About Bloody Time Too!

[Patrick]

"BSkyB should be forced to make its premium sports and film channels available to rival broadcasters, watchdog Ofcom has proposed.

Ofcom said such a move may be a "most appropriate way of ensuring fair and effective competition".

BSkyB has immediately rejected the proposal, saying it will "use all available legal avenues", and that it "fundamentally" disagreed with Ofcom.

Ofcom has asked interested parties to respond to the proposals by 18 August.

Now I'm no sports fan, but it's about time Sky got a kick in the nuts. They've had it their own way for too long. I won't expect anything to come of it. Murdoch has too many friends in high places.

[Deleted]

I agree with you in wanting sky to cop it Patrick , but really ! What the hell has it got to do with Ofcom ? Sky buys exclusive rights to programming. Sky sells those programmes to punters ( and charges for adverts too ! ) Where is the victim here ? Except , obviously me , who can't see test matches any more . Chris Smith ( MP ) wants his nuts shooting off ( in a fluffy way natch ) for allowing Test Cricket to be taken off the reserved ( for free ) list .

[sinistral]

I'll tell you what it's got to do with Ofcom,Arf........

Under the guise of taking a so-called monopoly away from Sky they actually want people to stump up for more than one subscription to watch sport.
You would have thought these (fluffy) dickheads would have learnt the Sentanta lesson.They hived off Premier League and Scottish football,in the name of fairness (ha-bloody-ha) because they thought mugs would take up two subs......they didn't and Sentanta went tits-up owing the football authorities millions of quid.

Perhaps,as Patrick isn't a sports fan,he'd like to pay a second sub for me to watch all the sport I can no longer see when it's taken away from Sky.

"Fair and effective competition" means parting the viewing public from as much dosh as possible.

[Patrick]

I was presuming that taking it off Sky - which really does have the monopoly these days - and (for instance) I cannot see why they should be so desperate to get their hands on things like The National Show Jumping or other minority stuff that they've nicked over the years. I shouldn't have to pay anything extra - because once it's taken off Sky it will be put back into the hands of the people or free to air Telly. Frankly I can't understand why people have to pay Sky anything when they probably happily meet their funding needs through the advertising. After all - it's worked for years with ordinary Telly. Sky is just one big con.

[Alpha Hooligan]

Jun 26, 2009 16:18:26 GMT sinistral said:

I'll tell you what it's got to do with Ofcom,Arf........

Under the guise of taking a so-called monopoly away from Sky they actually want people to stump up for more than one subscription to watch sport.

+1

This lady knows wot she is talking about.


AH

[Patrick]

Actually - It looks like Ofcom's meddling could mean Sky having to cut prices.........

Sky may have to cut wholesale channel prices by 30%

BSkyB could be forced to slash the prices it charges other companies for its sports and movies channels by up to 30%, Ofcom said today, potentially allowing consumers to subscribe for less.

Ofcom set out a range of prices below what Sky currently charges the cable operator Virgin Media. The aim is to make channels such as Sky Sports 1, Sky Sports 2 and Sky Movies more widely available on pay-TV services such as Top Up TV, BT Vision and other broadband services.

[sinistral]

Patrick.......

In your continuing quest to portray Sky as the "Great Satan" you've overlooked something.......

"Pay-TV services" should be the give away.

Now....let's suppose that to get Sky Sports channels you have to pay £45 per month.
Ofcom reckon that could be slashed by a third....so make that £30.
In the meanwhile Sky will lose exclusive rights and sports events will go to other broadcasters......you know....the "pay-TV" ones.
So instead of paying £45 to see X-number of programmes you will have to stump up £30 twice or maybe even three times over.
That's fine for people like you who don't like sport but a bit of a bugger for the likes of me!

Basically what I'm saying is "Better the devil you know"

[Patrick]

Hey! Don't shoot the messenger!

Sky is a Pay TV Service?

The way I'm reading it is that Sky are being told not to charge so much - Simple as that - so as a result these matches will be more affordable to the smaller channels to be able to show as well? More widely available + costs less. Nothing wrong with that surely.

Anyway - I don't have to prove Sky as evil - I know they are! My bunch of Garlic told me so! ;D

"Prices have been too high for too long but this could all change if Ofcom breaks Sky's stranglehold by creating a level playing field."

Ofcom believes Sky will gain from a wider take-up of its channels and that the cost of new regulation and lower wholesale prices will be "more than offset by additional wholesale revenues associated with market expansion".The regulator said that according to its central estimate, Sky would make about an extra £240m over five years.

Analysts at Numis said they believed the impact of Ofcom's proposed regulation would be manageable given Sky's scale. The company has by far the biggest UK pay-TV business, with about 10 million subscribers, compared with less than 4 million for Virgin Media.

.......the threat to Sky's satellite subscription business was limited and the company should be "better off" as a result of more pay-TV on digital terrestrial TV.

[sinistral]

You still don't get it Patrick.
The sole intention here is to split what is currently shown on Sky so that customers will have to pay out two or more subscriptions to see the same amount of programmes.
Sky won't lose...other broadcasters won't lose....just the poor old customers.

[Patrick]

Jun 27, 2009 23:52:59 GMT sinistral said:

You still don't get it Patrick.
The sole intention here is to split what is currently shown on Sky so that customers will have to pay out two or more subscriptions to see the same amount of programmes.
Sky won't lose...other broadcasters won't lose....just the poor old customers.

I get it - I just see it a different way.

[aubrey]

The BBC should never have let Test Cricket go (they must have wanted the space for house/antique selling programmes; the BBC often seem to be doing their best to make it hard to argue for them); but Sky's coverage - even with the adverts - is a lot better than the BBC's ever was. I really hate to say that, but it's true. There is a lot more of it, as well - not just England playing in England.

[Patrick]

Well that was the first thing Sky nicked was the Nat West Trophy series, that's if it's still called that - I don't know I haven't seen any of those matches since they did.

[sinistral]

Jun 29, 2009 9:33:26 GMT Patrick said:

Well that was the first thing Sky nicked was the Nat West Trophy series, that's if it's still called that - I don't know I haven't seen any of those matches since they did.

Patrick....I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here as you said you're not a sports fan,but.......

In truth I think you're stirring......so here comes a short lecture......sit up straight and pay attention. ;D

Once there was just BBC and ITV.
They paid peanuts for sports events.
Football highlights(live matches were rare then)Cricket,racing,rugby,athletics...you name it.....except it was only the big events.......no piddling about with racing from Uttoxeter,speedway from Cradley Heath or football from Scunthorpe......they cherry picked and the cherries were cheap.

Then came satellite and later digital TV(and not just Sky)
The governing bodies of sport suddenly realised that instead of the old duopoly there was now a big market to sell their wares at.Where broadcasting rights had been a few million pounds very soon they were talking in tens or even hundreds.

As to Sky "nicking" events......how ridiculous.

There is a list of events,I think called the "crown jewels" which must be shown on free to air channels......Test matches were on that list.It was the government's decision to remove them,no doubt after badgering from cricket's ruling bodies who knew they'd get far more from Sky than from the BBC.

Such is the cost of paying to show top sports events now,BBC and ITV are small league players.
Can you imagine the hoo-ha if the BBC used a large chunk of it's license money to screen live Premiership football?

So now Patrick.....who do you blame now?
BBC/ITV for not having the money to spend?
Sky for having the money to spend?
Sports authorities for taking the money(from whoever)and running?

[sinistral]

Jun 29, 2009 9:15:56 GMT aubrey said:

The BBC should never have let Test Cricket go (they must have wanted the space for house/antique selling programmes; the BBC often seem to be doing their best to make it hard to argue for them); but Sky's coverage - even with the adverts - is a lot better than the BBC's ever was. I really hate to say that, but it's true. There is a lot more of it, as well - not just England playing in England.

You're quite right aubrey.
It's not just the cricket either.
I used to get sick and tired of the BBC and ITV covering football.
You could count on the fingers of one hand the number of matches not involving big clubs.
It would be Man Utd this,Man Utd that......drone,drone,drone....oh and by the way....they're playing Derby.
Sky are much more even handed.
And they don't patronise smaller clubs.If they show Brentford v Hartlepool they concentrate on the importance of the match to that particular league and those particular clubs.
The BBC would adopt an aren't these little teams quaint and aren't we generous to come slumming it attitude.