Quote:
Originally Posted by mersey70
If you are saying Sky's charges are unfair then that's fine, I would have some sympathy with that in the sense they perhaps charge too much, not that they charge at all though. That's the system.
But really you have no idea whether VM actually charge even more than Sky do you, by your own admission no one does. It would explain why so many FTA channels don't bother with VM if they do though and broadcasters swap rather than add channels from their portfolio.
Who knows but without the information regarding VM's charges there's no comparison to be made for me so I cannot really criticise Sky.
I'd be doing so half blind.
|
You don't think it's at all unfair that Sky get to rake in £8m from the BBC, that's from license payers, every single year, and VM carry the channels for free? (and it wasn't that long ago that that fee was £85m when the BBC was using their CAS as well) I'm not saying that as a VM customer, I'm saying that as a license fee payer. Why should part of my license fee go towards providing a free to air channel on Sky? There is literally no justification why a public service broadcaster should have to cough up that sort of money to be carried on Sky. None at all (and incidentally
the BBC also think that it should be sky paying the psb's), it's essentially profiteering from the BBC's universal service obligations.
Plus, I never stated it was unfair in it's entirety, or criticised Sky for it. I was just saying it's a reason why it's easier for a channel to launch on Sky than VM. You just give them the amount of money you're meant to give them, and bam, you're on the sky platform. It's a one size fits all system for any channel to launch on the platform, with VM every single channel launch is a lengthy negotiation, and whilst we don't know the details of the carriage contracts we do know it's not a nice easy simple process like Sky's due to the sheer amount of channels that seem to kick up a fuss about it with email campaigns to get VM to carry them. If VM had a price list with a take it or leave it approach to channel launches we wouldn't have the situation where channels want to launch on VM but seemingly can't come to any sort of agreement.