FilmFour free on Sky?
 

charles wrote:

So you say. I've seen no figures to back this up. On the contrary, the
only solid information that I ever saw released came from Disney who
stated quite clearly that they wouldn't be looking for more money from
the BBC now that it is FTA on 2D.

But if you look at the costs of getting rights to sporting events, you will
find that since Sky came into the market these have rocketed upwards.

Surely, but this has nothing to do with the BBC being FTA.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

So you say. I've seen no figures to back this up.

A 6% supplement is the going rate, apparently.

Why not say 10 or 20 or 90?

The only concrete figure that I'm aware of is 0 from Disney.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Arfur Million wrote:

Fair enough, but the fact remains that many millions of people think it
worth paying for Sky channels, on top of the TV Licence, whatever you
or I may think about their output.

Millions of people eat Pot Noodles. That doesn't make them taste nice.


So would you put a tax on Pot Noodles in order to subsidise those who
eat pate de foie gras (or, more analogously with the BBC, those who eat
McDonald's)?

No, but I would tax Pot Noodles if there was a danger of there being
no alternative.


The BBC is not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination.

They do not monopolise the market, but they do monopolise the licence
fee.

If you use that definition then everything purchased anywhere at any
time is a monopoly. Which clearly isn't the case.


Not at all. Generally the money spent on purchasing a product does not
go to one of the vendor's competitors. Someone who takes out a contract
with Sky does not give money to NTL. But someone who watches ITV must
pay the BBC. It's the "unique way we're funded", you know.

Maybe, but that is not the definition of a monopoly.

Many countries have licence fees for the ex-state broadcasters. Most
of them are much worse value than the UK one. Take France for example:
an £80 licence fee that pays for a small selection of decidedly
mediocre TV channels all of which carry adverts also. And all of which
are officially pay channels on digital satellite. It's nice to see the
French being ripped off so soundly by their government.


Your opinion, not mine. The overwhelming majority of the BBC's output
is made up of the type of programming that is freely available on other
channels,

This just isn't so.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:

Along with all the dross there are still many worthwhile programmes
made by or for the BBC.

There are a few, but for how much longer? If the BBC continues to emulate
their commercial competition they will eventually become indistinguishable
from it, and the argument for funding the BBC in a different way will lose
any last vestige of validity. Then it'll *all* be rubbish.

That may well be the case. Scrapping the licence fee would probably
only hasten this though.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 07:25:44 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

Zero Tolerance wrote:

So you say. I've seen no figures to back this up.

A 6% supplement is the going rate, apparently.

Why not say 10 or 20 or 90?

Because the going rate is 6%, at least according to the public
statements made recently in relation to sports rights bidding.

The only concrete figure that I'm aware of is 0 from Disney.

That was never a concrete figure - and they didn't say that they
wouldn't charge extra, just that they would not object. There's much
that goes on behind closed doors.

--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Jomtien wrote:
Arfur Million wrote:

Fair enough, but the fact remains that many millions of people think it
worth paying for Sky channels, on top of the TV Licence, whatever you
or I may think about their output.

Millions of people eat Pot Noodles. That doesn't make them taste nice.


So would you put a tax on Pot Noodles in order to subsidise those who
eat pate de foie gras (or, more analogously with the BBC, those who eat
McDonald's)?

No, but I would tax Pot Noodles if there was a danger of there being
no alternative.


Since there are multitudinous alternatives to BBC channels, no need for
a special tax there, then.


The BBC is not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination.

They do not monopolise the market, but they do monopolise the licence
fee.

If you use that definition then everything purchased anywhere at any
time is a monopoly. Which clearly isn't the case.


Not at all. Generally the money spent on purchasing a product does not
go to one of the vendor's competitors. Someone who takes out a contract
with Sky does not give money to NTL. But someone who watches ITV must
pay the BBC. It's the "unique way we're funded", you know.

Maybe, but that is not the definition of a monopoly.


OK, but let us say what it is then: the TV licence is a massive income
that allows one organisation to have a large effect on broadcasting as
a whole. The income is guaranteed, regardsless of how efficient or
successful that organisation is in meeting its aims. Since people are
willing to pay this money for that particular market (even if they do
not use that particular product), it follows that this money is
diverted from other broadcasters that could be more innovative than the
BBC (hardly a difficult task to achieve), so the effect of the TV
licence is to stifle competition.

Incidentally, various acts of parliament (1973 Fair Trading Act and
1980 Competition Act) define a monopoly as existing when one company
controls more than 25%; if the BBC isn't getting near this with the
advantages that it has, then maybe some serious questions should be
asked about what it is doing with the money.

Many countries have licence fees for the ex-state broadcasters. Most
of them are much worse value than the UK one. Take France for example:
an £80 licence fee that pays for a small selection of decidedly
mediocre TV channels all of which carry adverts also. And all of which
are officially pay channels on digital satellite. It's nice to see the
French being ripped off so soundly by their government.


Evidently another country where the TV Licence fails.


Your opinion, not mine. The overwhelming majority of the BBC's output
is made up of the type of programming that is freely available on other
channels,

This just isn't so.


I wish.

Regards,
Arfur