If Sky has the say'so on what we can watch and when i think this is a monopoly too far,and channel 4 should be ashamed that they seem to have no say in the matter,and will not make a honest statement giving reasons for getting in bed with Sky......

Speaking as a pensioner who is unable to receive More4 as I only have the free to view Sky Satellite Box, I take exception to Rupert Murdock’s stand that he will only let in the BIG TV channels and exclude those such as the fledgling More4. Could this be because he wishes to promote his own self interest as he knows that all people have BBC and ITV reception in their homes and he simply wants used that facility to give access to SKY Broadcasting. Has Murdock ever heard of public service? I live in a part of the country that cannot receive FREEVIEW. My Licence fee is being increased and yet yesterday Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell announced that the BBC would be increasing the Licence fee ay a cost that was above the rate of inflation. What a mess!

Sky have the say-so because Channel 4 signed a contract which gave them the say so.

Contracts are, after all, legally binding.

Courts may set aside unfair contract terms, many of which are legislated against in the Unfair Contract Terms Act. Additionally, any terms which are contrary to statute will be struck out.

Contract law is not clear cut.

I always thought Sky had nothing to do with terrestrial broadcasting, I thought they ran a satellite network

Sky tried to buy Channel 5 or have an interest in the organisation that owns 5. Channel 5 are a terrestrial broadcaster. nuff said

Sky is ruining english tv. Which is bad for american producers in the long term, but not my problem.

Follwing the 'free' skybox 'problem' reports I thought it deserved it a look, a newspaper provided a list of the 'free channels'.

The fact that you could get 'gaydatetv' and both 'godchanneltv' on 'freesky' confirmed my views on Rupert Murdoch. I though no thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Arctichar
I live in a part of the country that cannot receive FREEVIEW. My Licence fee is being increased and yet yesterday Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell announced that the BBC would be increasing the Licence fee ay a cost that was above the rate of inflation. What a mess!

The increase in the license fee takes into account that people like yourself, in far flung places, are only A SMALL part of the population. If we had to worry about people like you, the license fee would be even higher and WE would not want that, would we?

quote:

Originally posted by bananasfalklands:
Sky is ruining english tv. Which is bad for american producers in the long term, but not my problem.

Why is it bad for the US producers?

quote:

Originally posted by Chairman Meow:Why is it bad for the US producers?

Take sky travel on freeview - which is now something else skyish apparently. There are shows on there that i have no reference to.

Now I am sure sky users know them, which then reduces the audience should it ever end up on normal tv - which then makes it unattractive for say c4/itv to show it.

If say these series become feature films then only a sky audience in the uk will know about them.

Another example of this is firefly - which became a film. Its never been on 'local' tv, one might have thought that it might have remained a tv series if it was on c4, and perhaps brought in a bigger cinema audience than it got.

Thats my reasoning why sky is 'bad' for american tv producers.

Sky has had a monopoly on Television and Sports for far too long now.

I'm sorry, but what does Firefly/serenity being a SKY only tv series have to do with what reach the movie has? Ok so the movie derives from the situation created in the series firefly, but Whedon made sure that newbies wouldn't be left totally in the dark... It wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference whether it was on C4 or Sky if the series went longer.. it got cancelled in the US by the network that created it, because as Whedon says, they weren't after a slow burning series, they wanted bang flashy immediate ratings/demographics.. Not because C4 or BBC didn't buy it..

And what does being a film derived from a tv series have to do with Murdoch monopolising tv? Ok so he has a network (or two) in the US and a delivery system here.. still leaves a few other US networks, and News International is still dwarfed by time/AOL, and Disney/ABC.

Agreed with most of you for sure. Theres no question Sky and Murdoch have had a maassive effect on tele, and what we watch. Football has in our house become a sport we cannot watch. Even supporting the lesser clubs, hardly no footage at all. Yeh yeh go down the pub and watch it. Thats all pubs are going to be soon, places to watch the sky broadcasts.Not right.

And yes I also believe is SKy is to be allowed some part within the UK freeview project, then they should provide the same channels exactly that you can get on the set top boxes, to not have more four and instead have many channels of absolutely no value is not fair at all. More four and most of the main terrestrial off shoots have actually been very good, no doubt better than most of the cheaper free channels.

Personally although knowing Sky is often one of/ or the only way to get the best quality signal, and the best programmes first, I refuse to pay that man anything. I would prefer to take my films 5 years later (or rip them earlier), buy the film, and basically not watch football again. The fact weve allowed football to become this sort of takes our power to complain away. Made worse by the fact I can seee ervy other nations football all night on five, everything bar English.

Wo do it to ourselves we do. Boycott Sky.