Sky - Newscorp Takeover

I don't see any problem with this at all.

It seems to be that most people are basing their objections on the idea it will lead to Sky News becoming more like Fox News, but there's a long-standing legal requirement of impartiality from domestic broadcasters when it comes to news. I don't see how Murdoch simply owning more of Sky changes that.

In any event, I wouldn't care if Sky News did go in that direction. It's owned by a private company and should be allowed to broadcast whatever it wants - a principle most of us would LOVE to see applied to our adult broadcasters. Leave the impartiality requirement to the BBC.

Cameron met Murdoch chief days after stripping Cable of power to rule on BSkyB bid Daily Mail 20/01/2011

Daily Mail Wrote:David Cameron visited News International chief Rebekah Brooks days after transferring responsibility for her boss's takeover bid for BSkyB, it was revealed today.
The Prime Minister went to Mrs Brooks' home in Oxfordshire, which is near to his constituency property, over the Christmas holiday.
The visit came just days after a Government crisis over the BSkyB deal when Business Secretary Vince Cable was caught out attacking Rupert Murdoch.
The minister was left humiliated after being caught on tape David Cameron visited News International chief Rebekah Brooks days after transferring responsibility for her boss's takeover bid for BSkyB, it was revealed today.
The Prime Minister went to Mrs Brooks' home in Oxfordshire, which is near to his constituency property, over the Christmas holiday.
The visit came just days after a Government crisis over the BSkyB deal when Business Secretary Vince Cable was caught out attacking Rupert Murdoch.
The minister was left humiliated after being caught on tape claiming 'he had declared war' on Mr Murdoch and adding 'I think we are going to win'.

Cameron-Murdoch meeting will not affect BSkyB decision, says No 10
Spokesman says Jeremy Hunt will decide 'alone' whether to refer News Corp bid, after PM met James Murdoch at Christmas
Guardian 24/01/11

(Jeremy Hunt, courtesy of the Guardian 19/01/11)

Guardian Wrote:Downing Street today insisted any Christmas meeting between David Cameron and James Murdoch would have no impact on the government's handling of News Corp's bid to take full control of BSkyB.

The prime minister's spokesman said Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, would decide "alone" whether to refer to the Competition Commission News Corp's bid to buy the 61% of BSkyB it does not own.

Downing Street, which was shaken on Friday by Andy Coulson's resignation, faces renewed questions about its links with News Corp after the Independent disclosed today that James Murdoch met the prime minister for dinner over Christmas at the Oxfordshire home of the News International chief executive, Rebekah Brooks. The dinner with Murdoch, the Europe and Asia chairman of News Corp, took place days after Cameron stripped Vince Cable of his powers over media takeovers and handed them to Hunt.

The Guardian revealed last week that Cameron had been a guest of Brooks over the Christmas period. A Downing Street source denied last week that the meeting had taken place on Christmas Day, but declined to confirm or deny whether the prime minister had met Brooks over the Christmas period.

Today the prime minister's spokesman declined to confirm whether Cameron had met James Murdoch or whether he would speak to his father, Rupert, the News Corp chairman and chief executive, at the Davos World Economic Forum this weekend. The spokesman said: "Clearly, the prime minister does meet with people from the media from time to time. That is not at all unusual for prime ministers."

Downing Street said Hunt would abide by the law, which says he has to decide on his own, in a quasi-judicial capacity and without reference to other ministers, whether to refer the BSkyB bid. It is understood that Ofcom has recommended that the bid should be referred.

The Downing Street spokesman said: "On the bid process ... the culture secretary Jeremy Hunt is considering the report and he makes the decision in a quasi-judicial role. It is his decision alone."

Asked how any meeting with James Murdoch might affect the decision, the spokesman added: "It would have no bearing on that decision, which is a decision taken by Jeremy Hunt and Jeremy Hunt alone."

I'm obvioulsy missing something here. What does any of this have to do with the babeshows?

Sky effectively own the satellites the babe shows are delivered on.
At present Sky is a publically listed company and legally required to maximise shareholder returns.
That can include broadcasting shows the directors dislike, and they may be more (or less) open to hosting successful channels from other broadcasters.
Knowing who the landlord is might interest some people.

Who the landlord is isn't really important when it comes to Sky.

Ofcom require them to operate an open platform and provide carriage to any broadcaster that meets the relevant technical and regulatory requirements and which can secure an EPG slot.

(25-01-2011 11:47 )DanniPandemos Wrote:  Who the landlord is isn't really important when it comes to Sky.

Ofcom require them to operate an open platform and provide carriage to any broadcaster that meets the relevant technical and regulatory requirements and which can secure an EPG slot.

Not disagreeing with you but sceptical and would welcome a link to the regulations. And there seems to be a sting in the tail - "which can secure an EPG slot". Who controls that?

It cant be a free for all as there is a finite number of channels.

Ofcom set out regulations governing the sale of EPG slots, in effect creating a market in which they can be freely traded between broadcasters.

Sorry, I don't have a handy link for the open platform stuff. The open platform status came about because Ofcom rightly judged that allowing Sky to say which channels could use the platform wouldn't be a good thing. For example, Sky could have refused to broadcast ESPN if they operated a closed platform.

Sky made great play of this openness a while back when they had a spat with closed-platform Virgin.

DanniPandemos you are right.

Found Provision of Technical Platform Services - Guidelines and Explanatory Statement (21 Sept 2006) and the second paragraph states:
"Broadcasters and operators of interactive TV services who wish to gain access to viewers using Sky’s digital set top boxes can purchase TPS and Sky is required to provide these services on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms."

However there is still scope for subtle discrimination or encouragement, and Sky can excercise discretion over how many channels and the block size it considers reasonable for a market sector, such as Adult, Psychic, Gambling, Religion, International, News, etc. It could back that up with surveys showing high or low levels of interest. As long as it does not discriminate against a specific broadcaster it is in the clear.

Westminster Council used a similar tactic in the 90s(?) when it declared that according to population size there was only justification for 4 licenced sex premises in the whole of Westminster, including Soho.

In principle Sky could start encouraging raunchy Italial style shows, same as on Sky Italia, so it is not automatically bad.

And they could have tighter impartiality controls or easier access imposed on them as part of the takeover conditions.

What controls would you like imposed?