General : ITV threaten to blackout on Virgin

Originally Posted by Mad Max

What a load of crap, explain to me why Virgin owe ITV anything?

Oh it's just his mantra, VM should pay for everything regardless of the asking price. Then he'd complain about the price, or maybe not as he has Sky anyway.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

What a load of crap, explain to me why Virgin owe ITV anything?

They don't.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

What a load of crap, explain to me why Virgin owe ITV anything?

Do not expect an answer to that question, Arthur never reply's to question about his rants

Can everyone just stick to the topic which is not Arthur..

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

ITV have said nothing will happen until the new Chief Exec joins in January and then takes a fresh look at the issue so we're all good for a while yet.

This sounds like possible backpeddling to me now that VM have made it clear that they have no intention of paying any retransmission fees and have a contingency plan in place that keeps the channel for their customers whilst harming ITV's advertising revenue.

A new CEO with "a different approach/view" on the matter would allow them to do a U turn without leaving them with egg on their face.

[alwaysabear]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

This sounds like possible backpeddling to me now that VM have made it clear that they have no intention of paying any retransmission fees and have a contingency plan in place that keeps the channel for their customers whilst harming ITV's advertising revenue.

A new CEO with "a different approach/view" on the matter would allow them to do a U turn without leaving them with egg on their face.

In ITV latest set of results advertising revenue was down again.

[RichardCoulter]

Technical details posted in the 'Coming Soon' thread suggest to me that it may be STV that VM would use as the single signal to pump throughout their network.

This tactic would keep ITV programmes for VM viewers without paying any retransmission fees and lose them even more advertising revenue.

At the same time the advertising rates for the only independent ITV franchise left would probably increase due to their advertising being shown nationally on the VM network.

[Joedm45]

Maybe I'm missing something here, surely this issue is black and white...

If ITV decide on a blackout on VM, why are posters suggesting they can use alternative means to keep showing ITV???

It seems simple to me, ITV pull the plug, if VM keep showing it then the lawyers are called in

Originally Posted by Joedm45

Maybe I'm missing something here, surely this issue is black and white...

If ITV decide on a blackout on VM, why are posters suggesting they can use alternative means to keep showing ITV???

It seems simple to me, ITV pull the plug, if VM keep showing it then the lawyers are called in

It's not quite that simple. At the moment there is a "must carry" obligation for PSB services so, in theory, VM has to carry ITV. Things start to get difficult if ITV cut the direct feed, As a PSB, ITV has a "must offer" obligation.

This is what happens when legislation is introduced without considering the implications..

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jj20x

It's not quite that simple. At the moment there is a "must carry" obligation for PSB services so, in theory, VM has to carry ITV. Things start to get difficult if ITV cut the direct feed, As a PSB, ITV has a "must offer" obligation.

This is what happens when legislation is introduced without considering the implications..

So Virgin simply get the feed from elsewhere and ITV can refer VM to Ofcom. Now that will be interesting!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

So Virgin simply get the feed from elsewhere and ITV can refer VM to Ofcom. Now that will be interesting!

I don't know why VM would take the trouble to get a feed from elsewhere. I suppose that VM customers could then complain to Ofcom about VM failing to meet its PSB "must carry" obligations if it doesn't take another feed but the responsibility for lack of carriage would surely be ITV's.

If ITV cut the feed they are in breach of the "must offer" obligation and they could be referred to Ofcom and to the DCMS. Possibly putting ITV in breach of their PSB licence.

The problem is that the change in legislation, theoretically allowing ITV to introduce a retransmission fee, hasn't modified the PSB "must carry" or "must offer" obligations.

ITV want an additional revenue stream from pay-tv providers, without offsetting that with any costs of carriage, not very realistic. They complain that they are losing revenue as pay-tv customers skip the ads on their PVRs, which ignores the fact than not every pay-tv customer has a PVR. It also ignores the fact that PVRs are also available on other platforms, so why only impose a charge on "pay-tv" customers?

Personally, if I record anything from ITV, I use a Freeview PVR, saving disk space on the Tivo for content not available elsewhere. I certainly don't want to pay additional fees simply because the ITV PSB channel happens to also be duplicated on VM.

[vincerooney]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

This new law only applies to cable delivered TV and won't affect Sky until they start their IPTV service.

The Government initially said that they didn't expect this to affect traditional cable companies, but now that ITV is trying it on, they say that it's for the market to decide.

How bizarre....

So ITV pay SKY for carriage of their channels.
ITV want VM to pay them for broadcasting their channels.

How does that work out? I cant get my head around that? That sounds incredibly, incredibly unfair...I know one is satellite and one is cable but I still cant get my head around how its a night and day difference in terms of paying or getting money....

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by vincerooney

How bizarre....

So ITV pay SKY for carriage of their channels.
ITV want VM to pay them for broadcasting their channels.

How does that work out? I cant get my head around that? That sounds incredibly, incredibly unfair...I know one is satellite and one is cable but I still cant get my head around how its a night and day difference in terms of paying or getting money....

The reason you cannot get your head round that situation, is because it is blatantly unfair.

Satellite and Cable both perform identical services - I.e. They both supply pay channels and freak to air channels. Why anyone could say otherwise is incredibly ridiculous.

Personally, I don't care as long as I am not forced to pay for ITV through virgin.

As I have said before, make ITV set up the mechanisms to charge for their own channel if they want to charge, make them pay to advertise the channel to attract subscribers, charge them carriage fees (similar to what they pay sky)

If they don't like it tough - but do not agree to pay them and up my subs against my will.

[Joedm45]

Originally Posted by jj20x

It's not quite that simple. At the moment there is a "must carry" obligation for PSB services so, in theory, VM has to carry ITV. Things start to get difficult if ITV cut the direct feed, As a PSB, ITV has a "must offer" obligation.

This is what happens when legislation is introduced without considering the implications..

Thanks for explaining. Sounds like all they can do is pull all channels with the exception of ITV so they fulfill their legal requirement.
I'll be surprised if they do it but you never know, hopefully VM call their bluff

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Can l join this 'rant' as members are saying.

Sky is a business, so therefore are charging ITV and other companies to use there Satelitte.

So why cant ITV charge VM for using there channels on the network.

Its like me saying to my next door neighbour. I have four Tv channels, that l would like you to show on local TV. Is he going to do that for nothing, l don't think so.

If the case if NO, then why are we paying subs to VM to watch there services. We pay as VM pay to use other companies channels on there network.

Rant over. Not only that, l have other things to worry about - such as the budget coming up. My job depends on the budget