Loading ...After mentioning this most likely won’t happen back in December, it’s been confirmed today that the Competition Commission have vetoed the service, on the grounds that it could give the partners involved too much muscle over prices for their own content.
The service was intended to offer customers the chance to watch both free and paid programmes, similar to Sky’s Anytime service. The initial plan was to launch online, with access via televisions later, including the Freesat platform.
Peter Freeman, Commission Chairman, said;
After detailed and careful consideration, we have decided that this joint venture would be too much of a threat to competition in this developing market and has to be stopped.
The case is essentially about the control of UK-originated TV content. VOD is an exciting and fast-moving development in TV, which makes programmes previously broadcast available to viewers at a time of their choice. The evidence we saw showed that UK viewers particularly value programmes produced and originally shown in the UK and do not regard other content as a good substitute.
BBC Worldwide, ITV and Channel 4 together control the vast majority of this material, which puts them in a very strong position as wholesalers of TV content to restrict competition from other current and future providers of VOD services to UK viewers.
A statement was released by BBC Worldwide, ITV PLC and Channel 4, saying the decision was a “missed opportunity”. It said;
We are disappointed by the decision to prohibit this joint venture. While this is an unwelcome finding for the shareholders, the real losers from this decision are British consumers. This is a disproportionate remedy and a missed opportunity in the further development of British broadcasting.
What are your thoughts on this service? Do we really need an additional VOD service?
February 4th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Bloody hell..all that leave out is channel 5 and sky…bugger them both….really is a missed opportunity, would of been great for us all to access all media wanted in one place.
JohnnyQuote
February 4th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I see it is reported today that Sky have 4 and may yet get 5 of the 6 packages for Premiership Football for 2010-2013. If that’s not a monopoly I don’t know what is! It really is one rule for Murdoch and one for the rest.
TonyQuote
February 4th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
WIll we still get BBC iPlayer on Freesat or will that be blocked too???
AslanQuote
February 4th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Murdoch will be throwing a party !!
PaulQuote
February 4th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
“BBC Worldwide, ITV and Channel 4 together control the vast majority of this material”. Of course they do, that’s because BSkyB makes practically zero UK-originated content, preferring to pack its schedules with cheap American imports.
The Competition Commission are comparing apples with oranges.
TonyQuote
February 4th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
What a joke, I wonder how much muscle in the background Sky put in to stop Kangaroo from happening. As with all empires, Murdoch’s will fall one day
ZubeirQuote
February 4th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Sooner rather than later I hope Zubier !
Steve.BQuote
February 4th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
I think its stupid to block it, we could of had VOD content from the major broadcasters in one place rather than going to different sitestv section for each, BBC Worldwide, ITV and C4 together would of been better for the public as they would have been working together and not against each other, If I remember correctly, they even said other broadcasters could join so it would be fair. Why cant the TV viewing, TV subribers choose if it should go ahead, we know what we want and what we dont more than the compititon commission who funny enoughh seem to let the big players like Sky have/get what they want most of the time.
Again, why have 3 VOD when we can have 1 big VOD supplier.
AshQuote
February 4th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Tony
To clear up your point, Sky can’t buy the rest of the EPL packages. The reason the games are packaged as they are is that an anti-monololy ruling, this time from Europe I believe, against the EPL allowing one company dominating the market.
What ever you think of Setanta atleast this has opened up a prime TV asset to other platforms and viewers. And who knows, ITV may even be able to take a chunk this time and make live EPL FTA.
What I’m saying is that although this seems irritating from the point of view of those of us who where looking forward to this service. I suspect in the long run it’ll result in lower prices and more variaty for VOD.
MarkQuote
February 4th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
What about what the public want. Do we not get a say in these things. Is there anyway in which we can object to the Competition Commission decision? Kanagroo would have been a brilliant project. Has any one tried to use the ITV player or Five catch up services, they just do not work. BBC iplayer and 4OD work perfectly. I assume Kangaroo would have brought all this under one roof, except Five which I understand was not part of the project.
Steve PQuote
February 4th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
This is the same tired old dogma, originally Thatcherite, and now wholeheartedly embraced by the Labour Party too, that says that competition is always best for the consumer, and therefore it’s competition that’s important, not actually providing what people want.
It’s the same idea that means hospitals are supposed to compete with each other, even though none of us really knows which surgeon will do the best job, or train companies, because you might suddenly think that instead of going to Cardiff you’ll go to Brighton as it’s a better deal.
Consider the sheer heights of lunacy that decree that it was unfair for BT to have a monopoly on directory enquiries, which used to be free, and there should be competition. That means that instead of a single number, which cost nothing, there’s now a whole range of numbers, with utterly bewildering charging structures that make it really hard to compare how much it will actually cost to use them.
But in the eyes of this sort of person, the mere fact that there’s competition itself means things must be ok. The market always works in the interest of the consumer, according to these loons; the market is therefore the thing that must be protected.
Heap of bollocks if you ask me.
Nigel WhitfieldQuote
February 4th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
As far as I can see the only losers here are the British public and freesat owners who were told they were going to get this service on their boxes.
Would have been nice to have one site to access all the content, Sky hate to have any kind of competition and love to throw their weight around – remember them messing up the Virgin/ITV deal and then shutting off basic Sky channels on Virgin.
With the net taking advertising monies from TV channels, this Kangaroo project could have really helped some TV channels over a difficult period.
Lee BQuote
February 4th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
bbc i player and the other channel equivalents are quite adequate and i don’t see the need for further systems
haroldQuote
February 4th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Maybe the Kangaroo project could go ahead if it agreed to host other channels for a nominal cost in the future?
TimQuote
February 4th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
This really does seem like a bad decision and not in the best interests of consumers.
The Guardian has lots of analysis and background for anyone who’s interested in reading more:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/kangaroo
AndrewMQuote
February 4th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
I think Mr freeman needs to wake up and smell the coffie, he talkes of a threat to competition what competition, the poweres that be at Sky are still laughing all the way to the bank. In my opinion by allowing the Kangaroo Service to run on the Freesat platform with the coverage that Freesat allowes the viewing public would have a positive choice. The service would inject real competition this is surely what we need in the market place. Who are these people that headup the competition Commission are they on the same planet, Murdochs Sky has the Monopoly on everything!. Note, His Boxes have been slashed in price!. The people at the commission must be on the payroll at Sky, because it would appear that they havent got a clue as to what is goining on with regards to the strangle hold that Murdoch has on the broadcasting media..
AlanQuote
February 4th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Well said Nigel.. Couldn’t have put it better myself . .
StevenQuote
February 5th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Mark – I agree with Tony. Even if Sky can’t buy all of the Premiership packages they can buy 5 of the 6 which amounts to 83% of live games being shown by one company. Most people would regard 83% as a monopoly .
ChrisQuote
February 5th, 2009 at 10:00 am
What competition commission? Isn’t it competition that’s got the world in the state that it is financialy at the moment?
Once again, a case of people that know F all about the real world being paid shed loads to tell us how to watch TV!
salty dawgQuote
February 5th, 2009 at 10:20 am
I’m not sure I follow this argument. BBC, CH4, CH5 & ITV iplayer programmes are ALL currently available on BT Vision and I think Tiscali. People say that its not the full content on the Internet but the BT Vision availability seems very compressive to me. Also the quality is very good.
Ian OQuote
February 5th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Is it me or does anyone else think it’s a bit ironic that the Competition Commission has a monopoly on this decision???
ChunkyQuote
February 5th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
$ky mayt not quite have a monopoly on football but they certainly do on cricket.
Every single live cricket match (excluding the indian premier league – which is on setanta) is exclusive to $ky. Why don’t the monopolies commission look at that?
PaulQuote
February 5th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
I agree Paul, but sometimes for the commission ignorance is bliss….
ZubeirQuote
February 5th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
I pretty much agree with everyone else about this. The decision by the Competition Commission seems extremely questionable, and it’s certainly not in the interests of the consumer. So what, if any, options are left for the proposed Kangaroo service? Could any modification be made the proposal to please the Competition Commission – or are they just opposed to the notion of PSBs cooperating with one another?
DaveiQuote
February 5th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Chunky, you’re a gem. But seriously…
In “Kangaroo’s” case, sharing of R&D and infrastructure costs could actually help minimise the cost to the consumer. The consuner always has the final say anyway; if it’s too expensive they won’t use it.
MikeCQuote
February 6th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
@Mark’s response to Tony:
That was the hope – that at least two packages might go to someone else. However, it’s just been announced that Sky has won a fifth package of live rights. That’s 115 games in each season until 2012-13.
How on earth can anyone stop Murdoch with this kind of decision?
Andy MerrettQuote
February 6th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Well, I’m getting Freesat installed tomorrow if all goes well. I’ve been keeping track of everything from launch day. As far as video on demand services go, I was looking forward to one being available through the satellite dish and not broadband because my connection is slower than a pregnant snail with a limp. I’m hoping iPlayer will be available this way and won’t use that ethernet connector on my box. You know you want to BBC!!!!
PeterQuote
February 6th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Peter, you better brace for disappointment, iPlayer will be most likely via broadband, not satellite…unless anyone know’s better?
adminQuote
February 8th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
You can’t really do VOD via satellite; you can sort of fake it with Push-VOD (essentially, what TopUpTV and Sky Anytime do, where the PVR records certain things, so they’re there when you want to watch them), or you can have multiple streams staggered, a bit like the Sky Movies.
But iPlayer has so much content, the only way you can deliver what users really want is using the internet. There isn’t the bandwidth to target individual downloads to people via satellite, which is why Push-VOD is used, in the hope that by pushing the really popular stuff, a lot of people will get the things they want.
Nigel WhitfieldQuote
February 8th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
What competition? I have to agree with the majority of these posts. Sky have a clear majority in the delivery market at the moment. But this should change as more content is delivered by Freesat, and online options. Surely what we all need ( OK may not be the pregnant snail!) is the option of CHOISE. My family work different hours, and have used the ‘one demand’ from BBC, 4OD, and ITV extensively, we do not have a SKY sub, and will not either, on principal. What would happen to SKY if 50% of its customers said NO! What is needed is MORE competition, not less. It may have been a 70′s Tory ideal, but perhaps the next administration will make some alteration? The real outcome of this will be much greater increase in ‘hacking’, illegal downloads, and the real loosers will be the hard working content makers, do we really want to loose what is left of the UK content creativity? Arguably it is a bit like Concorde, an icon of excellence, but in fear of destruction by European laws.
MikeQuote
February 19th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
February 26th, 2009 at 6:59 pm