Polly proposes that Sky should save the BBC's finances

[Flosshilde]

The only issue I can think of is where Freeview coverage is inadequate or non-existent ... 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

If that was the case then presumably the viewers would have to be given free access to the BBC (& ITV) on SKY as a substitute for the free access on Freesat - presumably with the government picking up the bill - I can't see that happening

[aeolium]

I was thinking of the situation pre-Freesat (which only came along in 2008 or so). But now that Freesat is available, as well as Freeview, there isn't really any need for the BBC or other terrestrial commercial channels to be on the Sky platform, except convenience.

[anotherbob]

When commercial TV began in 1955 it was understood that it would be funded by advertising. SKY has conned millions of people into paying a subscription to be "advertised at". I'm concerned that some of the BBC's Licence income is going to a shady organisation like SKY. It's another example of how "in thrall" British politicians of all persuasions have been to the Murdoch empire.

[amateur51]

When commercial TV began in 1955 it was understood that it would be funded by advertising. SKY has conned millions of people into paying a subscription to be "advertised at". I'm concerned that some of the BBC's Licence income is going to a shady organisation like SKY. It's another example of how "in thrall" British politicians of all persuasions have been to the Murdoch empire.

[Mr Pee]

When commercial TV began in 1955 it was understood that it would be funded by advertising. SKY has conned millions of people into paying a subscription to be "advertised at". I'm concerned that some of the BBC's Licence income is going to a shady organisation like SKY. It's another example of how "in thrall" British politicians of all persuasions have been to the Murdoch empire.

Well, first of all, I dont know what is "shady" about Sky TV. I don't recall the company ever being hauled up before any regulatory bodies, unlike the BBC and ITV.

And I can assure you that Sky show fewer adverts than ITV or other commercial channels- how much of the recent series of Downton was actually advert breaks?? And of course, thanks to the Sky+ box "pause live TV" function it's perfectly easy to avoid the ads altogether.

Besides, the BBC is hardly free from adverts these days, albeit for their own programmes. Worst of all is the BBC's recent tendency to confuse programme plugs with real news stories- not something that happens on Sky.

[Panjandrum]

When commercial TV began in 1955 it was understood that it would be funded by advertising. SKY has conned millions of people into paying a subscription to be "advertised at". I'm concerned that some of the BBC's Licence income is going to a shady organisation like SKY. It's another example of how "in thrall" British politicians of all persuasions have been to the Murdoch empire.

Where's the con? People subscribe to Sky, knowing full well that there will be ads. If they don't like them there is nothing to stop them from not renewing their subscription, unlike the licence fee. Given the amount of original programming content on Sky, subscriptions will not pay for the half of what it broadcasts.

By the way, I'd be worried about getting the thumbs up from old Amateur Dramatics. When s/he starts agreeing with an argument, you know you are on shaky ground from a logic standpoint.

[amateur51]

By the way, I'd be worried about getting the thumbs up from old Amateur Dramatics. When s/he starts agreeing with an argument, you know you are on shaky ground from a logic standpoint.

Hear! Hear! I quite agree Panyan!!

"Caught again, Emily!"*





(* Dylan Thomas)

[anotherbob]

Well, first of all, I dont know what is "shady" about Sky TV. I don't recall the company ever being hauled up before any regulatory bodies, unlike the BBC and ITV.

Politicians need to keep Rupert sweet.....

And I can assure you that Sky show fewer adverts than ITV or other commercial channels- how much of the recent series of Downton was actually advert breaks?? And of course, thanks to the Sky+ box "pause live TV" function it's perfectly easy to avoid the ads altogether.

The number of ads is not relevant, you still paid to watch them. The Sky+ box is a pretty basic PVR with very few features, and IIRC you have to pay extra to use it!

Besides, the BBC is hardly free from adverts these days, albeit for their own programmes.

Those are TRAILERS, not ads.

[Anna]

I was thinking of the situation pre-Freesat (which only came along in 2008 or so). But now that Freesat is available, as well as Freeview, there isn't really any need for the BBC or other terrestrial commercial channels to be on the Sky platform, except convenience.

Exactly. With the digital switchover, and Freeview and FreeSat, why pay your tv licence and an additional subscription to Sky and thereby line the Murdoch coffers? Why pay twice? You know it makes sense

[Frances_iom]

..
Those are TRAILERS, not ads.

if they quack like a duck .. and are just as unwelcome as on radio then what's the difference - certainly on R3 they are a right pain that jar any programme forced to have the 'unnatural' break - dothey actually work tho ? for me an advert is hit the mute button time which then brings thought do I want to listen anymore to the surrounding program 9usually No in my case as my concentration has been broken.

[Panjandrum]

Exactly. With the digital switchover, and Freeview and FreeSat, why pay your tv licence and an additional subscription to Sky and thereby line the Murdoch coffers? Why pay twice? You know it makes sense

Because there is a heck of a lot of excellent new programmes on Sky. The last few days we have been enjoying the excellent Cirque du soleil series of jaw dropping contemporary circus productions, Australian Opera's acclaimed G&S, and Attenborough's latest natural history marvel, The Bachelor King, all in glorious HD (the latter in 3D). Oh, and by the way, you will need to spend £15 at your nearest silver screen to see the latter, as it ain't coming on terrestrial TV anytime soon.

[anotherbob]

Because there is a heck of a lot of excellent new programmes on Sky. The last few days we have been enjoying the excellent Cirque du soleil series of jaw dropping contemporary circus productions, Australian Opera's acclaimed G&S, and Attenborough's latest natural history marvel, The Bachelor King, all in glorious HD (the latter in 3D). Oh, and by the way, you will need to spend £15 at your nearest silver screen to see the latter, as it ain't coming on terrestrial TV anytime soon.

Typical SKY programming.....
Safe, glossy, chocolate box stuff. Guaranteed audience, risk-free and advertiser friendly. Trebles all round.

[VodkaDilc]

Typical SKY programming.....
Safe, glossy, chocolate box stuff. Guaranteed audience, risk-free and advertiser friendly. Trebles all round.

I really find the general negativity towards Sky very surprising. I must assume that it is something which is associated with the membership of this Forum. I do not find it in the population at large - where the attitude is very positive. Sky programming apart, the technical delivery of the Sky system appears to be the most comprehensive and reliable of the post-analogue services. I do not read The Times any more - but it's not due to the ownership - it's due to the paper becoming a nasty tabloid. Is there the same antagonism here to The Times, Sunday Times and Sun? (I can't think of any other business in the country where people have a negative attitude simply because of the ownership: the former ownership of Harrods, perhaps?; the owner of Channel 5 and the Express?; people even kept buying Maxwell's papers without complaint!)

As for 'risk-free', examination of the early days of Sky will reveal what huge risks were taken and what enormous financial losses were made for many years. Someone showed vision, courage and imagination - and we have all been beneficiaries.

[scottycelt]

Typical SKY programming.....
Safe, glossy, chocolate box stuff. Guaranteed audience, risk-free and advertiser friendly. Trebles all round.

Yup, Wycombe Wanderers v Huddersfield tomorrow evening ...

[anotherbob]

Sky programming apart.....

Isn't programming the essence of any broadcasting service?

...the technical delivery of the Sky system appears to be the most comprehensive and reliable of the post-analogue services.

A gift-wrapped turd is still a turd.

As for 'risk-free', examination of the early days of Sky will reveal what huge risks were taken and what enormous financial losses were made for many years. Someone showed vision, courage and imagination - and we have all been beneficiaries.

The risks to which you refer were financial risks taken with a view to making money. Nothing wrong with that, but nothing to do with my reference to "risk-free" programming. It would be tiresome to produce a list of ground-breaking programmes produced by the BBC over the years, whereas it would be impossible to produce such a list for SKY.
Ms. Toynbee's point that Sky should pay the BBC for the right to carry its programming rather than the other way round is a fair one but even post Leveson I doubt it will exercise our masters overmuch.