tdgeek:toejam316: When I say that I would have assumed you'd be able to work out from the context of what I was saying that they were allowed to spring up uncontested. And besides the point you'd be a fool to lament Sky only working to maintain their Monopoly. I'm not sure why you need to try discredit the actual words I'm using when you could instead talk about the ideas and concepts.
Ive talked about real ideas and real concepts in these Sky threads. Instead of saying they are useless and flippant, describe why you think that. What they should have done and should do. BTW Sky isn't a monopoly, they never had god given rights to anything, they bid. others could have, and have. Every provider has exclusive content so therefore every provider is a monopoly. So its moot.
I'm not saying they have a monopoly on all content ever released, nor content at all. I'm saying they had a monopoly in the pay tv world, because no one had the desire and capital to attempt to compete in such a small market. When there's an elephant in the room, there isn't room for much else. And what I'm saying is they could have utilized this advantage they had in terms of market penetration (because would you believe the people who watch TV would like to also watch TV?), brand awareness, and pre-licensed content (because SkyGO was a thing well before Neon). Combine that with the groundwork they had already done getting content rights and setting up relationships with rights holders, and they could have easily come out roaring with something a lot stronger than Neon.
Neon is the "Guys, we're really trying, honest!". Not the "We're gonna do our best to own this market as well as we own our previous market!". Neon is crap, and Sky had pretty much everything behind them to have done something a lot better. It's pretty simple, really.