Goodbye Sky Onc, Hello Sky1

allan tracy wrote:
It still seems to be wall-to-wall simpsons and Ross Kemp on Gang
bangs though

You mean, despite the constant sneering and sledging of the BBC by
Murdoch’s newspaper pundits such a John Gaunt, nothing like the sort
of variety and quality of content that SKY could have the courage to
actually go head to head with the other free to air broadcasters with.

Instead, they sit there sneering at the sidelines without do anything
themselves to change things.

If they hate the BBC and its license fee so much, well how about
putting their money where their mouth is, so the viewers can vote with
their feet the way Murdoch seems to believe they would.

The way things are SKY1, 2 and 3 are the best argument ever for the
BBC, with an enemy like that the BBC doesn't need friends.

Absolutely. After all, I'm sure that BSkyB make more than £3.5bn a year. Of
course, the reason they can't is that most of that will go to the
share-holders rather than being available for making programmes.

--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

In article , allan tracy wrote:

If the bbc is so confident they wouldnt - then why not prove it by
giving people the choice .


There is choice, the BBC has its license fee but is denied advertising
revenue, which actually puts it at a disadvantage with the commercial
channels.

Channel 4 is subsidised and Channel 5 is just a niche player, whilst
ITV continues to act fat and lazy as if it was still 1974.

SKY could change all that but don=92t.

Take away a significant proportion of the BBC=92s audience and that
would be it, the BBC would become politically unsustainable and SKY
would get what it wants =96 so what stops them?

Oh yeah, a bunch of turgid **** imported programmes.

hey some of us like watching a bunch of turgid **** imported programmes,
without Sky we wouldnt get to see them and have to make do with the turgid
**** homegrown stuff.

look if there is an audience for it, and people are freely able to
choose and are happy to pay for it, its not Sky who are the ones who
threaten you with jail if you dont subscribe to their services, whats the
problem.


Aw

On 29 Aug 2008 14:03:06 GMT, Ar wrote:

Was it too difficult for $ky viewers to read the word "one"?

When set in that ludicrous circular font they were using, yes it was.

--

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:11:25 -0700 (PDT), allan tracy
wrote:

The way things are SKY1, 2 and 3 are the best argument ever for the
BBC, with an enemy like that the BBC doesn't need friends.

If Sky charged £140 a year for just those three channels then you
might have a point.
--

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:39:17 -0700 (PDT), allan tracy
wrote:

There is choice, the BBC has its license fee but is denied advertising
revenue, which actually puts it at a disadvantage with the commercial
channels.

No disadvantage at all. The BBC sells its programmes to UKTV (which it
already owns 50% of, and wants to own more) and they get advertising
revenue from that. Plus don't forget all the "Sports person of the
year sponsored by Robinsons" business. The BBC has plenty of
commercial income.
--

"Carl Waring" wrote in message
...
allan tracy wrote:
It still seems to be wall-to-wall simpsons and Ross Kemp on Gang
bangs though

You mean, despite the constant sneering and sledging of the BBC by
Murdoch's newspaper pundits such a John Gaunt, nothing like the sort
of variety and quality of content that SKY could have the courage to
actually go head to head with the other free to air broadcasters with.

Instead, they sit there sneering at the sidelines without do anything
themselves to change things.

If they hate the BBC and its license fee so much, well how about
putting their money where their mouth is, so the viewers can vote with
their feet the way Murdoch seems to believe they would.

The way things are SKY1, 2 and 3 are the best argument ever for the
BBC, with an enemy like that the BBC doesn't need friends.

Absolutely. After all, I'm sure that BSkyB make more than £3.5bn a year.
Of course, the reason they can't is that most of that will go to the
share-holders rather than being available for making programmes.

--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495



Except half of the BBC's programmes are from "Independent Production
Companies", such as Kudos, Talkback Thames, and Endemol which are are all
"Limited Companies" and so the money given to the BBC to make programmes is
also all mostly going to the shareholders of the "indies" that the BBC uses.

However at least Sky's customers, those viewers of the "turgid programmes"
mentioned in this thread "choose" to be Sky customers, and those people who
invest as shareholders in those turgid evil companies (which also supply the
BBC) "choose" to be shareholders.

Personally I don't want to be a BBC customers, BBC viewer nor BBC
shareholders, and presently I also choose not to be a BSKYB customer,
viewer, nor shareholder either.

Unlike with the cocooned BBC, those evil shareholders described only have so
much power as consumers willingness to pay for their services. Markets are
very good and rightfully do kill off the ineffective and unwanted.

The worst reason for the BBC is not BSKYB but the depravity of the BBC, the
appalling quality of delivery, and fickle content of its output.

wrote:
its not Sky who are the ones who
threaten you with jail if you dont subscribe to their services

Oh dear! There's that *lie* again.

--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:39:17 -0700 (PDT), allan tracy
wrote:

There is choice, the BBC has its license fee but is denied
advertising revenue, which actually puts it at a disadvantage with
the commercial channels.

No disadvantage at all. The BBC sells its programmes to UKTV (which it
already owns 50% of, and wants to own more) and they get advertising
revenue from that.

Actually, the UKTV channels are 50% owned by BBC Worldwide which, of course,
has nothing to do with the BBC's UK LF-funded services.

But, as usual, don't let the truth get in the way of a bad argument.

--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

Light of Aria wrote:
"Carl Waring" wrote in message
...
allan tracy wrote:
It still seems to be wall-to-wall simpsons and Ross Kemp on Gang
bangs though

You mean, despite the constant sneering and sledging of the BBC by
Murdoch's newspaper pundits such a John Gaunt, nothing like the sort
of variety and quality of content that SKY could have the courage to
actually go head to head with the other free to air broadcasters
with. Instead, they sit there sneering at the sidelines without do
anything themselves to change things.

If they hate the BBC and its license fee so much, well how about
putting their money where their mouth is, so the viewers can vote
with their feet the way Murdoch seems to believe they would.

The way things are SKY1, 2 and 3 are the best argument ever for the
BBC, with an enemy like that the BBC doesn't need friends.

Absolutely. After all, I'm sure that BSkyB make more than £3.5bn a
year. Of course, the reason they can't is that most of that will go
to the share-holders rather than being available for making
programmes.


Except half of the BBC's programmes are from "Independent Production
Companies", such as Kudos, Talkback Thames, and Endemol which are are
all "Limited Companies" and so the money given to the BBC to make
programmes is also all mostly going to the shareholders of the
"indies" that the BBC uses.

"BBC in 'paying for services rendered' shock!"

Do you imagine they could get away with *not* paying? Also, what about the
electricity they use, or the gas, or the telephone bills. These all come out
of the LF you know!

Completely non-starter of an argument, really.

Besides, it was Maggie Thatcher who /forced/ the BBC to start using indies
back in the 80s.

The worst reason for the BBC is not BSKYB but the depravity of the
BBC, the appalling quality of delivery, and fickle content of its
output.

Well, 90% of viewers disagree with you. (That's the amount of people who
watch the BBC's output for between 15 mins and 7 hour (I think!) per week.

--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

Martin wrote:

"Carl Waring" wrote:
Light of Aria wrote:
"Carl Waring" wrote:
allan tracy wrote:

It still seems to be wall-to-wall simpsons and Ross Kemp on Gang
bangs though

You mean, despite the constant sneering and sledging of the BBC by
Murdoch's newspaper pundits such a John Gaunt, nothing like the sort
of variety and quality of content that SKY could have the courage to
actually go head to head with the other free to air broadcasters
with. Instead, they sit there sneering at the sidelines without do
anything themselves to change things.
If they hate the BBC and its license fee so much, well how about
putting their money where their mouth is, so the viewers can vote
with their feet the way Murdoch seems to believe they would.
The way things are SKY1, 2 and 3 are the best argument ever for the
BBC, with an enemy like that the BBC doesn't need friends.

Absolutely. After all, I'm sure that BSkyB make more than £3.5bn a
year. Of course, the reason they can't is that most of that will go
to the share-holders rather than being available for making
programmes.

Except half of the BBC's programmes are from "Independent Production
Companies", such as Kudos, Talkback Thames, and Endemol which are are
all "Limited Companies" and so the money given to the BBC to make
programmes is also all mostly going to the shareholders of the
"indies" that the BBC uses.

But not necessarily at a higher price than the BBC would have incurred in
producing the programme(s) itself (assuming it could have done so - and not
only because of rights issues. It may well be *cheaper* to use an outside
contractor. In the glory days of the ITV network, the big four found it
cheaper to take each others' programmes on the network than to make
programmes for themselves (assuming they could do it - they didn't all have
the same sorts of programme-making strength).

"BBC in 'paying for services rendered' shock!"
Do you imagine they could get away with *not* paying? Also, what about the
electricity they use, or the gas, or the telephone bills. These all come out
of the LF you know!
Completely non-starter of an argument, really.
Besides, it was Maggie Thatcher who /forced/ the BBC to start using indies
back in the 80s.

....thus freeing independent programme-makers to retain the value of their
programme ideas, instead of having to pitch them to a broadcaster who would
then simply take over the production (in-house) on a TakeItOrLeaveIt basis.
The concept started with Channel 4, of course, but could not come to full
fruition until it was possible to offer independent production to more than
one broadcaster.