Channel 4 would like to turn Sky "retransmission fees" into programming
Brian Butterworth published on UK Free TV According to C4 breaks 'retransmission fees' silence - News - Broadcast, Channel 4's Dan Brooke told a VLV event that:
"At the moment, we don’t have a say in it – we are given a rate card, which is agreed by Ofcom and Sky. If that money wasn’t going out of the door we’d be delighted, and would put that money back into programming. Fees were introduced to give Sky a leg up when they first launched here – I don’t think anyone would say they need a leg up anymore. "
Brooke was joined on the panel by academic Steven Barnett, who pushed fervently for retransmission fees to be dropped, describing the current situation as “ludicrousâ€Â.
He called for existing "must offer" rules that apply to all the PSBs to be matched by "must carry" rules from platforms at "zero terms".
Help with Which system?
In this section
Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Just wondering.
Do Sky count BBC3 and CBBC as two channels, also BBC4 and CBeebies as two channels?
If they do then they could turn two channels into 24 hour channels, close the other two channels and save the cost of two EGP slots.
EG BBC3 showing only kids programs up to 7pm then BBC3 programs.
BBC4 showing baby programs only up to 7pm then BBC4 programs.
| link to this comment |
Mark's: mapM's Freeview map terrainM's terrain plot wavesM's frequency data M's Freeview Detailed Coverage
Thursday, 20 October 2011
M
Mike Dimmick12:16 AM
Mark A: Two EPG slots, so two charges. They are also listed separately in Annex 1 due to being audited separately by BARB.
The EPG slots cost £21,000 each; the Platform Contribution Charge is the large bit:
BBC Three: £871,045
BBC Four: £271,615
CBBC: £299,715
CBeebies: £776,750
Assuming that the aggregate viewing figures didn't drop for each segment of viewing, I would assume that the same total would be charged under your scenario as now.
Also, I don't think the BBC channels appear at the same EPG numbers in the Republic of Ireland EPG, so the charges in section B4 probably apply as well.
| link to this comment |
M
Mike Dimmick12:21 AM
Ian Grice: BY LAW Sky, and all other EPG providers, must put BBC One, BBC Two, ITV1, C4 and C5 at the top of their EPG. The idiots who drafted the law forgot to set down any rules about how much the EPG providers are allowed to charge for the privilege.
As previously stated, the majority of the charges are for 'platform contribution' (box subsidy), NOT for carriage in the EPG, although the complexities of different regionalization arrangements for different broadcasters means the number of sub-bouquets - and the charges for appearing in each one - has exploded.
Are YOU happy for your licence fee to subsidise new boxes for new Sky subscribers? I don't object to boxes being subsidised from the subscriber's own subscription fees - a hire-purchase model, like mobile phones - I DO object to the licence fee being hijacked for the purpose.
| link to this comment |
U
U2:19 PM
About 10 years ago Sky had no PBS channels on their EPG in ROI.This put them at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis NTL cable(now rebranded UPC)who had all Irish and British PBS channels at the top of Epg.Irish channels first.NTL also distributed multichannel tv to rural areas by microwave.A decoder was neccessary for reception of their tv system.Sky felt obliged to compete and contacted Irish and British tv providers for permission to put their channels on Sky EPG.BBC and channel 4 group agreed provided an annual fee was paid.
| link to this comment |
Mike, I'm not happy paying a licence fee at all. Let the BBC compete for funds like the rest of the channels.
| link to this comment |
Ian's: mapI's Freeview map terrainI's terrain plot wavesI's frequency data I's Freeview Detailed Coverage
Sunday, 23 October 2011
K
Kentman12:15 PM
To Ian Grice
I am very happy to pay the licence fee the cost of a pint of beer a week, for a house hold, and not plagued by adverts. The average
cost of Sky is £10 per week and adverts on top of that, do you really want a TV system like that.
Why did the PSB channels give Sky a leg up to start off! it was political interference of course. If someone had a corner shop business running for 30 years would you give a new start up shop a leg up to start, of course not. If Sky was to start up in a true
free market they would have failed within a couple of years, so once again as with Banks
Capitalism for some Socialism for Bankers and Murdoch when in trouble.
| link to this comment |
J
jb381:12 PM
Kentman: Well said!! and exactly my own point of view on this subject.
| link to this comment |
Monday, 24 October 2011
How come every one comes out with the usual about Murdoch? What about all the wrangaling that went on when cable companys first started?? BT wanted to start installing fiber optics at that time but were stopped by lobbying MP's who said it would be very unfair to the new cable companys.
| link to this comment |
Ian's: mapI's Freeview map terrainI's terrain plot wavesI's frequency data I's Freeview Detailed Coverage
Ian: This is quite a useful listen if you want a bit of a backgrounder. BBC iPlayer - Archive on 4: Murdoch at 80 .
I thought it was PM Thatcher who included the band on "no entertainment services" on BT, to protect the cable companies?
| link to this comment |
D
Duncan12:18 PM
@ kentman
you say you are happy to pay the cost of a pint of beer a week to subsidise the BBC, maybe you meant the price of one as the cost to make a pint of beer is only pennies as it's mostly water.
I would argue that beer is a good anaolgy for the BBC though, as with most mass manufactured English beer, its programmes are weak and full of froth and although you might think watching them does you good, in the morning you wake up with a bad head and no memory of where you were last night. The only thing you have to show for it is an empty wallet and a poorly belly!
| link to this comment |
Select more comments
Your comment please