Das Projekt sollte Video on Demand-Inhalte für jedermann (auch für Wiederverkäufer) bereitstellen und mit wenigen Ausnahmen die Hauptvertriebsschiene für die beteiligten Programmanbieter sein. Ziel war es,
"to create a customer proposition that could compete in the VOD market against powerful competitors who were able to leverage significant existing assets that the broadcasters did not possess. To achieve this, the parties intend to create a 'one-stop-shop' that will provide consumers with the convenience of being able to access both popular content and niche content on a single service, providing the consumer with ‘a sophisticated and comprehensive user experience'."Aus der Sicht der Competition Commission würde damit der Wettbewerb so eingeschränkt, dass als einzige Abhile nur mehr das Verbot blieb:
"We concluded that the JV would be likely to lead to a loss of rivalry between the parties, amounting to a substantial lessening of competition (SLC) in the supply of UK TV VOD content at the wholesale and retail levels. We also concluded that the JV would be unlikely to result in an SLC in the online UK advertising market or in the market for content acquisition in the UK. ...
We considered whether prohibition might extinguish any relevant customer benefits. However, we thought it unlikely that this JV was the only way in which customer benefits could be realized. We therefore concluded that we did not need to modify the remedy that we would otherwise put in place. We concluded that prohibition would be a proportionate remedy to the SLC and adverse effects that we had found."
update/links: eine kritische Reaktion von Emily Bell und Überlegungen zu möglichen Auswegen von Mark Sweney, beide auf der Guardian-Website.