Sky must sell off ITV stake BSkyB has been told to sell off most of its stake in rival broadcaster ITV. John Hutton, secretary of state for business and enterprise, has told BSkyB to reduce its stake in ITV from 17.9 per cent to below 7.5 per cent. Hutton is following the advice of the Competition Commission which said in December that the cross- …
If the plan was to gain control of ITV or make oodles of cash then yeah, it's an expensive mistake. If the plan was to block Virgin's takeover of ITV, they succeeded pretty nicely - about 2 days after sky bought the shares the virgin bid was rejected for 'undervaluing the company'
It was done to Block Virgin, and the only reason Sky got pulled up is because Branson threw his toys out of the pram and spoke to his mates in Government, how is Virgin acquiring ownership of ITV more competitive? Sky even said they would remove their voting rights, but it wasn't good enough. Pah!.
If Sky are not allowed a stake, then nor should Virgin Media (given that is a broadcaster too - well, if you call Vm1 and Vm2 broadcast worthy !).
As a sports fan, I am a little disappointed, as (a long shot) I was hoping that Sky would pull ITV's poor (as in non-existent) interactive sports coverage into the 21st century (I'm talking about F1 coverage mainly.... no interactive 'choose your camera view', no lap times, etc.)
I too dream and drool for the same F1 coverage here in the states. I just wish Max would stop messing with the rules and start whipping broadcasters into shape.
If Sky gets the boot then no commercial entity should get a stake. Whether Virgin, Turner or SCO it doesn't matter. Of course if the government just wants to publicly bitch slap Murdoch then I say dispense with the bullshit and publicly bitch slap him on BBC1. As an opening act may I suggest Jeremy Clarkson getting knocked around by a bunch of soccer moms?
Wrong.
Sky DO have a regulator - it is OFCOM who regulate all commercial communication enterprises (tv, radio, mobile phones, etc, etc.) in the UK.
Also, there is nothing stopping anyone other than Sky broadcasting satellite channels in the UK. Don't forget BSB tried and failed - a shame as they were technically far superior to Sky - yet customers weren't prepared to invest.
Where Sky have a monopoly is in how they operate and control their Electronic Programme Guide - who can get listed, positioning of channels, etc. Then again, you could argue that Virgin have exactly the same monopoly of the Virgin Media Electronic Programme Guide.
If Virgin hadn't thought of the takeover in the first palce all of this wouldn't have happened.
It's as non competative for Virgin to take over ITV as it is for Sky. The thing is, VM should have known this. So why start a fight they wouldn't win? They were baiting Sky... and they fell for it. notice why reached into their pockets and who didn't ;)
They're not dealibng with Barclay Knapp et al anymore, they're going to actually get a run for their money now....
Paris? Why not, she sucks and so do Sky...
"Also, there is nothing stopping anyone other than Sky broadcasting satellite channels in the UK. Don't forget BSB tried and failed - a shame as they were technically far superior to Sky - yet customers weren't prepared to invest."
Of course, I don't think a competing service would even be able to broadcast all the terrestrial channels - IIRC, Sky have an exclusive contract with Channel 4 and 5 (partly obtained using the leverage of their control over the Sky EPG). They can forget about getting any other decent content - Sky has the cash to buy it all.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
