tdgeek:

mattwnz:

tdgeek:

invisibleman18: And of course they still have the majors, Ryder Cup and various other big tournaments so those who are interested are still going to have to keep Sky and pay out for the new provider. With this starting to happen more and more, people who are interested in several sports are going to end up having to pay out for multiple different services to watch them. Interesting to see which sport is next.

Exactly. While many here complain about Sky, and want more competition, when that comes, they may end up paying more.

Competition should bring down prices, as that is it's intention, as it allows xyz to compete againest abc with the same content. But the nature of TV is that it would lead to fragmentation, as it means some networks will have different programs from others, which essentially means you have to purchase from all the companies if you want to watch all the programs. So it isn't really competition, as different channels will have a monopoly on some content . The only way to have competition that would lead to lower prices is for different companies to have the same content. When monopolies exist, regulation maybe a a better answer, rather than competition that leads to fragmentation of content.

Exactly my point, well extrapolated. TV content is unlike any other product. It can be exclusive. A Fridge may be also exclusive at one retailer, but while you can buy any number of equivalent fridges you cant buy an equiavlent, F1, MotoGP, Golf match, Breaking Bad. Who has the monopoly, or is it contrived? Sky, or the other TV provider, or the content owner?  The problem with un-exclusive content is the channel advertising is less revenue. Cannot garner customers if the TV provider has no value "I can get this anywhere, I will roam without loyalty" Needs a buy in from the top I feel. A whole new model