Home
 » ISP News » 
Sponsored

UPDATE2 BT and Sky in Fresh UK Competition Spat Over TV Sports Channel

Wednesday, June 19th, 2013 (2:01 pm) - Score 1,841

The communications regulator, Ofcom, has opened a new competition probe after UK telecoms giant BT complained that the terms on which Sky (Sky Broadband) offered wholesale supply of its Sky Sports 1 and 2 TV channels to their rival YouView (IPTV) platform “amount to an abuse of dominance“.

The case, which was officially opened on 14th June 2013 (i.e. follows the lodging of a complaint by BT on 24th May 2013), alleges that Sky (BSkyB) had made the supply of its key sports channels conditional on BT offering wholesale access of its new BTSport content (launch news) to Sky’s own retail and satellite platform.

At present BTSport, among other things, has the rights to show 38 live Barclays Premier League football matches (including 18 top picks) and 69 live Aviva Premiership rugby games. BT recently confirmed that it would be offering this content for free to its broadband subscribers, which could weaken Sky’s dominance of sport content and steal away some of their broadband subscribers.

Ofcoms Statement

As set out in section 25 of the Act, Ofcom may conduct an investigation where it considers there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the Chapter II prohibition and/or the prohibition in Article 102 TFEU have been infringed. In addition to the Chapter II prohibition in the Act, Ofcom has the power to apply Article 102 TFEU in full.

Ofcom has now opened an investigation under section 25 of the Act into the matters raised by BT’s complaint and will consider whether Sky has abused a dominant position under UK and/or EU competition law.”

Normally such complaints and any relevant investigations can drag on for a long time but the imminent launch of BT’s new TV content, which could arguably be further disadvantaged by Sky’s restriction, has caused BT to request that Ofcom “consider whether it is necessary to act as a matter of urgency to grant interim measures relief“. A preliminary decision on this is expected in July 2013, which is just before the 1st August 2013 launch of BTSport.

Meanwhile BT has said that it was “pleased” with Ofcom’s move “because they have refused to provide Sky Sports 1 and 2 to BT on YouView on fair terms whilst providing them to other pay TV retailers such as TalkTalk“. BT added that they would continue to try and resolve the situation through commercial negotiations but in the meantime have asked Ofcom to “take urgent action“.

UPDATE 11:21pm

Added some more remarks from BT to the bottom.

UPDATE 20th June 2013

Separately Ofcom has today ruled on a semi-related BT complaint, which claimed that Sky had breached the Code on the Prevention of Undue Discrimination between Broadcast Advertisers by not allowing the telecoms giant to broadcast advertisements for its BTSport channels on the Sky Sports channels.

The regulator ruled that “Sky is pursuing a legitimate commercial interest” and that the effect on BT would have been “limited“. Ofcom further said that “Sky’s approach is proportionate to its aim” and found that the satellite broadcaster had not “unduly discriminated” against BT. The full report can be found here (PDF).

Leave a Comment
33 Responses
  1. Avatar DTMark says:

    Can someone enlighten me.. I’m really not into football..

    Football clubs (?) make money by selling rights to one or more providers to film/stream their games.

    This opens a bidding process and Sky and BT can bid against each other. We then have price discovery and one or maybe both win e.g. they might both be able to broadcast it, each paying less than they would for exclusive rights.

    Both Sky and BT can project how much profit they might make based on assumptions about subscribers. So they have their own “bidding ceiling” above which they cannot go.

    If the football clubs price it too high, it just doesn’t go on TV and they lose the potential income. Which as I understand it, not being into this much, is pivotal to being able to pay the players as it’s a key income source.

    If they decide they want to sell to one particular bidder, surely that is a decision for them and them alone.

    The “asset” is that of the football clubs to sell or not to sell as they see fit.

    The cameras and equipment owned by Sky to film the games are their assets. BT or anyone else could purchase similar assets. Likewise the sports channels are Sky’s assets. BT or anyone else could set up similar.

    There are three entirely private separate entities (BT, Sky, the clubs). Watching football on TV is not an intrinsic human need that needs “policing”. If the price to the customer ends up being too high then BT or Sky got their sums and assumptions wrong and lose money much like any other business.

    What is wrong with this?

    What does this have to do with OFCOM?

    Why should anyone intervene? Isn’t this simple price discovery, the parties either agree, or not?

    What am I missing?

    1. Avatar FibreFred says:

      Its all to do with Ofcom , they regulate communications of which this is a communication.

      It looks like BT’s beef is that Sky offer sports to Youview with no strings attached, but will only offer the sports packages to BT if they in return offer their new BTSport package to Sky (i.e. a different set of conditions for BT)

      Sky should be wholesaling the product to anyone with the same conditions.

      That’s how I read it anyway

      Your argument is like saying “BT own their own network, why shouldn’t they charge a different price for a DSL service to Sky than what they do for TalkTalk its their ‘stuff’ to do with as they please”

    2. Avatar Roberto says:

      You have most of that right DTMark. Companies bid on the rights to broadcast the content, the highest bid basically wins. I doubt whether ofcom will do anything about this complaint, the same thing has happened with other sport apart from football over the years including Rugby, Cricket and Formula 1. The BBC/ITV would not pay the cash so lost the rights entirely or were only given rights to show certain games/races.

      I also do not understand BT’s complaint as from what i can see they do not want to wholesale their BT Sports channel to sky, so sky have said fine no sky sports for youview then, which to me seems fair to me. Share and share alike or do not share at all.

      This also is not the first time something like this has happened, Virgin have complained about costs to get the rights to Sky channels in the past and the BBC (or it may have been ITV) have complained about losing rights to Cricket and Rugby. Nothing really came of it.

      The only sport related thing Ofcom have ever blocked Sky on AFAIK was Wimbledon about 10 or so years ago when sky tried to get exclusive airing rights. A bunch of MPs who should had been concentrating on other things like fighting in the middle east all got their underwear in a bunch and basically demanded Ofcom stepped in.

      I suspect Sky when Ofcom investigate will state they are happy to sell rights to Sky Sports to BT for the wholesale price they are legally allowed to charge if they are also allowed rights to BT sports at the going wholesale price also. Personally i can not see Ofcom ruling against Sky unless BT are going to pay them off as EVERY TV provider has to have the ability to wholesale channels. IF BT are not willing to wholesale BT Sport to anyone they there self are breaking the rules.

    3. Avatar FibreFred says:

      “It looks like BT’s beef is that Sky offer sports to Youview with no strings attached, ”

      Should have read “It looks like BT’s beef is that Sky offer sports to other broadcasters such as Virgin etc with no strings attached”

    4. Avatar DTMark says:

      @Roberto – thanks for the confirmation and clarification.

      @FibreFred

      “Your argument is like saying “BT own their own network, why shouldn’t they charge a different price for a DSL service to Sky than what they do for TalkTalk its their ‘stuff’ to do with as they please””

      Indeed it is.

      And, that’s how it should be.

      The only reason it isn’t allowed to be like that is because they have a monopoly so the “SMP” concept got introduced to stop the country being fleeced by BT because it should never have been sold in the first place. Short-termism begets more short-termism.

      Now, if we’d gone the way I suggested in the other article a few down from this one, and we then disband OFCOM and get rid of regulation, and have genuine competition then yes, BT should be able to tell Talk Talk to build their own wretched network and stop freeloading off others’ investments.

    5. Avatar FibreFred says:

      But isn’t it a similar thing here. Sky have the monopoly on the sports in question, they bid and won them and as such now have an monopoly on access.

      It doesn’t transfer well to a comparison on the network as the network doesn’t come up for bidding. But it equates to the same thing BT own and wholesale the network and have to at an equivalent price. Sky have bought the rights for some sports package and if they are reselling them they should resell using the same terms for all.

    6. Avatar Roberto says:

      “Should have read “It looks like BT’s beef is that Sky offer sports to other broadcasters such as Virgin etc with no strings attached””

      If you go back to 2010 a deal similar to this has previously happened with Sky and Virgin.

      Sky at the time wanted the channels Living, LIVING, LIVINGit, Challenge, Challenge Jackpot, Bravo, Bravo 2 and Virgin1 (don’t think Virgin 1 exists nowadays does it anyone?) at the TIME IN 2010 they were only available on Virgins service.

      Virgin at the same time wanted Skys HD channels line up. Like big boys rather than crying like little beehatches, they reached an agreement that benefited both of them and the consumer….
      http://www.techradar.com/news/television/sky-s-purchase-of-virgin-media-tv-what-does-it-mean-694106

      It appears though once again as BT are involved rather than act like grown ups they want something for nothing and if they can not get it they go complaining.

      Sky will wholesale channels to anyone and always have, if they did not you would not be able to get sky sports on BT Vision already.

    7. Avatar FibreFred says:

      Roberto,

      Agreed, I think the point is that this is a specific condition (you can have mine if we can have yours) which isn’t right if other’s don’t have to have the same agreement.

      There’s nothing to say anywhere that BT won’t sell their channel to Sky otherwise I’d assume that Sky will lodge a similar complaint in reverse. I think the issue is that it is being treat differently to other broadcasters

      Anyway.. I’m sure nothing will come of it

    8. Avatar DTMark says:

      @FibreFred – I guess the main difference is that telecommunications are an essential infrastructure service to the country whereas football (playing, watching) is a non-essential, entirely discretionary activity.

      As I’ve said before, companies are either private or they are not. You cannot have a quasi private-state company like BT and expect it to work in a market.

    9. Avatar Roberto says:

      I do not think anything will really happen with regards to this complaint either Fibrefred. If anything BT have far more to lose than Sky. If ofcom ruled in BTs favour and BT want all of Skys Sport channels on Youview that is going to cost them significantly more than it would for Sky to just acquire the rights to a singular channel (IE BT Sports) from BT. (assuming costs for content are consistent).

      I doubt BT would be able to afford the rights to 5 (or whatever amount it is now) Sky Sports channels, and certainly not the rights to Sky Sports F1, given how much they have spent on not only getting BT Sports up and running but the advert blitz for it recently.

      The sensible thing for both parties to do would be sit down and reach an agreement on who gets rights to what events/channels. Doing that could also end up doing BT a favour with them possibly getting more channels for the Youview platform than just sports ones.

      If Ofcom do rule in BTs favour and force Sky to offer their sports channels on Youview you can bet your life sky will also file a complaint, possibly based on a couple of things. The first being current BT TV adverts say BT Sport is ONLY available to BT customers (which would potentially indicate they have no plans to wholesale it, which is a violation of rules straight away) and secondly that the cost to aquire the BT Sports channel should be proportionate to how much Sky have to sell their channel/s for meaning Sky ultimately could end up with all the channels for minimal outlay (well minimal compared to what BT would have to pay per channel to Sky anyway).

      Frankly i see nothing coming of it apart from ofcom maybe setting a price to both of them on how much they have to wholesale the channels to each other for.

    10. Avatar MikeW says:

      @DTMark

      Your initial post focuses on the rights to televise sport, and the bidding process to sell those rights. That part is all well and good, and isn’t the point behind this complaint.

      It is all to do with the ability of a “TV Access Platform” to be able to access and distribute the channels that have the rights to those sports. For a long time, Sky had both the rights to show the sports *and* enforced a monopoly such that the channels that displayed those sports were only available via their own platform (ie Sky’s satellite system).

      It is that monopoly (and others like it) that Ofcom has remit over here, and have dealt with similar issues in the past between the 2 main TV Platforms – Virgin and Sky. They probably did the same with the original OnDigital terrestrial platform that evolved into Freeview, on which Youview is based.

    11. Avatar DTMark says:

      “It is all to do with the ability of a “TV Access Platform” to be able to access and distribute the channels that have the rights to those sports. For a long time, Sky had both the rights to show the sports *and* enforced a monopoly such that the channels that displayed those sports were only available via their own platform (ie Sky’s satellite system).”

      But what is wrong with that?

      If I want to set up a shop but I do not want to invest in premises, how much floorspace should, say, Marks & Spencer be forced to give me in their stores?

      That “monopoly” can surely only be enforced with the will of the asset holder e.g. the football clubs.

  2. Avatar JNeuhoff says:

    Surely we’d all be better off if BT was actually focusing on providing better telecoms services, such as FTTP, rather than wasting money on sports and other advetures!

    1. Avatar DTMark says:

      Virgin Media’s cable platform has been the only triple-play platform, their “USP”.

      Now triple-play is potential big business and leads to cross-subsidy (Sky being the most obvious example, and they’re picking up plenty of customers with TV and calls subsidising their “unlimited” broadband).

      Mainstream ISPs who do not embrace this will either die or at least struggle even more in the face of competition from those who do.

      Good business sense for BT – if they get it right. If this leads to all customers with all ISPs on BT’s platform having to pay increased line rental to cross-subsidise BT’s TV efforts (which can then help to spread BT’s risk across all ISPs), not such good news for those with no interest in sport or voice telephone lines.

    2. Avatar FibreFred says:

      “Surely we’d all be better off if BT was actually focusing on providing better telecoms services, such as FTTP, rather than wasting money on sports and other advetures!”

      Nope, its all about added extras these days, adapt or die.

  3. Avatar Phil says:

    I don’t care to be honest. I just hope both BT and Sky will gone out of business. They both act like a childish act and abused each others in price war. Glad I wasn’t a customer with Sky or BT.

  4. Avatar MikeW says:

    I’m intrigued, because YouView isn’t BT’s baby.

    Is BT’s beef that Sky are denying the channel to Youview, while demanding something in return from an unrelated third party (ie BT)?

    Yes, BT Vision is based on YouView – but the article specifically mentions YouView, not the BTV platform.

    1. Avatar Roberto says:

      “I’m intrigued, because YouView isn’t BT’s baby.”

      Yes it is, well to a extent. Youview is a consortium/group based product/company of which BT are one of the major partners…
      http://www.youview.com/partners/

      There has also previously been talk of BT scrapping Vision and only flogging youview though i suspect with BT Sports that has now changed.

    2. Avatar MikeW says:

      Yes – that partnership is the relationship that I believed BT to have towards Youview.

      BT don’t own the platform, the specifications, or manufacture the boxes. Subscribers can buy a Youview box, use it – watch live and catch-up TV and record – all with no relationship to BT whatsoever. You don’t need to connect it to a BT line – it works outside BT Retail, outside BT Wholesale, and outside BT Openreach.

    3. Avatar Roberto says:

      “BT don’t own the platform, the specifications, or manufacture the boxes.”

      With regards to “ownership” that depends on what you are referring to. Channels you get on a BT Youview box are not the same as you would get on your own bought box or one from Talk Talk.

      The specifications to the box are from whoever the supplier is, Talk Talk use Huawei manufactured boxes, BT use Humax. Firmwire/software on them i believe is down to whoever the provider is. The interface will differ and what banner like adverts you get (if any) is all down to who supplies your box.

      Boxes bought outright from a store the software i believe is downloaded via over the air like any freeview box. BTs and Talk Talks i believe is custom firmware direct from them. The spec and software is different depending on who you get the box from.

      “Subscribers can buy a Youview box, use it – watch live and catch-up TV and record – all with no relationship to BT whatsoever. You don’t need to connect it to a BT line – it works outside BT Retail, outside BT Wholesale, and outside BT Openreach.”

      Well within reason, if you want BT channels or BT PPV/Vision content you have to get a box from BT. If you want Talk Talk channels (ABC a couple of Sony channels and a few others i believe) you have to get a box from them.

      As i said Youview is a consortium, what you get from the box depends who you get it from.

      The supplier does indeed dictate the spec.

    4. Avatar MikeW says:

      @Roberto

      On ownership of the platform:
      It does indeed depend clearly on what is being referred to.

      BT’s platform is BT Vision. Depending on the box you have, it is built on top of the Youview service, but it isn’t Youview. This article refers to Youview, not BT Vision.

      Likewise with TalkTalk. Their offering is based on Youview, but isn’t Youview.

      This article specifies Youview – which I take to mean the base platform. Not either of the offerings on top.

      Is the article wrong? Should it really talk about BT Vision? I don’t know.

      On the specifications:
      Obviously each manufacturer has control of the detailed specs for the box they manufacture, or the company ordering the boxes does. These dictate things like the connectors on the back panel, etc.

      However, what I meant was the specifications that Youview have: these determine what standards the box has to be able to cope with in order to be labelled a “Youview” box, to show compatibility. Consider it as a base specification for every Youview box, no matter what amount of additional service is to be added.

      A manufacturer can choose to add whatever he likes on top of these, but he can’t leave these ones out. So no – a manufacturer can’t dictate *these* ones.

      On your final point:
      Absolutely – whoever you buy your platform from dictates the overall package you are going to be able to access. But all of them have access to the base Youview facilities.

      My point was that the article referred to Youview, not BT Vision, so the rest of my comments are in line with the base platform, and not one of the services built on top.

      In that vein, the supplier does not dictate the spec for the base platform – Youview does.

      And my comment was that you can buy base Youview platforms that don’t come with BT’s extras nor TalkTalk’s extras, and have no requirement to be part of any particular IP network.

      Note that Sky does make content available to the base Youview platform, as a subset of their Now TV. But it doesn’t include the sport channels.

    5. Avatar Roberto says:

      “BT’s platform is BT Vision. Depending on the box you have, it is built on top of the Youview service, but it isn’t Youview. This article refers to Youview, not BT Vision.”

      But that is the thing it does not just refer to the box but BTs service on it. It is BT that want Skys sports channels not for example Talk Talk. The item is clearly about content that BT want to provide on a box.

      “This article specifies Youview – which I take to mean the base platform. Not either of the offerings on top.”

      If that were the case Sky Sports and BT sport would not even enter the equation as you do not get either on a standard Youview box.

      “However, what I meant was the specifications that Youview have: these determine what standards the box has to be able to cope with in order to be labelled a “Youview” box, to show compatibility. Consider it as a base specification for every Youview box, no matter what amount of additional service is to be added.”

      Nope as far as i know there is no cast in stone “specification” for the Youview platform or its hardware. The processor for example (IE the brain) i think you will find is a different chip on a Huawei box over a Humax one. Software at its very base core may be similar but thats about it.

      “A manufacturer can choose to add whatever he likes on top of these, but he can’t leave these ones out. So no – a manufacturer can’t dictate *these* ones.”

      Which makes it a confusing mess as nobody knows what is “extra” and what is not. There is no “base” specification AFAIK

      “Note that Sky does make content available to the base Youview platform, as a subset of their Now TV. But it doesn’t include the sport channels.”

      Ah you are talking about apps. Those are even dependant on which version box you have.

  5. Avatar TheFacts says:

    Ofcom has today published its decision on Sky’s refusal to broadcast advertisements for BT Sport channels on Sky Sports channels. This follows a complaint from BT against Sky under Ofcom’s Code on the Prevention of Undue Discrimination between Broadcast Advertisers. Ofcom has found that Sky has not breached the Code.

    1. Avatar Roberto says:

      “Ofcom has found that Sky has not breached the Code.”

      Nice update TheFacts, to be honest was not really a shock especially considering Sky already wholesale channels to BT in some capacity.

      Lets hope now both Sky and BT sit down and thrash things out like adults as to whos platform gets what content. That would probably be more beneficial to both of them and the consumer also.

    2. Avatar Roberto says:

      Opps just realised that is an update to a prior Sky Vs BT squabble not this current one.

    3. Avatar FibreFred says:

      Interesting, it will also be interesting to see if they do allow BTSport ad’s on Sky if/when Sky can show BTSports

      On that front… surely there are BT ad’s for telephone and broadband on Sky now?

    4. Avatar Roberto says:

      I do not think (or i would hope not) sky would have any issue with having BT adverts for phone and broadband as that is BTs core business. TV though is another matter and if you think about that objection it kinda makes sense not just from Skys point of view but all concerned that have differing rights to air differing football games.

      Imagine for a moment with regards to football and 2 matches taking place at the same time.

      If BT were allowed adverts on Sky AND Vice versa and both companies were forced to allow adverts from the other, there is nothing to stop them trying to poach each others viewers by advertising at half time in the ad breaks that they are showing the other match on their channel.

      It would be like ITV allowing an advert from the BBC in the middle of Coronation Street telling people Eastenders is on the other channel.

      If Ofcom are to force BT or Sky to take adverts from each other than there needs to be some thought and stipulations applied first, even then BT and Sky will push the boundaries of any guidelines, so it may be easy in the first place if you are ofcom to just say to them both, fine its up to you what adverts you accept.

  6. Avatar New_Londoner says:

    The key point here is really simple, Sky has Significant Market Power in multi-channel TV in the UK, is therefore open to having rules imposed that do not apply to others, in much the same way that rules affecting BT in the telecoms market don’t usually apply to Virgin (or indeed Sky).

    So whilst Sky may prefer to attach conditions when selling its channels wholesale to some customers, its worth noting that BT (Openreach) is required to treat all customers of its network equally. Hopefully SMP conditions will be used to stop Sky from abusing its dominant position, stop trying to limit the entry of competitors into “its” market.

    The irony here is that Sky benefits from these rules when dealing with BT but resists any measures that would require it to behave reasonably. I resent having to subscribe to a whole load of worthless channels in order to be able to get Sky Sports, would hope competition will see a bit of innovation that allows for different packages not dictated by Sky, just as has happened in broadband.

    I don’t blame Sky for resisting, however let’s hope the Competition Act forces a change of behaviour if Ofcom is not prepared to respond sensibly.

    1. Avatar Roberto says:

      “The key point here is really simple, Sky has Significant Market Power in multi-channel TV in the UK”

      In your opinion which with the follow up rmark falls apart…

      “…is therefore open to having rules imposed that do not apply to others, in much the same way that rules affecting BT in the telecoms market don’t usually apply to Virgin (or indeed Sky).”

      BTs phone service covers basically 100% of the UK and there is nowhere near any other provider on that level. So as for Sky having “Significant Market Power in multi-channel TV in the UK” i do not see how, surely thats the realm of the BBC and ITV. They are the biggest “MULTI channel” TV operators in the UK available in every home, much like BT and its phone service.

      “So whilst Sky may prefer to attach conditions when selling its channels wholesale to some customers, its worth noting that BT (Openreach) is required to treat all customers of its network equally.”

      If that is true why is the BT Sports channel only available to BT customers? Why is the BT vision service only available to those that take BT broadband, why can i not have BT vision but go elsewhere for my broadband?. Or short version that statement is rubbish.

      “The irony here is that Sky benefits from these rules when dealing with BT but resists any measures that would require it to behave reasonably.”

      Seems fair to me, BT wont wholesale their BT Vision TV service why should Sky have to sell their services to BT?

      “I resent having to subscribe to a whole load of worthless channels in order to be able to get Sky Sports”

      You do not have to with BT Vision or topuptv… http://www.topuptv.com/skysports/
      Again a rubbish statement.

      “would hope competition will see a bit of innovation that allows for different packages not dictated by Sky, just as has happened in broadband.”

      You mean how BT over price PIA for Fibre and so remain the dominate player.

      “I don’t blame Sky for resisting, however let’s hope the Competition Act forces a change of behaviour if Ofcom is not prepared to respond sensibly.”

      Considering the points i made which are also probably some ofcom looked at i doubt their decision would be any different.

    2. Avatar DTMark says:

      With regard to “SMP” there’s a big difference between imposing that on a company which was originally built with, and continues to be upgraded with, taxpayer’s money which supplies an essential infrastructure service (and is an admission that it should not have been placed in private hands in the first place) and imposing that on a non-essential service built up by a private company.

      Actually, I don’t know whether the order of events was: BT was privatised with full knowledge that it would be regulated and subject to SMP, or, rather, nothing of the sort was envisioned and this was only introduced later on when the magnitude of the short-termism was realised in order to hold down prices and try to justify to the public that selling it was a good idea.

      For a private company or entrepreneur to invest they need certainty. SMP and its effects are effectively theft from the private sector.

      Sainsburys is the only supermarket round here so it has “SMP”. Yet, the prices it charges are not “regulated”. This way madness lies (price controls, Labour, 1970s).

      Governments should facilitate markets, not seek to control them.

      And as regards not wanting to buy a bundle to get the channels you want: then, don’t. If enough people did that, Sky would have to change their approach.

      Customers might not be happy with the bundles, but then that’s Sky and Virgin’s model and nobody has to buy either.

    3. Avatar Roberto says:

      “With regard to “SMP” there’s a big difference between imposing that on a company which was originally built with, and continues to be upgraded with, taxpayer’s money which supplies an essential infrastructure service (and is an admission that it should not have been placed in private hands in the first place) and imposing that on a non-essential service built up by a private company.”

      Indeed, if Virgin, Sky or any others were getting the amount of government funds be them EU or UK BT have been and are due to get, then i would also be the first in line to agree they should be regulated more and forced to share any TV/Broadband infrastructure they have.

      It does when you put it like that seem a bit daft of BT to expect any company that has made itself a success on its own without government funds to be subjected to the same rules as one that is basically getting millions of pounds for free from the tax payer to improve their services.

  7. Avatar Jenny says:

    It sounds like we could all get cheaper deals then with more competition?

  8. Avatar john says:

    What id like to know is how the competition law affects bt giving channels for free to only people with their broadband? I have sky broadband so i would have to pay £15 for the hd package thats simply not fair – as far as im concerned its no different to a supermarket offering money off a product, but legaly have to offer the same deal off all products as in coupon money off etc (not 100% sure of the ins and outs) but to me it shouldnt be right this is the case..

Comments are closed.

Comments RSS Feed

Javascript must be enabled to post (most browsers do this automatically)

Privacy Notice: Please note that news comments are anonymous, which means that we do NOT require you to enter any real personal details to post a message. By clicking to submit a post you agree to storing your comment content, display name, IP, email and / or website details in our database, for as long as the post remains live.

Only the submitted name and comment will be displayed in public, while the rest will be kept private (we will never share this outside of ISPreview, regardless of whether the data is real or fake). This comment system uses submitted IP, email and website address data to spot abuse and spammers. All data is transferred via an encrypted (https secure) session.

NOTE 1: Sometimes your comment might not appear immediately due to site cache (this is cleared every few hours) or it may be caught by automated moderation / anti-spam.

NOTE 2: Comments that break our rules, spam, troll or post via known fake IP/proxy servers may be blocked or removed.
Cheapest Superfast ISPs
  • Vodafone £22.00
    Avg. Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Hyperoptic £22.00
    Avg. Speed 50Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Onestream £22.49 (*29.99)
    Avg. Speed 45Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • xln telecom £22.74 (*47.94)
    Avg. Speed 66Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Plusnet £22.99 (*36.52)
    Avg. Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: £55 Reward Card
Prices inc. Line Rental | View All
The Top 20 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (2817)
  2. BT (2793)
  3. FTTC (1792)
  4. Building Digital UK (1760)
  5. Politics (1689)
  6. Openreach (1642)
  7. Business (1456)
  8. FTTH (1341)
  9. Mobile Broadband (1253)
  10. Statistics (1252)
  11. 4G (1079)
  12. Fibre Optic (1072)
  13. Wireless Internet (1036)
  14. Ofcom Regulation (1028)
  15. Virgin Media (1019)
  16. EE (710)
  17. Vodafone (681)
  18. Sky Broadband (675)
  19. TalkTalk (673)
  20. 5G (536)
Promotion
Helpful ISP Guides and Tips
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
Sponsored

Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved - Terms , Privacy and Cookie Policy , Links , Website Rules , Contact