Disney pulls half its shows from Sky / Now TV

[BobF64]

Maybe, but that hasn't existed in the UK TV market since ITV launched in 1955. It's also the opposite of what the Monopolys commission (or whatever it's called these days,) is designed to do, so any referal to them will go nowhere.

Indeed. It's more that "competition" isn't determined by what consumers want, but by what they're told they can have.

As long as one more more other company makes something "equivalent", its competition. Even if the 2 things are vastly different and incompatible.

[spacein_vader]

Indeed. It's more that "competition" isn't determined by what consumers want, but by what they're told they can have.

As long as one more more other company makes something "equivalent", its competition. Even if the 2 things are vastly different and incompatible.

Or even when they're not. The current state of multiple providers showing Premier League football shows this. It may be cheaper than when it was all on Sky to watch some premier league football, but people don't want to watch some of it. They want to watch their team. And if they're on Sky this week, BT next and Amazon the week after then people will be annoyed if they can't afford all 3.

[EvilCycle]

Disney are a bit late to the party. Kind of hope they get burnt by this. There is only so many monthlys a family can take on.

They actually aren't, they have been running an app called Disney Life for a few years now and all those customers will be switched to Disney+, also the US already has over 25 Million customers.

Although I do suspect a slight price increase and a signing up of new terms in general for current Disney Life customers to cover the extra content.

[OOSeven]

Does this not need to be sent to the monopoly and mergers commission in the uk as im not paying for another service if they are going to push their way in.

Given that the M&MC hasn't existed for nigh on 20 years they probably wouldn't be able to help much.

[persimmon]

And people say the BBC is expensive ??? rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish the bed , this has gone too far .. unfurl the jolly roger, Me heartys!

[PsyaNyde]

It's not that it's expensive, unless you are prepared to jump through hoops and ignore threatening mail, the BBC licence TAX is FORCED upon you, with a threat of a CRIMINAL prosecution if you don't pay. There's no option to unsubscribe from their biased BS channel without a heap load of hassle, which is fine for some of us, but for others, it's just too much trouble.

[Saracen999]

Does this not need to be sent to the monopoly and mergers commission in the uk as im not paying for another service if they are going to push their way in.

Your age is showing a bit there. The M&MC ceased to exist more than 20 years ago. It was replaced by the Competition Commission, which itself ceased to exist several years ago (2013) and the functions of which are broadly covered by the Competition and Markets Authority.

But pedantics aside, I don't get your logic. The function (or rather a primary function) of all three was anti-competitive practices, such as 'mergers' leading to market dominance (the so-called 'monopoly' bit) by reducing the options given to consumers.

In what sense does a new entrant in the field reduce competition? You end up with one more option than you had before.

I get why increasing granularity might be a right nuisance if you have to sign up for several services to get the same content range, but anti-competitive it ain't. You have a choice. Currently, if you want (simplistically put) Sky and Disney, you sign up for Sky, but suppose you only wanr Sky, or only want Disney? You get (and pay for) both, like it or not. After this change, if you want Disney but object (for whatever reason) to Sky, you can just get Disney, and not pay Sky a penny.

As for the content, that's basic IP rights. The rights holder gets to determine what rights in content they own they will sell, lease or give away, and under what terms. Buyers can accept, decline or try to negotiate a variance. All Disney appear to be doing is declining to renew an existing contract, which is zero to do with mergers, etc.

Even I licence IP rights in different ways in different markets but, unless I've given perpetual rights, don't have to renew when a contract lapses.