Would you like to see new TV Packs introduced

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Weres your proof of that I'm not saying your wrong , but would be interested to know.

Sky's are published.
FOI request to the BBC showed they don't pay VM anything.

Originally Posted by mersey70

Did you find out how much VM charge other broadcasters for the services I referred to in my original post?

Sadly there's not really a way to do that. It's easy to find out what the BBC pay who because the FOI act covers pretty much everything they do. For other companies it's going to be neigh on impossible due to it being classed as business sensitive information.

It does make me think though that maybe VM should operate more like Sky. Charge flat rates for channels to be on the EPG and appropriate platform contribution costs, and as long as they're competitive with Sky's then that should mean there's no reason why a channel shouldn't launch on VM?

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by TheDon

Sky's are published.
FOI request to the BBC showed they don't pay VM anything.



Sadly there's not really a way to do that. It's easy to find out what the BBC pay who because the FOI act covers pretty much everything they do. For other companies it's going to be neigh on impossible due to it being classed as business sensitive information.

It does make me think though that maybe VM should operate more like Sky. Charge flat rates for channels to be on the EPG and appropriate platform contribution costs, and as long as they're competitive with Sky's then that should mean there's no reason why a channel shouldn't launch on VM?

And it's also easy to find out what the BBC and every single channel on the Sky platform pay because British Sky Broadcasting publish it, publicly.

So with respect (BBC, aside) how do you know VM don't operate the same as Sky? They might not, I don't know.

I'll ask again in case you misunderstood me. Do VM publicly display their platform charges? I have looked high and low and cannot find them. I merely googled 'BSKY platform charges' and found them immediately, it was the very first result!

I'd love to read them. It might give us a better understanding about why broadcasters feel the need to swap channels and other channel related issues. All I can find is very, very general info on the procedure of channel allocation.

I doubt we will find out though.

http://www.virginmedia.com/about/wor...#05-allocation

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by mersey70

And it's also easy to find out what the BBC and every single channel on the Sky platform pay because British Sky Broadcasting publish it, publicly.

So with respect (BBC, aside) how do you know VM don't operate the same as Sky? They might not, I don't know.

I'll ask again in case you misunderstood me. Do VM publicly display their platform charges?

I'd love to read them. It might give us a better understanding about why broadcasters feel the need to swap channels and other channel related issues.

I doubt we will find out though.

No, they don't.

Sky only publish them because their EPG is "open". Anyone can get an EPG slot, and they have to offer them on fair and reasonable pricing. As such it's all standardised pricing and completely transparent.

VM on the other hand, is an entirely closed system, and their carriage agreements (like Sky's where they pay the channels money to carry them or subsidise the platform costs) are confidential.

Sky's platform contributions are only half the story really. Sure all the channels "pay" these fees, but many of them will get more in return from Sky for them carrying them. So it's really only half a story, and the fees are only able to be taken at face value for FTA channels.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by TheDon

No, they don't.

Sky only publish them because their EPG is "open". Anyone can get an EPG slot, and they have to offer them on fair and reasonable pricing. As such it's all standardised pricing and completely transparent.

VM on the other hand, is an entirely closed system, and their carriage agreements (like Sky's where they pay the channels money to carry them or subsidise the platform costs) are confidential.

Sky's platform contributions are only half the story really. Sure all the channels "pay" these fees, but many of them will get more in return from Sky for them carrying them. So it's really only half a story, and the fees are only able to be taken at face value for FTA channels.

If you are saying Sky's charges are unfair then that's fine, I would have some sympathy with that in the sense they perhaps charge too much, not that they charge at all though. That's the system.

But really you have no idea whether VM actually charge even more than Sky do you, by your own admission no one does. It would explain why so many FTA channels don't bother with VM if they do though and broadcasters swap rather than add channels from their portfolio.

Who knows but without the information regarding VM's charges there's no comparison to be made for me so I cannot really criticise Sky.

I'd be doing so half blind.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by mersey70

If you are saying Sky's charges are unfair then that's fine, I would have some sympathy with that in the sense they perhaps charge too much, not that they charge at all though. That's the system.

But really you have no idea whether VM actually charge even more than Sky do you, by your own admission no one does. It would explain why so many FTA channels don't bother with VM if they do though and broadcasters swap rather than add channels from their portfolio.

Who knows but without the information regarding VM's charges there's no comparison to be made for me so I cannot really criticise Sky.

I'd be doing so half blind.

You don't think it's at all unfair that Sky get to rake in £8m from the BBC, that's from license payers, every single year, and VM carry the channels for free? (and it wasn't that long ago that that fee was £85m when the BBC was using their CAS as well) I'm not saying that as a VM customer, I'm saying that as a license fee payer. Why should part of my license fee go towards providing a free to air channel on Sky? There is literally no justification why a public service broadcaster should have to cough up that sort of money to be carried on Sky. None at all (and incidentally the BBC also think that it should be sky paying the psb's), it's essentially profiteering from the BBC's universal service obligations.

Plus, I never stated it was unfair in it's entirety, or criticised Sky for it. I was just saying it's a reason why it's easier for a channel to launch on Sky than VM. You just give them the amount of money you're meant to give them, and bam, you're on the sky platform. It's a one size fits all system for any channel to launch on the platform, with VM every single channel launch is a lengthy negotiation, and whilst we don't know the details of the carriage contracts we do know it's not a nice easy simple process like Sky's due to the sheer amount of channels that seem to kick up a fuss about it with email campaigns to get VM to carry them. If VM had a price list with a take it or leave it approach to channel launches we wouldn't have the situation where channels want to launch on VM but seemingly can't come to any sort of agreement.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by TheDon

You don't think it's at all unfair that Sky get to rake in £8m from the BBC, that's from license payers, every single year, and VM carry the channels for free? (and it wasn't that long ago that that fee was £85m when the BBC was using their CAS as well) I'm not saying that as a VM customer, I'm saying that as a license fee payer. Why should part of my license fee go towards providing a free to air channel on Sky? There is literally no justification why a public service broadcaster should have to cough up that sort of money to be carried on Sky. None at all (and incidentally the BBC also think that it should be sky paying the psb's), it's essentially profiteering from the BBC's universal service obligations.

Plus, I never stated it was unfair in it's entirety, or criticised Sky for it. I was just saying it's a reason why it's easier for a channel to launch on Sky than VM. You just give them the amount of money you're meant to give them, and bam, you're on the sky platform. It's a one size fits all system for any channel to launch on the platform, with VM every single channel launch is a lengthy negotiation, and whilst we don't know the details of the carriage contracts we do know it's not a nice easy simple process like Sky's due to the sheer amount of channels that seem to kick up a fuss about it with email campaigns to get VM to carry them. If VM had a price list with a take it or leave it approach to channel launches we wouldn't have the situation where channels want to launch on VM but seemingly can't come to any sort of agreement.

Sorry but as things stand I cannot really see why the BBC in their ever so piviledged position should be treated any differently to say ITV. let's agree to disagree on that. They have not complained about it as far as I know.

Looking at it merely from a customer point of view the system of gaining access to the Sky and indeed Freesat platforms seems better to me. VM's way of allowing access to their network sounds awfully complicated, it certainly explains a few things regarding channel availability and the swapovers.

Anyway it was interesting to discuss it with you, it goes to show we all have different opinions which is always good.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by mersey70

Sorry but as things stand I cannot really see why the BBC in their ever so piviledged position should be treated any differently to say ITV. let's agree to disagree on that. They have not complained about it as far as I know.

Actually ITV are very vocal in their complaints to ofcom about the charges they have to pay sky (they pay more than the BBC).

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by TheDon

Actually ITV are very vocal in their complaints to ofcom about the charges they have to pay sky (they pay more than the BBC).

I was referring to the BBC as their charges is what we were discussing!

But in the link TheDon supplied earlier, the BBC are not trying to get Sky to pay them (the BBC) for supplying their channels to the platform. They were making the case for Sky to pay all the other public service broadcasters, that is, ITV, C4 and C5.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by Chris

But in the link TheDon supplied earlier, the BBC are not trying to get Sky to pay them (the BBC) for supplying their channels to the platform. They were making the case for Sky to pay all the other public service broadcasters, that is, ITV, C4 and C5.

I know but maybe I am not being clear, it's isn't unusual!

I mean as far as I am aware the BBC have not complained about the charges Sky levy on them to be on their platform.

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by mersey70

I know but maybe I am not being clear, it's isn't unusual!

I mean as far as I am aware the BBC have not complained about the charges Sky levy on them to be on their platform.

They complained when Sky did their encryption, that's why they moved on to another satellite to avoid those charges.

I'm also not aware of a complaint from the BBC about Sky's current charges.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by mersey70

I know but maybe I am not being clear, it's isn't unusual!

I mean as far as I am aware the BBC have not complained about the charges Sky levy on them to be on their platform.

They've backhandedly complained by making the case for ALL the PBS in the UK. They can't really come out and say "we don't like paying sky this money" because of their universal service obligations, but by coming out and saying that Sky should pay retrans fees to the PBS operators (and then qualifying it with "but we don't mind because you know, universal service obligations") they ARE complaining about the charges Sky levy on them, because they're the exact same charges that the other PBS have to pay.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by TheDon

They've backhandedly complained by making the case for ALL the PBS in the UK. They can't really come out and say "we don't like paying sky this money" because of their universal service obligations, but by coming out and saying that Sky should pay retrans fees to the PBS operators (and then qualifying it with "but we don't mind because you know, universal service obligations") they ARE complaining about the charges Sky levy on them, because they're the exact same charges that the other PBS have to pay.

As I said earlier I can see an argument for Sky paying retrans fees, after all Fox get's them from operators in the US.

But my understanding is the likes of ITV and C4 are wary of the fact that they could lose their prominence priviledges in the EPG should that happen.