[Rapture TV]

Originally Posted by radioguy88

Misconduct in a public office relates to offences such as receiving bribes for delivering information, not doing a poor job. (Otherwise half the civil service would probably be in prison.) Is that what you're accusing Ofcom of, or do you just not know what you're talking about?

We are aware that it is linked fraud and bribery but 'Misconduct' does not only apply to cases involving bribes. It is aimed at public offices that fail to follow the rule of law and knowingly breach the regulations.

The reason so many civil servants make so many mistakes is because they think they are above the law. Look at the FSA in the Northern Rock case. Ofcom was given all the evidence they would need from Rapture to investigate the real costs of a STB and copies of the Sky Subscription and Interactive Discount agreements.

Ofcom made not a single reference in the Rapture case to these facts and contracts. That wasn't a mistake but a diliberate action to ignore them.

The same happened with accounts that Rapture submitted showing the BSkyB owned businesses that both supplied the STB's and the subsidies all made profits. These to were ignored by Ofcom and no reference to the information in them was made in the Rapture case.

The Misconduct claim under Common Law says this:

Misconduct in a Public Office
Misconduct in a Public Office is a Common Law offence and is committed when the holder of that office acts, or omits to act, in a way contrary to his duty.

KEY ELEMENTS
Public Office Holder: This is not confined to the holder of an office in a narrow or technical sense but rather; one is able, in a wider sense, to encompass the person who is performing a public function.

Breach of Duty: Public officers are expected to carry out their duties conscientiously and those who display a broader lack of integrity or who are found seriously wanting in the discharge of their duties may be considered to have ‘breached their duty’

Mental Element: Must intend to do the act or omission and do so with the knowledge of its consequence.
Seriousness: The misconduct must be of such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder.
NOTES
The offence is restricted to persons who are public office holders

We think Ofcom deliberately ignored the facts and failed to follow the regulations. We know this as we have other documents that show Ofcom has refused to answer questions concerning the Sky STB's and then failed to record those questions in documents that Ofocm submitted to the Appeal tribunal. Rapture even made a 'Freedom of Information' request to get the original notes of that meeting. Ofcom confirmed they had the notes but refused the request claiming section 21 of the act claiming that the information was freely available elsewhere. This was untrue the only other place that a typed version of the notes were in the Ofcom defence documents which were missing the Rapture questions on the Sky STB.

This is further evidence that Ofcom was following a deliberate course of action and that it was no mistake.

[Rapture TV]

Originally Posted by vivaroman

dont get me wrong but you seem to have allready decided that you have won the case ,what if it goes against you,will you accept a ruling from the C A T or continue flogging a dead horse in the euro courts.

If we do not win the Appeal we will of course be devastated as this means that for all the effort we will have failed to prove our case.

Rapture had to close down because Sky had first delayed the Rapture EPG listing by 5 months with a further 3 months before a permanent number was confirmed. This lost Rapture almost half of its working capital before the channel showed a single programme. Other channel also face lengthy delays at the hands of BSkyB. And secondly they terminated the EPG even when they knew that there was an Appeal in the process.

As for the question if we lose. We would take advice but our feeling is we have nothing else to give so it is unlikely we would continue to fight but that would depend on the ruling.

If we win and BSkyB are found in breach then yes we expect Sky will have to hand back 'Hundreds of Millions' to all the channels they have overcharged.

Since Sky makes £800 million a year profit after all costs have been deducted it will have no affect on Sky Subscribers. Perhaps more channels will be able to make better-funded programmes, as they will not be paying excessive fees to BSkyB. So in fact the Rapture case may improve your service.

Plus more jobs will be created by channels that have been able to save on the EPG fees.

[park_gate]

Rapture TV,

Do you know if there are similar regulations for fair and reasonable pricing for CA?

I'm wondering if we might see a reduction in costs that could make some pay stations go FTV.

Terry

[Rapture TV]

Originally Posted by park_gate

Rapture TV,

Do you know if there are similar regulations for fair and reasonable pricing for CA?

I'm wondering if we might see a reduction in costs that could make some pay stations go FTV.

Terry

Yes there are they are the same Oftel 2002 guidelines for the supply of Conditional Access.

Sky has been overcharging all other channels both Pay and FTA. Because if you cannot get the same offer of a 'Free' box offer if you don't subscibe then the regulations call this a 'tied' agreement and in that case only the vertically intergrated supplier should pay the costs. (BSkyB)

So as we all know and as Rapture submitted the Sky Subscription and Interactive Discount agreements to Ofcom customers cannot get the same 'Free' equipment offer if you don't subscribe. Sky claims that everyone can get the equipment 'Free' offer without a Sky Subscription but you have to get it fitted through Sky.

Its free fitting for Sky Subscribers but £120 if you don't sign up for a Sky Subscription. Thats a 'TIED' agreement. Only Sky should pay the subsidies as the same offer of 'Free' equipment is not avaliable without a Sky Subscription.

That means that BSkyB and its other company Sky Subscription Services Limited (SSSL) has been breaching the Oftel guidelines for 6 years and been over charging all Pay TV operators as well as the FTA channels with inflated EPG fees.

The Oftel guidelines can be found here: http://www.rapturetv.com/news_article.php?News=13

[wgmorg]

The only possible answer to question like that ...

Originally Posted by park_gate

So do you believe Sky’s subscribers should be subsidised by Rapture?

[rai uno]

Appeal result due to be announced in just a few minutes ............

[NEWLINEtv]

Originally Posted by rai uno

Appeal result due to be announced in just a few minutes ............

really?

[omnidirectional]

I imagine it is being announced as we type as it was scheduled for 1pm.

[CaffeineJunkie]

http://www.catribunal.org.uk/documen...ture310308.pdf

[rai uno]

"We consider on the material before us that Rapture's submissions on this issue are misconceived"

Failed.

[CaffeineJunkie]

"CONCLUSION
150. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal unanimously dismisses the appeal."

I have only scanned the document at the moment but I am looking forward to looking objectively at both sides of the story.

[CaffeineJunkie]

The Competition Appeal Tribunal handed down its judgement today at 1PM.

Judg1082Rapture310308.pdf

The conclusion was "150. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal unanimously dismisses the appeal.""

I'd advise anyone interested in the case to read the document as it's nice to see the whole of the argument for a change.

[bignoise]

Originally Posted by park_gate

I accept that may be part of the story but what about Dave? This station is not that old yet it is free on freeview. I believe a combination of not enough space on Astra 2D with high EPG and CA costs are making stations that are free else where into pay stations on Sky.

Dave is encrypted presumably because it is not really a new channel, just the new name for UKTV G2 - which used to be pay and is presumably still under a pay contract.

[mlt11]

A very clear, well written Judgement. Every aspect of Rapture's appeal was very decisively dismissed in the Judgement.

One thing I think was particularly interesting was in paragraph 90 on page 22 where it says:

"Rapture did not apply in this Appeal for disclosure and inspection of the Sky Platform Model."

[Strathclyde]

...a real pity. The CAT conclusions do contain the crumb of comfort for Rapture that ' ...this appeal has raised some important points of principle'.

Bodies like the CAT can only follow the strictly defined legal processes. They are not able to take account of matters not included in the original dispute. So (as so often in these things) justice has not necessarily been served, even though they have delivered a valid judgement.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Strathclyde

So (as so often in these things) justice has not necessarily been served, even though they have delivered a judgement.

I don't know, I think common sense has won out - entering a contract with no intention of ever paying the contracted price shouldn't be encouraged.

Whinging on a public forum has also lost him any popular support he might have had and may well have prejudiced his case?.

[Strathclyde]

Originally Posted by mlt11

....

"Rapture did not apply in this Appeal for disclosure and inspection of the Sky Platform Model."

A very good point, though I suspect Rapture will claim they wanted, but were refused access to, the model.

I see this as a tactical failure on the part of Rapture's lawyers, who (at least on the evidence of the parts of their performance which I personally witnessed) were not very impressive.

What is ludicrous is that not even Ofcom has apparently seen Sky's Model....or at least, they hadn't before this appeal was brought (and I know that, because Ofcom told me).

The Clause 90 in the judgement is a pretty clear pointer to the fact that Rapture didn't have access to the model, and so was incapable of making a case against it - but SHOULD have demanded full access, and a deferment to build their case.

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. Rapture's lawyers missed out badly by not explaining things properly.

But such (sadly...) is the legal process. Some of us remember Gerald Nabarro's (in)famous statement... " In this country, you get the justice you can afford..."

[mlt11]

Originally Posted by 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. Rapture's lawyers missed out badly by not explaining things properly.

I'm sure the CAT would have looked at the Sky Platform Model and the economics.

I don't want to go through all the arguments again but I think it is very clear that Sky spends at least around £200million per year on set top boxes.

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.

So the key to the decision was whether the set top box costs could be included. Once the CAT decided on that, everything else followed automatically.

[mlt11]

Originally Posted by Strathclyde

neither the CAT themselves, nor the legal counsel, had any even half-clear understanding of how the platform works technically, nor the economics involved.

Just to say that one of the 3 CAT members who sat in Judgement on the case was Professor Paul Stoneman who is an economist. See his biography below.

I think it's safe to say that he would have fully considered the economics of the case.

http://www.catribunal.org.uk/about/m...sp?Category=19

[CaffeineJunkie]

Indeed, it's very easy when you lose one of these things to blame something else for your failure (not enough money), but just reading the judgement you can see that Raptures case was flawed in many ways.

[rai uno]

"Rapture is dissapointed to report that we have not been successful in our appeal against Ofcom and Sky.

A full statement will follow shortly"

By "dissapointed", I think they mean "disappointed".

[wgmorg]

I personal do NOT like Sky or the way it is run...

BUT I like even less organisations that behave like Rapture did... entering contracts they know they have no intention of fulfilling .

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

entering a contract with no intention of ever paying the contracted price shouldn't be encouraged

[wgmorg]

Item 131....

Rapture had sufficient opportunity to place
before OFCOM such information as it considered relevant to OFCOM’s determination
of the dispute. Rapture cannot now complain if there was further information which
was relevant but which Rapture did not provide OFCOM. In any event Rapture has not
sought to identify or put such information before this Tribunal or shown its relevance.
Rapture’s assertions are bald and devoid of particularity. On the material before us we
do not consider that there is any substance in Rapture’s submissions on the ‘willingness
to pay’ issue.

Originally Posted by Ben kowalski

Don't you guys just love it. Kick somebody when he's down? You are no different to a pack of hyenas.

[Sat.Deelay]

Well. All of you Sky 'fanboys' seem rather happy with yourselves regarding the outcome of the case... 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.

I assume you are all happy with the endless repeated crap that Sky, Viacom and UKTV etc. constantly show, and are uninterested by original programming that is catered for by the other channels? Feel free to continue letting Sky take the money out of your back pocket each month. If you don't like Rapture TV, that's your opinion - but you need to realise that this case was never just about Rapture.

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?

Never thought I'd say this, but perhaps the days of just four channels were the best? At least then I could actually watch a sporting without having to pay a certain Australian £40/month...

Unlucky Rapture. I'm sure many others will feel the same way too. It's just very very sad to see all these idiots who hail Murdoch slagging you off... I'm sure they will all celebrate their 'victory' by ordering about 50 PPV movies tonight...

[bumsex]

Originally Posted by Sat.Deelay

Well. All of you Sky 'fanboys' seem rather happy with yourselves regarding the outcome of the case... 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.

I assume you are all happy with the endless repeated crap that Sky, Viacom and UKTV etc. constantly show, and are uninterested by original programming that is catered for by the other channels? Feel free to continue letting Sky take the money out of your back pocket each month. If you don't like Rapture TV, that's your opinion - but you need to realise that this case was never just about Rapture.

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?

Never thought I'd say this, but perhaps the days of just four channels were the best? At least then I could actually watch a sporting without having to pay a certain Australian £40/month...

Unlucky Rapture. I'm sure many others will feel the same way too. It's just very very sad to see all these idiots who hail Murdoch slagging you off... I'm sure they will all celebrate their 'victory' by ordering about 50 PPV movies tonight...

Unlucky Rapture? No, them and their lawyers could not substatiate their claims, no luck involved.