative).

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#625998 16-May-2012 11:45

Very welcomed

SiliconAudio

97 posts

Master Geek

#626006 16-May-2012 11:52

jtbthatsme: Sky's content deals although smart business from them are a huge reason of stunted growth in the NZ industry of delivering online video content and as much as I would like to see it I do not see there being a content provider to ever match them in NZ. Even with a inquiry and or sanctions I don't see much changing never worked for Telecom.

You must surely be kidding! Yes it worked for Telecom - Local loop unbundling, operational separation of Telecom & Chorus (now full separation), fair bitstream access to competitors, etc, etc. Regulation has significantly increased competition and lowered pricing for internet access in NZ.

I would settle for a decent competitor for online delivery and really hope that Quickflix keep increasing their catalogue as quick as possible so we can actually have a realistic (legal) alternative to Sky TV in NZ. Either that or that Netflix decide to add NZ to their countries that can access list (without a VPN or alternative).

Even Netflix have issues getting programming that isn't already tied up by Sky in NZ. Brent Ayrey, vice president of product innovation at Netflix actually mentioned this when he visited NZ recently. EDIT: Read about it HERE. This industry badly needs regulation to break the monopoly. It has worked very well before, it can work again.

Jaxson

8042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#626008 16-May-2012 11:53

SiliconAudio: About bloody time if you ask me!

+1

I'm not necessarily anti SKY, but I'm definitely anti a monopoly. We're being held to ransom here in NZ with a lack of legal alternatives, especially to live sport. Movies (and to some degree TV) are fairly well covered, but for most live sport there is no alternative at all.

jtbthatsme

937 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#626016 16-May-2012 11:59

What I meaning in regards to Telecom is that they still control in one form or another a huge portion of NZ's internet distribution and that's not likely to change until the alternative to the Southern Cross Cable is up and running (which I believe is actually going to be happening as a large portion of funding has been raised towards this happening) then we will see real competition and competitive pricing come about in NZ not just resellers Telstra being the obvious exception to this.

As for the other I already said smart business on Sky's behalf.

Regulation is most definitely needed but with the iminent launch of Igloo soon Sky's grip of what we do and don't get in NZ will only get worse.

On the sports front what should have always been done is sure Sky you can have the live side but FTA TV will need to have delayed coverage as well that's the sort of regulation I'd like to see not Sky has big pockets so either you pay them $70+ per month to watch any decent sport or just don't watch it model we have for nearly all sport now.

SiliconAudio

97 posts

Master Geek

#626022 16-May-2012 12:04

Jaxson:
SiliconAudio: About bloody time if you ask me!
+1

I'm not necessarily anti SKY, but I'm definitely anti a monopoly. We're being held to ransom here in NZ with a lack of legal alternatives, especially to live sport. Movies (and to some degree TV) are fairly well covered, but for most live sport there is no alternative at all.

I was going to reply that I'm not anti-Sky either, but the truth is, I am anti their business model. If I want to watch a few warriors games live, I have to be saddled with a huge bunch of channels of crap I will never watch. Overseas, where there is competition, you can subscribe to just a sports channel if you want to.

There was a banking advert on TV a year or so ago, where a guy walks into a shop and wants a loaf of bread, but he can't buy the loaf of bread without also buying a dozen eggs or a bottle of milk, etc... Sky is like that. How many other businesses in NZ could get away with that?

I am a sports lover and am into league in particular. I've been following the Warriors since their first ever game in the NRL. But I have never had Sky. My ethics just wont let me.

SiliconAudio

97 posts

Master Geek

#626029 16-May-2012 12:14

jtbthatsme: What I meaning in regards to Telecom is that they still control in one form or another a huge portion of NZ's internet distribution and that's not likely to change until the alternative to the Southern Cross Cable is up and running (which I believe is actually going to be happening as a large portion of funding has been raised towards this happening) then we will see real competition and competitive pricing come about in NZ not just resellers Telstra being the obvious exception to this.

The big difference here is that the Pacific Fibre cable, and potentially also the trans-tasman Axin cable, to be built by Huawei Marine, are going to go ahead, so there is no need for government intervention, even if Telecom did just drop it's price by 40% to try to scare off investors. Yes there was a huge financial challenge, but nobody had the rights to lay another cable tied up.

It's hard to see the current National govt forcing Sky's hand with this. Just as with Telecom, National protected them from regulation and it only came under a Labour govt. And I say that as a person that has always been right of centre in my political views.

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

Jaxson

8042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#626056 16-May-2012 12:41

SiliconAudio: I am a sports lover and am into league in particular. I've been following the Warriors since their first ever game in the NRL. But I have never had Sky. My ethics just wont let me.

You just described our house too. The wife is very into the league and I don't mind it either. I got the Australian Network on C-band satellite for this, but they stopped carrying it soon after.

The other one is formula one, so essentially we're stuffed if we want to view minority sports. Rugby/Netball/League is often shown delayed, but Formula one doesn't get a look in unfortunately. So yeah, we're talking $70 a month to get access to these sports live, when in most cases I'd be happy with a delayed start replay etc. $840 a year is a bit much to stomach given we're only talking live sport here and not in HD either.

As before, I'm happy to go to the movie store for movies on bluray with HD audio, but new TV and especially sports are fully monopolised.

grant_k

3539 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#626063 16-May-2012 12:47

SiliconAudio: It's hard to see the current National govt forcing Sky's hand with this. Just as with Telecom, National protected them from regulation and it only came under a Labour govt. And I say that as a person that has always been right of centre in my political views.

+1

I didn't like many of the things Labour did when in power -- especially during their 3rd term.

But I take my hat off to them for regulating Telecom, which would never have happened under a National government. The benefits of this are now apparent for all to see. In recent months, since the RBI contract was awarded, we have also seen Vodafone working with Chorus to install fibre to many of their cellsites that didn't previously have it. I very much doubt this would have happened if the network side of things was still part of Telecom. It would have been like feeding your competitor, whereas now, Chorus doesn't compete with anybody. They are a separate infrastructure company, subject to regulation, and this is as it should be.

The markets don't like this announcement much either: Look at Sky TV's share price -- down 40c or 7%!

trig42

5810 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#626065 16-May-2012 12:55

+1

I am generally not in favour of regulation, but with Sky (and Telecom previously) it is needed IMO.

Not that I expect much to come out of this 'probe'. Sky's lobbyists will be in full swing and earning their keep all through this, and the government ministers will ignore the needs/eants of thse who voted them in and carry on with what Rupert's boys wnat...

Just saying.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#626070 16-May-2012 12:59

guys read the article. This isn't an ivestigation into whether sky has a monopoly on content.
It is an investigation as to whether the deals Sky has cut with ISPs impacts the market. even if sky is forced to stop those contracts, this investigation won't result in them being forced to whoelsale content, or limit exclusive deals, or anything like that.

SiliconAudio

97 posts

Master Geek

#626124 16-May-2012 13:36

NonprayingMantis: guys read the article. This isn't an ivestigation into whether sky has a monopoly on content.
It is an investigation as to whether the deals Sky has cut with ISPs impacts the market. even if sky is forced to stop those contracts, this investigation won't result in them being forced to whoelsale content, or limit exclusive deals, or anything like that.

Yes, you are right, but the future of pay tv is the internet. With UFB going gang-busters throughout the country and even the rural folks getting better service with RBI and data caps growing all the time, the internet will be the delivery medium of the 21st century. Sky can see this coming and are doing their best to lock it down and keep competitors out.

In all likelihood, any future competitor to Sky will be internet based.

EDIT: Actually, it is partially about content. From the article:

"we are aware of concerns that access to content and Sky's contracts with internet service providers may be hindering competition," Berry said in the statement."

OldGeek

893 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#626493 16-May-2012 20:47

SiliconAudio:
NonprayingMantis: guys read the article. This isn't an ivestigation into whether sky has a monopoly on content.
It is an investigation as to whether the deals Sky has cut with ISPs impacts the market. even if sky is forced to stop those contracts, this investigation won't result in them being forced to whoelsale content, or limit exclusive deals, or anything like that.

Yes, you are right, but the future of pay tv is the internet. With UFB going gang-busters throughout the country and even the rural folks getting better service with RBI and data caps growing all the time, the internet will be the delivery medium of the 21st century. Sky can see this coming and are doing their best to lock it down and keep competitors out.

In all likelihood, any future competitor to Sky will be internet based.

EDIT: Actually, it is partially about content. From the article:

"we are aware of concerns that access to content and Sky's contracts with internet service providers may be hindering competition," Berry said in the statement."

The issue here is that Sky can buy exclusive rights to content and then control how that content is made available. Where the delivery medium is satellite or terrestrial digital transmission they can narrow-cast it to subscribers (they currently do this over satellite) and they are the only operator currently doing this. Where the delivery medium is over the Internet they can still do this because of the content control but there are many other operators capable of delivery. Their answer so far is ISKY where they retain control over delivery to their subscriber base.

Any change would require regulation to prevent them owning exclusive content control. For foreign-sourced material (any content sourced from outside NZ) Sky would be prevented from getting exclusive access. From domestically-sourced content (such as Super 15 sport played in NZ) Sky would have to be forced to share the content with other providers capable of delivery. In both cases any TV program/movie/sports game could be watched from multiple delivery providers. These delivery providers would be free to use the Internet (most likely at present) but could also use Satellite/Terestrial or any other future technology.

So - no more exclusive rights deals - made illegal by law. There are huge implications for both media companies and entertainment/sports bodies.

DS9

325 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#626527 16-May-2012 21:39

OldGeek:
SiliconAudio:
NonprayingMantis: guys read the article. This isn't an ivestigation into whether sky has a monopoly on content.
It is an investigation as to whether the deals Sky has cut with ISPs impacts the market. even if sky is forced to stop those contracts, this investigation won't result in them being forced to whoelsale content, or limit exclusive deals, or anything like that.

Yes, you are right, but the future of pay tv is the internet. With UFB going gang-busters throughout the country and even the rural folks getting better service with RBI and data caps growing all the time, the internet will be the delivery medium of the 21st century. Sky can see this coming and are doing their best to lock it down and keep competitors out.

In all likelihood, any future competitor to Sky will be internet based.

EDIT: Actually, it is partially about content. From the article:

"we are aware of concerns that access to content and Sky's contracts with internet service providers may be hindering competition," Berry said in the statement."

The issue here is that Sky can buy exclusive rights to content and then control how that content is made available. Where the delivery medium is satellite or terrestrial digital transmission they can narrow-cast it to subscribers (they currently do this over satellite) and they are the only operator currently doing this. Where the delivery medium is over the Internet they can still do this because of the content control but there are many other operators capable of delivery. Their answer so far is ISKY where they retain control over delivery to their subscriber base.

Any change would require regulation to prevent them owning exclusive content control. For foreign-sourced material (any content sourced from outside NZ) Sky would be prevented from getting exclusive access. From domestically-sourced content (such as Super 15 sport played in NZ) Sky would have to be forced to share the content with other providers capable of delivery. In both cases any TV program/movie/sports game could be watched from multiple delivery providers. These delivery providers would be free to use the Internet (most likely at present) but could also use Satellite/Terestrial or any other future technology.

So - no more exclusive rights deals - made illegal by law. There are huge implications for both media companies and entertainment/sports bodies.

Then your argument works both ways, every show that TVNZ and MediaWorks have have the 'rights' (FTA, First Play and online) to would be forced to be shared with SKY. You want the law changed but it is the content providers that sell these 'rights' and SKY, TVNZ and MediaWorks buy the 'rights they want. lets use NCIS as an example: MediaWorks (TV3) own FTA, First Play and Online but SKY own Pay TV (The Box).

Now NCIS is on SKY, FreeViewHD, Freeview Sat. 3ondemand Should NCIS be shown on ONE or TV2 or TVNZondemand, Prime or The Box or iSKY, even though MediaWorks payed for the 'rights'.

In summery your argument would cause the closer of all FTA and Pay networks as they would be forced to share content and all Sports including Super 15 would not be shown here as there would not be enough money going to the NZRU to fund any NZ Super teams.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#626583 16-May-2012 23:26

DS9, I agree.

If Sky has to share its currently exclusive content, then it is devalued to them. They won't have the pulling power to attract/retain their subscribers, as viewers can also watch it on free TV. So, they will have to pay less, and then, won't get the content from the content providers. Or Free TV also pays a share, which the makes free TV into pay TV. And no, I am not a Sky advocate, but the bottom line is Sky can afford to buy content, as it is a pay tv business. You cannot expect it to pay top dollar for premium content when viewers can cancel Sky and watch it for free. Free TV cannot afford to pay for that cream content either as its revenue is lower. So, you may not see the cream content as it is now not affordable.

I hear where everyone is coming from. If Sky did what many here want, that is, to pay for shows rather than $70 per month for multi channels. That will save consumers money, it will cost Sky money, then Sky will have less funds to buy that cream content. Chicken and the Egg, primarily due to a low, low population here.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5