Thread: General Underhand devious Sky
View Single Post
Old 17-05-2012, 22:08   #69
andy_m
cf.mega poster
 
andy_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: North-West Kent
Services: VIP
Posts: 2,887
andy_m has a bronze arrayandy_m has a bronze arrayandy_m has a bronze array
andy_m has a bronze arrayandy_m has a bronze arrayandy_m has a bronze arrayandy_m has a bronze arrayandy_m has a bronze arrayandy_m has a bronze arrayandy_m has a bronze arrayandy_m has a bronze array
Re: Underhand devious Sky

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J View Post
Tell me.What do you think of the BBC?
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 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave42 View Post
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
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.
andy_m is offline   Reply With Quote