ITV3, ITV1 and Sky

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:00:36 +0100, Mike Henry
wrote:


So even though you know that ITV3 is going to be crap, do you really
think it more worthy of EPG space than specialist channels with high
quality programming such as Performance or The Biography Channel?

I know it was an over-generalisation (FX is ok too) but they lie
amongst that channel where you have to guess what score models get
playing darts, or text-chat-date stuff, and other assorted gems. Now
you can't call that quality programming

---------------------

"There's never a big girl around when you need one"

www.vauxhall-senator.com

David Marshall wrote:

There was a queue. I'm told that some channels have pulled out,
significantly delayed launch, etc.

It *is* because of EPG space issues, but looks more sinister because of the
queue of channels that we know nothing about.

It's no secret that Sky and ITV hate each other. It's also no secret
that News Corp are a vindictive bunch.

I'm sure that ITV3 would have always been at the bottom of any list
for anything provided by Sky. A queue is as good an excuse as any.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/yvnsy
How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://logofreetv.org/
BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.co.uk/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

In article ,
Jomtien wrote:
It's no secret that Sky and ITV hate each other. It's also no secret
that News Corp are a vindictive bunch.

It's also no secret that Ofcom keep very tight grip on Sky's control of the
EPG. First-come-first-served, equality of treatment, tariffed charges, etc.

The only thing Ofcom don't control is the size of the kickback Sky can give
a broadcaster for joining a package.

I know it's fun to attack Sky as a manipulative monopolist, but in this case
it's just a groundless conspiracy theory.

Dave
--
Email: MSN Messenger:

"Colin Harris" wrote in message
...
Why don't they just get rid of channels 200 to 300?

Who would get rid of the channels ? Sky couldn't...

The EPG is regulated by Ofcom - not Sky. Sky HAVE to provide reasonable
access.

Sky don't own all the transponders on Astra 2 or Eurobird, so any
broadcaster can rent space, uplink their own channel, register for an EPG
position and pay Sky to be carried in the EPG.

Ofcom would presumably be the only people who could boot channels out of
their current EPG slots. They aren't there to make value judgements - apart
from ensuring free and fair access to the EPG, and ensuring channels aren't
preferentially treated in their EPG positions - but also ensuring
terrestrial and popular channels are where viewers would expect to find
them.

Steve

David Marshall wrote:

It's no secret that Sky and ITV hate each other. It's also no secret
that News Corp are a vindictive bunch.

It's also no secret that Ofcom keep very tight grip on Sky's control of the
EPG. First-come-first-served, equality of treatment, tariffed charges, etc.

I'm not aware that Ofcom keep a tight grip on anything at all, except
perhaps their pay cheques.


The only thing Ofcom don't control is the size of the kickback Sky can give
a broadcaster for joining a package.

Which itself defeats the entire idea of any sort of control and just
goes to prove what a pointless bunch Ofcom are.


I know it's fun to attack Sky as a manipulative monopolist, but in this case
it's just a groundless conspiracy theory.

There are always ways of putting someone at the bottom of the list if
you really want to, no matter how much outside control there is. All
office workers know this.
If anyone were to go to the bottom of Sky's list it would be ITV (and
the BBC, of course).

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/yvnsy
How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://logofreetv.org/
BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.co.uk/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

In article ,
Jomtien wrote:
There are always ways of putting someone at the bottom of the list if
you really want to, no matter how much outside control there is. All
office workers know this.

Yes, because it's so easy to manipulate and fake a waiting list of channels
right under the regulator's nose, and certainly worth the risk of getting
caught(!)

Or, perhaps, Sky are playing by the rules and some people have a little too
much imagination...

Dave
--
Email: MSN Messenger:

David Marshall wrote:

There are always ways of putting someone at the bottom of the list if
you really want to, no matter how much outside control there is. All
office workers know this.

Yes, because it's so easy to manipulate and fake a waiting list of channels
right under the regulator's nose, and certainly worth the risk of getting
caught(!)

Bah. You just need to have some technical problems related to the
widget on the Furball-effect somnoliser. Everyone knows that this
takes ages to sort out and requires a complete rebuild of the
slurpifier. Could take months, mate.


Or, perhaps, Sky are playing by the rules and some people have a little too
much imagination...

Or perhaps they aren't. News Corp are not renowned for doing anything
by the rules. In fact they are renowned for doing the opposite.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/yvnsy
How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://logofreetv.org/
BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.co.uk/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

In article ,
Jomtien wrote:
Bah. You just need to have some technical problems related to the
widget on the Furball-effect somnoliser. Everyone knows that this
takes ages to sort out and requires a complete rebuild of the
slurpifier. Could take months, mate.

Ofcom are neither gullible nor tolerant when it comes to EPG gatekeepers.
They will know exactly whose launch is pending, who's waiting for an EPG
entry, how long they've been waiting, etc.

Or perhaps they aren't. News Corp are not renowned for doing anything
by the rules. In fact they are renowned for doing the opposite.

Hence Ofcom paying very careful attention to how Sky handle Sky Digital as a
platform.

Dave
--
Email: MSN Messenger:

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:24:12 GMT, Colin Harris
wrote:

Why don't they just get rid of channels 200 to 300? There's nothing
worth watching on their anyway, even if it is to free a channel
dedicated to repeats of Inspector Morse.

Er, 289?

Charlie

--
Remove NO-SPOO-PLEASE from my email address to reply
Please send no unsolicited email or foodstuffs

In article , David Marshall
writes
Ofcom are neither gullible nor tolerant when it comes to EPG gatekeepers.
They will know exactly whose launch is pending, who's waiting for an EPG
entry, how long they've been waiting, etc.

Why are they waiting for a number? 176 and 177 were allocated to ITV
when 175 became ITV2. Remember that (apart from the 5 terrestrial
channels) channel numbers in the entertainment group allocated in blocks
of three so ITV will already have them.
--
Peter Pratten
Please reply in group only