Yes, ITV confirmed in a conference call yesterday that they believe that this only applies to cable and not to satellite.
My source for the implications for Sky came from this article:
http://www.a516digital.com/2017/07/i...drop-with.html
---------- Post added at 13:12 ---------- Previous post was at 13:05 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj20x
As I understand it, the payment ITV wish to receive is a re-transmission fee for the PSB content over which they hold copyright. Originally it was planned to remove a loophole that allowed third parties to stream PSB content over the internet, without payment to the PSB. ITV now seems to have seen an opportunity to extend this to cable.
Although ITV and other PSB broadcasters have expressed a desire for all subscription platforms to pay for the PSB content, it's not so easy to ask Sky for this fee. PSB's providing their own transponders on satellite, and paying Sky for regionalised coverage in the EPG, can hardly claim that something they effectively transmit themselves should carry a "re-transmission" fee. So it doesn't really apply to Sky.
So, they seem to want, not only to get away with not providing their own infrastructure on cable, but to also charge the cableco for the privilege of re-transmitting the service on their behalf. A penalty for operating a closed system perhaps.
The situation is not really what the government intended. They made it clear when the change of law was proposed that they didn't expect it to lead to additional charges. If I remember correctly, it was stated that they would have to take another look at the situation if charges were introduced. Unfortunately, the government now appears to be backing away from that stance and leaving the decision on any new charging structure to the market.
https://www.ft.com/content/037019ae-...f-79eb4891c97d
Obviously, any charges imposed on the cableco would have to be passed on to the end user. So cable viewers get to pay for the PSB's through the advertising budget overheads in any goods they purchase, as with users of other platforms. Then they get to pay again through any supplementary fees charged by the cableco. Not the fairest of charges is it? |
No it's not and if ITV get away with it, channel 5 look likely to follow suit from what they've said.
IIRC it was a free streaming site called TVCatchup that started all this by streaming free channels over the internet without the broadcasters permission.
ITV objected to others obtaining advertising income off the back of their programmes, so the Government changed the law which comes into affect on the 31st of this month.