BBC on Sky - "a farce apparently..."
29 May 2003, 01:38 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 1,430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
29 May 2003, 01:57 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My mum is well pissed off with the sat changeover, she lies in Tenerife and satellite was the only way she could get BBC channels and now they've disappeared. They've even stopped showing Eastenders on BBC Prime so she is now trying to get into the Spanish soaps 
29 May 2003, 03:28 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah fair point Jlanng, its just it’s so frustrating when the customer ends up suffering. Our system was installed a while back so the dish probably just needs repositioning slightly. Anyway it looks like summer is finally here and there’s far too many BBQs and other such outdoor activities to enjoy to worry about what’s on the telly
29 May 2003, 03:32 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Bushey
Posts: 2,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is very much the BBC's doing if you read the article. They made the switch to the new satellite which has a much reduced footprint, at the same time they cancelled the agreement with Sky. Sky do not have to subsidise the BBC, we do that already, and for the BBC to assume they will get any favours from a private broadcaster is stupidity bordering on incompetence. The BBC is cutting into Sky's audience with channels that are similar and also free to view, if you were Sky, would you help them???
The unfortunate consequence of all this is that British viewers abroad will no longer be able to watch the Beeb, but that was the BBC's intention from the start.........
The unfortunate consequence of all this is that British viewers abroad will no longer be able to watch the Beeb, but that was the BBC's intention from the start.........
Trending Topics
29 May 2003, 04:14 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 9,781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reffro, the BBC were effectively subsidising Sky - which can't be right. Their solution was to move to another satellite which covers the UK (you shouldn't be able receive BBC channels abroad anyway). It so happens that some dishes that weren't installed correctly can't see this satellite
29 May 2003, 05:15 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Bushey
Posts: 2,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, the BBC were paying Sky to broadcast the BBC channels via Sky's encrypted service to Sky subscribers, not subsidising. Sky were not making any additional charge to receive the channels to their customers, the charge involved paid for the programmes to be broadcast, and for the programme listings to available to Sky viewers. The BBC in order to meet their contract obligations regarding where programmes they bought could be viewed, had to get Sky to encrypt their programmes before transmission via Sky. The BBC could have transmitted the programmes via the existing satellite, but without encryption they would have been available to any viewer in Europe effectively. The charge paid by the BBC to Sky covered the costs the transmission, encryption, programme listings etc etc, it was not a subsidy.
It allowed the BBC to launch its digital programmes to satellite viewers far earlier than would have been possible otherwise, remember the BBC have been on Sky for years.
Now the BBC are able to transmit the same channels and programmes via a different satellite which has a much smaller footprint. They don't have to encrypt the channels any more, as nobody outside of the UK should be able to view them. That being the case, the BBC have cancelled their contract with Sky, Sky have ceased transmission, and now people are having trouble with their reception.
Any problems are due to the BBC, not Sky, remember Sky have installed the satellite equipment for people to view Sky's programmes. People are still able to do that without interuption...
It allowed the BBC to launch its digital programmes to satellite viewers far earlier than would have been possible otherwise, remember the BBC have been on Sky for years.
Now the BBC are able to transmit the same channels and programmes via a different satellite which has a much smaller footprint. They don't have to encrypt the channels any more, as nobody outside of the UK should be able to view them. That being the case, the BBC have cancelled their contract with Sky, Sky have ceased transmission, and now people are having trouble with their reception.
Any problems are due to the BBC, not Sky, remember Sky have installed the satellite equipment for people to view Sky's programmes. People are still able to do that without interuption...
30 May 2003, 01:48 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
who says they were charging too much money? I know the figure of £85m was placed but there is no info there to give that a context, you have no idea how much "profit" sky made out of that figure or how much anyone else (such as ITV) pays sky for the same service.
30 May 2003, 10:16 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 9,781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
who says they were charging too much money? I know the figure of £85m was placed but there is no info there to give that a context, you have no idea how much "profit" sky made out of that figure or how much anyone else (such as ITV) pays sky for the same service.
30 May 2003, 10:53 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
point taken. Sorry mate didn't intend any antagonism by my post. The "you" in my post didn't really refer to you more to the fact that the article linked to here gives no real context to that figure of £85.
. The BBC reckon they're going to save £85m, and it looks like ITV and Channel 5 may follow suit, although Sky are sure to offer a sweetener for them to stay!
02 June 2003, 10:05 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the last time I turned the telly on to watch terrestrial tv was errrr... that long ago I can't remember.
GET A LIFE
Just turned it on to see what utter dross they are churning out these days
flick, flick, flick, hmm
Big brother I suppose is remotely watchable...
I have my own life to live with out watching someone elses
Andy
GET A LIFE
Just turned it on to see what utter dross they are churning out these days
flick, flick, flick, hmm
Big brother I suppose is remotely watchable...
I have my own life to live with out watching someone elses
Andy
03 June 2003, 11:40 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sussex
Posts: 950
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to recall that there was also a dispute between Sky and ITV about the transmission costs for ITV2 and hence it took its time before appearing on Sky.
Seems to me that if the BBC can save £85 million by moving to a different satelitte Sky were making too much money out of the deal. After all that £85 million represents a lot of Licence fees!
For those outside the UK I suppose its tough, but then they shouldn't have been able to get them anyway.
Seems to me that if the BBC can save £85 million by moving to a different satelitte Sky were making too much money out of the deal. After all that £85 million represents a lot of Licence fees!
For those outside the UK I suppose its tough, but then they shouldn't have been able to get them anyway.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
The Joshua Tree
Computer & Technology Related
30
28 September 2015 02:43 PM