[mrdtv]

There was an extension of two months or so before the BBC left as well.

ITV have got Sky over a barrel:

1 The BBC are unencrypted and have got away with it.

2 They are both on the same satellite with the same footprint

3 The BBC pays Sky for the regionalisation.

4 Sky will have to offer ITV the same terms as the BBC because of OFCOM rules.

5 If ITV were to get a better deal all other basic tier cable channels would want the same deal and OFCOM would insist on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Very bad news for Sky which is probably the real sticking point as Sky would love to offer preferential pricing in return for platform exclusivity *AND* encryption as a must.

6 Its very clear Sky and ITV are very far apart.

7 By Xmas there will be 5M Freeview homes and by next Xmas there will be more Freeview homes than Sky. Sky will be secondary digital distribution for ITV by 2006. That is a big picture consideration going forward.

8 Freesat in Germany: 45% penetration and analogue TV being shut down area by area. HMG are looking at this with envy. Also Sky architecture has not really changed since 1998, boxes are very primitive compared to SoA DVB-S boxes, and using the EPG is just like using Excel to change channels. A lack of competition has frozen the innovation at Isleworth.!

9 There's no point in trying to make changes over the Xmas period: remember it was a big job with the BBC and Sky don't make any engineering changes in the vital prex-Xmas period

10 ITV leased two more transponders to put more regional variations on satellite. This will cost more money annually to Sky. A further consideration

11 The farcical situation where the expats are all taking out subs to Sky to see the FTAs overseas will end. There was yet another 'caller from Spain' on GMTV last week. Various parties think there could be around 0.5M Sky fully paid up subs in Europe, many using it to see ITV/C4/C5. EU needs to regulate this grey market fiasco.

12 If ITV go this is the tipping point: C4 with 2D capacity will follow and then Five. True Freesat German style...

Its time to say Hasta La Vista James now: why pay £17M when the Beeb are paying £2M?

mrdtv

[GBow]

I truly hope all you say is true. It's time to put a stop to Sky's monopoly and ITV have got the chance to make a real difference. Let's hope they don't mess up !!

[Otis]

I don't know about having them over a barrel, but it is true to say it would be in BskyB's interest for ITV PLC to re-sign ...

Having said that it wouldn't be the end of the world for Sky Digital if ITV went down the same road as the BBC (FTA with regional control).

[Westward]

Originally Posted by Otis

I don't know about having them over a barrel, but it is true to say it would be in BskyB's interest for ITV PLC to re-sign ...

Having said that it wouldn't be the end of the world for Sky Digital if ITV went down the same road as the BBC (FTA with regional control).

It appears to me that ITV are trying to negotiate a similar deal to the one that the BBC have with Sky. ITV needs the regional control even more than the BBC because of the income from regional advertising.

From a commercial point of view it would be pretty disastrous if 7m Sky satellite viewers across the UK were all watching the London version of ITV1 every time they pressed 103.

Surely if it was a case of continuing the present arrangement they would have thrashed out a fair price and signed on the dotted line within the time limit. It's for this reason that I think changes are in the offing.

[Markynotts]

I dont think that SKY are in any troubled position. The situation would simply revert back to the days of analogue satellite system. It coped quite well without the 5 main channels and Im sure it would do again. At the end of the day there are 7m Sky subscribers who pay for the choice of channels. If they were unhappy at paying sky the monthly subs, they would leave. I agree some of them are tied into a year contract with sky, but then they knew this when they entered the agreement, and I dont think that any of the subscribers only paid for SKY so that they could have the 5 main channels.

Originally Posted by Markynotts

I dont think that SKY are in any troubled position. The situation would simply revert back to the days of analogue satellite system. It coped quite well without the 5 main channels and Im sure it would do again. At the end of the day there are 7m Sky subscribers who pay for the choice of channels. If they were unhappy at paying sky the monthly subs, they would leave. I agree some of them are tied into a year contract with sky, but then they knew this when they entered the agreement, and I dont think that any of the subscribers only paid for SKY so that they could have the 5 main channels.

I think a few posts around here have misunderstood exactly what the situation is, and would be if ITV went FTA. You would still get it in the Sky EPG, but Sky would get less money off ITV for the pleasure of hosting their services. It wouldn't affect existing Sky customers at all. Only Sky's bank balance would be affected.

What it would change in future is the choice between Freesat (£150, from Sky) and being able to choose an FTA box, which installed would be as little as £100, or if you fancy your ladder skills, £60 .

[Dano]

Well at least that speculation is over for another two months, cant wait till Jan 31st, we can start all over again. But if your like me, and the fact this decission has been taken, tells me the will renew, just as soon as Sky drop the price to £3m.

[F1 Mike]

having not read any recent stories, I am now confused as to what has actually been reported after that last post.

Please elaborate, I hate vague replies!!!!

[Otis]

Originally Posted by Westward

From a commercial point of view it would be pretty disastrous if 7m Sky satellite viewers across the UK were all watching the London version of ITV1 every time they pressed 103.

.

I'm afraid you're going to have to run that by me again - "disastrous" how exactly?

As I remember it Sky Digital ran perfectly well for several years WITH ABSOLUTELY NO SERVICE FROM ITV WHATSOEVER encrypted or otherwise!

Obviously OFCOM would require ITV to ensure the correct region got the correct feed (just as they have done with the BBC).

[Otis]

Originally Posted by F1 Mike

having not read any recent stories, I am now confused as to what has actually been reported after that last post.

Please elaborate, I hate vague replies!!!!

Mediabullet are apparently reporting a two month extension to the contract.

(Mind you, they were also wasting space screaming about the none existent ITV 4) ...

[themadscotsman]

Originally Posted by Otis

As I remember it Sky Digital ran perfectly well for several years WITH ABSOLUTELY NO SERVICE FROM ITV WHATSOEVER encrypted or otherwise!

Obviously OFCOM would require ITV to ensure the correct region got the correct feed (just as they have done with the BBC).

Good point, there was no ITV on the EPG for ages and you're quite correct, OFCOM and copyright legislation would require the correct region gets the correct feed. BBC may be unencrypted but you still get the correct regions.
Also wouldn't have thought it's in ITV's interests to make their channel harder to watch by removing it from the EPG. To be honest I'd probably just forget to check what was on ITV when I was looking for something to watch! (very lazy! haha! )

Sky's main market has always been pay tv, the ex-pats could always just buy a FTA card for £20 so if they stopped I wouldn't imagine it'd make a huge dent.

[mentore]

Originally Posted by mrdtv

8 Freesat in Germany: 45% penetration and analogue TV being shut down area by area. HMG are looking at this with envy. Also Sky architecture has not really changed since 1998, boxes are very primitive compared to SoA DVB-S boxes, and using the EPG is just like using Excel to change channels. A lack of competition has frozen the innovation at Isleworth.!

12 If ITV go this is the tipping point: C4 with 2D capacity will follow and then Five. True Freesat German style...

Its time to say Hasta La Vista James now: why pay £17M when the Beeb are paying £2M?

mrdtv

Indeed German Sat TV is Free to Air except for specific sport & film channels carried by Premiere...all the regions transmit their own programmes eg Brisant from MDR Mitteldeutsche Rundfunk..so it is surprising that DTT take up is so good but that may be due to flatdwellers.

I enjoy German TV even though my German is poor (good docu on TV Berlin re Schwertransport last night) but the material is nearly all home produced hence no copyright problems.But copyright problems here in the UK with US material are grossly over-stated (usually by News Corporation and its subsidiaries like Fox )- straight screening here without overdubbing or subtitling costs should mean US programming is even cheaper.

Couldn't agree more with the BSkyB sentiments - they have held UK people to ransom for far too long overcharging for really poor quality programming outside football.The Sky film channels are usually months behind their continental counterparts so that they can charge pay per view for latest releases that should be on their standard film channels.

The BSkyB gravytrain has been a national disgrace.

BUT Freeview is great

[Aaken]

It is quite wrong to suggest that most German o/p is home grown. I would say about 50% is non-German.
BTW I watched Fahrenheit 9/11 on the eve of the US elections on Pro7 but then my German is passable :-)

Here is tonight's offering on RTL2 but then Sat eve tends to be movietime:

RTL II HEUTE
19.00 Big Brother - Doku-Soap
20.00 RTL II News - Nachrichten
20.15 Kollisionskurs: Panik im Tower Actiondrama USA/CDN 1997 Regie: Richard Howard
22.15 Crawlers - Angriff der Killerinsekten - Horrorfilm USA 2001 - Regie: John Allardice
0.10 Color Of Night - Erotikthriller USA 1994 - Regie: Richard Rush
2.50 RTL II News - Nachrichten
3.05 Crawlers - Angriff der Killerinsekten - Horrorfilm USA 2001 Regie: John Allardice
4.45 Felicity - Gewinner und Verlierer

[Otis]

He is also wrong to say that Premiere is just films and sport (and that the rest of German TV is FTA.

There is a lot more to Premeire than just films and sport!

http://www.lyngsat.com/packages/premiere.html

[ALanJ]

The curious problem for ITV is that they do want regionalisation - the problem is that regionalisation only works for people who have a Sky card - either one of the new FTV or a subscription. If you don't have a card no one knows where you are and so your EPG can't be set.

[Otis]

Then it would default to ITV 1(london) on 103 (as already happens with BBC1 (london) 101 and BBC 2 (England) 102) without a viewing card inserted.

So what is your point exactly ..?

Originally Posted by Otis

Then it would default to ITV 1(london) on 103 (as already happens with BBC1 (london) 101 and BBC 2 (England) 102) without a viewing card inserted.

So what is your point exactly ..?

The point is users without a Sky FTV card will get an out of region ITV service on 103. Other regions would have to be found elsewhere on the EPG. So local advertising revenues would be less and ITV London revenues could arguably increase.

Also SMG would not be too pleased. Unless Sky come up with a system in its EPG to allow user selection of their region. It doesn't really matter so much for BBC as 90% of its programming is identical, for ITV progs may be the same but ads aren't.

[jackthom]

I suspect that the number of Sky Digibox users who have no card at all is probably very small indeed so ITV advertisers needn't worry too much.
While CH4 & 5 remain encrypted few can do without a FTV card.
If ultimately these two also follow by going FTA, then why stick with a Sky digibox when there are so many others to choose from with far better facilities (like being able to have the channels in the order you prefer and no more annoying red dots ).

[ALanJ]

Originally Posted by jfman

Also SMG would not be too pleased. Unless Sky come up with a system in its EPG to allow user selection of their region. It doesn't really matter so much for BBC as 90% of its programming is identical, for ITV progs may be the same but ads aren't.

Correct.

And I think Channel 4 has the same problem in that although their programming is identical they actually have different regional advertising. It may not be significant but I'm sure it is something that people care about as it will notionally reduce the number of viewers that can be delivered in a certain region of the UK which might be the difference between getting a piece of advertising at the price you want and not.

What I find amusing is that I suspect the problems as has been said elsewhere is that the regulator is efectively causing the problems. The reality is that in a perverse way it is Ofcom who have Sky over a barrel. ITV are to someextent stuck with the same problem.

Sky of course need a new pricing policy which views variations on the same channel as different from a pricing on a different channel (maybe need to exclude +1 channels from this). That way Sky can get what they want, ITV can get the deal they want and everyone can go home happy.

At the moment it sounds like Sky can't do a deal as they would effect the pricing they have to offer the EPG entry to other customers.

[Ian1234]

I suppose that when/if the BBC/ITV Freesat starts the boxes will allow users to select their region. Maybe they could have it so when you first use the box it asks for your postcode and sets the BBC and ITV region correctly.

Originally Posted by Ian1234

I suppose that when/if the BBC/ITV Freesat starts the boxes will allow users to select their region. Maybe they could have it so when you first use the box it asks for your postcode and sets the BBC and ITV region correctly.

I'd expect BBC Freesat to be like the analogue days giving you the choice of channel numbers. Sky to an extent created this problem by trying to manage every aspect of broadcast and distribution rather than leaving some aspects open to competition.

I do find it difficult to believe Sky can't introduce software in the EPG to allow users to select and store their BBC/ITV regions without a viewing card.

[davesull]

I think it's to do with the fact that some channels then wouldn't appear on EPGs at all! They're only there now because Sky prevents viewers from meddling with the EPG. If they thought that viewers could remove them, they'd be less keen to pay Sky's carriage charges. A BBC Freesat scheme on the other hand would use non-Sky boxes where the channels can be ordered to each viewer's personal taste.

Originally Posted by davesull

I think it's to do with the fact that some channels then wouldn't appear on EPGs at all! They're only there now because Sky prevents viewers from meddling with the EPG. If they thought that viewers could remove them, they'd be less keen to pay Sky's carriage charges. A BBC Freesat scheme on the other hand would use non-Sky boxes where the channels can be ordered to each viewer's personal taste.

That is the point though. You shouldn't have to pay carriage charge, only encryption charges.

[Westward]

I suspect that ITV in particular would want a system where viewers are forced to watch the correct regional version, maybe by having to enter their postcode upon purchase.

The notion of someone living in Plymouth being able to choose to watch ITV1 Yorkshire would not please an advertiser that had paid for slots on ITV1 Westcountry.

Of course it is possible for people to make this choice already but ITV seem fairly happy that the vast majority of people don't know how to add the 15 or so ITV1 versions to their Other Channels menu and therefore it's not a problem.

[davesull]

Originally Posted by jfman

That is the point though. You shouldn't have to pay carriage charge, only encryption charges.

I'm talking about carriage on the EPG which is Sky-owned and for which Sky is therefore entitled to make a charge. Most broadcasters will I think be happy to pay that because it guarantees them some visibility.

(I believe there are 1 or 2 channels apart from the ITV regions that don't appear on the EPG. Does anyone know which ones they are? I don't - they're not visible to me.)