A competition appeal tribunal ruling that Rapture TV was not overcharged by Sky has been given a mixed reaction on the Digital Spy forums.

Meanwhile, Rapture TV's chief executive revealed the firm is taking advice on whether to appeal against yesterday's decision.

It found that Ofcom was correct in a decision last year to dismiss the channel's claim it was being unfairly charged.

Chief executive David Henry, writing in the DS Sky forum today, said: "Rapture is taking advice from both the lawyers and a new expert who we only found last week. There is a question that we need to answer. Is it worth continuing to fight for this principle?

"...If the experts tell us next week that we have a good chance at being granted leave to Appeal then we think it should be followed. This is not a vendetta but more importantly if Rapture was to leave this ruling and the Ofcom case where it is now then others in the future will have little or no chance of overturning this judgement."

Others on the forum continued a discussion of the issue which has been running throughout the dispute between Rapture and Sky.

Some picked up on a key theme in the tribunal ruling - that Sky was entitled to pass on some of the cost of customers' set-top boxes to channels.

"I don't want to go through all the arguments again but I think it is very clear that Sky spends at least around £200m per year on set top boxes," said 'Mlt11'. "Once the CAT decided that it is OK to include set top box costs within the calculation of the EPG charge, it really does immediately become a 'no brainer' that the magnitude of the charge is not excessive."

Other members believed that for various reasons the tribunal had not come to the correct decision.

"What is ludicrous is that not even Ofcom has apparently seen Sky's (Platform) Model," said 'Strathclyde'. "To anyone who attended even part of the appeal hearing, it was clear that neither the CAT themselves, nor the legal counsel, had any even half-clear understanding of how the platform works technically, nor the economics involved."

'Sat.Deelay', from Runcorn, remained firmly behind Rapture: "May I remind you that the result of the case was not solely for the benefit of Rapture, but for all the other smaller channels out there...

"As Sky continue to dominate the market, I'm sure the smile will begin to wear off your faces once further channels close, and Sky continue to jack up the prices... But then I'm sure you're all quite happy to be paying Mr Murdoch for such 'quality' programming consisting of the same movie for a week and extortionate Premiership football games?"

However, poster Nigel Goodwin was fully behind Ofcom and Sky: "I think common sense has won out - entering a contract with no intention of ever paying the contracted price shouldn't be encouraged."

'Speculator' added: "If Rapture had won, it would have put an end to the competitive market (supply & demand). If the Sky EPG had a monopoly and it was the only EPG used on all digital TV platforms (BBC Freesat, Freeview, cable), there would be grounds for Rapture to question the pricing of the Sky EPG fee.

"Rapture is not forced to join the Sky EPG so can look at all platforms and decide which alternative platform is better value for them."