^But Sky does have some competition in the case of Virgin and other smaller playes like Talk Talk and BT.
However, those providers have to negotiate with Sky for their premium content that vastly outweights anyone elses, typically they only purchase other people's channels, and have none of their own. When they do have exclusive content, like BT Sport, it creates the "you have to sign up to everyone" situation you were discussing.
The problem is that still in many parts of the UK you are barely able to stream SD content never mind HD content, have a choice of Sky and maybe BT or Talk Talk if you have a fast enough internet connection to support them.
Again a massive advantage possessed by Sky's monopoly on Satellite TV transmission in the UK.
They will sort out the bandwidth for most people within the next decade, and we are talking a decade for the decline anf fall of physical media.
And how is it unfair to point out that to get everything you wanted you might have to subscribe to multiple providers? Sure it might keep costs down but that doesn't mean the point is unfair. If a single provider charged you £20/m but you had to get subscribe to 3 providers to get everything you want at a total cost of £24/m a single provider could be cheaper. It's only more expensive if the provider you choose gives you everything you want.
Apologies if you dislike the term "unfair", it was not meant as a personal criticism.
What I mean is that those providers currently fund and assist production of that content, often some of the best TV drama going, to provide a selling point for their service. This is because with Amazon Prime in the UK now entering a battlefield with Netflix, there is competition which for now should keep prices down.
As both are currently more expensive than they were 18 months ago, thats not apparent, but it does help and should help going forwards, particularly when a major ad-supported service eventually goes live, theres a gap in the market there really.
This compares to Sky, in the UK you want to spend your life watching sports you need Sky sports and that's it! Competitors, and there really only is BT sport, have a tiny fraction of the exclusive content, and as a result Sky essentially name their price, and people have to pay it.
They are also willing and happy to pay it, but to me it is too pricey and their market position helps them justify this.
Besides colluting to price fix would make them fall foul of various bodies in the UK that regulate the industry.
Eventually yes, though their solution with Sky Sports has been to let other people carry their channels, and also that they can't have all the football packages. Actually attempting to genuinely introduce a competitor into the market on a level playing field for purchase of content has not happened.
