Simon Hughes is to ask OFCOM this Friday if News Corp directors are "fit and proper" to hold a broadcasting licence.
Among the directors is James Murdoch, Chairman and CEO, International News Corporation who was named in parliament today.
Tom Watson, a Labour MP, used parliamentary privilege to accuse Mr Murdoch, who heads News Corp’s European operations, of perverting the course of justice with the substantial payments he authorised “without board approval” to “silence” victims of phone hacking.
Can somebody clear this up for me. With News corp/Intl wanting to buy a majority stake in bskyb... Why cannot another company jump in and do the same... trumping news corp?
Like one of the number of major corporations in the States, Viacom or Disney... Even Time Warner?
Is that viable? It is one of the most profitable British brands we have with the largest base around. And companies like Times Warner have experience in running a broadcasting cable/satellite services... So it would be perfect for them.
Because all UK tv is "locked into" Newscorp, which has the UK monopoly on satellite encryption. Now we want to give them complete control over all news ......
This whole thing is best summarised by a reader comment under one of today's Guardian articles. Gov UK is acting like a rabbit suddenly caught in car headlights, about to be squished, but hypnotised & unable to move .....
All very interesting. For brief moment, the sham facade of democratic goverment is ripped aside, revealing the actual neo-con power structure beneath. Tomorrow, it will be back to Murdoch's in control as usual.
Not even mentioning the bizarre things going on at Sky Italia .........
" "News Corporation is an international conglomerate with an ideological agenda. It seeks political power in every nation they operate. They wield that power to shut down voices that disagree with the agenda of Rupert Murdoch," Gore said."
Can somebody clear this up for me. With News corp/Intl wanting to buy a majority stake in bskyb... Why cannot another company jump in and do the same... trumping news corp?
Like one of the number of major corporations in the States, Viacom or Disney... Even Time Warner?
Is that viable? It is one of the most profitable British brands we have with the largest base around. And companies like Times Warner have experience in running a broadcasting cable/satellite services... So it would be perfect for them.
If Disney took over sky than Disneys kids channels ,ESPN & sky SPORTS would be under the same company ,If Viacom took over sky would have music channels,Comedy Central 1,2,Nick channels
Does Time Warner have any channels over here?
If Disney took over sky than Disneys kids channels ,ESPN & sky SPORTS would be under the same company ,If Viacom took over sky would have music channels,Comedy Central 1,2,Nick channels
Does Time Warner have any channels over here?
I think it is only CNN
And surely if Disney took over then they'll just scrap ESPN and make the Sky Sports channels ESPN branded sports channels?
Same with Viacom... Surely they'd just scrap some channels and rebrand the others?
Can somebody clear this up for me. With News corp/Intl wanting to buy a majority stake in bskyb... Why cannot another company jump in and do the same... trumping news corp?
Like one of the number of major corporations in the States, Viacom or Disney... Even Time Warner?
Is that viable? It is one of the most profitable British brands we have with the largest base around. And companies like Times Warner have experience in running a broadcasting cable/satellite services... So it would be perfect for them.
Theoretically yes, but - unless News Corp went into some sort of wholly unlikely extreme meltdown - it won't happen.
News Corp already has a significant share holding in BSkyB and has agreed a deal to buy the rest. All it needs is Government, Ofcom and Competition Commission endorsement and the deal is done. It's far too late for another bidder to come in now.
If, however, the BSkyB deal was blocked for some reason, which despite current events is most unlikely at the moment, then another bidder could move in or BSkyB could be broken up and sold off in chunks.
You might then see Fox (also owned by Murdoch!) buying the movie and TV entertainment channels, ESPN buying the news and sports channels, or who knows what other permutation. That is, however, at this moment really unlikely.
That said, if this scandal keeps gaining momentum, that could all change.
Mrs Brooks will be sacked - or resign, probably before 6 tonight - "Systems will be put in place, so it does not happen again" it will happen again of course, & everyone else will wriggle out from under in due course - Such is the corrupt media, that no-one can trust, that is the UK "Free press"
It's now 20 past 6 and she's still there, apparently.
Without Sky allowing other companies to use Videoguard, they're locked out!
Plenty of channels pay to use Sky's encryption platform, like the Asian specialty channels, Cinemoi, etc. You don't need a Sky subscription and they'll send you a card if you don't have one.
There are other non-Sky operators who use Videoguard too, one of the non-Virgin UK cable companies use it IIRC.
Sky charge what they like, for this monopoly service, and can refuse without reasons.
As for Cinemoi, presumably, they can afford it with tier fees!
Sky. Only "packages" - mostly stuff u don;t want - and any extra single channels at exhorbitant cost .......
With it's huge profits, wd be nice if Sky actually f*cking made some tv programmes, instead of just pointing cameras at nearest live event and throwing a bit of money at it ......
2.16 In July 2003, Oftel imposed certain regulatory conditions (the “Conditions”) on the digital TV platform operator Sky, the only supplier of TPS in the UK, requiring it to offer third parties access to CA, AC and EPG services on regulated terms.
2.17 One of the regulatory conditions imposed on Sky requires it to provide TPS on fair
and reasonable terms, conditions and charges. Another condition requires Sky to publish charges or the method for determining charges and provide 90 days notice before amending any conditional access charges, terms and conditions. Ofcom considers that it is important that the published charges or methodology should allow TPS customers to determine what charges they would expect to pay without entering into a negotiation with Sky.
2.18 Sky remains the only party regulated under the TPS regulatory provisions.
Sky charges as much as the market will pay. Much of the confusion over the regulation of Sky's prices is because Ofcom sets a cap on how much Sky can charge for wholesale supply of its channels to competitors such as Virgin Media and BT Vision. This cap is proportionate to Sky's own prices, so there is no upper or lower limit on how much Sky can charge its own customers.
Not really... CNN is an internationally known name. It could well brand sky news into being CNN UK
That definitely will not happen.
One of the critical elements of the BSkyB take over has been retaining the independence of Sky News, in respect of both its editorial control and it's identity. It clearly does not have an audience - normally - of the scale of the news output of BBC1 or ITV1, but it wields huge significance and influence and is regarded as an exceptionally important part of UK media.
Not only will BSkyB's deal almost certainly go through, Sky News will remain an independent entity.
Sky charges as much as the market will pay. Much of the confusion over the regulation of Sky's prices is because Ofcom sets a cap on how much Sky can charge for wholesale supply of its channels to competitors such as Virgin Media and BT Vision. This cap is proportionate to Sky's own prices, so there is no upper or lower limit on how much Sky can charge its own customers.
Effectively, Sky does what it likes, and htere's no regulation.
That's why giving it even more monopoly power is a very bad idea.
Sky's a bit like Tesco, putting everyone else out of business (that's it Spiney, libel everyone )........
Effectively, Sky does what it likes, and htere's no regulation.
That's why giving it even more monopoly power is a very bad idea.
It has been shown that you're wrong, particularly when it comes to encryption. But it seems you ignore Ofcom's own statement and instead reiterate your (incorrect) point.
EPG, conditional access and access control charges are all charged on a fair and reasonable basis, with Ofcom wielding power if it didn't.
Scotland Yard have reportedly confirmed Rebekah Wade/Brooks attended a meeting at Scotland Yard in March 2002 where concerns were raised with her regarding the actions of one of her senior journalists.
Brooks was summoned to a meeting at Scotland Yard where she was told that one of her most senior journalists, Alex Marunchak, had apparently agreed to use photographers and vans leased to the paper to run surveillance on behalf of Jonathan Rees and Sid Fillery, two private investigators who were suspected of murdering their former partner, Daniel Morgan.
Rees ..... was jailed for planting cocaine on a woman in order to discredit her during divorce proceedings. After his release from prison Rees, who had been bugged for six months by Scotland Yard because of his links with corrupt police officers, was rehired by the News of the World, which was being edited by Andy Coulson.
Sid Fillery, who was still running the agency and working for Fleet Street, also got himself arrested and charged with 15 counts of making indecent images of children and one count of possessing indecent images. This was reported in national media. He was later convicted.
These were the sort of people the News of The World were knowingly employing.
Comments
The largest advertiser is Sky.
Among the directors is James Murdoch, Chairman and CEO, International News Corporation who was named in parliament today.
Like one of the number of major corporations in the States, Viacom or Disney... Even Time Warner?
Is that viable? It is one of the most profitable British brands we have with the largest base around. And companies like Times Warner have experience in running a broadcasting cable/satellite services... So it would be perfect for them.
This whole thing is best summarised by a reader comment under one of today's Guardian articles. Gov UK is acting like a rabbit suddenly caught in car headlights, about to be squished, but hypnotised & unable to move .....
All very interesting. For brief moment, the sham facade of democratic goverment is ripped aside, revealing the actual neo-con power structure beneath. Tomorrow, it will be back to Murdoch's in control as usual.
Not even mentioning the bizarre things going on at Sky Italia .........
" "News Corporation is an international conglomerate with an ideological agenda. It seeks political power in every nation they operate. They wield that power to shut down voices that disagree with the agenda of Rupert Murdoch," Gore said."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/19/al-gore-rupert-mudoch-news-corp
http://trecancelle.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/91-bbc-entertainment-has-fallen-from-the-italian-sky/
If Disney took over sky than Disneys kids channels ,ESPN & sky SPORTS would be under the same company ,If Viacom took over sky would have music channels,Comedy Central 1,2,Nick channels
Does Time Warner have any channels over here?
And surely if Disney took over then they'll just scrap ESPN and make the Sky Sports channels ESPN branded sports channels?
Same with Viacom... Surely they'd just scrap some channels and rebrand the others?
Theoretically yes, but - unless News Corp went into some sort of wholly unlikely extreme meltdown - it won't happen.
News Corp already has a significant share holding in BSkyB and has agreed a deal to buy the rest. All it needs is Government, Ofcom and Competition Commission endorsement and the deal is done. It's far too late for another bidder to come in now.
If, however, the BSkyB deal was blocked for some reason, which despite current events is most unlikely at the moment, then another bidder could move in or BSkyB could be broken up and sold off in chunks.
You might then see Fox (also owned by Murdoch!) buying the movie and TV entertainment channels, ESPN buying the news and sports channels, or who knows what other permutation. That is, however, at this moment really unlikely.
That said, if this scandal keeps gaining momentum, that could all change.
It's now 20 past 6 and she's still there, apparently.
Plenty of channels pay to use Sky's encryption platform, like the Asian specialty channels, Cinemoi, etc. You don't need a Sky subscription and they'll send you a card if you don't have one.
There are other non-Sky operators who use Videoguard too, one of the non-Virgin UK cable companies use it IIRC.
They would have to keep sky's name as its been using the sky name for 27 years now,
As for Cinemoi, presumably, they can afford it with tier fees!
Sky. Only "packages" - mostly stuff u don;t want - and any extra single channels at exhorbitant cost .......
With it's huge profits, wd be nice if Sky actually f*cking made some tv programmes, instead of just pointing cameras at nearest live event and throwing a bit of money at it ......
Many of the things Sky does are heavily regulated and price controlled to prevent them becoming too dominant.
They cannot refuse channels onto their EPG (providing they pay the bills), and presumably that extends to the use of their encryption platform too.
And so what as I read
News Corporation, which owns about half (49%)
They charge whatever they like. Which excludes most things.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/tpsguidelines/statement/statement.pdf
That definitely will not happen.
One of the critical elements of the BSkyB take over has been retaining the independence of Sky News, in respect of both its editorial control and it's identity. It clearly does not have an audience - normally - of the scale of the news output of BBC1 or ITV1, but it wields huge significance and influence and is regarded as an exceptionally important part of UK media.
Not only will BSkyB's deal almost certainly go through, Sky News will remain an independent entity.
Effectively, Sky does what it likes, and htere's no regulation.
That's why giving it even more monopoly power is a very bad idea.
Sky's a bit like Tesco, putting everyone else out of business (that's it Spiney, libel everyone )........
It has been shown that you're wrong, particularly when it comes to encryption. But it seems you ignore Ofcom's own statement and instead reiterate your (incorrect) point.
EPG, conditional access and access control charges are all charged on a fair and reasonable basis, with Ofcom wielding power if it didn't.
That was 2002 in 2000....
August 2003...
These were the sort of people the News of The World were knowingly employing.