ITV want to charge Virgin Media & Sky to carry their channel.

2

Comments

  • hyperstarspongehyperstarsponge Posts: 16,563
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Rather then give in to ITV, They could show a message to switch to Freeview to watch ITV.
  • alexj2002alexj2002 Posts: 3,930
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Rather then give in to ITV, They could show a message to switch to Freeview to watch ITV.

    "Press TV, then 3" like in the early days of Sky Digital. Which is fine, as long as the TV is recent enough to have a Freeview tuner built in and there's an aerial connection near the TV. Or a Freeview HD tuner if you want to keep the HD quality. And don't want to Sky+ the program.
  • mavreelamavreela Posts: 4,689
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    alexj2002 wrote: »
    Of course, ITV might like to quote one Rupert Murdoch in their argument here, who said a few years back regarding his free-to-air Fox channel:

    "Going forward, we will be seeking retransmission dollars from our distributors. Asking cable companies and other distribution partners to pay a small portion of the profits they make be re-selling broadcast channels, the most watched channels on their systems, will help ensure the health of the over- the- air industry in America."

    Which is somewhat irrelevant as the USA and UK markets are very different.

    Firstly the reason for the early and high adoption of cable in the USA is that they did not have a widespread terrestrial transmission system like we do. So most people do subscribe to cable and satellite providers to get local stations as well as cable-only ones.

    And secondly because the distributors referred to in your quote are the local network affiliates, not the platform operators. It is the groups that own local stations which charge retransmission fees, and so the networks want to claim a percentage of that for themselves.

    Traditionally affiliation gave networks free airtime on the local station. They profited by showing most of the commercials during their shows, and the stations benefited by selling some of the breaks and being given strong lead-ins to their local news shows. Between increased competition for both viewers and advertisers this had lead to the networks wanting to be paid by stations, stations wanting to be paid by platform operators, so inevitably operators wanting to be paid by viewers. In the end consumers end up paying more just to watch free channels.

    Also, in return for those retransmission fees the platform operators get to offer authenticated online and mobile access to a network's on demand services. So if you truly want that model then not only would it mean Sky and Virgin having to pay the BBC, ITV, and other PSBs to include their channels at cost to viewers, only their subscribers would get access to iPlayer and ITV Player etc.

    Whilst NBC had a similar number of streams offering live Olympic coverage online last year, only people with a cable or satellite subscription, and then with a provider who had signed a recent retransmission agreement, were able to view them.

    To me that seems an odd thing to wish for.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,718
    Forum Member
    ukcarter wrote: »
    If you're suggesting that subscription channels in general should not be allowed to receive advertising revenue (because their content is not available to the public who pay for the adverts) I'd agree with you 100%.

    Can you explain to me how that makes any sense?
  • fmradiotuner1fmradiotuner1 Posts: 20,476
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    alexj2002 wrote: »
    "Press TV, then 3" like in the early days of Sky Digital. Which is fine, as long as the TV is recent enough to have a Freeview tuner built in and there's an aerial connection near the TV. Or a Freeview HD tuner if you want to keep the HD quality. And don't want to Sky+ the program.

    I remember before 2012 the digital signals were really weak and analogue was snowy.
    Now digital signal is very strong and Kent and London signals boom in here.
    analogue was OK if having a 14 to 20 inch TV but not on a massive 50 inch.
  • ocavocav Posts: 2,341
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ukcarter wrote: »
    Paying for any channel that takes advertising is compulsory - there's no mechanism for opting out.

    If you're suggesting that subscription channels in general should not be allowed to receive advertising revenue (because their content is not available to the public who pay for the adverts) I'd agree with you 100%.

    He didn't say anything about the adverts? Just that it should be an optional subscription for ITV
  • d'@ved'@ve Posts: 45,452
    Forum Member
    mavreela wrote: »
    People who spend money on pay television do so because they want access to the services they offer, not for the channels freely available via several different means including terrestrial, satellite, and online.

    I doubt many would give up whatever it is they thing worth paying for just to avoid the minor inconvenience of having to switch tuners.

    Some would, but more importantly for Sky, the overall viewing figures for all Sky platform channels (not just Sky's own channels) would take a hit. This is because channel hoppers would tend to hop within say Freeview after watching say BBC1 (the most viewed channel in the land) or ITV, and minor inconvenience though it may be, it would be enough to significantly affect the viewing figures IMO. Viewing inertia is important.
  • carl.waringcarl.waring Posts: 35,587
    Forum Member
    They were successful in having these fees slashed, which is why I believe that this has prompted ITV to try and change the law so that they can charge for their main channel.
    So, in actual fact, absolutely nothing like the BBC then!
  • hyperstarspongehyperstarsponge Posts: 16,563
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    alexj2002 wrote: »
    "Press TV, then 3" like in the early days of Sky Digital. Which is fine, as long as the TV is recent enough to have a Freeview tuner built in and there's an aerial connection near the TV. Or a Freeview HD tuner if you want to keep the HD quality. And don't want to Sky+ the program.

    I don't really say Freeview now, I call it standard TV as most people have took the Freeview route by a set up box. These who have Sky usually have Freeview too even via there TVs.
  • RichardcoulterRichardcoulter Posts: 30,159
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    So, in actual fact, absolutely nothing like the BBC then!

    What I was getting at was that the BBC opened up the debate to change the status quo, but I can see why the confusion arose.
  • RadiomikeRadiomike Posts: 7,926
    Forum Member
    d'@ve wrote: »
    Some would, but more importantly for Sky, the overall viewing figures for all Sky platform channels (not just Sky's own channels) would take a hit. This is because channel hoppers would tend to hop within say Freeview after watching say BBC1 (the most viewed channel in the land) or ITV, and minor inconvenience though it may be, it would be enough to significantly affect the viewing figures IMO. Viewing inertia is important.

    However, the same argument applies in reverse. If you predominantly (or entirely) do your viewing currently through Sky (as the vast majority of subscribers will probably do on their primary sets) then if only one channel (ITV) disappears it is more likely that you will simply do largely without ITV unless there is something you especially wish to watch, rather than switching to another platform to view that channel. In other words any saving ITV might achieve by withdrawing from Sky would likely be more than offset by the hit it would take to its own viewing figures. There are 10m Sky subs now in existence. Big risk on ITV's part to upset the applecart unless others (ie the BBC) back it all the way.

    ITV is just pushing the boat out as it does periodically to get concessions and I doubt it has any intention of over playing its hand. The government in any event has shown no inclination to back payment to PSBs by platforms.
  • carl.waringcarl.waring Posts: 35,587
    Forum Member
    What I was getting at was that the BBC opened up the debate to change the status quo, but I can see why the confusion arose.
    The BBC were simply trying to get a better deal for the LF-payer. ITV's issue is all about profits. So, again, (in my opinion) not really comparable but I see your point.
  • swillsswills Posts: 4,004
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I remember before 2012 the digital signals were really weak and analogue was snowy.
    Now digital signal is very strong and Kent and London signals boom in here.
    analogue was OK if having a 14 to 20 inch TV but not on a massive 50 inch.

    But many areas cannot get the full range of channels on Freeview, and even some of the stronger transmitters do not radiate all the channels either.

    As for Tv size, nowadays it's just a case of my telly is bigger than your telly !
  • Marti SMarti S Posts: 5,771
    Forum Member
    I cant see the government backing this, I remember them saying over platform carriage charges that neither side should be charged (PSBs) and didn't believe the likes of Sky should pay retransmission fees either.

    I cant see them changing their minds on this, unless of course Labour get in at the next election and they do it to spite Murdoch.
  • 1andrew11andrew1 Posts: 4,088
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    In my mind, the previous charges levied on the PSBs by Sky were unfair. However, for ITV to turn round and charge some platforms and not others fees seems unfair. I appreciate however that there is a precedent with some the UKTV channels charging VM and Sky but not the other platforms.
    These days, it's not a case of Freeview in one corner v pay-tv in there other as there are about 2m YouView customers who benefit from the free underlying Freeview platform. I wonder if ITV would seek to charge YouView customers too?
  • satmanHDsatmanHD Posts: 71
    Forum Member
    Looks like Channel 4 want to start charging a fee to Pay TV Platforms for their PSB channel.

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/aug/21/david-abraham-mactaggart-lecture-full-text
  • RadiogramRadiogram Posts: 3,515
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Let the PSB's charge for their dire channels, I doubt many would want to see their subs increase for these.

    My current set up at home is Sky+HD for the Sky channels (plus C5HD) and a YouView box for the BBC, C4, and ITV channels. If we went back to not having ITV on Sky it would not affect me one jot. I can imagine the confusion it would cause pensioners etc though so hopefully it won't come to that.
  • ShaunWShaunW Posts: 2,356
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Marti S wrote: »
    I cant see the government backing this, I remember them saying over platform carriage charges that neither side should be charged (PSBs) and didn't believe the likes of Sky should pay retransmission fees either.

    I cant see them changing their minds on this, unless of course Labour get in at the next election and they do it to spite Murdoch.

    Maybe the Tories would like to do it to spite the value of the License Fee.
  • Young TurksYoung Turks Posts: 3,262
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I agree it is their content and they should be able to charge private companies for carrying their channels, however, they should not have their cake and eat it and they should never be in position to charge for their HD channels while holding PSB licence.

    At least with ITV and C4 their main channels offer free HD version on all platforms but I have no idea how C5 gets away with putting their main HD channel behind paywall.

    All HD version of PSB channels should be free to air and if they want to charge the Sky and Virgin for carrying them be my guest but they should never be allowed to put their HD channels behind the paywall!

    This is not 2004 anymore this is 2014. Possibly you can't even buy a new TV without a HD tuner anymore so PSB channels putting their HD channels behind a paywall is just not acceptable.
  • RichardcoulterRichardcoulter Posts: 30,159
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    satmanHD wrote: »
    Looks like Channel 4 want to start charging a fee to Pay TV Platforms for their PSB channel.

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/aug/21/david-abraham-mactaggart-lecture-full-text

    Just Channel 5 to wade in now and we shall have a full set of the PSB channels calling for this.
    Radiogram wrote: »
    Let the PSB's charge for their dire channels, I doubt many would want to see their subs increase for these.

    My current set up at home is Sky+HD for the Sky channels (plus C5HD) and a YouView box for the BBC, C4, and ITV channels. If we went back to not having ITV on Sky it would not affect me one jot. I can imagine the confusion it would cause pensioners etc though so hopefully it won't come to that.

    Is this all on the same TV :confused:
  • muppetman11muppetman11 Posts: 2,832
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    So let me get this right , I'll be able to view the channels on a Freesat box or Freeview box for nothing but likely see an increased charge to my pay TV sub just to watch the PSB channels..........no thanks hopefully VM and Sky won't pay it.

    What happens to the BT and Talk Talk platforms being that they use YouView which is also available as a retail box ?


    BT and Talk Talk YouView boxes receive the PSB channels over the aerial , surely if Sky and VM are made to pay they should also have to bring that they are pay TV services.
  • RijowhiRijowhi Posts: 1,055
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I agree it is their content and they should be able to charge private companies for carrying their channels, however, they should not have their cake and eat it and they should never be in position to charge for their HD channels while holding PSB licence.

    At least with ITV and C4 their main channels offer free HD version on all platforms but I have no idea how C5 gets away with putting their main HD channel behind paywall.

    All HD version of PSB channels should be free to air and if they want to charge the Sky and Virgin for carrying them be my guest but they should never be allowed to put their HD channels behind the paywall!

    This is not 2004 anymore this is 2014. Possibly you can't even buy a new TV without a HD tuner anymore so PSB channels putting their HD channels behind a paywall is just not acceptable.

    I totally agree with everything you've said here especially about Channel 5's HD offering. Thanks for posting, excellent stuff.
  • muppetman11muppetman11 Posts: 2,832
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sky’s 3 questions for ITV

    Link
  • carl.waringcarl.waring Posts: 35,587
    Forum Member
    I'm sure it is but I'm not paying to read it :(
Sign In or Register to comment.