unless i have mis-interpeted your post (it has been known to happen) you are saying that sky provide news services (conent?) for IRN...is that right? and that IRn had the choice of getting those services from either Sky or ITN..and IRn choose sky over ITN ...or am i going mad?
According to the various reports I have read, that is correct. Hopefully someone will confirm whether or not IRN pay Sky for the news service, or the other way around. If it's the latter, I will be more than happy to admit my understanding of how it works was mistaken.
unless i have mis-interpeted your post (it has been known to happen) you are saying that sky provide news services (conent?) for IRN...is that right? and that IRn had the choice of getting those services from either Sky or ITN..and IRn choose sky over ITN ...or am i going mad?
They want with the best at the end of the day and thats sky.
I think people are geting upset as is SKY,
Some people do not like the fact that SKY is now a big boardcaster. They think BBC should be the only one is is so big.
They want with the best at the end of the day and thats sky.
I think people are geting upset as is SKY,
Some people do not like the fact that SKY is now a big boardcaster. They think BBC should be the only one is is so big.
Sais who? I think the probem is big broadcasters like Sky moan about the BBC for being too big when many could argue that Sky is.
Murdoch and news Corp have been dealing and financing the regime of Korean Dictator Kim Jong il despite FOX and SKY being against the man and his regime. Sorry slightly off post but it made me laugh. Apologies
Last time I checked, Tesco wasn't due to be gifted up to potentially 84.7% of their industry, something Ofcom has done for BSkyB by allowing them to launch a pay TV service on DTT if they so choose.
However, BSkyB markets or 'sells' a product to the consumer, namely the Premier League and has made efforts to stop anyone else selling the same product.
Whilst there is competition between supermarkets, one does not stop another selling Heinz Baked Beans.
If your not happy with the service then turn the channel, dont subscribe or don't watch it. And if their not providing a service the public wants they would soon be out of business with alternative services starting up. The great thing about SKY, and other services you are not forced to pay for them like you are with the BBC.
If you still want to split the company up, getogether with lots of your friends, buy a few billion pounds worth of shares, once you have 100% ownership, then you could break the company up.
No, these radio stations are free to broadcast their own news services if they so choose. Nothing is forcing them to use SKY or IRN. They choose to use sky due to value for money. Unlike us the public who are forced to pay for the BBC if you watch it or not.
However, BSkyB markets or 'sells' a product to the consumer, namely the Premier League and has made efforts to stop anyone else selling the same product.
And when OFCOM interference with sky sports premier rights, instead of paying for one service, we're forced to pay for 2, to get the complete service. Any time government interference with the free market its us the consumer who is always worse off.
If you think SKY SPORTS is expensive, then don't watch it or why not go down to your local pub or go to the actual real life match.
You are also free to get together with your friends and buy the rights. You could start your own football league to compete with the premier league. Yes you may need lots of money, but hey million others may donate if you have a decent enough business plan.
How much of an interest has News Corp actually got in BSKYB.
I was not aware that RM has got any controlling share in BSkyB at the moment, or have I missed something ?.
Typically British left wing this topic, lets break up a successful business, unless its a nationlised public funded one.
:mad:
I also note these type of calls have intensified since good old Richard has conveniently sold his TV channels and concentrated on TV delivery.
News Corpse is currently engaged in a hostile takeover bid for the remaining, I believe approximately 60% of BSkyB shares it does not own outright. Their intention is to take the company back into a private company status which would mean far less financial information about it would have to be made public. Other parts of the businesses listed like the newspapers and the encryption services it has much larger, if not full, holdings. I also believe the Murdoch family mafia - there is another son and a daughter - together have a very large but not majority shareholding of News Corp.
These have quite significant detrimental effects on the other shareholders of the two companies given that the Murdochs are in such positions of power within both.
More seriously, the heavy reliance Sky has (apart from its sports programming) on foreign sourced material has a negative effect on the TV and radio production industry in this country. In house production has long been seen (since the days of Thatcher) as having a stifling effect on creativity which is why Channel 4 was set up and why the BBC is having to source many of its TV and increasingly radio programmes from independent companies.
You can equally argue that the very high prices Sky were willing to pay to get monopoly broadcast rights over sporting fixtures is directly responsible for the BBC not having funds to put into the sort of adventurous programmes it was famous for in the 1960s and 1970s. As serious is the "dumbing down" effect stations like Sky News have had on BBC output. The emphasis on getting things to the air first, however inaccurate, is a Sky News trademark. You can even extend that to say that the present coalition was too hastily put together (other countries take weeks to agree programmes for government) precisely because of the hysteria whipped up by Sky News style reporting and their helicopter hovering over Whitehall to catch every coming and going.
The Murdoch moans also sanctioned governments of both main parties to salami slice the BBC - by taking large chunks out of the licence fee to pay for DSO and, after that the proposal is to again grab large amounts to pay for rural areas to get broadband.
Murdoch could not operate in a similar way in the USA or France. In the USA, foreign owners are not allowed to control networks and newspapers to the extent they are here by News Corp, which is why he took out US citizenship. In France, broadcasters are required to have a high proportion of programmes made in the country.
The Murdochs object to the £145.50 licence fee to mostly go to the BBC (even though they get to include their programmes on their service) because they would rather get a minimum of £240 a year themselves from their subscribers plus the money they also get from them indirectly by the increased cost of goods in the shops to pay for advertising fees.
According to the various reports I have read, that is correct. Hopefully someone will confirm whether or not IRN pay Sky for the news service, or the other way around. If it's the latter, I will be more than happy to admit my understanding of how it works was mistaken.
IRN pay SKY to provide the national news to commercial radio stations.
The stations contracts are still with IRN not Sky & the websites radio stations use to get audio & stories from are still IRN
No, these radio stations are free to broadcast their own news services if they so choose. Nothing is forcing them to use SKY or IRN. They choose to use sky due to value for money. Unlike us the public who are forced to pay for the BBC if you watch it or not.
No, these radio stations are free to broadcast their own news services if they so choose. Nothing is forcing them to use SKY or IRN. They choose to use sky due to value for money. Unlike us the public who are forced to pay for the BBC if you watch it or not.
Stop this silly canard. Every time you go shopping you pay a bit extra so that the company that produces or sells or processes the payment for your car/insurance/furniture/food and drink/detergents etc can pay for the advertising on Sky or other commercial broadcasters.
The dividing total UK advertising by the number of households (2008 figures), the amount per household was six times the BBC licence fee (£837.50)
Applying the same to the 2009 figures but only using the amounts for TV advertising means each household's share is virtually exactly what their TV licence cost.
And everybody pays these higher prices for their goods or services whether they watch commercial television stations or not.
Sais who? I think the probem is big broadcasters like Sky moan about the BBC for being too big when many could argue that Sky is.
lets face facts here, both organisation are large, the problem that some people have is that one is publically funded and the other is a successful commercial organisation.
no one is saying that there should not be any Public service broadcasters what is important is that the public sector do not limit/restrain the ability of commercial operators to be successful, notable point being that the bbc provide vaste sways of news coverage for free, i am not talking about access to world, european, national news however the provision of wider subjects, for instance, sports, business, celebrity, gardening, motoring, etc etc goes beyond the public service remit - in my opinion.
And to back up my statement, you need to have a bit of a working knowledge of the share dealings of Global radio.;)[/quote]
so lets clear this up, you stated sky had a monoploy, which now you have changed to "dominant", secondly you said that sky had bought out IRN, which now seems to also be inacurate as IRN, elected to take their news services from sky over ITN....
now you expect me to beleive you have some kind of insider knowledge when you have not exactly been solid on facts thus far.
Up pops slo-mo and Lawrence with their usual BBC bashing diatribe.
I provided the Radio news sources because nobody seemed to notice that early in the thread.
or
up pop lawrence to challegen milkw on some of his posts - when challenge milkw changes his story.....hardly anti bbc maybe more about acurate information.
And to back up my statement, you need to have a bit of a working knowledge of the share dealings of Global radio.;)
so lets clear this up, you stated sky had a monoploy, which now you have changed to "dominant", secondly you said that sky had bought out IRN, which now seems to also be inacurate as IRN, elected to take their news services from sky over ITN....
now you expect me to beleive you have some kind of insider knowledge when you have not exactly been solid on facts thus far.[/QUOTE]
And this from someone who was "unaware" of Sky's involvement in commercial radio news!:D
Like it or not, if you want to buy in news for commercial radio you have to go to Sky for it.
lets face facts here, both organisation are large, the problem that some people have is that one is publically funded and the other is a successful commercial organisation.
no one is saying that there should not be any Public service broadcasters what is important is that the public sector do not limit/restrain the ability of commercial operators to be successful, notable point being that the bbc provide vaste sways of news coverage for free, i am not talking about access to world, european, national news however the provision of wider subjects, for instance, sports, business, celebrity, gardening, motoring, etc etc goes beyond the public service remit - in my opinion.
So, the BBC don't seem to be preventing Sky do they?
However, BSkyB markets or 'sells' a product to the consumer, namely the Premier League and has made efforts to stop anyone else selling the same product.
Whilst there is competition between supermarkets, one does not stop another selling Heinz Baked Beans.
there are a number of brand exculsive to certain super markets, the duchy range in waitrose springs to mind.
And when OFCOM interference with sky sports premier rights, instead of paying for one service, we're forced to pay for 2, to get the complete service. Any time government interference with the free market its us the consumer who is always worse off.
If you think SKY SPORTS is expensive, then don't watch it or why not go down to your local pub or go to the actual real life match.
You are also free to get together with your friends and buy the rights. You could start your own football league to compete with the premier league. Yes you may need lots of money, but hey million others may donate if you have a decent enough business plan.
. In France, broadcasters are required to have a high proportion of programmes made in the country.
.
So what in frace broadcasters have ot have a high proportion of programmes made in the country.
I bet some of the progammes are bad.
I like how over here there is no rules on how much programmes have to be made this country.
It should be up to the broadcasters in how much if any home made programmes they do.
Stop this silly canard. Every time you go shopping you pay a bit extra so that the company that produces or sells or processes the payment for your car/insurance/furniture/food and drink/detergents etc can pay for the advertising on Sky or other commercial broadcasters.
The dividing total UK advertising by the number of households (2008 figures), the amount per household was six times the BBC licence fee (£837.50)
Applying the same to the 2009 figures but only using the amounts for TV advertising means each household's share is virtually exactly what their TV licence cost.
And everybody pays these higher prices for their goods or services whether they watch commercial television stations or not.
Speaking of silly canards, we have had the "does advertising increase prices?" discussion on these forums many times previously, with no one able to provide any actual evidence that it does.
Comments
According to the various reports I have read, that is correct. Hopefully someone will confirm whether or not IRN pay Sky for the news service, or the other way around. If it's the latter, I will be more than happy to admit my understanding of how it works was mistaken.
They want with the best at the end of the day and thats sky.
I think people are geting upset as is SKY,
Some people do not like the fact that SKY is now a big boardcaster. They think BBC should be the only one is is so big.
They provide IRN too.
And to back up my statement, you need to have a bit of a working knowledge of the share dealings of Global radio.;)
indeed.
This whole thread is about Sky getting big.
Up pops slo-mo and Lawrence with their usual BBC bashing diatribe.
I provided the Radio news sources because nobody seemed to notice that early in the thread.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-06/kim-jong-il-bowls-for-murdoch-dollars-with-video-games-made-in-north-korea.html
However, BSkyB markets or 'sells' a product to the consumer, namely the Premier League and has made efforts to stop anyone else selling the same product.
Whilst there is competition between supermarkets, one does not stop another selling Heinz Baked Beans.
If your not happy with the service then turn the channel, dont subscribe or don't watch it. And if their not providing a service the public wants they would soon be out of business with alternative services starting up. The great thing about SKY, and other services you are not forced to pay for them like you are with the BBC.
If you still want to split the company up, getogether with lots of your friends, buy a few billion pounds worth of shares, once you have 100% ownership, then you could break the company up.
John
No, these radio stations are free to broadcast their own news services if they so choose. Nothing is forcing them to use SKY or IRN. They choose to use sky due to value for money. Unlike us the public who are forced to pay for the BBC if you watch it or not.
And when OFCOM interference with sky sports premier rights, instead of paying for one service, we're forced to pay for 2, to get the complete service. Any time government interference with the free market its us the consumer who is always worse off.
If you think SKY SPORTS is expensive, then don't watch it or why not go down to your local pub or go to the actual real life match.
You are also free to get together with your friends and buy the rights. You could start your own football league to compete with the premier league. Yes you may need lots of money, but hey million others may donate if you have a decent enough business plan.
And a monopoly is not always that bad,
http://theuklibertarian.com/2010/08/25/video-of-the-day-monopoly-and-competition-thomas-j-dilorenzo/
News Corpse is currently engaged in a hostile takeover bid for the remaining, I believe approximately 60% of BSkyB shares it does not own outright. Their intention is to take the company back into a private company status which would mean far less financial information about it would have to be made public. Other parts of the businesses listed like the newspapers and the encryption services it has much larger, if not full, holdings. I also believe the Murdoch family mafia - there is another son and a daughter - together have a very large but not majority shareholding of News Corp.
These have quite significant detrimental effects on the other shareholders of the two companies given that the Murdochs are in such positions of power within both.
More seriously, the heavy reliance Sky has (apart from its sports programming) on foreign sourced material has a negative effect on the TV and radio production industry in this country. In house production has long been seen (since the days of Thatcher) as having a stifling effect on creativity which is why Channel 4 was set up and why the BBC is having to source many of its TV and increasingly radio programmes from independent companies.
You can equally argue that the very high prices Sky were willing to pay to get monopoly broadcast rights over sporting fixtures is directly responsible for the BBC not having funds to put into the sort of adventurous programmes it was famous for in the 1960s and 1970s. As serious is the "dumbing down" effect stations like Sky News have had on BBC output. The emphasis on getting things to the air first, however inaccurate, is a Sky News trademark. You can even extend that to say that the present coalition was too hastily put together (other countries take weeks to agree programmes for government) precisely because of the hysteria whipped up by Sky News style reporting and their helicopter hovering over Whitehall to catch every coming and going.
The Murdoch moans also sanctioned governments of both main parties to salami slice the BBC - by taking large chunks out of the licence fee to pay for DSO and, after that the proposal is to again grab large amounts to pay for rural areas to get broadband.
Murdoch could not operate in a similar way in the USA or France. In the USA, foreign owners are not allowed to control networks and newspapers to the extent they are here by News Corp, which is why he took out US citizenship. In France, broadcasters are required to have a high proportion of programmes made in the country.
The Murdochs object to the £145.50 licence fee to mostly go to the BBC (even though they get to include their programmes on their service) because they would rather get a minimum of £240 a year themselves from their subscribers plus the money they also get from them indirectly by the increased cost of goods in the shops to pay for advertising fees.
IRN pay SKY to provide the national news to commercial radio stations.
The stations contracts are still with IRN not Sky & the websites radio stations use to get audio & stories from are still IRN
SKY are just the content provider
Free to choose WHAT exactly?
Stop this silly canard. Every time you go shopping you pay a bit extra so that the company that produces or sells or processes the payment for your car/insurance/furniture/food and drink/detergents etc can pay for the advertising on Sky or other commercial broadcasters.
The dividing total UK advertising by the number of households (2008 figures), the amount per household was six times the BBC licence fee (£837.50)
Applying the same to the 2009 figures but only using the amounts for TV advertising means each household's share is virtually exactly what their TV licence cost.
And everybody pays these higher prices for their goods or services whether they watch commercial television stations or not.
lets face facts here, both organisation are large, the problem that some people have is that one is publically funded and the other is a successful commercial organisation.
no one is saying that there should not be any Public service broadcasters what is important is that the public sector do not limit/restrain the ability of commercial operators to be successful, notable point being that the bbc provide vaste sways of news coverage for free, i am not talking about access to world, european, national news however the provision of wider subjects, for instance, sports, business, celebrity, gardening, motoring, etc etc goes beyond the public service remit - in my opinion.
And to back up my statement, you need to have a bit of a working knowledge of the share dealings of Global radio.;)[/quote]
so lets clear this up, you stated sky had a monoploy, which now you have changed to "dominant", secondly you said that sky had bought out IRN, which now seems to also be inacurate as IRN, elected to take their news services from sky over ITN....
now you expect me to beleive you have some kind of insider knowledge when you have not exactly been solid on facts thus far.
or
up pop lawrence to challegen milkw on some of his posts - when challenge milkw changes his story.....hardly anti bbc maybe more about acurate information.
so lets clear this up, you stated sky had a monoploy, which now you have changed to "dominant", secondly you said that sky had bought out IRN, which now seems to also be inacurate as IRN, elected to take their news services from sky over ITN....
now you expect me to beleive you have some kind of insider knowledge when you have not exactly been solid on facts thus far.[/QUOTE]
And this from someone who was "unaware" of Sky's involvement in commercial radio news!:D
Like it or not, if you want to buy in news for commercial radio you have to go to Sky for it.
Monopoly? Very possibily....
So, the BBC don't seem to be preventing Sky do they?
there are a number of brand exculsive to certain super markets, the duchy range in waitrose springs to mind.
it would cost an awful lots more to go to every home game of your local prem team over the cost of having all the sky sports channels inc hd etc...
so this backs up the point of view that sky do not have a monoploy of radio news, or they are not even dominant at all.
milkw - do you have anything to say to the thread?
So what in frace broadcasters have ot have a high proportion of programmes made in the country.
I bet some of the progammes are bad.
I like how over here there is no rules on how much programmes have to be made this country.
It should be up to the broadcasters in how much if any home made programmes they do.
As far wide of the mark as claiming that Sky "brought (sic) out their rival (ITN) to create their dominance" in commercial radio news"?
Speaking of silly canards, we have had the "does advertising increase prices?" discussion on these forums many times previously, with no one able to provide any actual evidence that it does.