[bamav]

Since we're still slightly "off topic", I wish people would stop praising Sky for their heavy "investment" in new channels. They do it with money they're bringing in from subcribers, advertisers and shareholders - which as we all know is a ridiculous amount of money. It's not like they're being charitable about it.

Anyone who runs a channel, including the free to air ones, invest in themselves and their programming and yet many only gain revenue from advertisers and still manage to survive.

Sky's model of subscription and advertising income is wrong and that's why we end up with their greed over ruling their heads when it comes to channel sharing.

Take BBC iPlayer as an example of the desire or, in their case the need, to make your content available to as wide an audience as possible, by sharing it on all available platforms. If BBC adopted the Sky model, not only would they restrict iPlayer to be available only from the BBC, they would charge a premiun for it while bombarding you with adverts.

Surely I'm not the only one who sees this?