# Murdoch robbery - lets stop this!



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Murdoch receives money from the BBC. Yes really. Part of our licence fee money it's diverted to Rupert Murdoch. Why? Under an act of Parliament the BBC actually has to pay to have BBC programmes shown on Sky - No Sky don't pay the BBC - the BBC actually have to pay Sky! - up to £100 million per year goes to Sky under this system. Can you believe it? 

Send a message to the culture secretary Jeremy Hunt as he draws up his green paper this week before it's too late. It's very easy and takes a few seconds. Click the link...

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_murdochs_b ... 65&v=12287


----------



## YoungOldUn (Apr 12, 2011)

John that is scandalous!

Just 'Sent' the message.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Well, firstly, it's £10m a year, not £100m. Secondly, the BBC also pays Virgin to carry their channels, so it's not really Murdochs robbery, it's just how it works in this country. And thirdly, Sky (and Virgin, Freesat and Freeview) are all forced by the regulators to carry the BBC channels, and bandwidth costs money (as does the support for other associated services like EPG listings, etc).

Whether or not this is a good way to do things is up for debate, but whatever is decided should apply to all broadcast platforms, not just Sky, because you don't like Murdoch (unlike Branson, the cute and cudly billionaire).


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

It's up to 100m. Yes I don't like Murdoch's influence and for good reason. In the US the Murdoch owned Fox network pay programme providers. In this country, as you say, we have a different model which is biassed to penalise the BBC which was seen as being too powerful and in order to help out other providers. But what has happened? I ask you who do you trust more Murdoch or the BBC? Is this system in need of change? I know where I want my money entrusted.


----------



## Gforce (May 10, 2011)

I'd like to opt out of BBC all together don't see why I should be forced to pay for something I never use


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> It's up to 100m. Yes I don't like Murdoch's influence and for good reason. In the US the Murdoch owned Fox network pay programme providers. In this country, as you say, we have a different model which is biassed to penalise the BBC which was seen as being too powerful and in order to help out other providers. But what has happened? I ask you who do you trust more Murdoch or the BBC? Is this system in need of change? I know where I want my money entrusted.


It's 'up to' £100m in payments to networks to carry the channels, but only £10m of that is going to Sky. Your original post said _"the BBC actually have to pay Sky! - up to £100 million per year."_ which is misleading.

The model in this country isn't biased against the BBC in particular, as other channel owners also pay networks to carry their content. It also isn't biased towards Sky, as all networks charge the channel owners to carry their content, not just Sky. Also, Sky don't make any money from the BBC channels because they're free-to-air - Anyone with a satellite receiver (not just Sky ones) can view the channels without giving Sky a penny. This is the main difference between the UK and US models - in the US, the channels are paid by the networks because the networks are receiving payments from customers for those channels, so a percentage is passed on to the channel owners.

By the way, I don't like Murdoch (although, having worked for a few different broadcasters, I don't really look at the BBC with the rose-tinted glasses that most people seem to either) but I think there's an interesting debate here that's just being buried by the usual blinkered Murdoch-bashing.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Someone once worked out that the cost of funding programme making through a licence fee system was many times cheaper than funding done through advertising because of all the tiered layers taking their profit in the process and it all gets paid for by us when we buy things. I don't watch Sky but I'm paying for it when I buy things and I don't have a choice. If rather pay a licence fee for the general good of society and in an efficient manner.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> Someone once worked out that the cost of funding programme making through a licence fee system was many times cheaper than funding done through advertising because of all the tiered layers taking their profit in the process and it all gets paid for by us when we buy things. I don't watch Sky but I'm paying for it when I buy things and I don't have a choice. If rather pay a licence fee for the general good of society and in an efficient manner.


Wow... You really have to hate Sky to worry about the tiny percentage of your money going to them via advertising when you buy products.

Maybe you should also think about how, when you buy any product, your money is also going into salaries for people who have Sky subscriptions... That's a much bigger percentage of Skys revenue... Scary stuff.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

The argument is a general one applied to commercial broadcasting versus licence fee funded broadcasting, opposing the often quoted myth and idea that commercial broadcasting is "free" and if you don't watch or listen to the BBC then you shouldn't have to pay the licence fee. That's like; I use private health care and shouldn't have to pay for the NHS - my argument is that it''s for society's benefit - but that's a side issue.

I don't think it's "blinkered" to notice what Murdoch has been up to and fight back against it. I think such action is for society's good too.

Up to £100m is what Sky charge the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 etc for broadcasting their free to air programmes.

Now you mention it, yes all that money flowing into Murdoch's coffers from his subscribers and advertisers (which isn't tiny) I'd argue has not been a good thing and has a corrosive effect, touching so many areas of society from influencining government, phone hacking, corruption and just look what's happened with footballer's sallaries and the atitudes these so called roll models create.

Anyway, stop being pickey and sign the bloomin thing :wink:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> The argument is a general one applied to commercial broadcasting versus licence fee funded broadcasting, opposing the often quoted myth and idea that commercial broadcasting is "free" and if you don't watch or listen to the BBC then you shouldn't have to pay the licence fee. That's like; I use private health care and shouldn't have to pay for the NHS - my argument is that it''s for society's benefit - but that's a side issue.


I personally think the BBCs output (as a whole, not just the obvious video content) is worth my license fee, but you can't put it on a level with the NHS.



John-H said:


> I don't think it's "blinkered" to notice what Murdoch has been up to and fight back against it. I think such action is for society's good too.


No, the 'blinkered' bit comes in when people focus so closely on the fact that Murdoch may be linked to something that they ignore everything else. This story (and it's not a new one) has nothing to do with Murdoch, and using it as a stick to beat him with just opens you up to easy criticism, because it makes it obvious you've missed the actual point.



John-H said:


> Up to £100m is what Sky charge the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 etc for broadcasting their free to air programmes.


Actually, I think the BBC paid (last year) about £180m to various other companies to distribute its content, with £10m of that going to Sky. But no one is up in arms about the fact that Astra charged them for satellite bandwidth - is it only Sky who should provide services for free? (just to clarify things, Sky don't charge for broadcasting BBCs FTA content. BBC broadcast that themselves. Sky charge for the EPG listings and other services which the BBC have voluntarily chosen to use (it's not mandatory and not all channels use them all)



John-H said:


> Anyway, stop being pickey and sign the bloomin thing :wink:


I'm not signing anything so poorly thought out and if they'd explained the situation clearly without attempting to manipulate the reader into thinking this was some Murdoch conspiracy, I imagine they'd struggle to get any signatures at all.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

56,000 so far. We'll see.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> 56,000 so far. We'll see.


The funny thing is, to stop Sky from receiving money from PSBs, Ofcom would have to stop *all* networks from taking payments and, whilst £10m is a drop in the ocean to Sky, it might hurt the other broadcasters a lot more.


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

Damnant quod non intellegunt - Cicero

Joe


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > The argument is a general one applied to commercial broadcasting versus licence fee funded broadcasting, opposing the often quoted myth and idea that commercial broadcasting is "free" and if you don't watch or listen to the BBC then you shouldn't have to pay the licence fee. That's like; I use private health care and shouldn't have to pay for the NHS - my argument is that it''s for society's benefit - but that's a side issue.
> ...


I'm glad you think so. Presumably you agree that everyone pays under the licence fee system for society's benefit. There is an undeniable parallel with other altruistic systems. I use it only as an illustration of a logical and moral argument, not an equivalence of purpose.



Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think it's "blinkered" to notice what Murdoch has been up to and fight back against it. I think such action is for society's good too.
> ...


With over 40% of the Sky audience watching free to air content from the BBC and others it hardly seems right that the BBC and co should pay Sky for Sky to have this attraction on their platform - especially if all they do is list it. But Murdoch has his cake and eats it. His Fox organisation in the US is receiving distribution fees for its content from the cable companies who want the content. Over here he gets paid for receiving stuff he wants to distribute. Go figure!

The system, which at the time was set up to subsidise emerging platforms such as Murdoch's is in need of reform. That is the basic point which should not be missed and what this action is about. Murdoch's empire has grown so big, powerful and as we are seeing corrupt, it needs something doing about it. By criticising the outcry against Murdoch do you intend to have the effect of giving him support?



Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > Up to £100m is what Sky charge the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 etc for broadcasting their free to air programmes.
> ...


Somewhat pedantic and there is a difference between a broadcaster paying for a "transmitter" service and an organisation like Sky who want programme content. The point is Sky are being paid when it is they that should be paying because they want the content. Perhaps the BBC ond other broadcasters should refuse to pay and withdraw their programmes and then see how Murdoch copes with the complaints. Murdoch has made the argument in the US that he should be paid by the distributors for his Fox programme content.



Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, stop being pickey and sign the bloomin thing :wink:
> ...


58,857 now. I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man to sort things out properly - stop the greedy from taking advantage for their own ends and help the weak and the good for the betterment of society. It's that altruistic argument again :wink:


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

TTCool said:


> Damnant quod non intellegunt - Cicero
> 
> Joe


Or is it that it's understood that some refuse to condemn?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> 58,857 now. I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man to sort things out properly - stop the greedy from taking advantage for their own ends and help the weak and the good for the betterment of society. It's that altruistic argument again :wink:


Who are the greedy though? It seems that you want to stop Sky from charging the BBC when they provide a service to them, purely because Murdoch owns 39% of them. You're not complaining about all the other companies that the BBC has to pay.

I mentioned it earlier, but do you think Astra should provide satellite transponders to the BBC for free? What about Sony - should they give them all the cameras they want free of charge? Why single out Sky? The only reason you've given so far is the Murdoch connection, which is just ridiculous.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> TTCool said:
> 
> 
> > Damnant quod non intellegunt - Cicero
> ...


Who are we supposed to be condemning? Murdoch? Fine - he has my condemnation, for what it's worth. But does that mean it's right to randomly create stupid rules designed solely to penalise any company wholly or partially owned by News Corp? It makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now you are grossly misrepresenting what I said, twisting and turning like a twisty turney thing :wink: I argued that the BBC are providing a service to Sky - but perversely paying for it - which is wrong.

I made the point that paying for "transmitter" services is not the same thing as a trade for programme content - which should be a payment from Sky to the BBC et al. Do keep up :wink:



Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > TTCool said:
> ...


It makes sense to nearly 60,000 people now  And a rule that sorted Murdoch out wouldn't be stupid - to someone condemning him.

The really stupid rule is the one that has the BBC paying Sky to give them the content that Sky should be paying for - contrasting with Fox getting paid by the cable companies for content in the US!


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

What service are the BBC providing to Sky? They're transmitting their own content on their own (rented) transponders, which can be received for free by anyone with a satellite receiver. Sky are sending SI data to BBCs muxes to be added in, and are maintaining the BBC schedules for their digibox/PVR. Sky are also providing the mechanisms which allow the BBC to maintain regional services using the subscribers postcode (something the BBC can't do with just an FTA broadcast on a satellite).

In return, the BBC give Sky what? Did anyone ever pay for a Sky subscription because they really wanted to watch Eastenders on BBC1?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> It makes sense to nearly 60,000 people now


The only reason it has 60,000 people signing up to it is because it is embarrassingly devoid of actual facts or information on the subject and crammed full of emotive rubbish designed to trick the reader (the headline says it all, really). If they'd written the same 'article' about how Virgin Media were 'stealing' the BBCs money, they wouldn't be doing quite so well.

Also, you do realise this very thing has been debated numerous times (most recently in the last half of 2011) by the govenrment and the BBC? It might be a shock to all the people who put their name down, but it's not really news to anyone in the industry or the government.



John-H said:


> And a rule that sorted Murdoch out wouldn't be stupid - to someone condemning him.


As I explained, it won't 'sort Murdoch out', unless you think that £3.9m a year is even a blip on his radar. And just because I condemn the actions of someone, doesn't mean I think it's justified to do anything I can to damage them. That's not the kind of society I want to live in.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> What service are the BBC providing to Sky? They're transmitting their own content on their own (rented) transponders, which can be received for free by anyone with a satellite receiver. Sky are sending SI data to BBCs muxes to be added in, and are maintaining the BBC schedules for their digibox/PVR. Sky are also providing the mechanisms which allow the BBC to maintain regional services using the subscribers postcode (something the BBC can't do with just an FTA broadcast on a satellite).
> 
> In return, the BBC give Sky what? Did anyone ever pay for a Sky subscription because they really wanted to watch Eastenders on BBC1?


As I said over 40% of Sky's audience watches the free to air content and as I've said more than once and this is the whole basis of this action which you seem not to be acknowledging is that Sky want this content and should pay for it in the same way as Murdoch's Fox get paid by the cable companies.



Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > It makes sense to nearly 60,000 people now
> ...


Murdoch is unpopular because of his track record. I think most people with common sense can see this and make judgements accordingly. If you want to support him by your arguments then the same people can also decide whether to accept them or not.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> As I said over 40% of Sky's audience watches the free to air content and as I've said more than once and this is the whole basis of this action which you seem not to be acknowledging is that Sky want this content and should pay for it in the same way as Murdoch's Fox get paid by the cable companies.


Well, the statistic you're trying to quote is actually that 40% of the BBCs license fee payers choose to view their content on the Sky platform. I still don't understand why Sky should pay the BBC for this. It's free content, which is also available on numerous other platforms. The exact same content (and I mean *exactly* the same - same transponder, same service, same PIDs) is available on Freesat, if you don't want a Sky subscription. So, Sky don't *have* this content, they just make additional services available to their subscribers (regionality, series link, etc) at the BBCs voluntary request. Also, the reason it's on the Sky platform is that it's part of the BBC remit to ensure it puts the content we've paid for on as many platforms as possible in order to ensure we all have easy access to it (otherwise why on earth would the BBC pay Virgin, Sky, etc to do it?).

As I said before, Fox is a pay channel, so the money it receives from the cable companies is simply a percentage of their subscription, in the same way that pay channels on Sky make money. The situation there is not even remotely the same as with the BBC here, so it's pointless trying to use it as an analogy.



John-H said:


> Murdoch is unpopular because of his track record. I think most people with common sense can see this and make judgements accordingly. If you want to support him by your arguments then the same people can also decide whether to accept them or not.


Let's fix this for you. What the letters _should_ say is this:

Dear jim'll fix it,
I don't understand the financial or technical side of this at all, but I really really hate Rupert Murdoch, so can you make up some rules that mean he pays the BBC some money please? It doesn't matter why he pays the money, because he's a bad man and the BBC are good, so it makes sense that they should have the money, not him.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Spandex said:


> Dear jim'll fix it,
> I don't understand the financial or technical side of this at all, but I really really hate Rupert Murdoch, so can you make up some rules that mean he pays the BBC some money please? It doesn't matter why he pays the money, because he's a bad man and the BBC are good, so it makes sense that they should have the money, not him.


Sounds good enough reasoning to me. Sky sucks. Rupert Murdoch is a lying, robbing bastard and sucks. Long live the BBC.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

yep, and i will sign that one as well !!! :lol:


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

Spandex said:


> Dear jim'll fix it,
> I don't understand the financial or technical side of this at all, but I really really hate Rupert Murdoch, so can you make up some rules that mean he pays the BBC some money please? It doesn't matter why he pays the money, because he's a bad man and the BBC are good, so it makes sense that they should have the money, not him.


Dear Spandex knows everything,

as always you are right, what would we do without you? Us poor plebs who have no understanding of anything and who cannot make a sound judgement on our own are continually in your debt for taking the time out of your busy life to set us right.
60,000 people and not one of them understands the financial or technical side of this, but it's okay as we have you with your amazing ability to read the minds of thousands of people and who in no way comes across as arrogant.

I can now leave my house this morning safe in the knowledge that we have someone who is always right and is always looking to correct us everytime we are wrong and for this I thank you.

Just as an aside and I'm very likely to be massively wrong and told so for my troubles but emotional and moral opinions do count in an argument. Not everything can be argued from a scientific standpoint alone. In a judicial sense past,present and future behaviour is taken into consideration when judging someone, and in this case it's Murdoch who's past behaviour is shady to say the least. So what if you think it's not fair. Lots of rules and laws in this life are not fair but Murdoch and people like him have a greater degree of access to the law via money than the vast majority will ever have and this gives them a huge advantage when it comes to the law or what is considered fair.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Bung said:


> Dear Spandex knows everything,
> 
> as always you are right, what would we do without you? Us poor plebs who have no understanding of anything and who cannot make a sound judgement on our own are continually in your debt for taking the time out of your busy life to set us right.
> 60,000 people and not one of them understands the financial or technical side of this, but it's okay as we have you with your amazing ability to read the minds of thousands of people and who in no way comes across as arrogant.
> ...


Sigh...

I know that there will be plenty of people out there who understand all of the implications of this and still side with the BBC (I've discussed this many times with colleagues in the broadcast industry). They will, however be able to present an actual justification for wanting to change the rules that will go beyond "I don't like Murdoch and he owns part of Sky". They almost certainly won't be signing that particular petition though, because they will recognise it for what it is. They will want an actual debate on how far we should go in order to protect PSBs, not a childish attempt at making stupid rules that will screw over every other broadcaster in the UK in a pointless attempt to deprive Sky of a pittance.

The only reason you want to make this into an emotional argument is that you don't know enough about it to discuss the actual regulatory issue at it's heart. Well done you.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

roddy said:


> yep, and i will sign that one as well !!! :lol:


You do realise that particular letter (the Avaaz.org one, not mine :wink: ) won't make any difference at all. The first thing Jeremy Hunt will notice (assuming he actually reads it in person) is the obvious mistake regarding the size of the payments made to Sky. Then he'll notice that there's no mention whatsoever of the payments made to other network operators, and it will become obvious what the letter is actually asking for (something he can't legally give you).

This is all academic though, as he will already be considering the issue, as it's a well known and understood debate, so the petition is, at best, just asking him to do something he's already doing.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

OK mate,, i will withdraw my signature immediatly ,,,,,,,,,, on this issue i willingly accept that you do know much more about it than myself, and prob most people on this forum, and the gen pub.,,,,,,,,, ( maybe we can start a collection to pay a hit man to take care of murdoch,,, but once we do him,, really where does one stop !! )


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

Spandex said:


> Bung said:
> 
> 
> > Dear Spandex knows everything,
> ...


No no, well done you for yet again never giving an inch to anyone, pat yourself on the back. If you knew that there were people who would understand said petition and still side with the BBC then why not say so from the outset? Are you suggesting that people outside "the industry" should just shut up, mind their own business and carry on? How about you give some credit to people's abilities to research subjects and make a judgement, or are we all just stupid to you?

I never said that this was a purely emotional issue as you well know, I said that emotion and morals are sometimes part of the argument right or wrong.This is completely different to me making this an emotional issue only. You ignore this as you seem to ignore a lot of what JohnH said because it would seem that you have no interest in discussion or understanding from a 2nd party and that we are wrong simply because we are ignorant.

Feel free to enlighten us on the details, I for one welcome new information and facts. Just see if you can do it without being condescending,patronising, arrogant and portraying a superiority complex the size of the moon. That should be a challenge for you.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> .... the reason it's on the Sky platform is that it's part of the BBC remit...


Well there is indeed the reason why, when the other platforms were still emerging, the government manipulated the market to encourage the new platforms. Would you have said that was unfair of them to do this or did you think it justified that they should try and achieve something for a greater good perhaps? But the market and the situation has now changed in a way that many think can no longer justify the continuance of the same system now there is something else to consider regarding the size and the relative merits of the organisations involved.

By the way, I thought your "Jim'll fix it letter" was hilarious :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Bung said:


> No no, well done you for yet again never giving an inch to anyone, pat yourself on the back. If you knew that there were people who would understand said petition and still side with the BBC then why not say so from the outset? Are you suggesting that people outside "the industry" should just shut up, mind their own business and carry on? How about you give some credit to people's abilities to research subjects and make a judgement, or are we all just stupid to you?
> 
> I never said that this was a purely emotional issue as you well know, I said that emotion and morals are sometimes part of the argument right or wrong.This is completely different to me making this an emotional issue only. You ignore this as you seem to ignore a lot of what JohnH said because it would seem that you have no interest in discussion or understanding from a 2nd party and that we are wrong simply because we are ignorant.
> 
> Feel free to enlighten us on the details, I for one welcome new information and facts. Just see if you can do it without being condescending,patronising, arrogant and portraying a superiority complex the size of the moon. That should be a challenge for you.


I should have given you an inch? What for? Two paragraphs of sarcasm and a quick line about how Murdoch is able to do this because of his access to well paid lawyers? You don't deserve an inch for that, sorry.

Of course there are two sides to the debate. There always is. But the linked article and poorly thought out letter aren't the other side to the argument. They're missing the point completely in their rush to pin the blame for more foul deeds on Murdoch. As I said at the start of the thread, this isn't about Sky, or Murdoch. It's about all network operators, and the rules that allow them to charge for the additional services associated with putting channels on their platforms. Those rules weren't made by Murdoch (or his lawyers). They were made in order to create a level playing field for all broadcasters (and even for the channel owners), and the amount Sky or Virgin or whoever can charge for those services is regulated so they can't be used to favour one broadcaster over another.

Now, the debate is, how much should market forces be put aside in order to protect PSBs. On one hand, you have the network operators who are genuinely providing an ongoing service and also investing in their platforms in order to add new functionality (which Ofcom states they will have to offer to people like the BBC, not just keep for their own channels). If Virgin knows they're not going to be allowed to charge channel owners for inclusion in some new Tivo functionality, how much incentive is there to develop it?

On the other hand, you have the argument that PSBs, being a public service, should be given more help within the market, as they're less able to compete on an equal footing.

Now, you can't just throw the PSBs to the wolves, but you can't completely screw all the network operators by giving PSBs a massive unfair advantage (and even the BBC needs there to be networks to transmit on), so the debate is, where do you balance these two forces. Unfortunately that article, based as it is on bashing Murdoch for any reason they can find, ignores all the facts and demands a complete change of the rules in order to stop Murdoch charging the BBC for anything.


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

Spandex said:


> Bung said:
> 
> 
> > No no, well done you for yet again never giving an inch to anyone, pat yourself on the back. If you knew that there were people who would understand said petition and still side with the BBC then why not say so from the outset? Are you suggesting that people outside "the industry" should just shut up, mind their own business and carry on? How about you give some credit to people's abilities to research subjects and make a judgement, or are we all just stupid to you?
> ...


Now that's more like it, wasn't that hard was it? And for the record I said never give an inch to anyone just in case you missed it which I'm sure you didn't, what you do or don't give to me personally is beyond my caring. As for the sarcasm, well it seemed the only way to get a nice sensible response from you instead of your usual condescension.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Bung said:


> Now that's more like it, wasn't that hard was it? And for the record I said never give an inch to anyone just in case you missed it which I'm sure you didn't, what you do or don't give to me personally is beyond my caring. As for the sarcasm, well it seemed the only way to get a nice sensible response from you instead of your usual condescension.


When you said "never give and inch", you were being sarcastic (unless you were genuinely congratulating me?? If so, thanks).

Was it hard explaining what the actual debate was about? No, not especially, but it hadn't occurred to me that I was going to have to provide *both* sides of the argument. It's a bit disappointing that everyone is happy to sign a petition to the government *without even knowing anything about it* other than the unverified contents of a tiny article.


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

Spandex said:


> Bung said:
> 
> 
> > Now that's more like it, wasn't that hard was it? And for the record I said never give an inch to anyone just in case you missed it which I'm sure you didn't, what you do or don't give to me personally is beyond my caring. As for the sarcasm, well it seemed the only way to get a nice sensible response from you instead of your usual condescension.
> ...


You're welcome, and why wouldn't it occur to you? If you can speak from a position of authority on a given subject and if you are not partisan towards said subject then surely sharing knowledge is a good thing. It's your delivery that in my opinion could do with some work and then maybe we could all actually discuss and learn something without fear of being labelled stupid.
I haven't signed the petition because I believe they are inevitably futile and also because I don't understand said subject enough to make a judgement. I have my personal feelings towards R.Murdoch & co but they are mine and despite what you might think would never dream of trying to influence anyone based on these.What I objected to was you coming in all heavy handed and generalising about people being stupid and uninformed, something which had I done the same you would probably have jumped on.

We are all people at the end of these keyboards and for some reason anonymity seems to eradicate most forms of standard human behaviour, granted it takes more effort to communicate properly this way but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try.


----------



## Gforce (May 10, 2011)

Oooh this is turning nasty


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Bung said:


> You're welcome, and why wouldn't it occur to you? If you can speak from a position of authority on a given subject and if you are not partisan towards said subject then surely sharing knowledge is a good thing. It's your delivery that in my opinion could do with some work and then maybe we could all actually discuss and learn something without fear of being labelled stupid.
> I haven't signed the petition because I believe they are inevitably futile and also because I don't understand said subject enough to make a judgement. I have my personal feelings towards R.Murdoch & co but they are mine and despite what you might think would never dream of trying to influence anyone based on these.What I objected to was you coming in all heavy handed and generalising about people being stupid and uninformed, something which had I done the same you would probably have jumped on.
> 
> We are all people at the end of these keyboards and for some reason anonymity seems to eradicate most forms of standard human behaviour, granted it takes more effort to communicate properly this way but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try.


I haven't called anyone stupid in this thread. I do believe though that people sending that letter off must, by definition, be uninformed because the letter contains enough errors and conspicuous omissions and only the uninformed wouldn't realise this. You're the only one complaining about the tone of my posts though - Neither John nor I have made much of an effort to be polite to each other here, but neither of us were offended as far as I can tell. It's just the nature of discussions on the internet.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> Bung said:
> 
> 
> > You're welcome, and why wouldn't it occur to you? If you can speak from a position of authority on a given subject and if you are not partisan towards said subject then surely sharing knowledge is a good thing. It's your delivery that in my opinion could do with some work and then maybe we could all actually discuss and learn something without fear of being labelled stupid.
> ...


Well, had I been thin skinned I could easily have been offended but I know your style and was willing to engage for the fun of it (not that I agree I have been as rude  ) and because with any luck, it will generate an interesting read and get more people thinking about these issues. Sure, the petition is emotive and the subject it's a complex issue, but I do think there needs to be a change.


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

Spandex said:


> I haven't called anyone stupid in this thread. I do believe though that people sending that letter off must, by definition, be uninformed because the letter contains enough errors and conspicuous omissions and only the uninformed wouldn't realise this. You're the only one complaining about the tone of my posts though - Neither John nor I have made much of an effort to be polite to each other here, but neither of us were offended as far as I can tell. It's just the nature of discussions on the internet.


Hey if you can embellish on what I say I can return the compliment.

So the nature of discussions on the internet is to not be polite to each other and therefore the intent is to not be polite to each other.... got it now I understand,must remember to start my next post with "Dear C**t" then I'm adhering to internet protocol.


----------



## Gforce (May 10, 2011)

I'm better informed form reading this thread so it's not all in vain 
It's been hard to understand all the points made but iv enjoyed it all the same


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Bung said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't called anyone stupid in this thread. I do believe though that people sending that letter off must, by definition, be uninformed because the letter contains enough errors and conspicuous omissions and only the uninformed wouldn't realise this. You're the only one complaining about the tone of my posts though - Neither John nor I have made much of an effort to be polite to each other here, but neither of us were offended as far as I can tell. It's just the nature of discussions on the internet.
> ...


Feel free to start with that if you want. I don't offend easily. For more information regarding internet protocol, see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Protocol


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Spandex said:


> Feel free to start with that if you want. I don't offend easily. For more information regarding internet protocol, see here:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Protocol


 :lol:


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

Spandex said:


> For more information regarding internet protocol, see here:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Protocol


Oh I see what you did there. You took a word in which you knew the context of the meaning and then linked it to Wiki giving a description of another meaning.Seriously,seriously funny, talent like yours is wasted on this forum.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Bung said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > For more information regarding internet protocol, see here:
> ...


The last time I thought you were being sarcastic, it turned out you were actually paying me a compliment and I completely misjudged it. I know what you're up to this time, you cheeky little minx... Thanks!


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

Spandex said:


> Bung said:
> 
> 
> > Spandex said:
> ...


You're most welcome oh great one......


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

An example of twisty turney reapy sowey, eh readers? :wink:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> An example of twisty turney reapy sowey, eh readers? :wink:


Hmmm... "twisty turny" is supposed to be me, yes? And "reapy sowy"? Did I get my comeuppance somewhere there?


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

John-H said:


> TTCool said:
> 
> 
> > Damnant quod non intellegunt - Cicero
> ...


Or is it that you have been so upset by Rupert Murdoch that the very mention of his name has become a red rag to a bull!

Joe


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

TTCool said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > TTCool said:
> ...


I think a lot of people have been upset by him and his power and influence need curtailing. In this case I think it wrong that *he* is paid *by* the BBC etc for content that is in *his* interest to have on his system of content provision called Sky. He's not running a satellite as has been pointed out (which is equivalent to a "transmitter" in old money and for which the BBC should pay for in the same way as they pay for their outsourced terrrestrial transmitters) but he is in the business of providing programme access through receivers as a package, some of the content of which is his own but some of which (40% by audience share) is the BBC's and other free to air providers content which is added to the Sky package. This free to air (licence paid by us and commercial for ITV etc) is of value to him - there is no denying this fact. Were he not to include the BBC, ITV, C4 etc content then people would complain, and buying a Sky package would not seem so attractive. More people would opt for terrestrial reception. His package of programme content provision would be diminished in value. It might have made sense to force the free to air broadcasters to pay him initially in order to subsidise an emerging platform but now he is so big and powerful it makes sense to change this. As I pointed out, in the US he sells his Fox content which is paid for by the cable companies who are providing indexed content reception as a package in a similar way as he is doing with Sky in this country. Double standards. That's the argument put as succinctly as I can.



Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > An example of twisty turney reapy sowey, eh readers? :wink:
> ...


You don't think I was referring to you do you? No, you were as straight as a die and we all thought you came over all cuddley :wink: :lol:

Seriously though, thanks for giving the thread some life so it's noticed and giving some depth and entertainment to the discussion


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

right ,, OK i am going to sign again


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Please bear in mind, no one is forced to pay anything. The services that the BBC are paying Sky for are optional and could be dropped at any time by the BBC without it resulting in the channels being taken off the platform. Primarily, I believe the payment is for use of the Conditional Access system to allow channel 101 to reflect the correct regional version of BBC1 (a service I think ITV chose not to take initially, to save money).


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

John, this thread has been so vigorously dissected and eviscerated that putting your views 'succinctly' is not an option. I/we have already got the picture.

If you are on a mission to try and clean up the world of business you will have to add a whole catalogue of names to your list. When you have listed all the sinners I will consider signing the petition.

What have you been drinking that has made you so melancholy? Not Miller's I hope, that would be a terrible waste :lol:

Joe


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Spandex said:


> Please bear in mind, no one is forced to pay anything. The services that the BBC are paying Sky for are optional and could be dropped at any time by the BBC without it resulting in the channels being taken off the platform. Primarily, I believe the payment is for use of the Conditional Access system to allow channel 101 to reflect the correct regional version of BBC1 (a service I think ITV chose not to take initially, to save money).


Actually, I need to correct this, as I looked through the BSKYB/SSSL published price list and I think a percentage of the £10m isn't optional as long as they have channels on Sky (although Sky are obliged to carry BBC channels, and the BBC are obliged to make their content available as widely as possible).

Another thing to consider is that Sky don't gain anything by the BBC having high viewing figures per se. They get subscriptions by being 'desirable' as a package and of course, if viewers had to use their TVs freeview tuner to watch BBC1, that inconvenience would make Sky's box slightly less desirable - but you can't calculate the benefit of carrying BBC channels by looking at viewing figures. Also, the BBC benefits from Sky functionality such as timeshifting, series links, etc in order to increase their viewing figures.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

OMG !!!!,, now i dont know whether i should sign or not !!! :roll: :roll:


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

TTCool said:


> John, this thread has been so vigorously dissected and eviscerated that putting your views 'succinctly' is not an option. I/we have already got the picture.
> 
> If you are on a mission to try and clean up the world of business you will have to add a whole catalogue of names to your list. When you have listed all the sinners I will consider signing the petition.
> 
> ...


What a cop out - whole world of business? You remind me of the Sultan who keeps on giving the young suitor extra tasks to do in return for his daughtor's hand in marriage :lol:


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

John-H said:


> TTCool said:
> 
> 
> > John, this thread has been so vigorously dissected and eviscerated that putting your views 'succinctly' is not an option. I/we have already got the picture.
> ...


Not at all a cop out, just being realistic. If you find it easier to focus on one person at a time...go for it. There will always be another wealthy businessman ready to fill Murdoch's socks and shoes. Who would be your next target?

Most people don't understand how global business works, with all its warts, and think within a village mentality. I remember when Mother Teresa was lambasted for accepting money for her cause from dubious individuals. How would that figure in your mission?

Joe


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

TTCool said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > TTCool said:
> ...


Well., you've got to start somewhere if you are going to do anything at all and usually it's best whith something you care about. The argument for inaction faced with something one doesn't agree with, when combined with the realisation there are other injustices in the world would have one, for example, not reporting a crime to the police. Imagine the conversation; "I wish to report a crime"... "Certainly sir but until you have compiled a list of all the criminals then I'm not going to bother filling the form in."

What would a certain one-time Variety Star performer and winner of Doncaster's ' knobbly knee competition Count Arther say? Come on, click that link whilst it's hot! 

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_murdochs_b ... 65&v=12287

62,855 so far...


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

One thing I've noticed (as I've been reading up more on this since this thread started) is that the BBC have changed their original position and now say that they wouldn't expect Sky to pay them for their channels (i.e. the reverse of the current situation). I think even they realised this would be unworkable from a regulatory viewpoint.

To be honest, I think the best they can hope for is that Ofcom change the rules so that network operators have to waive certain charges to PSBs (there are some charges for completely optional services which clearly cost the network operator money to provide, and I doubt they'll be forced to give those away for free).



John-H said:


> 62,855 so far...


When it hits 75,000 an email gets sent to Jeremy Hunt's spam folder


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

OK,, so now i dont have to sign ?? :?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

roddy said:


> OK,, so now i dont have to sign ?? :?


I've lost track...


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

So much power and influence in the hands of one man...


----------

