Polly proposes that Sky should save the BBC's finances

[anotherbob]

I wonder if the BBC pays Virgin Media to appear on their platform. I doubt it. It makes no sense at all for them to pay Sky since their output is available on Freeview, Freesat and Virgin. It would be interesting to see the reaction from people who only have Sky equipment if they were suddenly deprived of populist pap like East Enders and Strictly Come Dancing. Sky would soon be cap in hand offering a king's ransom to get the Beeb on board again.
The issue is quite trivial when compared with the Murdoch companies' influence on the Politics and Culture of the UK over the years. Closing his speech at the Edinburgh International Television Festival Murdoch minor said,
"The only reliable, durable, and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit."
News Corp needs to fight off any political party who looks likely to inhibit this single-minded approach and the best way of doing that, as has been demonstrated repeatedly over the years, is to control print media which unlike TV channels can take overt political positions and exert influence over the unthinking proletariat (aka silent majority) whose votes grant political power.
I can only assume that pro-News Corp folk here (and elsewhere) either do not accept the truth of this or are quite content with it.

[John Skelton]

I wonder if the BBC pays Virgin Media to appear on their platform. I doubt it.

It doesn't, no. Not that Virgin is exactly the BBC's friend http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...fast-broadband.

It makes no sense at all for them to pay Sky since their output is available on Freeview, Freesat and Virgin.

Here is Sky's take on the issue. http://corporate.sky.com/skyviews/ed...oadcasting.htm

I am not "pro-News Corp" (or any other Corp), but it is perhaps useful to see what their response is. The third comment on that response from Dave is interesting. One thing that seems to have been assumed here so far (?) is that the BBC is uniquely involved. It isn't, but I can't find the amount ITV pay Sky (I can find an article on a previous pricing dispute between ITV and Sky http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...ss.itvbusiness).

I can't see that there's anything to stop the BBC telling Sky they no longer want them to provide a 'platform' for the channels, if it is in the BBC's interest to do so and if they feel Sky needs them more than the BBC needs Sky. One issue might be the BBC's development of HD programmes, but I know nothing about HD television other than that it exists .

[Mr Pee]

Closing his speech at the Edinburgh International Television Festival Murdoch minor said,
"The only reliable, durable, and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit."

It doesn't matter whether you're manufacturing cars, selling frozen peas, or running aTV station- if you become unprofitable and therefore require outside investment to keep operating then you will inevitably lose some degree of independence, because in return for their investment, those investors will gain influence over the company. That's just business.

Surely that's obvious.

[Flosshilde]

... The BBC gain many more viewers by so doing, to whom they then can then also flog their inummerable commercial by-products as a result.
...
10 million quid is a tiny proportion of the BBC's overall budget.

So that's the totality of your argument in support of SKY's profiting from licence-payer's money? The rest of your post is the usual puffery for Sky. Whatever Murdoch's paying you, it isn't enough - I should ask for a rise if I were you.

[anotherbob]

It doesn't matter whether you're manufacturing cars, selling frozen peas, or running aTV station- if you become unprofitable and therefore require outside investment to keep operating then you will inevitably lose some degree of independence, because in return for their investment, those investors will gain influence over the company. That's just business.

Surely that's obvious.

You're very selective in your response to my post. Does that mean you have no aswers to the rest of it?
Or perhaps you're waiting for instructions.

[amateur51]

You're very selective in your response to my post. Does that mean you have no aswers to the rest of it?
Or perhaps you're waiting for instructions.

Well spotted, anotherbob!

[Mr Pee]

You're very selective in your response to my post. Does that mean you have no aswers to the rest of it?
Or perhaps you're waiting for instructions.

Waiting for intructions? From whom, pray?

Anyway, the central point of your post was that it is somehow morally wrong for a business such as Sky to make a profit. a viewpoint that I find rather hard to understand. As for being deprived of "populist pap"- rather condescending- I for one would not miss either of the two programmes you mention.

And of course,according to you, the "unthinking proletariat"- there's that condescension again - are clearly incapable of independent thought and are exclusively guided in their voting intentions by newpapers, which it seems are nothing more than a propaganda tool for the Murdochs to enable them to exert their malign influence over the brainwashed British public.

Athough I guess most posters to this thread wouldn't object to that if the newspaper in question was The Guardian.

[amateur51]

Athough I guess most posters to this thread wouldn't object to that if the newspaper in question was The Guardian.

"Is there really any need for that sort of juvenile unpleasantness??"

You couldn't make it up!

[anotherbob]

Waiting for intructions? From whom, pray?

Damien?

Anyway, the central point of your post was that it is somehow morally wrong for a business such as Sky to make a profit......

Wrong.

And of course,according to you, the "unthinking proletariat"- there's that condescension again - are clearly incapable of independent thought and are exclusively guided in their voting intentions by newpapers, which it seems are nothing more than a propaganda tool for the Murdochs to enable them to exert their malign influence over the brainwashed British public.

GOT IT!...not in one, but you got it. That's the central point. It doesn't take many votes to swing an election.

Athough I guess most posters to this thread wouldn't object to that if the newspaper in question was The Guardian.

Not me.

[Mr Pee]

"Is there really any need for that sort of juvenile unpleasantness??"

You couldn't make it up!

Couldn't make what up? I think it's safe to say that the majority of contributors to this thread would not buy The Times at any price, and that their preferred "serious" newspaper is the Guardian. I don't regard that as juvenile unpleasantness.

[VodkaDilc]

Couldn't make what up? I think it's safe to say that the majority of contributors to this thread would not buy The Times at any price, and that their preferred "serious" newspaper is the Guardian. I don't regard that as juvenile unpleasantness.

That sums me up, though my dislike of The Times is due to its poor quality, not to its ownership.

I see that no-one has yet commented on my suggestion yesterday that The Guardian is losing its appeal through constantly dropping parts of the physical paper. Is The Telegraph the only answer (and, as Polly would say, "reading the political bits wearing a nosepeg"?)

[John Skelton]

I wonder what the outcome of this http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/apr/27/bskyb.itv was? ITV's case being that the BBC had negotiated a preferential rate with Sky:

"Under this deal, the BBC is thought to pay about £4m to ensure that regional versions of BBC1 and BBC2 appear in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The BBC's main channels were also given slots on Sky's electronic programme guide (EPG) of 101 and 102. The deal marked the decision by the BBC to go 'in the clear' rather than pay for full encryption.

In contrast, ITV pays Sky £17m a year for full conditional access and encryption services, which it argued was discriminatory."

This is interesting (if boringly close to on-topic) http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...-itv-channel-4

"As for the BBC boss, to be clear, he did not expect the 'free at the point of use' BBC to start charging. But he said that Sky – and Virgin Media – should start paying for carrying ITV1, Channel 4 and Channel 5, broadcasters that invest heavily in popular, and usually British, programming.

Calculations based of international comparisons, adjusted to take into account the specifics of the UK market, indicate that in the region of £120m per year could be extracted from BSkyB, for the most part, but also from Virgin. If, that is, either distributor could actually be prevailed upon to pay. 'This has been slow burn, but we all have an interest in this and it is now definitely on the table among broadcasters,' said one senior TV executive. 'We all pay a fair amount of money to Sky and provide them with free channels, but no money flows to us. Yet where would their platform be without PSB channels? How many people would subscribe?'

So the issue is complicated by ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 arguing for Sky to pay to show their programmes, the BBC perhaps supporting that in some sort of solidarity or as a Trojan Horse over the retransmission fee ... capitalism is so cuddly you just want to take it home and feed it boiled sweets.

(Apologies that the links are to The Guardian. I couldn't find anything in my newspapers of choice, The Morning Star and The Commune).

[amateur51]

Couldn't make what up? I think it's safe to say that the majority of contributors to this thread would not buy The Times at any price, and that their preferred "serious" newspaper is the Guardian. I don't regard that as juvenile unpleasantness.

You perpetually use this Board to slag off the Guardian and praise Sky to the heights and to mock Guardian readers and NI critics

That's what's juvenile & unpleasant about it

[Flosshilde]

You couldn't make it up!

Mr P can, & does, constantly.

[anotherbob]

....said one senior TV executive. 'We all pay a fair amount of money to Sky and provide them with free channels, but no money flows to us. Yet where would their platform be without PSB channels? How many people would subscribe?'

Perhaps ITV, C5 and 5 should not be regarded in quite the same way as the BBC in this matter. They all carry advertising and so presumably their revenue is boosted by the additional numbers watching via Sky equipment.
The gobbledegook from the Sky Commercial Director contained in one of your links in an earlier post makes as much sense as did Murdoch minor before the Leveson hearing. Perhaps they went to the same busines school.
The simple business position appears to me that the BBC, ITV, C4 and 5 are all in a very strong position from which to say to Sky... "Either pay to carry our channels on your platform or we will withdraw."

....
(Apologies that the links are to The Guardian. I couldn't find anything in my newspapers of choice, The Morning Star and The Commune).