I am slightly confused by the Sky buys Virgin situation.
I understood that when Freeview was formed, BSkyB were limited to 3 channels ONLY, partly to prevent them becoming too influential. Initially these were Sky News, Sky Sports News and Sky Travel (mainly a holiday shopping channel). A while later Travel was replaced by Sky Three.
So why are Sky being allowed to buy the Virgin 1 channel, as that will mean they have 4 channels on Freeview?
As for replacing Sky Sports News (in fabulous 4:3) with Sky 3+1, yes this is clearly extracting the urine, and I am astonished that Ofcom have not objected to this plan.
...I am astonished that Ofcom have not objected to this plan.
Ofcom will not object to this plan - in fact, Ofcom have handed Sky a nice, juicy carrot in being allowed to launch a pay TV service on DTT if Sky wanted to.
Ofcom will not object to this plan - in fact, Ofcom have handed Sky a nice, juicy carrot in being allowed to launch a pay TV service on DTT if Sky wanted to.
Yes, I realise about the pay TV possibility on DTT, but I still thought there was a 3 channel limit on Freeview.
I also realise that Ofcom seems to have lost any teeth it might have had, probably made worse by the CONDEMs getting in and threatening funding cuts.
I am slightly confused by the Sky buys Virgin situation.
I understood that when Freeview was formed, BSkyB were limited to 3 channels ONLY, partly to prevent them becoming too influential. Initially these were Sky News, Sky Sports News and Sky Travel (mainly a holiday shopping channel). A while later Travel was replaced by Sky Three.
So why are Sky being allowed to buy the Virgin 1 channel, as that will mean they have 4 channels on Freeview?
Isn't that the point? Because they acquired Virgin 1, they had to remove Sky Sports News to keep to the 'maximum of 3 channels' requirement (I assume there's more chance of advertising revenue on an entertainment channel than on a sports news channel)..
Isn't that the point? Because they acquired Virgin 1, they had to remove Sky Sports News to keep to the 'maximum of 3 channels' requirement (I assume there's more chance of advertising revenue on an entertainment channel than on a sports news channel)..
I don't think it's related; rather Sky don't want to have more sport on DTTV than they have to.
Sky won't be using the Virgin brand - I expect the station will simply be removed from Freeview altogether by Sky.
I am slightly confused by the Sky buys Virgin situation.
I understood that when Freeview was formed, BSkyB were limited to 3 channels ONLY, partly to prevent them becoming too influential. Initially these were Sky News, Sky Sports News and Sky Travel (mainly a holiday shopping channel). A while later Travel was replaced by Sky Three.
So why are Sky being allowed to buy the Virgin 1 channel, as that will mean they have 4 channels on Freeview?
As for replacing Sky Sports News (in fabulous 4:3) with Sky 3+1, yes this is clearly extracting the urine, and I am astonished that Ofcom have not objected to this plan.
I seem to recall that BSkyB were guaranteed a certain % of mux C which stopped Arqiva (or it's predecessor) selling additional channel space for a while like it did for Mux D as the technology improved.
We have seem Ofcom lift the restriction on pay TV on the non-PSB muxes and accede to other requests. It's seems that if a broadcaster keeps up the pressure, Ofcom will eventually cave-in and ride rough shod over any public view or best interest.
My opinion has always been that because the allowed channel space on DTT is limited, Ofcom should be providing more protection to guarantee FTA services and the breadth of different channels. So for instance if Sky can't/won't provide a Sports News channel then maybe they should invite someone else and Sky lose the space.
They do not exist to invite anybody to do anything ... they exist to ensure that somebody that wants to do something does it within the legislation that exists in the UK.
There is no legislation that muxes should preferentially carry FTA channels beyond the fact the BBC have control of 1 mux and are license holder of another via BBC Free to View Ltd... mux B (BBC Free to View Ltd) is currently carrying pay tv... :eek:
As BSkyB are equal shareholders in Freeview, why are they limited to less channels, than say BBC or ITV who own the same amount of the platform?
They were limited to prevent them dominating the platform. Even with Virgin 1, they still have fewer channels than the BBC, ITV and C4.
As I understand it, although the takeover has been agreed between Sky and Virgin, Virgin 1 is not yet under Sky's control. They have not licensed the Virgin brand name.
Therefore Sky have not increased their number of channels - it may be they simply close down Virgin 1 and move the programmes to Sky 1 / 2 /3.
They were limited to prevent them dominating the platform. Even with Virgin 1, they still have fewer channels than the BBC, ITV and C4.
As I understand it, although the takeover has been agreed between Sky and Virgin, Virgin 1 is not yet under Sky's control. They have not licensed the Virgin brand name.
Therefore Sky have not increased their number of channels - it may be they simply close down Virgin 1 and move the programmes to Sky 1 / 2 /3.
Sky is keeping Virgin 1 and changing the name to channel 1. This has been all over DS
As I understand it, although the takeover has been agreed between Sky and Virgin, Virgin 1 is not yet under Sky's control.
I believe the merger is also still being investigated over competition concerns, which means that if competition is a problem, Sky may end up having to sell off the Virgin channels anyway.
I am not sure when the outcome will be made public, but with Sky also interested in Virgin's share of UKTV, I would say competition concerns are well founded.
I don't believe Sky should have control over that many TV channels. If they were in control of their own channels + Virgin channels + half of UKTV, that is a significant amount of all the channels available in the UK.
I don't believe Sky should have control over that many TV channels. If they were in control of their own channels + Virgin channels + half of UKTV, that is a significant amount of all the channels available in the UK.
I am slightly confused by the Sky buys Virgin situation.
I understood that when Freeview was formed, BSkyB were limited to 3 channels ONLY, partly to prevent them becoming too influential. Initially these were Sky News, Sky Sports News and Sky Travel (mainly a holiday shopping channel). A while later Travel was replaced by Sky Three.
So why are Sky being allowed to buy the Virgin 1 channel, as that will mean they have 4 channels on Freeview?
As for replacing Sky Sports News (in fabulous 4:3) with Sky 3+1, yes this is clearly extracting the urine, and I am astonished that Ofcom have not objected to this plan.
You're misremembering slightly. The restriction was that Sky could only have channels on Mux C and it was limited to having no more than 75% of the channel slots broadcasting on the mux. There were four at that time so Sky could only have three of them. The restriction is now gone.
How is it illegal to watch it online if youve got a telly license?
From August 23rd it will be illegal to watch Sky Sports News online, unless you pay Sky (or get that free) to have them provide it to your computer. If the question was aimed at me.
There are loads of people for one reason or another cant have a dish or dont live near a cabled area they are the real losers in this dont you think ?
How many people are in this position?
Sky covers the whole country. I would have thought the main people who can't get Sky are people in flats in inner city areas (ie banned or no line of sight) who would be just the sort of people most likely to have cable.
If certain properties can't get Sky or cable then I would think it will start to have an impact on property prices (and rents).
50% of homes now subscribe to Sky or VM so it is getting to the stage where it is something that most people would expect to be available (ie at least one of Sky / VM).
I would certainly not consider moving to a property under any circumstances (at literally any price) where neither Sky nor VM was available.
Sky covers the whole country. I would have thought the main people who can't get Sky are people in flats in inner city areas (ie banned or no line of sight) who would be just the sort of people most likely to have cable.
If certain properties can't get Sky or cable then I would think it will start to have an impact on property prices (and rents).
50% of homes now subscribe to Sky or VM so it is getting to the stage where it is something that most people would expect to be available (ie at least one of Sky / VM).
I would certainly not consider moving to a property under any circumstances (at literally any price) where neither Sky nor VM was available.
In the house i lived in ididnt have line of sight but i did have VM,now i stay at my mums she cant have a satellite dish(again line of sight problems) and VM didnt cable her area,so she is stuck with freeview and i dont know what other options there are to follow to be frank,its so frustrating
The 23rd of August is going to be a sad day at the Tesco that I work at because we always have Sky Sports News on in are staff cafe.
Anyway last Saturday afternoon I finished work early so whilst I was listening to the Colchester United match BBC Essex via my DAB radio I also had my TV on a decided that as Freeview was losing Sky Sports News I would put BBC Final Score on with the volume down so that as well a listening the Col U match I could see the other scores and I found that the BBC has improved there service as they now has on the left hand side of the screen the score from each league which changes every few seconds.
Final Score is not that bad and at lest we can get the Football score on Freeview.
But when the BBC does not have the Football scores on TV then there web site has them which I used on Tuesday and that was really good and updated very quickly I thought.
Comments
I understood that when Freeview was formed, BSkyB were limited to 3 channels ONLY, partly to prevent them becoming too influential. Initially these were Sky News, Sky Sports News and Sky Travel (mainly a holiday shopping channel). A while later Travel was replaced by Sky Three.
So why are Sky being allowed to buy the Virgin 1 channel, as that will mean they have 4 channels on Freeview?
As for replacing Sky Sports News (in fabulous 4:3) with Sky 3+1, yes this is clearly extracting the urine, and I am astonished that Ofcom have not objected to this plan.
I also realise that Ofcom seems to have lost any teeth it might have had, probably made worse by the CONDEMs getting in and threatening funding cuts.
I don't think it's related; rather Sky don't want to have more sport on DTTV than they have to.
Sky won't be using the Virgin brand - I expect the station will simply be removed from Freeview altogether by Sky.
We have seem Ofcom lift the restriction on pay TV on the non-PSB muxes and accede to other requests. It's seems that if a broadcaster keeps up the pressure, Ofcom will eventually cave-in and ride rough shod over any public view or best interest.
My opinion has always been that because the allowed channel space on DTT is limited, Ofcom should be providing more protection to guarantee FTA services and the breadth of different channels. So for instance if Sky can't/won't provide a Sports News channel then maybe they should invite someone else and Sky lose the space.
They do not exist to invite anybody to do anything ... they exist to ensure that somebody that wants to do something does it within the legislation that exists in the UK.
There is no legislation that muxes should preferentially carry FTA channels beyond the fact the BBC have control of 1 mux and are license holder of another via BBC Free to View Ltd... mux B (BBC Free to View Ltd) is currently carrying pay tv... :eek:
As BSkyB are equal shareholders in Freeview, why are they limited to less channels, than say BBC or ITV who own the same amount of the platform?
OFCOM is utterly useless, it simply does what Murdoch wants, another quango the government could get rid of.
They were limited to prevent them dominating the platform. Even with Virgin 1, they still have fewer channels than the BBC, ITV and C4.
As I understand it, although the takeover has been agreed between Sky and Virgin, Virgin 1 is not yet under Sky's control. They have not licensed the Virgin brand name.
Therefore Sky have not increased their number of channels - it may be they simply close down Virgin 1 and move the programmes to Sky 1 / 2 /3.
Ah ok... I stand (completely) corrected!
Thanks.
I am not sure when the outcome will be made public, but with Sky also interested in Virgin's share of UKTV, I would say competition concerns are well founded.
I don't believe Sky should have control over that many TV channels. If they were in control of their own channels + Virgin channels + half of UKTV, that is a significant amount of all the channels available in the UK.
You're misremembering slightly. The restriction was that Sky could only have channels on Mux C and it was limited to having no more than 75% of the channel slots broadcasting on the mux. There were four at that time so Sky could only have three of them. The restriction is now gone.
From August 23rd it will be illegal to watch Sky Sports News online, unless you pay Sky (or get that free) to have them provide it to your computer. If the question was aimed at me.
How many people are in this position?
Sky covers the whole country. I would have thought the main people who can't get Sky are people in flats in inner city areas (ie banned or no line of sight) who would be just the sort of people most likely to have cable.
If certain properties can't get Sky or cable then I would think it will start to have an impact on property prices (and rents).
50% of homes now subscribe to Sky or VM so it is getting to the stage where it is something that most people would expect to be available (ie at least one of Sky / VM).
I would certainly not consider moving to a property under any circumstances (at literally any price) where neither Sky nor VM was available.
Anyway last Saturday afternoon I finished work early so whilst I was listening to the Colchester United match BBC Essex via my DAB radio I also had my TV on a decided that as Freeview was losing Sky Sports News I would put BBC Final Score on with the volume down so that as well a listening the Col U match I could see the other scores and I found that the BBC has improved there service as they now has on the left hand side of the screen the score from each league which changes every few seconds.
Final Score is not that bad and at lest we can get the Football score on Freeview.
But when the BBC does not have the Football scores on TV then there web site has them which I used on Tuesday and that was really good and updated very quickly I thought.
So well done to the BBC.
Maybe for you, but I'm sure that there will be even more staff who are relieved not to have an endless loop of football trivia forced on them :eek: