Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

Tumbleweed wrote:

Show me anybody who likes paying for any service and doesn't think it
ought to be cheaper.

The difference here is that this is a monopoly, with prices fixed by
the only supplier.


How come lots of people are voting with their wallets and dropping SKy and
moving to Freeview? SUrely if Sky was a monopoly, they wouldnt be ableto do
that?

Or do you mean, Sky has a monopoly on Skys' programmes, just like Ford has a
monopoly of Ford cars. If you dont like Sky TV there are plenty of TV
alternatives.

Neither. The discussion here is not about viewers or subscribers, it
is about broadcasters being required to pay excessive amounts for the
EPG.

--
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 Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:26:39 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

Neither. The discussion here is not about viewers or subscribers, it
is about broadcasters being required to pay excessive amounts for the
EPG.

Well then for the purposes of comparison you would have to compare
Sky's charge to the charge made by cable operators for the same
service, wouldn't you.

--

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
Tumbleweed wrote:

Show me anybody who likes paying for any service and doesn't think it
ought to be cheaper.

The difference here is that this is a monopoly, with prices fixed by
the only supplier.


How come lots of people are voting with their wallets and dropping SKy and
moving to Freeview? SUrely if Sky was a monopoly, they wouldnt be ableto
do
that?

Or do you mean, Sky has a monopoly on Skys' programmes, just like Ford has
a
monopoly of Ford cars. If you dont like Sky TV there are plenty of TV
alternatives.

Neither. The discussion here is not about viewers or subscribers, it
is about broadcasters being required to pay excessive amounts for the
EPG.


no, we are talking about a monoply situation (according to you) which means
that broadcasters are forced to pay f'too much' or the EPG. But they arent,
because they dont jave to be on sky, there are many other ways of
broadcasting,and will be more in future. Sky doesnt even have a monoply of
satellite brodcasting its just that, ATM, no one else chooses to.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:26:39 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

Neither. The discussion here is not about viewers or subscribers, it
is about broadcasters being required to pay excessive amounts for the
EPG.

Well then for the purposes of comparison you would have to compare
Sky's charge to the charge made by cable operators for the same
service, wouldn't you.


When adjusted for audience figures and demographic, yes. Would be
interesting to know what it is. But J would probably say that VIrgin have a
monoply on cable (which they do, unlike Sky on satellite). Everyone has a
monopoly if you reduce it enough...that newsagent window, they have a
monopoly on the display of cards in it, it should have a price as specified
by Jomtiens soviet-era pricing committe.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

Neither. The discussion here is not about viewers or subscribers, it
is about broadcasters being required to pay excessive amounts for the
EPG.

Well then for the purposes of comparison you would have to compare
Sky's charge to the charge made by cable operators for the same
service, wouldn't you.

Indeed, if they made a comparable charge. Given that it is impossible
to disassociate the carriage element of cable and the EPG element, I
doubt that they do have a comparable charge.

Maybe you know different?

--
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
 

Tumbleweed wrote:

Everyone has a
monopoly if you reduce it enough...that newsagent window, they have a
monopoly on the display of cards in it,

Irrelevant, because there is another shop just down the road with a
similar window and the same people looking in it.

--
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
 

Tumbleweed wrote:

we are talking about a monoply situation (according to you) which means
that broadcasters are forced to pay f'too much' or the EPG. But they arent,
because they dont jave to be on sky, there are many other ways of
broadcasting,and will be more in future. Sky doesnt even have a monoply of
satellite brodcasting its just that, ATM, no one else chooses to.

Sky has a monopoly as far as Sky digibox users go.

This makes up nearly 100% of the UK sat viewer base.

--
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
 

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
Zero Tolerance wrote:

Neither. The discussion here is not about viewers or subscribers, it
is about broadcasters being required to pay excessive amounts for the
EPG.

Well then for the purposes of comparison you would have to compare
Sky's charge to the charge made by cable operators for the same
service, wouldn't you.

Indeed, if they made a comparable charge. Given that it is impossible
to disassociate the carriage element of cable and the EPG element, I
doubt that they do have a comparable charge.

You doubt, but you don`t know?

--
Items on ebay:
http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQsassZscousesifinQQhtZ-1

Sky's two fingered salute to Ofcom
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:26:39 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

Neither. The discussion here is not about viewers or subscribers, it
is about broadcasters being required to pay excessive amounts for the
EPG.

Well then for the purposes of comparison you would have to compare
Sky's charge to the charge made by cable operators for the same
service, wouldn't you.

I would assume that VM don't make a charge for being on their EPG as you can
only *get* on the EPG if you're on the system anyway.

--
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, 31 Mar 2007 08:36:21 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

Sky has a monopoly as far as Sky digibox users go.

This makes up nearly 100% of the UK sat viewer base.

Sky spent billions giving those digiboxes away. Why should other
channels be able to free-ride on the back of their investment?

--