Government to stop BSkyB taking millions of pounds from BBC

[muppetman11]

The Government wants to stop Rupert Murdoch's BSkyB from collecting millions of pounds of annual fees from the BBC and other public service broadcasters.

Ed Vaizey, Minister for Culture, will tell the Oxford Media Convention today that the satellite television company should volunteer to stop charging public service broadcasters fees for carrying their channels on its service, or face Government intervention.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/9...-from-BBC.html

I don't see Rupert liking that..and the government will be getting a bashing from the Sun no doubt.

Shouldn't really apply to anyone other than the BBC considering the other 3 have HD channels where they are the ones getting money from Sky.

[denphone]

Well l am sure Mighty old Sky will not miss a few million here and there with the many billions they have at their disposal.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Given that BSkyB are forced to carry the BBC channels then they should be able to be reimbursed for the costs involved but no more. The same should apply to the other free to air channels.

Are the BBC and the rest not paying the owners of the terrestrial broadcasting infrastructre to carry their channels?

Are people suggesting that commercial BSkyB should subsidise the BBC?

No I think they are suggesting a rather more level playing field for all.After all thee and me have already paid for the BBC content so why should BSkyb also be paid from the money we both paid to the BBC.

If and when BSkyb become a public broadcaster then maybe they should be getting taxes payers money.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

No I think they are suggesting a rather more level playing field for all.After all thee and me have already paid for the BBC content so why should BSkyb also be paid from the money we both paid to the BBC.

If and when BSkyb become a public broadcaster then maybe they should be getting taxes payers money.

Sky are a service provider ,they are getting paid for providing a service what's wrong with that

Originally Posted by martyh

Sky are a service provider ,they are getting paid for providing a service what's wrong with that

It's about taxpayers money not wholly being spent on the BBC.Personally I'd rather the BBC didn't get their content onto Sky and spent the 9 million on better content on the BBC.

[Gary L]

Anyone would think the BBC was the government. or the government was the BBC.

[MovedGoalPosts]

If there is a cost incurred by someone transmitting a service on behalf of another supplier, it seems reasonable to me that the cost is funded. But it shouldn't necessarily result in a profit to the transmitter?

[muppetman11]

I'm confused by this

The Government will push for the fee to be scrapped so that no money changes hands. However, some industry observers think it should go further and force satellite television operators, also including Freesat, to pay public service broadcasters for the opportunity to carry their content.

Wouldn't that make it highly likely that subscriptions would increase to fund the extra charges meaning a Sky subscriber in reality would be paying more on top of the existing TV license to watch BBC content.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

So you'll be quite happy if BSkyB dropped all the Beebs channels then if they're not paid to carry them?

First question do they pay Virgin to carry them ? No I have no idea what the answer to that is.
If not I say that the BBC should stop paying. If they do then they should stop paying both of them . I guess that most people get freeview ( Ok not all can get freeview & those that can`t - its there problem, sorry).

I would think that Sky need BBC channels more than BBC need Sky - or for that matter Virgin

Originally Posted by Maggy J

It's about taxpayers money not wholly being spent on the BBC.Personally I'd rather the BBC didn't get their content onto Sky and spent the 9 million on better content on the BBC.

It is being spent on the BBC ,it is allowing the BBC to be broadcast to everyone as a subscription free public service which is what the BBC is there for .Removing the BBC channels from sky as a free channel would turn it into a subscription channel for those who want it ,does that mean that sky subscribers would no longer have to pay the license fee or does it mean they would have to pay both license fee and extra subscription to recieve BBC channels.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Itshim

First question do they pay Virgin to carry them ? No I have no idea what the answer to that is.

No according to this article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013...redirect=false

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

It's about taxpayers money not wholly being spent on the BBC.Personally I'd rather the BBC didn't get their content onto Sky and spent the 9 million on better content on the BBC.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Rob

If there is a cost incurred by someone transmitting a service on behalf of another supplier, it seems reasonable to me that the cost is funded. But it shouldn't necessarily result in a profit to the transmitter?

Yes, but the presence of the BBC channels helps to drive up subscribers. Not having them would be detrimental to Sky. They should think of it as a loss leader, they have no problem with this concept in other areas of their business.

Originally Posted by Itshim

...I would think that Sky need BBC channels more than BBC need Sky - or for that matter Virgin

Absolutely.

Cable companies are obliged to carry the PSB channels Free To Air at no charge as part of their franchise licence to operate.

Sky do not have to carry them, but, if they do, they have to give them "due prominence" in the EPG.

Originally Posted by martyh

It is being spent on the BBC ,it is allowing the BBC to be broadcast to everyone as a subscription free public service which is what the BBC is there for .Removing the BBC channels from sky as a free channel would turn it into a subscription channel for those who want it ,does that mean that sky subscribers would no longer have to pay the license fee or does it mean they would have to pay both license fee and extra subscription to recieve BBC channels.

The BBC channels would still be available, Free To Air, from the Astra satellite. The channels would simply be removed from the Sky EPG. Some or all may still be available via "add channels". The channels available, however, would no longer be recordable.

No extra subscription to Sky would be required and the TV Licence would still be payable.

Of course, all this is purely academic as Sky would never allow it to get to the stage where they left the platform. That's why i'm surprised this hasn't been tried before.

The very existence of the BBC channels on Sky is enough remuneration in itself. In some countries, PSB channels charge the platform owners for inclusion on their platform!

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I agree.



Yes, but the presence of the BBC channels helps to drive up subscribers. Not having them would be detrimental to Sky. They should think of it as a loss leader, they have no problem with this concept in other areas of their business.



Absolutely.

Cable companies are obliged to carry the PSB channels Free To Air at no charge as part of their franchise licence to operate.

Sky do not have to carry them, but, if they do, they have to give them "due prominence" in the EPG.



The BBC channels would still be available, Free To Air, from the Astra satellite. The channels would simply be removed from the Sky EPG. Some or all may still be available via "add channels". The channels available, however, would no longer be recordable.

!

They pay so Sky users can record a show In that case someone at the BBC needs a ----- choose your own phrase. Paying is a crazy waste of public money - something they are good at- resign your job & we pay you compensation REALLY