Freesat

Arguably there is - as Sky had exclusive deals with the major content providers (sport and movies) that would drive take-up of a new platform. You would be unlikely to get funding for a new platform if you couldn't provide sport and movies on it - they are the two driving forces of platform take-up.

If Sky didn't make their channels (and thus their content) available to other platform operators, that would preclude other platforms from developing - and for a long time Sky were accused of just that (by charging over the odds for access to their channels - or simply not making them available).

You can (and Sky do) argue that they gambled where others didn't, and they should reap the benefits of that. However after 20 years this argument is no longer holding as much water as it did - as Sky aren't gambling any more. They aren't the "plucky upstart" that they once were - they are a major part of the broadcast establishment.

Similar arguments are gaining ground on the minimal investment Sky makes in UK production in comparison to their revenue.



No - but it is currently impossible for other platform operators to offer exclusive movie deals and very little in the way of sporting events exclusively that Sky don't have...

Sky DO own the major UK movie and sport channels - and they are the ones that generate the premium subscriptions and higher revenues.

You could argue that if Sky weren't allowed to run both the platform AND the channels - then the channels would be available on a far more level playing field across multiple platforms.

Look at the US where a lot of the major channels are available on both the DirecTV and Dish satellite platforms... In fact the UK is one of the major markets with only a single dominant platform for pay-TV (Virgin is a long way behind). In Scandinavia - there are both Viasat and Canal Digital for instance - many showing the same channels (though there are some platform exclusives as well)

No but they have the monopoly on the ones they do. I don't know who "owns" the gas and electricity which comes into my house but I have a choice of who I pay for it. I don't see why satellite TV should be any different.

Although Sky doesn't own all the channels, they do their very best to make people think otherwise. They have very successfully managed to get people to think of Digital Satellite as "Sky" (and in fact, I know people who refer to their cable service as "Sky" too!) As we all know, Sky and digital satellite TV are not one and the same thing.

When my missus was living in a shared house, one of her housemates mentioned their "Sky" box in the living room. When we got there, it was a bog-standard Asda £5 Freeview box.

The only pet peeve I have about Virgin and Sky boxes is that the remote up/down/left/right buttons do different things. Up and down changes channel on one, whereas on the other it scrolls through the one channel's EPG listings. Grr.

Well they didn't - but IMO the recent acquisition of the Virgin/Living channels has given them a similar unfair advantage in the general subscription channel filed as they have in movies and sport.

They bought 7 channels and closed 3 of them. I don't think adding an extra 4 channels has really changed the balance significantly.

Sky still only own a small minority of the total number of channels broadcast on their platform.

However Sky own the majority of channels that they charge a large premium for. How many non-Sky channels are part of the premium Movies and Sport packages?

With the exception of minority channels that are outside the main Sky packages (but Sky handle subscriptions for) aren't the bulk of the non-Sky channels in the non-premium 'basic' mixes?

So buying up channels to close them isn't abusing their position then.