BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
Sep 7th 2005, 5:36 am
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 19:13:09 +0200, "Alan \(in Brussels\)"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In the message news:[email protected]...
>"Jim Ley" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> No, the marginal cost to the broadcaster is an awful lot more than
>> that, because they require the licence of the copyright owner to
>> broadcast the content in the extra territories,
>It's only "a huge cost" because of the absurd way that broadcasting rights
>are bought and sold : one *whole national territory* at a time.
Why is it absurd? It seems a sensible way for the copyright holders
to make money, and to sell their wares. I can't really see how
satellite transponder makes sense - it means that you can only sell to
one entity over huge geographic areas - monopoly content is much more
valuable, a TV station can't sell a football game for as much when
there are 10 other channels also broadcasting it.
> It's a historical relic that
>happens to suit some operators, but is inevitably a gross distortion of
>competition and should be outlawed as such.
Where's the distortion in competition, the owners are free to sell
however, and to whoever they want?
Jim.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In the message news:[email protected]...
>"Jim Ley" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> No, the marginal cost to the broadcaster is an awful lot more than
>> that, because they require the licence of the copyright owner to
>> broadcast the content in the extra territories,
>It's only "a huge cost" because of the absurd way that broadcasting rights
>are bought and sold : one *whole national territory* at a time.
Why is it absurd? It seems a sensible way for the copyright holders
to make money, and to sell their wares. I can't really see how
satellite transponder makes sense - it means that you can only sell to
one entity over huge geographic areas - monopoly content is much more
valuable, a TV station can't sell a football game for as much when
there are 10 other channels also broadcasting it.
> It's a historical relic that
>happens to suit some operators, but is inevitably a gross distortion of
>competition and should be outlawed as such.
Where's the distortion in competition, the owners are free to sell
however, and to whoever they want?
Jim.
Sep 7th 2005, 5:39 am
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:14:52 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>It can't be such a huge cost otherwise 3 BBC channels wouldn't be
>available on the local cable along with 27 other international
>channels here for sod all per month.
That's a priviliged position for Holland though, for historical
reasons, and is not reflected across the whole of Europe.
Jim.
>It can't be such a huge cost otherwise 3 BBC channels wouldn't be
>available on the local cable along with 27 other international
>channels here for sod all per month.
That's a priviliged position for Holland though, for historical
reasons, and is not reflected across the whole of Europe.
Jim.
Sep 7th 2005, 6:23 am
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
In the message news:[email protected]...
"Jim Ley" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 19:13:09 +0200, "Alan \(in Brussels\)"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In the message news:[email protected]...
> >"Jim Ley" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> No, the marginal cost to the broadcaster is an awful lot more than
> >> that, because they require the licence of the copyright owner to
> >> broadcast the content in the extra territories,
> >>
> >It's only "a huge cost" because of the absurd way that broadcasting
rights
> >are bought and sold : one *whole national territory* at a time.
> Why is it absurd? It seems a sensible way for the copyright holders
> to make money, and to sell their wares. I can't really see how
> satellite transponder makes sense - it means that you can only sell to
> one entity over huge geographic areas - monopoly content is much more
> valuable, a TV station can't sell a football game for as much when
> there are 10 other channels also broadcasting it.
> > It's a historical relic that
> >happens to suit some operators, but is inevitably a gross distortion of
> >competition and should be outlawed as such.
> Where's the distortion in competition, the owners are free to sell
> however, and to whoever they want?
Distortion essentially because its an 'all or nothing' deal, and
exploitation of a dominant position. And a refusal to deal in terms of
units smaller than one country prevents small, regional TV channels (or
cable operators) to get a piece of the action. It's as if cinemas would only
sell a monthy season ticket, but not entry to see a single show because that
is more profitable and their contracts with Hollywood require it.
Regards,
- Alan (in Brussels)
"Jim Ley" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 19:13:09 +0200, "Alan \(in Brussels\)"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In the message news:[email protected]...
> >"Jim Ley" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> No, the marginal cost to the broadcaster is an awful lot more than
> >> that, because they require the licence of the copyright owner to
> >> broadcast the content in the extra territories,
> >>
> >It's only "a huge cost" because of the absurd way that broadcasting
rights
> >are bought and sold : one *whole national territory* at a time.
> Why is it absurd? It seems a sensible way for the copyright holders
> to make money, and to sell their wares. I can't really see how
> satellite transponder makes sense - it means that you can only sell to
> one entity over huge geographic areas - monopoly content is much more
> valuable, a TV station can't sell a football game for as much when
> there are 10 other channels also broadcasting it.
> > It's a historical relic that
> >happens to suit some operators, but is inevitably a gross distortion of
> >competition and should be outlawed as such.
> Where's the distortion in competition, the owners are free to sell
> however, and to whoever they want?
Distortion essentially because its an 'all or nothing' deal, and
exploitation of a dominant position. And a refusal to deal in terms of
units smaller than one country prevents small, regional TV channels (or
cable operators) to get a piece of the action. It's as if cinemas would only
sell a monthy season ticket, but not entry to see a single show because that
is more profitable and their contracts with Hollywood require it.
Regards,
- Alan (in Brussels)
Sep 7th 2005, 6:24 am
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:39:48 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:14:52 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>It can't be such a huge cost otherwise 3 BBC channels wouldn't be
>>available on the local cable along with 27 other international
>>channels here for sod all per month.
>That's a priviliged position for Holland though, for historical
>reasons, and is not reflected across the whole of Europe.
What historical reasons? The reason there are 3 BBC channels is that
there are enough locals who can understand English.
--
Martin
>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:14:52 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>It can't be such a huge cost otherwise 3 BBC channels wouldn't be
>>available on the local cable along with 27 other international
>>channels here for sod all per month.
>That's a priviliged position for Holland though, for historical
>reasons, and is not reflected across the whole of Europe.
What historical reasons? The reason there are 3 BBC channels is that
there are enough locals who can understand English.
--
Martin
Sep 7th 2005, 7:01 am
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
"Keith W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The BBC is already available subscription free on SKY and freeview
> I for one dont want two sat dishes, I see a flopperoo looming
> at the license payers expense
You don't need two dishes - you just send the Sky one back
as you won't need it anymore :-)
Tim
(But you don't need one anyway. The Sky sat and the
'Freesat' are co-located (whatever the term is). The
freesat just has a narrower beam (I note that other's
have said this already)
news:[email protected]...
> The BBC is already available subscription free on SKY and freeview
> I for one dont want two sat dishes, I see a flopperoo looming
> at the license payers expense
You don't need two dishes - you just send the Sky one back
as you won't need it anymore :-)
Tim
(But you don't need one anyway. The Sky sat and the
'Freesat' are co-located (whatever the term is). The
freesat just has a narrower beam (I note that other's
have said this already)
Sep 7th 2005, 7:06 am
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:39:48 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote:
>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:14:52 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>It can't be such a huge cost otherwise 3 BBC channels wouldn't be
>>>available on the local cable along with 27 other international
>>>channels here for sod all per month.
>>That's a priviliged position for Holland though, for historical
>>reasons, and is not reflected across the whole of Europe.
> What historical reasons? The reason there are 3 BBC channels is that
> there are enough locals who can understand English.
As there are where I am, but the only English channel I get
on cable is BBCW (bundled with a package of crap for 40 quid
a month).
This is because the locals *can* understand English and the
rightsholders would not be able to sell their goods to local
networks if everybody could get it via the BBC.
Tim
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:39:48 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote:
>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:14:52 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>It can't be such a huge cost otherwise 3 BBC channels wouldn't be
>>>available on the local cable along with 27 other international
>>>channels here for sod all per month.
>>That's a priviliged position for Holland though, for historical
>>reasons, and is not reflected across the whole of Europe.
> What historical reasons? The reason there are 3 BBC channels is that
> there are enough locals who can understand English.
As there are where I am, but the only English channel I get
on cable is BBCW (bundled with a package of crap for 40 quid
a month).
This is because the locals *can* understand English and the
rightsholders would not be able to sell their goods to local
networks if everybody could get it via the BBC.
Tim
Sep 7th 2005, 7:27 am
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 21:06:25 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:39:48 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote:
>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:14:52 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>It can't be such a huge cost otherwise 3 BBC channels wouldn't be
>>>>available on the local cable along with 27 other international
>>>>channels here for sod all per month.
>>>That's a priviliged position for Holland though, for historical
>>>reasons, and is not reflected across the whole of Europe.
>> What historical reasons? The reason there are 3 BBC channels is that
>> there are enough locals who can understand English.
>As there are where I am, but the only English channel I get
>on cable is BBCW (bundled with a package of crap for 40 quid
>a month).
Which BBC satellite channel available in Norway used to switch once an
hour backwards and forwards between BBC1 and BBC2?
>This is because the locals *can* understand English and the
>rightsholders would not be able to sell their goods to local
>networks if everybody could get it via the BBC.
It's a weak argument, although we get BBC1 and BBC2 live it doesn't
stop the local channels showing the same programs later with subtitles
added.
Many British expatriates would be willing to pay a UK license fee to
receive the same British channels that are available in UK
I read in one survey that overall only about 5% of Dutch watch foreign
TV channels.
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:39:48 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote:
>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:14:52 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>It can't be such a huge cost otherwise 3 BBC channels wouldn't be
>>>>available on the local cable along with 27 other international
>>>>channels here for sod all per month.
>>>That's a priviliged position for Holland though, for historical
>>>reasons, and is not reflected across the whole of Europe.
>> What historical reasons? The reason there are 3 BBC channels is that
>> there are enough locals who can understand English.
>As there are where I am, but the only English channel I get
>on cable is BBCW (bundled with a package of crap for 40 quid
>a month).
Which BBC satellite channel available in Norway used to switch once an
hour backwards and forwards between BBC1 and BBC2?
>This is because the locals *can* understand English and the
>rightsholders would not be able to sell their goods to local
>networks if everybody could get it via the BBC.
It's a weak argument, although we get BBC1 and BBC2 live it doesn't
stop the local channels showing the same programs later with subtitles
added.
Many British expatriates would be willing to pay a UK license fee to
receive the same British channels that are available in UK
I read in one survey that overall only about 5% of Dutch watch foreign
TV channels.
--
Martin
Sep 7th 2005, 7:36 am
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 21:06:25 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>This is because the locals *can* understand English and the
>>rightsholders would not be able to sell their goods to local
>>networks if everybody could get it via the BBC.
> It's a weak argument,
I agree. It is nevertheless, the reason.
> although we get BBC1 and BBC2 live it doesn't
> stop the local channels showing the same programs later with subtitles
> added.
But does it affect the price paid (to the rightsholder)?
> Many British expatriates would be willing to pay a UK license fee to
> receive the same British channels that are available in UK
Agreed. I'd pay more. I'm not given the choice.
(and I'm quite happy not to have the hollywood films).
tim
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 21:06:25 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>This is because the locals *can* understand English and the
>>rightsholders would not be able to sell their goods to local
>>networks if everybody could get it via the BBC.
> It's a weak argument,
I agree. It is nevertheless, the reason.
> although we get BBC1 and BBC2 live it doesn't
> stop the local channels showing the same programs later with subtitles
> added.
But does it affect the price paid (to the rightsholder)?
> Many British expatriates would be willing to pay a UK license fee to
> receive the same British channels that are available in UK
Agreed. I'd pay more. I'm not given the choice.
(and I'm quite happy not to have the hollywood films).
tim
Sep 7th 2005, 7:45 am
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 20:23:11 +0200, "Alan \(in Brussels\)"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In the message news:[email protected]...
>"Jim Ley" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Where's the distortion in competition, the owners are free to sell
>> however, and to whoever they want?
>Distortion essentially because its an 'all or nothing' deal, and
>exploitation of a dominant position.
Who's in the dominant position, I'm definately missing the abuse here?
>And a refusal to deal in terms of
>units smaller than one country prevents small, regional TV channels (or
>cable operators) to get a piece of the action.
Where's the refusal to deal in terms of units smaller than one
country? You were trying to require european wide rights.
> It's as if cinemas would only
>sell a monthy season ticket, but not entry to see a single show because that
>is more profitable and their contracts with Hollywood require it.
Not at all, there's nothing stopping cinemas from only selling monthly
tickets other than the fact fewer people would buy them (lots of
cinemas do sell monthly tickets of course and at a massive discount on
single tickets, AIUI Leicester Square Odeon yearly ticket paid
monthly pays for itself at less than 1.5 visits a month.
Like TV rights the restriction isn't dictated by any party it's simply
a result of the market.
Jim.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In the message news:[email protected]...
>"Jim Ley" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Where's the distortion in competition, the owners are free to sell
>> however, and to whoever they want?
>Distortion essentially because its an 'all or nothing' deal, and
>exploitation of a dominant position.
Who's in the dominant position, I'm definately missing the abuse here?
>And a refusal to deal in terms of
>units smaller than one country prevents small, regional TV channels (or
>cable operators) to get a piece of the action.
Where's the refusal to deal in terms of units smaller than one
country? You were trying to require european wide rights.
> It's as if cinemas would only
>sell a monthy season ticket, but not entry to see a single show because that
>is more profitable and their contracts with Hollywood require it.
Not at all, there's nothing stopping cinemas from only selling monthly
tickets other than the fact fewer people would buy them (lots of
cinemas do sell monthly tickets of course and at a massive discount on
single tickets, AIUI Leicester Square Odeon yearly ticket paid
monthly pays for itself at less than 1.5 visits a month.
Like TV rights the restriction isn't dictated by any party it's simply
a result of the market.
Jim.
Sep 7th 2005, 7:46 am
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:24:55 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:39:48 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote:
>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:14:52 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>It can't be such a huge cost otherwise 3 BBC channels wouldn't be
>>>available on the local cable along with 27 other international
>>>channels here for sod all per month.
>>That's a priviliged position for Holland though, for historical
>>reasons, and is not reflected across the whole of Europe.
>What historical reasons?
That the BBC broadcast TV was also available over much of holland so
rights included permission to broadcast into it.
>The reason there are 3 BBC channels is that
>there are enough locals who can understand English.
That would apply to all of Scandinavia too, however they don't get it.
Jim.
>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:39:48 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote:
>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:14:52 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>It can't be such a huge cost otherwise 3 BBC channels wouldn't be
>>>available on the local cable along with 27 other international
>>>channels here for sod all per month.
>>That's a priviliged position for Holland though, for historical
>>reasons, and is not reflected across the whole of Europe.
>What historical reasons?
That the BBC broadcast TV was also available over much of holland so
rights included permission to broadcast into it.
>The reason there are 3 BBC channels is that
>there are enough locals who can understand English.
That would apply to all of Scandinavia too, however they don't get it.
Jim.
Sep 7th 2005, 7:54 am
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 21:36:08 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 21:06:25 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>This is because the locals *can* understand English and the
>>>rightsholders would not be able to sell their goods to local
>>>networks if everybody could get it via the BBC.
>> It's a weak argument,
>I agree. It is nevertheless, the reason.
The reason given by the BBC?
>> although we get BBC1 and BBC2 live it doesn't
>> stop the local channels showing the same programs later with subtitles
>> added.
>But does it affect the price paid (to the rightsholder)?
I have no way of knowing.
>> Many British expatriates would be willing to pay a UK license fee to
>> receive the same British channels that are available in UK
>Agreed. I'd pay more. I'm not given the choice.
>(and I'm quite happy not to have the hollywood films).
After two or three weeks on holiday I return thinking that I am not
missing a lot. :-)
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 21:06:25 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>This is because the locals *can* understand English and the
>>>rightsholders would not be able to sell their goods to local
>>>networks if everybody could get it via the BBC.
>> It's a weak argument,
>I agree. It is nevertheless, the reason.
The reason given by the BBC?
>> although we get BBC1 and BBC2 live it doesn't
>> stop the local channels showing the same programs later with subtitles
>> added.
>But does it affect the price paid (to the rightsholder)?
I have no way of knowing.
>> Many British expatriates would be willing to pay a UK license fee to
>> receive the same British channels that are available in UK
>Agreed. I'd pay more. I'm not given the choice.
>(and I'm quite happy not to have the hollywood films).
After two or three weeks on holiday I return thinking that I am not
missing a lot. :-)
--
Martin
Sep 7th 2005, 8:06 am
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:46:34 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:24:55 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:39:48 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote:
>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:14:52 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>It can't be such a huge cost otherwise 3 BBC channels wouldn't be
>>>>available on the local cable along with 27 other international
>>>>channels here for sod all per month.
>>>That's a priviliged position for Holland though, for historical
>>>reasons, and is not reflected across the whole of Europe.
>>What historical reasons?
>That the BBC broadcast TV was also available over much of holland so
>rights included permission to broadcast into it.
AFAIR BBC TV was never available in Zuid Holland. We did get Anglia
during high pressure weather thanks to the surface transmission
effect, but we are only 6 miles from the sea. I don't think the signal
went much further inland. When I lived less than a mile from the North
Sea I could get BBC FM radio from Manningtree most of the time. This
was long ago when there were almost no Dutch FM stations.
I had a friend who had worked at the BBC. He said the BBC did
everything they could to make sure the antenna patterns didn't
propagate signals in this direction to prevent interference with Dutch
stations.
>>The reason there are 3 BBC channels is that
>>there are enough locals who can understand English.
>That would apply to all of Scandinavia too, however they don't get it.
Even in the Netherlands it's patchy, some places only get BBC World.
We get Rai Uno and two French channels, a 10 minute walk away in the
next village they don't get any of these three although they are
supplied on cable by the same company. The local authority chooses
what can be shown, which I find very odd.
--
Martin
>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:24:55 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:39:48 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote:
>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:14:52 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>It can't be such a huge cost otherwise 3 BBC channels wouldn't be
>>>>available on the local cable along with 27 other international
>>>>channels here for sod all per month.
>>>That's a priviliged position for Holland though, for historical
>>>reasons, and is not reflected across the whole of Europe.
>>What historical reasons?
>That the BBC broadcast TV was also available over much of holland so
>rights included permission to broadcast into it.
AFAIR BBC TV was never available in Zuid Holland. We did get Anglia
during high pressure weather thanks to the surface transmission
effect, but we are only 6 miles from the sea. I don't think the signal
went much further inland. When I lived less than a mile from the North
Sea I could get BBC FM radio from Manningtree most of the time. This
was long ago when there were almost no Dutch FM stations.
I had a friend who had worked at the BBC. He said the BBC did
everything they could to make sure the antenna patterns didn't
propagate signals in this direction to prevent interference with Dutch
stations.
>>The reason there are 3 BBC channels is that
>>there are enough locals who can understand English.
>That would apply to all of Scandinavia too, however they don't get it.
Even in the Netherlands it's patchy, some places only get BBC World.
We get Rai Uno and two French channels, a 10 minute walk away in the
next village they don't get any of these three although they are
supplied on cable by the same company. The local authority chooses
what can be shown, which I find very odd.
--
Martin
Sep 7th 2005, 9:01 am
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 21:36:08 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]. ..
>>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 21:06:25 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>This is because the locals *can* understand English and the
>>>>rightsholders would not be able to sell their goods to local
>>>>networks if everybody could get it via the BBC.
>>> It's a weak argument,
>>I agree. It is nevertheless, the reason.
> The reason given by the BBC?
By the rights holders.
>>> although we get BBC1 and BBC2 live it doesn't
>>> stop the local channels showing the same programs later with subtitles
>>> added.
>>But does it affect the price paid (to the rightsholder)?
> I have no way of knowing.
No, I realise that. It is however the information that
you (and I) need to tell if the reason is justified or not.
Without this information we can only speculate whether
the availability of English language TV in non first language
English speaking countries dilutes the value of the local rights.
(see below for an alternative problem)
>>> Many British expatriates would be willing to pay a UK license fee to
>>> receive the same British channels that are available in UK
>>Agreed. I'd pay more. I'm not given the choice.
>>(and I'm quite happy not to have the hollywood films).
> After two or three weeks on holiday I return thinking that I am not
> missing a lot. :-)
Perhaps not, but even 10 hours per week of watchable TV
is 10 hours more than I have at the moment (and all the stuff
here is subtitled so I can understand the original English
(language) stuff, but none of it is what I would usually watch)
Aside: The live streamed R5L has to stop streaming some
sports events. The footie I can understand (checks up on
score - oops), but some of the international events are non-
sensical. Given that I have to be in a room with a computer
to hear the streaming I am likely to be able to watch the same
thing on a TV (if I had one). Just how many people who own
a TV are going to choose to listen to live streaming of a
commentary instead of watching live broadcast TV?
OK, I know that in the future there will be a problem with
mobile access, but that hasn't been a problem in the past
tim
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 21:36:08 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]. ..
>>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 21:06:25 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>This is because the locals *can* understand English and the
>>>>rightsholders would not be able to sell their goods to local
>>>>networks if everybody could get it via the BBC.
>>> It's a weak argument,
>>I agree. It is nevertheless, the reason.
> The reason given by the BBC?
By the rights holders.
>>> although we get BBC1 and BBC2 live it doesn't
>>> stop the local channels showing the same programs later with subtitles
>>> added.
>>But does it affect the price paid (to the rightsholder)?
> I have no way of knowing.
No, I realise that. It is however the information that
you (and I) need to tell if the reason is justified or not.
Without this information we can only speculate whether
the availability of English language TV in non first language
English speaking countries dilutes the value of the local rights.
(see below for an alternative problem)
>>> Many British expatriates would be willing to pay a UK license fee to
>>> receive the same British channels that are available in UK
>>Agreed. I'd pay more. I'm not given the choice.
>>(and I'm quite happy not to have the hollywood films).
> After two or three weeks on holiday I return thinking that I am not
> missing a lot. :-)
Perhaps not, but even 10 hours per week of watchable TV
is 10 hours more than I have at the moment (and all the stuff
here is subtitled so I can understand the original English
(language) stuff, but none of it is what I would usually watch)
Aside: The live streamed R5L has to stop streaming some
sports events. The footie I can understand (checks up on
score - oops), but some of the international events are non-
sensical. Given that I have to be in a room with a computer
to hear the streaming I am likely to be able to watch the same
thing on a TV (if I had one). Just how many people who own
a TV are going to choose to listen to live streaming of a
commentary instead of watching live broadcast TV?
OK, I know that in the future there will be a problem with
mobile access, but that hasn't been a problem in the past
tim
Sep 7th 2005, 9:02 am
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
"Jim Ley" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 20:23:11 +0200, "Alan \(in Brussels\)"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In the message news:[email protected]...
> >"Jim Ley" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Where's the distortion in competition, the owners are free to sell
> >> however, and to whoever they want?
> >>
> >Distortion essentially because its an 'all or nothing' deal, and
> >exploitation of a dominant position.
> Who's in the dominant position, I'm definately missing the abuse here?
> >And a refusal to deal in terms of
> >units smaller than one country prevents small, regional TV channels (or
> >cable operators) to get a piece of the action.
> Where's the refusal to deal in terms of units smaller than one
> country? You were trying to require european wide rights.
> > It's as if cinemas would only
> >sell a monthy season ticket, but not entry to see a single show because
that
> >is more profitable and their contracts with Hollywood require it.
> Not at all, there's nothing stopping cinemas from only selling monthly
> tickets other than the fact fewer people would buy them (lots of
> cinemas do sell monthly tickets of course and at a massive discount on
> single tickets, AIUI Leicester Square Odeon yearly ticket paid
> monthly pays for itself at less than 1.5 visits a month.
> Like TV rights the restriction isn't dictated by any party it's simply
> a result of the market.
I guess we don't have the same concept of free competition. AIUI, a free
market is where there are several independent suppliers offering essentially
equivalent products to a large number of potential consumers. In such a
situation, the suppliers have to present the product in whatever formats
(quantities, packaging, combinations, interoperability features...) the
consumers require, under penalty of losing business if they fail to do so.
Obviously, there is considerable scope for trade-offs in formats v price,
but the giveaway sign of abuse of a dominant position is that with it *the
suppliers impose their requirements* on the potential consumers.
Perhaps some other posters would contribute their thoughts on this point.
Regards,
- Alan (in Brussels)
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 20:23:11 +0200, "Alan \(in Brussels\)"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In the message news:[email protected]...
> >"Jim Ley" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Where's the distortion in competition, the owners are free to sell
> >> however, and to whoever they want?
> >>
> >Distortion essentially because its an 'all or nothing' deal, and
> >exploitation of a dominant position.
> Who's in the dominant position, I'm definately missing the abuse here?
> >And a refusal to deal in terms of
> >units smaller than one country prevents small, regional TV channels (or
> >cable operators) to get a piece of the action.
> Where's the refusal to deal in terms of units smaller than one
> country? You were trying to require european wide rights.
> > It's as if cinemas would only
> >sell a monthy season ticket, but not entry to see a single show because
that
> >is more profitable and their contracts with Hollywood require it.
> Not at all, there's nothing stopping cinemas from only selling monthly
> tickets other than the fact fewer people would buy them (lots of
> cinemas do sell monthly tickets of course and at a massive discount on
> single tickets, AIUI Leicester Square Odeon yearly ticket paid
> monthly pays for itself at less than 1.5 visits a month.
> Like TV rights the restriction isn't dictated by any party it's simply
> a result of the market.
I guess we don't have the same concept of free competition. AIUI, a free
market is where there are several independent suppliers offering essentially
equivalent products to a large number of potential consumers. In such a
situation, the suppliers have to present the product in whatever formats
(quantities, packaging, combinations, interoperability features...) the
consumers require, under penalty of losing business if they fail to do so.
Obviously, there is considerable scope for trade-offs in formats v price,
but the giveaway sign of abuse of a dominant position is that with it *the
suppliers impose their requirements* on the potential consumers.
Perhaps some other posters would contribute their thoughts on this point.
Regards,
- Alan (in Brussels)
Sep 7th 2005, 9:08 am
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 23:02:10 +0200, "Alan \(in Brussels\)"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Jim Ley" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de
>> Like TV rights the restriction isn't dictated by any party it's simply
>> a result of the market.
>I guess we don't have the same concept of free competition. AIUI, a free
>market is where there are several independent suppliers offering essentially
>equivalent products to a large number of potential consumers.
Yep, seems reasonable, there are hundreds of TV production companies,
there are a number of TV companies in each country buying, seems
reasonably effective - areas like sport where there is a monopoly of
content tend to be controlled by the government.
I'm not sure there's any imbalance of power there other than that
provided by the government monopolies endowed on certain players - BBC
etc. but that distortion is not causing the production teams being
forced to supply rights per country.
> In such a
>situation, the suppliers have to present the product in whatever formats
>(quantities, packaging, combinations, interoperability features...) the
>consumers require, under penalty of losing business if they fail to do so.
Of course, just like we have now, the suppliers have to package up the
formats into what can make them money, they offer up their content in
ways which maximises their income, which will be to sell it to lots of
people, rather than just 1, because TV content is something that can
generally only be used by 1 TV station in an area at a time without
devalueing it considerably.
>Obviously, there is considerable scope for trade-offs in formats v price,
>but the giveaway sign of abuse of a dominant position is that with it *the
>suppliers impose their requirements* on the potential consumers.
The suppliers aren't doing so, I'm sure any supplier would be more
than happy for you to buy European rights for their product, but
they'd cost loads - just like it would cost loads for you to buy any
other product that can only be used one at a time - exclusive use of a
swimming pool costs a lot more than sharing it with everyone else -
that's the not the supplier dominating their position, it's simple
economics.
Jim.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Jim Ley" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de
>> Like TV rights the restriction isn't dictated by any party it's simply
>> a result of the market.
>I guess we don't have the same concept of free competition. AIUI, a free
>market is where there are several independent suppliers offering essentially
>equivalent products to a large number of potential consumers.
Yep, seems reasonable, there are hundreds of TV production companies,
there are a number of TV companies in each country buying, seems
reasonably effective - areas like sport where there is a monopoly of
content tend to be controlled by the government.
I'm not sure there's any imbalance of power there other than that
provided by the government monopolies endowed on certain players - BBC
etc. but that distortion is not causing the production teams being
forced to supply rights per country.
> In such a
>situation, the suppliers have to present the product in whatever formats
>(quantities, packaging, combinations, interoperability features...) the
>consumers require, under penalty of losing business if they fail to do so.
Of course, just like we have now, the suppliers have to package up the
formats into what can make them money, they offer up their content in
ways which maximises their income, which will be to sell it to lots of
people, rather than just 1, because TV content is something that can
generally only be used by 1 TV station in an area at a time without
devalueing it considerably.
>Obviously, there is considerable scope for trade-offs in formats v price,
>but the giveaway sign of abuse of a dominant position is that with it *the
>suppliers impose their requirements* on the potential consumers.
The suppliers aren't doing so, I'm sure any supplier would be more
than happy for you to buy European rights for their product, but
they'd cost loads - just like it would cost loads for you to buy any
other product that can only be used one at a time - exclusive use of a
swimming pool costs a lot more than sharing it with everyone else -
that's the not the supplier dominating their position, it's simple
economics.
Jim.
