Canal + : Alterations to the basic package

[cooperlola]

Just a heads-up in case anybody hasn't noticed this yet!  I turned on the telly hoping to watch Motors TV and discovered that under new rules which came in this week, the basic Canal Plus package no longer includes it (or Eurosport and AB Motors for that matter.)  They now want another 6 euros a month for the privelege.  Just thought I'd mention it in case anybody had planned to watch the ALMS race at Silverstone the weekend after next (or anything else, for that matter).  It may affect other channels which I don't ever watch too.

[Martin963]

Canalsat have manoeuvered themselves into a monopoly position by absorbing TPS,  and - just like with Sly - their subscribers are now paying the price.

Until the European satellite bouquet providers (Sly,  Canalsat,  D+,  Cyfra,  Sly Italia,  Premiere,  etc etc) are forced to comply with European law on the free movement of goods and services this unfortunate situation is likely to continue.    The fact that they refuse to seel subs outside "their" conutries is to the detriment of the consumer.

It makes me mad that I can be fined €45000 for not having pool security whilst these guys flout the law to their hearts' conent.

[cooperlola]

I wouldn't mind so much if these b*gg*rs didn't keep phoning me up and asking me to uprgrade the package.  Just forcing me to upgrade was much simpler!  Monopolies of this sort are, as you say, reprehensible, and illegal to boot, and yet nobody seems to give a d*mn at government level.  Given the influence which the media has, they are so dangerous to boot, but that's another thread altogether. (Take a look at the movie "OutFoxed" if you want to get an idea of what I mean.

My, that's a stiff fine, Martin.

[Martin963]

... and totally disproportionate to the "crime" in my view.    However,  I know that there are those whose lives have been ruined - and I mean ruined - by a pool tragedy, so it's not really for me to say too much.

But the sat situation is something that could be sorted out overnight by our friends in Brussels if they so wished.

What a lot of typos in my previous,  must try and keep calm!!

[Breton Networks]

[quote user="Martinwatkins"]But the sat situation is something that could be sorted out overnight by our friends in Brussels if they so wished.[/quote]

It couldn't, the problem is the fault of the production companies & studios who restrict distribution to one country when they sell the broadcast rights.

[Martin963]

I think it could.   The BBC continues to transmit free to air to most of W Europe via Astra 2D,  in spite of only paying for UK rights.  It's time the satellite bouquet operators took on the rights people,  it's a ramp and a licence to print money.   The rights people turn a blind eye to the BBC's overspill because they can't afford to start mucking the BBC about,  and they know it.

With a bit of backing from Brussels the broadcasters could do a lot to knock back the rights people (and in my view it's high time it happened);   after all film companies and football organisations need the broadcasters as much as the broadcasters need them,  and it's time the balance was redressed somewhat.

[Fridgeman]

Hi  Martin and All

Same old story "Give me your money" Murdoch has a lot to answer for I would not pay the B********s a penny ......but I do watch AB Motors and Motors TV[:D]

and I love it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

[Breton Networks]

[quote user="Martinwatkins"]The BBC continues to transmit free to air to most of W Europe via Astra 2D,  in spite of only paying for UK rights.  [/quote]

Technically they only broadcast to the UK.

[quote]The rights people turn a blind eye to the BBC's overspill because they can't afford to start mucking the BBC about,  and they know it.[/quote]

They turn a blind eye because there is nothing technically the BBC can do to stop it.

[quote]With a bit of backing from Brussels the broadcasters could do a lot to knock back the rights people[/quote]

Not with most of the copyright owners being America & they have some very powerful friends. Ever wonder why the copyright period there increases every time Micky Mouse gets near to being out of copyright ?

 [quote](and in my view it's high time it happened);  [/quote]

For what it's worth I agree with you.

[quote] after all film companies and football organisations need the broadcasters as much as the broadcasters need them,  and it's time the balance was redressed somewhat.[/quote]

All the time broadcasters are prepared to pay silly money* for broadcast rights to get 'market share' & pass it on to viewers who will pay silly money to watch it, not much will change, I'm afraid.

 * Someone has to foot the bill to pay a football manager M£4 a year.

[Martin963]

The BBC could do something about it (the overspill).  They could go back to encryption,  as was the case from 1998 to 2003.

The point is that Greg Dyke took the risk (in the face of people telling him that the rights people would go ape if the BBC went FTA, even from 2D) and was proved entirely right;  the only show that was lost to Auntie was (apparently) "24" which is made (I believe) by one of Murdoch's companies.

The Germans manage to broadcast a great deal FTA all over Europe.

What I am trying to get at is that the satellite bouquet operators love the fact that they can hide behind the rights issue smokescreen in order not to have to compete with each other across frontiers.   That to me sucks.

If there was more cross-frontier subscriptions then it is likely that footballers would have to accept rather more sensible salaries,  which would be a good thing.   The film lobby would probably come to heel after a brief episode of toy flinging.

Brussels itself wants to do something about the flouting of the free "movement" of TV  because they are well aware that the current country-by-country monopoly is encouraging piracy.   TPS,  D + and Premiere are it seems all wide open at the moment.

I entirely take your point that it won't be easy,  but the world didn't exactly end for the BBC when it was brave enough to try and do without videoguard.

[Breton Networks]

[quote user="Martinwatkins"]The BBC could do something about it (the overspill).  They could go back to encryption,  as was the case from 1998 to 2003.[/quote]

They only went from Free To View to Free to Air, which in practise is not that different, Sky Boxes & FTA cards are as cheap as French boxes.

[quote]What I am trying to get at is that the satellite bouquet operators love the fact that they can hide behind the rights issue smokescreen in order not to have to compete with each other across frontiers.  [/quote]

I would have thought that the operators would welcome the opportunity to gain more viewers & hence advertising revenue.

[quote]If there was more cross-frontier subscriptions then it is likely that footballers would have to accept rather more sensible salaries, [/quote]

With more broadcasters bidding for broadcast rights I would have thought it might push the price up.

While I would like to see my Sky subscription go down, I don't see how the ability to buy a Canal+ (etc) subscription in the UK would do that unless Canal+ broadcast the same program selection as Sky in English.

[Martin963]

I would say the difference between FTV and FTA was as wide as it is possible for it to be.  One (FTA) enables n'importe qui to view the programmes on any old bit of kit anywhere where the footprint allows (which for the BBC is all of France,  Spain,  Benelux,  Germany),  the other (FTV) requires a registered address in the state concerend,  and - in the case of the BBC via Videoguard - a Sky receiver and FTV card (issued in those days by Sky itself);   FTV allows almost total control of who watches your programmes,  albeit they do not pay an ongoing subscription.  

Unless we are at cross purposes here I cannot see how one can over-estimate the difference therefore between FTV and FTA!   The price of the box is irrelevant,  it's the (restricted) access to the box and card that is fundamental.   Incidentally I assume you meant to write FTV card in your previous,  an FTA card is meaningless.

The operators (at least some of them) are scared witless about cross-border subs.   A lot of folk in Europe would like 70 PPV film channels instead of the dozen or so on offer by their local operator (so would relish access to Sky UK);   conversely there are people in the UK who would like to pay a bit less than Sky for a "basic" satellite service,  particularly as outfits such as D+ show films in VO.   Whilst it's impossible to predict which operators would be the net winners and losers none of them want to go there,  and prefer to stictch up their own country,  on the basis that the other operators do the same for theirs.

It's difficult to say about sports and film prices (and certainly the bidding wars between Ondigital and Sky pushed the prices of English football up) but there are other operators (such as Digalb) from whom one CAN buy legitimate subscriptions (even though they are not UK based) where - from what I gather from sporty friends - there is quite enough stuff to satisfy most people at a fraction of the price of Sky,  with film channels thrown in too..

Whether or not it pushes prices up or down,  it should still be possible to subscribe to a "foreign" satellite bouquet because the EU law requires free movement,  and Brussels should be doing something about it,  if nothing else to allow the sharing of cultures and deepening of mutual understanding between the peoples of the EU (blimey that sounded PC didn't it??!)

[Breton Networks]

[quote user="Martinwatkins"]Whilst it's impossible to predict which operators would be the net winners and losers none of them want to go there,  and prefer to stictch up their own country,  on the basis that the other operators do the same for theirs.[/quote]

While I agree with you about the theory of opening up competition across countries, I would have thought it would be possible to estimate who would be the winners, those with the deepest pockets.

I also would have thought that a major problem would be language, I certainly wouldn't pay the same to receive, say, Italian satellite broadcasts where I wouldn't be able to understand all the channels as an Italian,

I also think that if the market was opened up, all that would happen eventually would be the larger companies would take over the smaller ones, in the same way as the mobile telephone market.

[Martin963]

On the finanacial and merger side - yes - quite possibly - it is a risk;  one would hope that the letter of the law was observed to enable those who want to view outside their borders to do so,  but not too many of them to rock the viability boat!

Languauge - agreed,  but a lot of the "basic" channels on satellite are the same in every country (things like Nat Geog,  Animal channels,  that sort of stuff).   It's all been dubbed already on the master discs,   and so you'd just need to activate the various language audio PID's so that viewers could choose their language - very little extra bandwidth involved.

Sport might be harder on the language front - I'm not a sports fanatic but I would have thought the visual content was more important than the audio.   After all there was quite a following (legit (*) or non-legit!) in the UK when TPS got hold of the rights to show English football a couple of years ago.    I don't know what Digialb do about sountracks - it's an interesting point.

(*) When I say legit I'm speaking loosely;    I mean cards obtained by so called legit dealers (who in fact invent phantom home addresses in the operator host country),  or people who subscribe from legit addresses in the home country and then ship the card over to the UK). 

And the thought of Mr Murdoch swallowing up the entire satellite industry in Europe (he has after all got hold of a monopoly in the Italian market) is just too dreadful to contemplate.

[Fridgeman]

I'm with you Martin ......................The only difference is I want it to be FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Pierre ZFP]

Well, nobody's going to  put a sattelite in orbit for nothing.

After all..........

.........there's no such thing as a free launch

(fetching me coat right now)

 

[Breton Networks]

[quote user="Martinwatkins"]And the thought of Mr Murdoch swallowing up the entire satellite industry in Europe (he has after all got hold of a monopoly in the Italian market) is just too dreadful to contemplate.[/quote]

IMHO, that's exactly what will happen.

[Martin963]

No I don't think it will;   Brussels would block it. 

Although I have little faith in bureaucrats or politicians I really think the prospect of an Anglo-Saxon in charge of Europe's TV would make Brussels act.  Fast!

[cooperlola]

[quote user="Martinwatkins"]

Although I have little faith in bureaucrats or politicians I really think the prospect of an Anglo-Saxon in charge of Europe's TV would make Brussels act.  Fast!
[/quote][:D]

[Pierre ZFP]

But Murdoch is an Australian isn't he?

[Martin963]

...  so he's part of the wicked empire of the Anglo-Saxons (isn't he?)