Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:30:38 GMT, "Carl Waring"
wrote:

The difference being that..

1. VM (in all its previous incarnations) paid for the whole of the
Cable system while Sky simply uses a third-party (ASTRA) satellite
to broadcast on.

So Virgin have built a private closed-loop network monopoly whereas
Sky uses open satellites which anyone can broadcast from.

Yes, anyone can broadcast on Satellite, but if you want to be on the EPG (so
people can find you) you have to pay Sky THOUSANDS. If you don't want to be
FTA, or be part of Sky's line-up guess what, you have to pay Sky THOUSANDS!

2. Sky are not only the broadcasters but also buy the programmes as
well.

Exactly like Virgin do with their own channels, then.

Not exactly the same thing. It's to do with seperating the two parts of the
service. The EPG/encryption, etc. from the programme aquisition and
broadcast.

Damn! I'm sure someone else can explain this better. Check-out the relevant
threads on DS.

--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
DGLite: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=4&r=1495 - FREE!!!
http://www.snap-seo.co.uk/web-hostin...g-packages.php
Packages ranging from FREE to UNLIMITED!

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 08:52:38 GMT, "Carl Waring"
wrote:

Yes, anyone can broadcast on Satellite, but if you want to be on the EPG (so
people can find you) you have to pay Sky THOUSANDS. If you don't want to be
FTA, or be part of Sky's line-up guess what, you have to pay Sky THOUSANDS!

Yes, how disgraceful, because it's not as if people operating a
television channel will not have been spending HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
on things like satellite bandwidth, uplink, programming, etc...

2. Sky are not only the broadcasters but also buy the programmes as
well.

Exactly like Virgin do with their own channels, then.

Not exactly the same thing. It's to do with seperating the two parts of the
service. The EPG/encryption, etc. from the programme aquisition and
broadcast.

So exactly like Virgin do with their own cable network, then. Your
suggestion is, then, presumably that Virgin's platform should also be
separated such that they, as the operator of several television
channels, do not also control the cable EPG and cable encryption
system?
--

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

Yes, anyone can broadcast on Satellite, but if you want to be on the EPG (so
people can find you) you have to pay Sky THOUSANDS. If you don't want to be
FTA, or be part of Sky's line-up guess what, you have to pay Sky THOUSANDS!

Yes, how disgraceful, because it's not as if people operating a
television channel will not have been spending HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
on things like satellite bandwidth, uplink, programming, etc...

There's a huge difference. Broadcasters can choose their service
provider for all those other items. They can choose who to pay, and
they can negotiate how much. There are many options and much
competition.

The Sky EPG prices are excessive, are fixed by Sky, are not negotiable
and for broadcasters there is no alternative to paying them if they
want the 9 million Sky digibox users to see/hear their channel.

This is anti-competitive and monopolistic practice of the very worst
type. And yet people and governments ignore this and instead complain
about Microsoft bundling Media Player in Windows (for free, with no
obligation to use it, and without preventing anyone from installing a
similar product). Good grief.

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

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 08:52:38 GMT, "Carl Waring"
wrote:

Yes, anyone can broadcast on Satellite, but if you want to be on the EPG
(so
people can find you) you have to pay Sky THOUSANDS. If you don't want to
be
FTA, or be part of Sky's line-up guess what, you have to pay Sky
THOUSANDS!

Yes, how disgraceful, because it's not as if people operating a
television channel will not have been spending HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
on things like satellite bandwidth, uplink, programming, etc...

2. Sky are not only the broadcasters but also buy the programmes as
well.

Exactly like Virgin do with their own channels, then.

Not exactly the same thing. It's to do with seperating the two parts of
the
service. The EPG/encryption, etc. from the programme aquisition and
broadcast.

So exactly like Virgin do with their own cable network, then. Your
suggestion is, then, presumably that Virgin's platform should also be
separated such that they, as the operator of several television
channels, do not also control the cable EPG and cable encryption
system?

Totally different....

Cable is UK ONLY, Sky HAS to encrypt to keep their monopoly (Who shopped the
Beeb for being FTA so they could nick *24*?)

Thankfully Virgin have given their *Two fingered salute* to Sky...and not
before time!

One can only hope more broadcasters start wising up and doing the same
thing.

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

Jomtien wrote:
Zero Tolerance wrote:

Yes, anyone can broadcast on Satellite, but if you want to be on
the EPG (so people can find you) you have to pay Sky THOUSANDS. If
you don't want to be FTA, or be part of Sky's line-up guess what,
you have to pay Sky THOUSANDS!

Yes, how disgraceful, because it's not as if people operating a
television channel will not have been spending HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
on things like satellite bandwidth, uplink, programming, etc...

There's a huge difference. Broadcasters can choose their service
provider for all those other items. They can choose who to pay, and
they can negotiate how much. There are many options and much
competition.

The Sky EPG prices are excessive, are fixed by Sky, are not negotiable
and for broadcasters there is no alternative to paying them if they
want the 9 million Sky digibox users to see/hear their channel.

This is anti-competitive and monopolistic practice of the very worst
type. And yet people and governments ignore this and instead complain
about Microsoft bundling Media Player in Windows (for free, with no
obligation to use it, and without preventing anyone from installing a
similar product). Good grief.

Thanks, J. That's the stuff I meant :-D

This is the thread I was meaning:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...d.php?t=554380

--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
DGLite: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=4&r=1495 - FREE!!!
http://www.snap-seo.co.uk/web-hostin...g-packages.php
Packages ranging from FREE to UNLIMITED!

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 08:41:39 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

The Sky EPG prices are excessive, are fixed by Sky, are not negotiable
and for broadcasters there is no alternative to paying them if they
want the 9 million Sky digibox users to see/hear their channel.

And yet, with the apparent exception of Rapture TV, not one single
television broadcaster has any difficulty in paying these unacceptably
onerous fees. How strange. Almost as if they don't think it's unfair
at all, isn't it.

--

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

In uk.media.tv.sky Jomtien wrote:

: The Sky EPG prices are excessive,

Says you!

: are fixed by Sky, are not negotiable

Actually they are fixed by OFCOM - but don't let that stand in your way!

Before OFCOM insisted on a rate card Sky *COULD* and *DID* offer deals
to the likes of the BBC and ITV. As this isn't now possible it is a large
part of why they went FTA.

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

The Sky EPG prices are excessive, are fixed by Sky, are not negotiable
and for broadcasters there is no alternative to paying them if they
want the 9 million Sky digibox users to see/hear their channel.

And yet, with the apparent exception of Rapture TV, not one single
television broadcaster has any difficulty in paying these unacceptably
onerous fees. How strange. Almost as if they don't think it's unfair
at all, isn't it.

You've missed the point. They have no choice if they want to remain a
viable channel. You would be hard put to find a single broadcaster who
would say that Sky's charges are reasonable and that they are happy to
pay them. You will find many who have had public run-ins with Sky.

Without an EPG entry few if any of the 9million Sky box users would
ever see these channels.

This is the worst type of commercial blackmail.

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

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

Brian McIlwrath wrote:

: The Sky EPG prices are excessive,

Says you!

And many broadcasters.


: are fixed by Sky, are not negotiable

Actually they are fixed by OFCOM

No, they aren't. Ofcom merely rubber-stamp Sky's decision, and make
noises about capping. Ofcom do NOT fix prices.


Before OFCOM insisted on a rate card Sky *COULD* and *DID* offer deals
to the likes of the BBC and ITV. As this isn't now possible it is a large
part of why they went FTA.

You are confusing the encryption charge and the EPG charge.

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

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 08:16:38 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

Without an EPG entry few if any of the 9million Sky box users would
ever see these channels.

Well if the Sky EPG number is such poor value for money, perhaps those
channels could spend the money on marketing their satellite frequency
and polarisation details instead?


--