back to article Sky's TV-on-demand registers with regulator just hours before opening

Sky today launched its Now TV vid-on-demand service, but only managed to notify the right regulator hours before the off as it's getting harder to remember who controls what. Video-on-demand services in the UK are regulated by ATVOD (the Authority for Television On Demand), and on-demand services are required to notify the …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    TheSpace .. who knew?

    "The Space (117) ... the John Peel stuff is worth watching"

    Accidentally discovered this channel the other day while trying to spot what a firmware update had changed. Does indeed have promise in parts, but how is Joe Public supposed to know it exists?

  2. auburnman

    Wait a minute...

    When did we privatise regulation? Because for-profit and what's best for the sector mix so well. Are they TRYING to wreck the whole Kingdom?

    1. Ben Tasker

      Re: Wait a minute...


      Hell check most of the latest actions of the Government for verification. Funnily enough I was watching that Dispatches thing on 4 last night (about your 5 a day). The Government brought in the '5 a day' campaign but have left the industry to regulate itself. For example, McDonalds new Fruitizz is one (or is it half) of your 5 a day, but contains more sugar than I put in my coffee. The Governments response is there's nothing they can do. Don't get me wrong, anyone who goes to McDonalds for 'healthy' needs their heads checked, but it just goes to show that for-profit regulation doesn't work. Those who do 'good' get trampled by those who bend/ignore the rules and no-one does anything about it.

      Sorry </tangent>

      1. The Axe

        Five-a-day (OT)

        The five-a-day campaign is a pure marketing gimmick started in 1991 by some farmers and a US cancer organisation. It has no scientific basis in fact at all. The best thing that could happen to it is that the government should but out of telling us what to eat, what to drink, what to enjoy, etc.

        Sorry </rant>

        1. Ben Tasker

          Re: Five-a-day (OT)

          The five-a-day campaign is a pure marketing gimmick started in 1991 by some farmers and a US cancer organisation. It has no scientific basis in fact at all.

          No surprise there, I seem to recall an admission that the 'safe' daily units of alcohol were similarly plucked out of the air when they were introduce.

          I wish I could make money that easily - "We need to be seen to be doing something about x. Let's just tell them they shouldn't consume more than 10 kronks of it a day!" - being paid to make up numbers sounds like a cushy job - 42 16 12 3.

          1. TheProf

            Re: Five-a-day (OT)

            "being paid to make up numbers sounds like a cushy job - 42 16 12 3."

            I'm sure someone beat you to those.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              "being paid to make up numbers sounds like a cushy job - 42 16 12 3."


              Get off my numbers, I've got a patent (and copyright) on those. And I've got them on a lottery ticket to prove it.

              1. Ben Tasker

                Re: "being paid to make up numbers sounds like a cushy job - 42 16 12 3."

                @TheProf @AC

                But did anyone file for protection? First to file and all that :-D

                Perhaps I should patent my method for thinking up random numbers. Filing would read something like "Stare blankly into space and think about how many fry-ups I'd like to eat on a monthly basis, followed by how many mugs of coffee I'd was down with and how many days silence I'd get if I served the family fry-ups twice daily for a week"

                I'll be rich I tell ye, got to be a better plan than trying to rob a bank with a banana.

                You know, I've kind of forgotten what the article was even about!

          2. Graham Marsden

            42 16 12 3

            That's Numberwang!

  3. Pete 2 Silver badge

    Can't happen soon enough

    > Now TV isn't an addition to its satellite service, in the long term it’s a replacement for it

    The fixed-fee "all you can eat" model for TV really does need sorting out. It rewards TV companies that fill their channels with cheap dross and repeats of cheap dross while making "quality" TV (i.e. programmes I like) marginalised and an endangered species.

    If TV became truly PPV, so that a punter had to shell out before watching any particular programme, there would be a direct link between the programme maker and the viewer. Better yet, if a series tanked the makers would have an immediate and tangible motivation to improve it (rather than as some BBC writers are known to do: bleat about how the audience is "wrong" and blame the viewers).

    The TV channel would merely become the delivery medium, much like UPS and the Royal Mail - they don't charge you £20 a month on the offchance there's a package you might want to order. By closing the gap between programme makers and programme consumers the industry can become far more response and efficient: no more cartels deciding for us what we'll be permitted to choose from, or when it's convenient for their schedules to show a particular programme.

    All we'd have to do next would be to get the music industry to adopt the same model and get their fat-cats out of the way so we can get music directly from the bands and musicians, themselves.

    1. Fuzz

      Re: Can't happen soon enough

      but if you look at the other side some programs would never have been successful. I don't think I would have paid for every episode of the wire on the strength of the first episode. I would have deemed it a bit slow and boring and not bothered shelling out of any more episodes.

      1. Ben Tasker

        Re: Can't happen soon enough

        Agreed, it also means that if a programme has a particularly shite series, there's less chance of there being that great series to make up for it.

        I'd certainly watch less TV if it was all pay per view though, based on the shite that's on at the minute I might even find I don't watch any. I certainly wouldn't be tolerant of any adverts if I had to pay for the privilege of watching though, so it's a plan that would quickly backfire (with me at least).

        I remember getting rid of the box when I was younger, I was so productive during that time. Can't remember why I finally caved, but it's possible my wife talked me into it.

  4. LinkOfHyrule
    Paris Hilton

    I don't get it dude!

    What's the difference between TV on demand and a website that allows you to watch videos?

    If I made a six part documentary on the cultural impact of Paris Hilton in relation to modern public toilet architecture, but no TV channel wants to show it so I just stick it on my own website where it can be streamed "on demand" then it seems at present my site would be just a normal website with some crap videos - not an on demand service.

    If however Channel Five came along and said "wow bugger me, if we showed this documentary of yours it would literally be the second best programme we have ever aired after Prisoner Cell Block H, here's £20,000 we'll buy the rights" and they show it every Tuesday at 9pm and with the money I made, I make a new show, a talent contest for reformed junkies - "Heroin Idol" and flog that to ITV, and then allow these two shows to be watched "on demand" on my site, am I then a video on demand company? Or what? I don't get it!

    Paris, obviously!

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like