Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter
I am not pleased about the situation, what a ridiculous thing to say. I would much rather have the channels that I want to watch than the £3 a month discount for 6 months.
I will not be receiving any net compensation at all as I will have to subscribe to a service costing £7.99 A month- do the maths. In addition, despite paying extra, I will not be able to record the programmes, nor watch them via VOD. I will have to try and watch the programmes when they actually air, it will be like going back to the mid 1970's before I got a VCR!
Your second paragraph is simply too ludicrous to respond to.
As previously explained, VM are tying me into a contract under threat of early exit fees. Until the matter of whether this contract is fair or not has been ruled upon, like many others, I am either stuck with them or will have to fight them in court to claim that their contract is unfair and unenforceable.
My solicitor has advised me to hold fire as any decisions made about this by various Government bodies will be critical to any cases taken by individuals against them.
Whilst it is the case that Sky are offering to pay any early exit fees, I won't necessarily be going to them.
Moving onto ITV. I have now been advised by a contact that, whatever happens this weekend, a limited ITV service should be available on the VM network.
On cable, it is a condition of the cable licenses needed to operate such a service that they 'must carry' the PSB channels on a cost neutral basis.
However, the law was changed fairly recently because of an internet service called TV Catchup. This service argued that they could carry the PSB channels without paying anything for channels 1-5 as they should be regarded as a cable company.
The commercial broadcasters weren't happy about this as TV Catchup were making money by showing their own adverts in the breaks instead of theirs, whilst not paying anything towards their costs. It went to court and TV Catchup lost.
As a result, the Government amended a piece of legislation so as to now allow the commercial channels to levy a retransmission fee for anyone showing their channel. It was intended for the likes of TV Catchup, but it was pointed out to the Government that the broad definition of the legislation would now allow the commercial broadcasters to charge a fee to the tradition cable companies, such as VM. The Government responded by saying that they didn't think that this would happen.
ITV had other ideas and asked VM for money. When this was also pointed out to the Government, they simply said that it should be left to commercial negotiations.
So, this is why it's a grey area. On the one hand the law states that VM must carry ITV (1) SD, but if ITV don't get the retransmission fees that they are asking for, they have threatened to cut off their feed. ITV HD and all of their other channels have no such condition and are subject to normal commercial negotiations.
If the feed from ITV is cut off, VM have plans to take an unauthorised SD feed (probably ITV London) from satellite and pipe it through its cable network around the country. Their argument for being able to do this would be that they are required by law to show ITV as a condition of their licence. VM customers would be able to continue to watch ITV, but not in HD nor have acess to catch up or +1 services. Local news would be unavailable for the vast majority of the country. As far as I am aware, people in the STV area would not be affected.
Part of the can of worms opened as a result of VM no longer showing the UKTV channels is that their platform has been weakened. Other channel providers will be only too aware that VM cannot afford to lose another popular broadcaster from their platform and will use this to their full advantage.
The deal to continue carrying the Sky channels expires in May and I did think that (if the UKTV channels were still off VM), Sky would use this situation to weaken their strongest competitor, either by asking for exorbitant carriage fees or withdrawing their channels.
The situation would be much worse than the last time that Sky took their channels off cable, as this time Sky Sports would go too because it is no longer regulated. I'm not sure about the position of the Sky Cinema channels.
It looks like ITV are getting in there first...
Whether people watch UKTV or not and whether people think that VM have a case or not in the dispute is largely irrelevant now. The real damage is only just beginning.
|
Good post, Richard. Sorry about the compensation dig, though - I couldn't resist!
I don't think VM is surprised at UKTV's action to withdraw these channels. I suspect that VM have already calculated that they will back down due to the loss of income. It's just a shame that this appears to be the only way of resolving the problem. I don't think they should just stand by while they get ripped off by content providers, and this was definitely a rip off.
Maybe this will force a re-think by Liberty Global regarding its policy that its cablecos concentrate on taking content from other providers rather than be a provider itself. This does put them in a weaker position, IMO.
---------- Post added at 10:16 ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul M
Umm, you're pleased that everyone on VM is losing UKTV - really ?
Seems the only one "cock-a-hoop" here is actually you.  |
No, I'm not happy that the channels have been pulled. I said I was glad VM made a stand against being ripped off. If VM's move creates the dent in UKTV's finances that we think it will, I am sure they will get back to the negotiating table. After all, they are in this to make money, right?