Underhand devious Sky
 

Noticed a new programme pilot (Awake ) on Sky 1 last week and set it to series record as it looked really interesting. Just watched it last night only to hear the announcer say at the end 'Awake continues next week on Sky Atlantic'.

I could not see any future recorings planned so looking at my Digiguide I discover that the whole series is on Atlantic only, no repeats on Sky 1.

I think this is totally despicable and shouldn't be allowed!!!Grrrrr!!:mad:

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Wouldn't worry mate it's been cut in the US after 1 series anyway.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Well nothing Sky does surprises me as remember they are experts in underhand tactics as we have seen in the past many times over.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

It's probably been moved to Atlantic because the show has been cancelled

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Didn't they do a similar thing, a while back, having a weekend on Sky3(now Pick TV) of shows from Sky Atlantic(eg Broadwalk Empire).

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

I'm sorry but that's wrong how :confused: they are merely showcasing their content available to tempt people to pay TV.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

They are a business out to make a profit therefore they are evil *******s out to rob everyone ....didn't you know ;)

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

No they are just devious and underhand..because they use their superior and unfairly gained share of the market to buy up the more interesting products on the market such as the premiership..

Imagine if everyone could watch that free on the BBC...or the cricket.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

I think that's just your Murdoch hatred comming out in you Maggie.

Please define "their superior and unfairly gained share of the market"

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

You tell him, i will back you up, Sky is trying to get more customers, that is all

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

I would call it good marketing :shocked:

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Well when you have a marketing budget 5 times the size of your rivals it rather easy to overwhelm the message of your rivals but yet thats the typical Sky tactic of trying to squash the opposition.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

and how is that underhand ,devious or even wrong ?

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Actually I was thinking more about the way the government has managed to look the other way every time Murdoch added another titbit to his ever-growing media empire and failed entirely to see any conflicts of interest or think that his growing monopoly should be investigated..

Other wise it is good business acumen..

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

I agree

Im sure VM can get more money and also have more than they make out

It isnt

Goverment is different, do not get me started on them

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

I think the business models are different anyway ,sky concentrates on TV and VM on internet so comparing the 2 as tv suppliers and expecting them to be equal is wrong imo

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

You have a good point

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

I saw something the other night that I couldn't believe. You may have seen this yourself.

There is an advert currently running for The Discovery Channel which features clips from a programme featuring Freddy Flintoff. I've seen this advert on SKY 1, SKY Sports and Channel 4.

What surprises me is at the end it turns out the advert isn't for The Discovery Channel, it's actually an advert for SKY advising that the Discovery Channel is available on SKY channel 520. There is no mention of the Discovery Channel being available on Virgin or Smallworld. The advert leaves the impression that SKY is the only place to watch the Discovery Channel.

That seems fairly underhand and devious, or at the very least a bit misleading. How can SKY advertise channels on their platform in such a way that viewers of the advert are of the impression no other TV platform provides the channel?

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Thats not the only channel that l have seen do it Chad as there has been several other channels that Sky do part own who do exactly the same thing quite a bit.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Sky is the only place to watch discovery unless you buy a package that includes those channels from Virgin . It's not a free channel :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 13:12 ---------- Previous post was at 13:10 ----------

The're advertising a channel on their own network ,what the hells wrong with that ?

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

thats because the tory govenment in bed with murdoch thet never do anything about it and why the made jeremy hunt in charge to make sure he got 100% control of sky untill milly dowlers phone hacking got caught by the press and everyone know sky want a monopoly

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

I had Awake on a whishlist for a long time before a UK broadcaster was announced and subsequently forgot about it when I later learned that Atlantic had got the rights. So I was surprised when it turned up as a planned recording. I then remembered that Sky had done this sort of thing before, to try to get VM customers to defect to Sky. I just find it irritating rather than wrong.

A lot of people seem really annoyed at it's cancellation, so sorry for them, but knowing that it happened to a show that Sky choose to restrict viewers numbers of, by putting it on Atlantic, eases the irritation slightly ;)

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Vey bias view but I guess that has come to be expected of your posts :)

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Sky are an good product/company.However the Murdochs and the way they gor their empire under the monopolies wire are not to be admired.It's given Sky a certain financial clout that they probably wouldn't have if they had been put through the monopolies process fairly.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

l think l am going to choke on my breakfast;) with that remark dear Lex as l think you need to get your glasses on this morning and take a look at your many biased posts with your Sky fanboy friends:p: before turning your guns on me:sniper: as yes l do praise Virgin where due but l also criticise them in equal measure as well and l don't think we can say that about your many Sky fanboy postings can we.:p::)

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

We haven't got a Tory government. Isn't it actually the case that Vince Cable would have seen that decision through had he not said something silly.

---------- Post added at 08:47 ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 ----------

In fairness to Sky, which came first, really? My take on it is they spent the money on the Premier League and earnt market share, rather than the other way around. That's speculating to accumulate-business in it's purest form. Sky are a success story. They may be involved with people we don't like but they're bloody good at what they do-if people want to take a principled stand against them as I have then they have that opportunity, but it's hard not to admire the fact that they have been able to grow their business amidst bleak economic times.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Yet more bias :D

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

ahem - for the short of memory amongst us the current COALITION govt has only been in place two years - and the Sky empire has been built up over a considerably longer period of Labour government.

We digress - back to the topic ;)

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Anyhoo, back to the topic.

I don't see what is underhand about giving a "taster" of a programme/channel - VM sometimes put a channel on M or L for a weekend.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

They are exploiting the fact that they operate both a set of channels and a content delivery platform. Given that the regulator can, and has, acted in the past to rule on the pricing and availability of Sky's channels on other platforms I think it is reasonable to expect Sky to behave in a non-discriminatory way towards the other platforms that carry its content. Shifting series from Sky One, which is available on all broadcast platforms, to Sky Atlantic, which is exclusive to Sky's own broadcasting platform only, contravenes the spirit of the regulator's past rulings in this area even if it does not offend against the letter.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Slightly off topic, but Why did Sky put Awake on Atlantic anyway? It's from NBC, a network broadcaster, not from the likes of HBO.

It's of concern, because the networks have just anounced the new shows for the 2012/2013 season at the yearly Upfronts and it's possible that any of these shows that Sky buy may get put on Atlantic. You expect it for HBO shows, but if Sky are putting network shows on Atlantic, it's a different ball game; not one favouring non Sky users.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

See my post above. Sky Atlantic is just another ploy to get round past rulings regarding availability of Sky channels on other platforms. There was plenty of room among the endless re-runs of The Simpsons for all the HBO stuff to go on Sky One. It would have cost them less to do it that way. They didn't do it that way, because Sky Atlantic is all about maintaining a level of exclusivity for the Sky platform that the regulator has previously attempted to curb. The HBO deal was IMO just a convenient fig-leaf to allow them to launch the channel without it being quite so blatant an attempt to put one over the folks at Ofcom.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Blue Bloods is from CBS
ER is NBC
Friday Night lights is NBC

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

I wonder how this stacks up against Virgin & a free channel to L subscribers for month :confused: Its called a free sample,or taster is it not ?

Sky ( as are Virgin ) are out to make as much money as they can. You never HAVE to watch SKY so I fail to see how it is monopolistic.I am sure it would like to be, So SKY would have to buy Freeview & own every satellite/channel beaming to UK before that would even start to happen.
:p:

If you are really not happy with them, then NEVER watch any of their channels If the viewing figure went way down ,so would their income. Personally I NEVER use Tesco for anything:shocked: It makes me feel good at least. Always try to shop local ( Yes I can afford it,& its called putting my money were my mouth is:angel:)

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Agreed.

I'm surprised that when VM sold their channels to Sky, they didn't see this coming and make it part of the agreement to automatically have any newly launched Sky channel at a fair price.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Sorry tried & failed to put this into my post above

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Maybe they did try to get it included in any agreement but Sky l suspect played hardball.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

First of all do we know that do not try ( & failed?).

Sorry I cannot understand why you ( anyone that is ) thinks that Sky or anyone else for that matter has to ensure that Virgin gets all there material. Come on Tesco put your value range in every corner shop :dozey:

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Because Virgin Media is inept when it comes to these sorts of negotiations. A lot of people forget that when the whole 'Sky Basics' debacle kicked off a couple of years ago, that was round two of the battle. Round One was Sky's negotiators massively knocking down the price they paid for access to the channels Virgin then owned, on the basis of falling ratings - Sky said 'Less!' and VM just rolled over and took it.

Of course, it ultimately came back to bite Sky on the bum when they demanded a massive increase in the price they wanted to charge for access to their channels, on the basis of increased investment, never mind that those channels, like VM's, were suffering from falling ratings. This allowed VM to dig its heels in, cease carrying Sky One etc for a few weeks, and eventually get them back, complete with a renegotiated price for their own channels that more or less made the whole deal a cash-neutral swap.

Notwithstanding any of the above, VM's initial failure to secure a decent price for its channels was a disgrace and IMO offers some insight into the relative skill of their negotiators compared with Sky's. The world and his wife could see that VM was on a hiding to nothing if it didn't do anything to future-proof access to all the most popular linear content in Sky's stable. VM seems to have bet the farm on a future of on-demand access rather than linear broadcast TV - but do those same negotiators have the skill to ensure Sky does not simply hoover up all the on-demand rights as well?

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Friday night Lights was partially shown on ITV4 and wasn't ER shown elsewhere initially?

So they have a sort of excuse for those going on to Atlantic as the are re runs and in the case of FNL, minority viewing even though critically acclaimed and a great series (bought the DVDs from the states as they were released).

I still think it's wrong to put new networked shows on Atlantic though.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

As much as I understand your point. I think its good marketing, If you really want it, move to SKY,& the plan works. If you really do like it & you are not happy about it but will not move to SKY . I would say - say nothing if they do not feel its is a draw then it fails:dunce:

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

I said 'surprised' they didn't put it in; I really meant 'totally amazed' they didn't put it in.

If VM negotiating team weren't aware of how Sky operates, and didn't know that they would pull a stunt like Atlantic, then they must have been stupid and incompetent; everyone else who has an interest in these sorts of things, knew it was likely to happen.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Missed 'Smash' out also I believe that's NBC.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

What's wrong with wanting to be exclusive ?Any company will try to have it's own exclusive product it's usually good business sense .Sky's red button features are the same .Like i said in a earlier post they operate on different models .

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

I don't think they have done this though , can't be 100% but off the top of my head I honestly can't think of any , I know Awake was advertised as on Sky Atlantic however I believe Sky did show an episode on Sky One however it wasn't billed as being on Sky One. They are currently showing House in the daytime on Sky Atlantic from series one however I believe they have all been aired before many times before on Sky One.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

As far as I am aware I also can't remember any shows as being on another channel and then moving to Atlantic.

If a new show is coming to Atlantic then they spend a very long time telling us it is. I doubt they would give up their weeks of advertising just to annoy VM customers.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

As I don't currently have any Pay-TV I can't offer current examples - but Sky most certainly has form in this area. Back in the day, I missed about half a dozen episodes of Alias when they switched it from Sky One to the channel then known as Sky One Mix. I was a VM TV subscriber and Sky One Mix was a Sky-exclusive channel.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Then there's the time they moved loads of good stuff (including all of their live NFL coverage) to Sky Sports Xtra, which again was only available on Sky.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Virgin Media is a company with publically traded shares. It would be illegal for them not to declare all money they have access to.

---------- Post added at 22:04 ---------- Previous post was at 21:56 ----------

This is the same company that when VM lost Sky 1 a while back was apparently claiming they weren't abusing their position to OFCOM while moving all their bigger shows to Sky 1 and running a massive advertising campaign telling everyone that Sky was the only place to watch these shows..

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

I recall that we had Sky back then. It was along the lines of "Only on Sky" or words to that effect.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Sorry I'm late to this thread but...

So exactly the same as Sky then :rolleyes:

Cable TV, actually :) (But not by much ;))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_TV#United_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Sky_Broadcasting

---------- Post added at 13:55 ---------- Previous post was at 13:46 ----------

Given the post you quoted, you seem to be trying to compare a 100% exclusive channel available on only on platform to a free month of a non-exclusive) channel that you can get if you want to by paying more money to the same provider.

Vastly different, I'd say.

You do if you want Sky Atlantic.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

I hope you won't take offence if I say that you haven't made this point very well, in my opinion. It is, however, the most important point of the entire thread. You can only get Tesco Value products in Tesco. Other supermarkets are, however, able to sell their own "value" ranges, and do so. You can't blame Sky for seeking a competitive advantage by acquiring sports and American drama rights, merely question why Virgin choose not to compete.

---------- Post added at 13:58 ---------- Previous post was at 13:56 ----------

@carlwaring I meant which came first-Sky's acquisition of Premier League rights or their market share? I suggest that they paid out for the rights and then signed up the customers, rather than the other way around.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Except that every supermarket has it's own equivalent 'value' range. So not the best analogy ever ;)

(Andy posted whilst I was typing :))

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Okay then. Sorry for the confusion.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

The equivalent for Sky of tesco branded beans at Tesco, would be TV shows made by or funded by Sky, shown only on Sky, not the American cable or network produced shows shown on Atlantic. So your argument isn't valid,

If you could only buy, for example, Domestos from Tesco and no other shop, then you would have a point.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

I was interested in David Attenborough's new programme about plants. It is on Sky 3D - fair enough, if it is good quality filming then I suppose it might bring a new dimension to the life of plants. I don't have, and don't want, 3D so I will not be able to see this show. Shrugs shoulders and walks away.

However the ordinary 2D version is only on Sky Atlantic. Why? I thought Atlantic was to showcase the best of American drama etc. This is clearly a case of them trying to gain new customers by getting us to "choose" more expensive Sky packages when, in reality, there is no real choice at all if you are interested in a specific type of programme be it films or sports or documentaries.

There is no reason at all why this particular programme couldn't be on Sky 1 or Sky Arts.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

I don't see an issue with Sky putting new American TV shows on Sky Atlantic so long as they're advertised that way from day one , what I would disagree with is if they were to swap current Sky One shows over onto Sky Atlantic , I guess they own the channels so should be able to schedule new content as they see fit. People with the belief they'll run down Sky One are delusional , wasn't it voted Broadcast channel of the year.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Sorry my point is supplier - be that any one- has the right to market products in anyway they see fit. Hence Tesco`s value will never be sold in your local independent shop or for that matter ASDA. Using your reference to Domestos. If unilever choose not to supply ASDA, I think they are within there rights, daft but with in them.

So why do posters here think that SKY has to place its products in rivals "shop". Virgin gave up the idea of buying TV shows,in favor of being a conduit.
I do not like it but if SKY or for that matter any other supplier choose not to use Virgin as a conduit so be it. Perhaps if they supplied it via Free-view at a cost, then perhaps I could see a case ( not a strong one but still ). As I see it there are two choices live with it or move. :shocked:

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

You are ignoring the whole aspect of market dominance, which is well-established as a regulatory concern in the UK. Suppliers do not have the absolute right to market any product in any way they see fit. Our markets are regulated, each in a different way due to different circumstances within each.

Own-brand products do not distort the market in baked beans because there are a plethora of alternatives that are cheap and easy to come by. Own-brand TV channels are vastly more expensive to produce and distribute, are available in a far narrower market and thanks to the subscription models used by UK providers the market is a lot less fluid. Denial of certain channels to competing distributors presents a long-term risk of a monopoly of supply developing, something our business legislation actively seeks to prevent.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

If Virgin was struggling to create it's own channel in order to compete with Sky then market dominance might be an issue, but Virgin had channels and sold them. There's no case to answer here, Virgin have chosen not to complete in this area.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

VM not got money to compete with sky as no one else has either thats why sky got a near monopoly

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Virgin do compete with Sky, in some areas such as broadband and on demand they are arguably ahead. They've chosen not to compete on linear channels. I understand the need for regulation when competition can't be achieved, but two companies who choose to operate in different ways shouldn't be bought together by regulation just because one of them doesn't have access to a particular channel - you end up with 2 companies offering near identical products competing solely on price. That just results in cuts to quality.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

there can't compete on channels as sky pay very big money to make sure no one esle can compete with them

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Tell me.What do you think of the BBC?:)

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

VM had good channels with good shows :confused:

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

yes but could not afford to keep them sadly and had to sell them to get acces to sky premium HD channels they never have got them otherwise

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

If you genuinely want to know, I think their news output is dreadful, but that some of their drama and documentaries are world class, and I think I player is excellent. I am, in general, against what I consider to be a tax imposed on everybody, regardless of whether they use the end product, albeit I am personally quite a heavy user. However, I am able to temper this by thinking of my elderly grandmother and contenting myself with the thought that she has access to simple, world class television for free.

In terms of the discussion, both Sky and Virgin are doing well in tough economic times despite the presence of a state funded broadcaster which provides 8 TV channels, numerous radio stations as well as online content, so it's hard to argue it has any impact on competition.

---------- Post added at 22:08 ---------- Previous post was at 22:05 ----------

Exactly, they had a choice. They chose to only be a platform rather than a content provider. I don't understand why, having made the choice not to compete in this area they should now be given a helping hand to acquire channels they' chosen not to compete against.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Don't think I've suggested the latter..I'm just peeved that Sky has had the unfair advantage of the funding to outbid for INDIVIDUAL programmes to show on their premium channels due entirely to being the market leader because of lack of even handedness about issues of monopoly by the Murdochs.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Because the point of the legislation is consumer choice and consumer protection. It's not about giving VM a helping hand per se - it's about ensuring the buying public is protected from monopolies, which are almost always a bad thing.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Spot on Dave.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Next you will asking for a share of the license fee:erm:

I really can not understand why people here think its their god given right to access SKY channels. Via Virgin , why not via the BBC I player or ITVs net player. Come on lets start asking for all SKY channels on top up TV.

No other supplier of goods ( & that`s what it is) is told to whom they must supply. It is not that you can`t not get them, it is that you choose NOT to get them.

Perhaps I can access ASDAs goods via my local CO-OP (its closer to me). Sorry its time people started to get real. I do not like, not having the full range of SKY channels via Virgin, but there are a whole lot more that are the same & very few people complain about that ( Think news channels on freeview for a kick off -not on Virgin) :D

However I still choose Virgin over SKY - Why they cost about the same, both have plus & minus points, the reason I do is for the same sort of cost per month I get a box(es) & Modem I do not have to worry about:p:
If that model changed that so would I.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

:rolleyes:

I will say this ONLY ONCE...I do not expect or demand to see Sky channels on VM.I also think that the OP doesn't expect that either.
What we are complaining about is the way programmes are placed on Sky channels because Sky has far more money and therefore bidding power than any of the other platforms.

Two examples.House and Lost.Both were being shown on other platforms and channels.Between one series and the next Sky outbid for them and they disappeared behind the Sky platform.Very hard on those who were watching them on Channel 5 and Channel 4 and had no access to Sky.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

And neither do I.

"24" was another one.

For me it's these two points...


1. Because they were effectively forced to allow other platforms access to Sky1 at a reasonable rate, they now place a lot of new stuff that should (or at least would) have been on Sky1 onto Sky Atlantic which, by definition, is only supposed to show HBO programming.

2. They buy up but then do not use the FTA rights for many of their shows so that no other channel gets to have them.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

While I actually agree with you, not really sure that analogy works.

The problem with Sky is they buy the exclusive rights to things. So, if you want to watch Premiere League football, or watch (say) Boardwalk Empire, you have to subscribe to a Sky channel. You can't (legally) watch another channel to get the English Premiere League. You can't (legally) watch Boardwalk empire on another UK channel, and it's not just a case of watching another show.

Supermarkets tend not to have exclusive agreements to sell goods, and even if they did, you can probably get the same thing, but another brand.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Nope we're did it say that in the press release ?
http://corporate.sky.com/media/press...ky_Altantic_HD

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

While I fully understand your point it is called business. We have exclusive rights to some products in the UK. We out bid an other supplier whom had it before .He sold to anyone now some outlets can no longer supply it. You want it you buy it from US. That`s how it works in the real world,sorry but its true:shocked: Next people will be telling football clubs that they cant have a player because someone else cannot afford to buy him:shocked:

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Well you can - ESPN.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Quite correct the point I was badly trying to make is that rivals try to keep some items as exclusive to them. :shocked: Sky are only doing that.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Well this person WON'T be buying from the gangster Murdoch..under any circumstance.They could be the only supplier and I still won't use them.MY CHOICE.My standards.;)

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

That's not a fault of sky though is it . If programs are available to be bid on then why shouldn't Sky bid on them .In the case of lost if channel 4 wasn't prepared to pay or couldn't pay ,then that is an issue for channel 4 to sort out .It may have been a pain for the viewers but it was a result of how the whole tv media industry works not just Sky

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

I think it's a case of whom has more money and more clout.Sky has more of both because it was handed to them by past governments who were terrified of Murdoch.The BBC may have our licence money but it's a drop in the ocean compared to Skys resources.Indeed the BBC has had it's funding reduced at the behest of Murdoch complaining about it so bitterly to the government.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Told you ;)

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Interesting, do you not watch any of the Sky channels supplied via Virgin ?
Or any thing created by 20th Century Fox ? Read The Times / Sunday Times, Sun. Or any of the other papers from News international.

As much as I do not want to pay money directly to him. My Virgin subs clearly help line his pockets . So if you subscribe to Virgin TV you pay him. Sorry cant see your "details" while typing this so not sure:)

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Well it does mention the words "exclusive" and "HBO" :blush: my mistake.

However, the main points still spply :)

---------- Post added at 15:39 ---------- Previous post was at 15:36 ----------

Actually, no. The buying power of BSkyB means they can simply out-bit any other broadcaster. How is that (in this example) "channel 4's problem"? :confused:

PS. Yes, I didn't read Maggy's post before I wrote mine :D

---------- Post added at 15:41 ---------- Previous post was at 15:39 ----------

More than a little drastic that, Maggy, I think :p:

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

because they couldn't out bid sky :rolleyes:.
I am currently pricing up a conservatory for a customer ,i know that i will be competing with 2 other companies for the job ,i have no idea what price they have put in ,i will just have to work out the cost and how much profit i want to make .If my price is too high i will not get the job either because my profit margin is too high or i cannot buy the product at a cheap enough price ,both are my problems not the companies who can provide the product at a lower cost or forgo any profit because they have money in the bank and can out bid me

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Not ashamed of it either..I believe in ethics and that it should apply in business,politics and all parts of our lives.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Correct. No-one can.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

which is their problem not sky's .If sky have the financial clout and business acumen to succeed where others have failed then good luck to them .

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

You seem to have failed entirely to grasp the fact that sky have got to this position because of unfair advantages afforded to them by successive governments not obeying the rules.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

The Panorama documentary on ITV Digital, if true, could suggest other reasons?

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Unfair advantage, like having guaranteed funds raised from everyone with a tv who are forced to pay as a matter of law whether they use the product or not ....like the BBC ?.

I'm not going to pretend that Murdoch is a little angel ,but at the end of the day he asked for stuff and the government gave it to him ,he was merely taking advantage of stupid governments and stupid rules ,any good business man will do the same

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

So in your opinion what should be done to remedy this situation ?

---------- Post added at 17:40 ---------- Previous post was at 17:39 ----------

So you believe the TV tax should rise ?

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Well the government should stop cosying up to the Murdochs and their empire and let Ofcom actually do the job they were supposed to be doing before successive governments interfered to change matters.I also feel that NI should be made to shed some of it's various media outlets to reduce it's monopoly and level the playing field for the other DTV providers.

And yes the licence should rise in line with inflation.Of course the BBC must make sure they extract every last penny of value from what they do receive before a rise is awarded.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

Just a couple of facts for people to think about.

Last I heard, Sky's turnover (I think that was the correct term) exceeded that of the BBC by around £1.1bn and their marketing budget was much larger than the entire programming budget of ITV (or something like that. This is "old" news :))

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

I certainly don't think it should have been so severely cut.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

I agree with both of these. A fairly small proportion of my overall viewing comes from the BBC, but I still think that we need a broadcaster with high production values that produces a wide range of programmes, not just the ones that attract popularist viewing.

The BBC leads the way in online services such as iPlayer, and that requires funding. I say that even though I rarely use catch up services.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

I agree, but would point out that the tax has been frozen, rather than cut, and that will still result in a BBC offering 6 channels and hd variants, numerous radio stations and cutting edge online services. It's really hard to argue that at a time when households are having to make tough decisions an organisation which once paid Jonathon Ross £18m shouldn't shoulder some of the burden.

Re: Underhand devious Sky
 

I knew someone would mention this. However, when you add in everything extra that they have now been given to do with the same money (like funding the World Service) then it does amount to a real-world cut of something like 16-20% :)

No they did not :mad: You shouldn't believe everything you read in certain newspapers with proven anti-BBC agendas (which then gets repeated as fact in other papers.)

IIRC (and it was some years ago now ;)) that £18m was, in fact, the amount paid to his production company over three (or so) years for everything they produced for the BBC; which was more than just the one BBC1 chat show.

I don't agree with the principle of the idea (ie the BBC making smarter, better use of the money it gets) but the situation is not helped when completely incorrect information, such as the above, is quoted as truth.