'Setbacks for BSkyB and BBC'

The Office of Fair Trading has extended its investigation into BSkyB's alleged unfair pricing policies and channel access restriction, which DT platform ONdigital claimed allowed Sky to dominate the UK pay-TV market.

The enquiry was initiated last December, and has been overseen by the UK's Office of Fair Trading (OFT), a government-independent body.

According to reports in the UK financial press, the OFT had been due to complete the inquiry this month, but due to the complexity of the investigation, the report has now been delayed until September at the earliest, and possibly even longer.

If found culpable, Sky could be in line for fines in the region of tens of millions of UK pounds. At the same time, the newly re-elected UK government ordered another round of consultation into the BBC's $435m plans for four new digital TV channels.

A decision on the services may not now come until later this year, which will come as a blow to the BBC. The corporation had hoped to launch the channels before the end of this year, and already has programme commissions in place.

Essntially what we have here is 'The Microsoft Situation'.
Although no-one likes one company making all of the decisions the point is, would computers be anywhere near as good if Microsoft was not as dominant?
I doubt it very much.
the same situation applies.
Would television be anywhere near as good if BSkyB wasn't around? No.

I don't know if I'd by that. You can't go really say that -- that TV would be worse or not as good if Sky wasn't there -- you don't know what would have happened if Sky wasn't there -- maybe some better service would have been offered ---- it's the same complaint with Microsoft. What if Sky didn't by BSB (and knock out it's only, to date, satellite TV competitor) BSB could have developed into a great service, but it never had any time to mature. I'm usually not in favour of getting into 'what ifs' but I wouldn't make blanket statements that UKTV is better because of Sky, and that it wouldn't have been as good without it.

BSB would NEVER have got into the sort of service that Sky is providing today.
BSB was made up of a group of fat cats who had a spend spend spend policy.
In comparision Sky was scrimping along on a very low budget and riddled with debts, it nearly took the entire News Corp. empire down with it in 1991.
BSB was a disaster of a company and actually didn't seem to care about what it was providing or doing, 'merging' with Sky was essentially, for BSB, a get out plan allowing them to save themselves from debt and financial ruin.
Compare the HQ of the two companies.
BSB occupied Marco Polo house, a huge building in Central London, now occupied by QVC and OnDigital.
Sky set up in a commerical estate with warehouse style buildings... i'm not saying BSB were bad, they had some good ideas... BSB had a sports channel, Sky didn't and oddly enough this has turned out to be the main driver for Sky.

BSB just wouldn't of survived anyway!

Although the DMac broadcasting system gave very high quality pictures it meant reduced channel capacity and BSB wouldn't of been able to expand.

Also Sky was out in the domestic market before BSB which gave Sky an early lead.

I suppose you could compare it to SkyDigital and OnDigital.

Although I doubt that OnDigital would ever close its current system of transmission. Its a must so that it ensures everyone can get digital after the analogue switch off with the minimum of fuss and is close it to the existing analogue system.

But lets not get off topic.

I suppose you all are right. I really don't know much about BSB. But, I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's really quiet dangerous to have one company controlling all of the television broadcasting capabilities. Where I live on Long Island, our only access to TV is cable (analogue reception is crap and you can only get the networks, which are also crap). There is only one cable company on LI, and it's really bad and expensive. Thank god for satellite though which i got last year.

IMO the biggest problem BSkyB has now is that with more than 5 million DTH subscribers (each of them paying £289 per year) they still have a net cash outflow from operating activities of £86 m (00/01 half year) versus £70 m (99/00 half year) and £232 for the 99/00 full year

a future business reporter i think here.

BSkyB are on track to be in the black in 2 years time.
The fact that they have given Digi boxes away has simply slowed the process down.

Not so sure, cash flow from operations is the money they make selling subscriptions. In 1997 the inflow (The cash they make) was £258 m, in 1998 £403 m, in 1999 £238 m and in 2000 the outflow - the money they have to invest in the operation to keep it running (for example issuing debt)- was £232 m. In 1996 their net debt was £659 m, in 1998 £518 m, in 1999 £665 m and in 2000 £1145m. At the end of last year 31/12/00 it was £1440 m. (Sky fiscal year ends in June).
That's not what I call to be on track (at the moment).

BTW, they have the same problem every pay-tv company in Europe has, they have paid huge amounts of money (football, films, interactive services) and the revenue it's not enough to pay the bills, let alone pay the interest of their debt.

(Edited by PZG at 11:37 pm on June 20, 2001)


(Edited by PZG at 11:39 pm on June 20, 2001)

I little late I think. I'm in university studying industrial enginneering. This is my fourth year and btw it is the most difficult university course.