Quote:
Originally Posted by mersey70
With the greatest of respect DF I think it is somewhat disingenuous of you to say Sky have so much money 'because they were the first'.
They joined the DTH game (but launched first) far later than British Satellite Broadcasting who even with the might of the Government and the IBA behind them made a complete and utter hash of their own business plans and were beaten to the post although regulation and technology contributed to the endless delays but basic poor decisions did too. Remember the squarial? Their CEO bought the idea from a small time inventor when there wasn't even a working prototype, that wasn't a technology that was imposed on them like the DMAC system, they had no choice with that but they didn't monitor it's development properly. I read a great book called 'Dished' which is all about the history of BSB, it was a complete and utter joke, it was quite unbelieveable what went on. Murdoch knew this and smelled blood but he really got in through the back door using Astra and it's cheap equipment, in fact the whole set up was cheap full stop, in my opinion it was awful but it was different, BSB seemed similar to the BBC.
I would suggest the reason Sky are cash rich is down to far more factors than launching first, let's be clear Sky have made some huge howlers over the years and initially could have brought News Corp down but overall I think the fact that they are a fantastically run business is a key reason for their success and the legacy cable companies appeared to be badly run, it's unlikely you file for bankruptcy protection like NTL did in 2002 because they were over $23 billion in debt if you are very well run. Put simply Sky gives Average Joe what he wants, they are not for me but the numbers don't lie, that's why I would guess they are successful. Now how they do that and the methods they use are up for debate.
That's just my opinion.
|
I was being very brief in my responce.
I think if both Sky and Cable (as 1 company)had the same start time, then things may of been very different.
Certainly BSB was poorly run and managed, but lets not forget that both Sky and BSB were about to go bankrupt. A merger was the only answer for these two.
---------- Post added at 12:00 ---------- Previous post was at 11:53 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henkesghost
The catch up facility on VOD is good but the HD and TV choice on demand is pathetic, same stuff been on it for months and months. Pathetic re Atlantic but hardly a surprise  |
suprised at Sky for not letting a competitor have it?