Polly proposes that Sky should save the BBC's finances

[aeolium]

I've just read the article, & the context makes it quite clear that Poly is referring to viewing BBC on the Sky platform. -

"she [Margaret Thatcher] added another bonus. She made the BBC pay £10m a year to be transmitted on the Sky platform, ... If the BBC withdrew, Sky would totter since BBC channels are by far the most watched by Sky subscribers" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-parasitic-sky)

Yes, I realised that, but the comment still doesn't make any sense. Sky subscribers don't subscribe to Sky to watch BBC channels - they can do that on Freeview (whether or not they have Sky). They subscribe to Sky to watch all kinds of other channels, especially sports and films. The idea that Sky would totter if the BBC was not available on the Sky seems crazy to me. And if you accept that unlikely claim then surely the BBC would be hit just as hard, since there are 10m Sky subscribers in the UK.

[Flosshilde]

Yes, I realised that, but the comment still doesn't make any sense. Sky subscribers don't subscribe to Sky to watch BBC channels - they can do that on Freeview (whether or not they have Sky). They subscribe to Sky to watch all kinds of other channels, especially sports and films. The idea that Sky would totter if the BBC was not available on the Sky seems crazy to me.

Presumably if the BBC chanels come as part of the SKY package people watch them on that because it's easier - the BBC chanels are listed in the on-screen guide along with all the other chanels, so you just select it from that.

Poly's point is that the UK is the only country in Europe where the commercial broadcaster doesn't pay public broadcaster for the privilege of using its content. When SKY started the BBC wasn't available digitally, so there presumably was an advantage for the BBC being available via SKY; now it is available on Freeview there doesn't seem to be any advantage, so I wonder why they don't pull out.

And if you accept that unlikely claim then surely the BBC would be hit just as hard, since there are 10m Sky subscribers in the UK.

Why would the BBC be hit just as hard, as they don't get a penny from SKY? Nothing to lose, & £10 million a year to gain.

[Mr Pee]

A new production of Treasure Island this week; a new series written by Ruth Jones, starting this week; a very gentle, Alan Bennettish comedy set in Weston-super-Mare; and many classic repeats, like Brideshead Revisited. (Yes, I know it was made by ITV, but would they show it these days?)

Treasure Island was brilliant; Elijah Wood, Donald Sutherland, Philip Glenister, David Harewood, and Eddie Izzard as Long John Silver:-

http://www.theartsdesk.com/tv/treasure-island-sky1

A quick look shows Sky entry level is £20pm. Rather a lot to pay to watch a repeat of Brideshead (if I wanted to) I could just buy the dvd. No, I'm happy with the BBC and ITV 2, 3, 4 have a lot of repeats.

Well that comment would make sense if Sky were just showing repeats of Brideshead, which of course they're not. Apart from the previously mentioned Treasure Island etc, Sky have also shown the superb Game of Thrones, as well as Boardwalk Empire, Spy, Romanzo Criminale, The Cafe, and many other newly comissioned dramas. And I loved their series of "Little Crackers" which was shown over Christmas, a series of 15 minute autobiographical sketches based around Christmas written by and starring the likes of Bill Bailey, Victoria Wood, Stephen Fry, Johnny Vegas, Harry Hill, Barbara Windsor and others. Every one was an absolute delight.

Sky News is as least as impartial as BBC News and it's much less PC which is a plus as far as I'm concerned.

Indeed- and Sky news reporter Alex Crawford received an OBE in the New Year's Honours. Her reporting from Libya was streets ahead of anything offered by any other broadcaster:-

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=48488

[scottycelt]

As a general rule, do people find Poll's articles irritating and a bit pointless ?

Just asking, like

Well those are certainly often irritating and sometimes downright hateful towards stubborn traditionalists who refuse to kow-tow to the horribly narrow-minded 'liberal', feminist agenda which she constantly propagates.

Apart from that, I think she's lovely ...

[Pilchardman]

"Guardian columnist in 'Irritating liberal' shock".

Not that I agree with Scotty, mind.

[aeolium]

Presumably if the BBC chanels come as part of the SKY package people watch them on that because it's easier - the BBC chanels are listed in the on-screen guide along with all the other chanels, so you just select it from that.

Poly's point is that the UK is the only country in Europe where the commercial broadcaster doesn't pay public broadcaster for the privilege of using its content. When SKY started the BBC wasn't available digitally, so there presumably was an advantage for the BBC being available via SKY; now it is available on Freeview there doesn't seem to be any advantage, so I wonder why they don't pull out.



Why would the BBC be hit just as hard, as they don't get a penny from SKY? Nothing to lose, & £10 million a year to gain.

I presume the BBC don't want to pull out from the Sky platform because they fear the viewing loss of the Sky subscribers who can't be bothered to switch back onto Freeview to watch the BBC (even though it is very easy to do so) - particularly in areas where Freeview coverage is not that good.

It is the suggestion that SKY would "totter" if the BBC withdrew from its platform that I find so ludicrous. The £10 million is neither here nor there to Sky. I'm surprised they don't waive it, given that the profit for Sky is around £1 bn annually, which was why the Murdochs were so keen to obtain 100% ownership. And the suggestion that if BBC were absent from the Sky platform there would be a mass desertion of subscribers is I think pure fantasy.

[amateur51]

Indeed- and Sky news reporter Alex Crawford received an OBE in the New Year's Honours. Her reporting from Libya was streets ahead of anything offered by any other broadcaster:-

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=48488

You watched the Al Jazeera coverage, Mr Pee?

[John Skelton]

Here's something from John Tate - Director, Policy & Strategy, BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/abouttheb...to-pay-o.shtml

This, linked to in the comments, is interesting http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051908 (it's Matthew Horsman, not Horseman, of The Independent):

Steve Hewlett : in a nutshell - what is going to happen here?

Matthew Horsman: there needs to be some kind of guidance from the government either in the comms bill or as secondary legislation that says that sky is obliged to pay fees or the parties are commercially able to negotiate fees with the backstop of saying they still have access to the platform with appropriate prominence and "must carry" legislation in place. We think the end games is that sky will end up not being paid by the BBC and having to pay the other channels.

[amateur51]

I presume the BBC don't want to pull out from the Sky platform because they fear the viewing loss of the Sky subscribers who can't be bothered to switch back onto Freeview to watch the BBC (even though it is very easy to do so) - particularly in areas where Freeview coverage is not that good.

It is the suggestion that SKY would "totter" if the BBC withdrew from its platform that I find so ludicrous. The £10 million is neither here nor there to Sky. I'm surprised they don't waive it, given that the profit for Sky is around £1 bn annually, which was why the Murdochs were so keen to obtain 100% ownership. And the suggestion that if BBC were absent from the Sky platform there would be a mass desertion of subscribers is I think pure fantasy.

Has it never occurred to you that Polly has written what used to be called 'a polemic'? (derived from the Greek πολεμικός (polemikos), meaning "warlike, hostile",which comes from πόλεμος ('polemos), "war" - it says here )

[Mr Pee]

You watched the Al Jazeera coverage, Mr Pee?

Don't be silly.

[aeolium]

Has it never occurred to you that Polly has written what used to be called 'a polemic'? (derived from the Greek πολεμικός (polemikos), meaning "warlike, hostile",which comes from πόλεμος ('polemos), "war" - it says here )

Indeed it has, am51. The problem with so many of PT's columns is that she has an entirely Manichaean outlook where everything is good or evil - unlike, say, Private Eye which is indiscriminate in its criticism. Even where I agree with her sentiments, I think this weakens her arguments.

Apropos the link posted by John Skelton, I don't quite see why the BBC - and other commercial broadcasters - could not simply withdraw their services from the Sky platform without any need for legislation. If they perceive that there is more value to Sky in having the BBC and ITV channels on the Sky platform than there is to the BBC/ITV in being there, then it's simply a strategic decision - call Sky's bluff. AFAIK they are not required by law to put their channels on the Sky platform.

[John Skelton]

Don't be silly.

Why would watching http://www.aljazeera.com/ be silly? They have very good local reporters with very strong local knowledge.

[John Skelton]

The problem with so many of PT's columns is that she has an entirely Manichaean outlook where everything is good or evil - unlike, say, Private Eye which is indiscriminate in its criticism. Even where I agree with her sentiments, I think this weakens her arguments.

The glaring problem with Toynbee's piece I think is the implication that people subscribe to Sky in order to watch the BBC on that 'platform' - which seems implausible. The original decision to subscribe to Sky is presumably based on wanting Sky (the BBC programmes being on Sky's platform they are watched that way rather than otherwise). If BBC programmes weren't on Sky would it be difficult for BBC viewers to access them?

I wonder about the BBC withholding its content (or Sky refusing to broadcast it). Since anyone watching Sky on a TV here will have paid a license fee would denying them license fee funded programmes be legal for either party to any dispute over this? If that's the issue presumably some resolution will have to be found.

[aeolium]

If BBC programmes weren't on Sky would it be difficult for BBC viewers to access them?

No, assuming they have access to Freeview - it is a single depression of a button on the TV remote to switch from Sky to Freeview.

Since anyone watching Sky on a TV here will have paid a license fee would denying them license fee funded programmes be legal for either party to any dispute over this?

The only issue I can think of is where Freeview coverage is inadequate or non-existent - otherwise the BBC could argue that those viewers are not being denied access. It's possible that the BBC has made an arrangement either with Sky or the government that such viewers would be able to access their channels on the Sky platform but I think this is unlikely as the BBC is already on Freesat which would allow people who can't get terrestrial Freeview to access their channels (and without the need for a Sky subscription).

[cloughie]

No, assuming they have access to Freeview - it is a single depression of a button on the TV remote to switch from Sky to Freeview.



The only issue I can think of is where Freeview coverage is inadequate or non-existent - otherwise the BBC could argue that those viewers are not being denied access. It's possible that the BBC has made an arrangement either with Sky or the government that such viewers would be able to access their channels on the Sky platform but I think this is unlikely as the BBC is already on Freesat which would allow people who can't get terrestrial Freeview to access their channels (and without the need for a Sky subscription).

It is also an issue as to what we are offered on Freeview - lets have Gilette Soccer Saturday back - Final score is totally inadequate for lower divisions.