Sky to be regulated by the ODTR

dmeehan

Sky to be regulated

looks like etain doyle may be able to stand up for us after all

Charles Slane

Anything that Etain Doyle and her crew go near seems to turn into a disaster. Just take a look at her past record.

There's already way too much regulation. We need less not more.

The only people who actually seem to get things done these days are those who skirt around legislation and regulation, and as much as many people don't like him, Murdock is one.

If this comes to pass it will be bad news.

Mark McG

I agree with Charles. Keep your hands off Sky, Ms Doyle.

icdg

There is "new" legislation (the Communications Bill 2001) which may or may not be rushed through before the election (in fact the Opposition are asking the government to rush it through). If it goes through the ODTR will no longer exist - there will be a Communications Commission with three members that will regulate cable and MMDS (and satellite, if this comes to pass).

The question is, how can Sky be regulated and no other satellite system. There are so many satellites pointed at Ireland - will Comcom or whatever they end up calling it have to licence them all. (Some of which are based rather far away). And will it be Sky or SES ASTRA which has to be licenced? After all the satellite platform is not Sky, it is Astra - Sky are merely a retailer of channels on the platform.

Charles Slane

Originally posted by icdg
The question is, how can Sky be regulated and no other satellite system. There are so many satellites pointed at Ireland - will Comcom or whatever they end up calling it have to licence them all.

Very good point !!

I'd imagine they'd have to come from the angle of regulatiing those providers who market and sell a service directly to consumers in the Republic.

That would mean that free-to-air channels would be excluded from their influence.

Do other services (ie. Canal Plus etc) sell their subscriptions to Irish viewers, or are they only available through less legal means ?

I guess the whole point of the exercise is to try appease the cable companies (and the future digital terrestrial service) by bringing their major competition (ie Sky digital) under the influence of an Irish regulatory body.

But if you look at how regulation has hampered the growth of cable/mobile phone services/TV and radio in Ireland you can see it's not a good idea. (Take a look at the third mobile phone service debacle !!)

We've ended up with a situation where advancement in any of the latest technologies takes forever, and our choice is limited.

The regulations just seem to slow things down, without having the teeth to do anything about poor services.

Without trying to sound like a complete capitalist, I believe that the market should decide which services survive and thrive.

For example, if it hadn't been for pirate radio showing that their was a huge demand for it's type of services, we would still be stuck with RTE Radio 1. And even still the commercial radio sector is over-regulated.

Let's hope it doesn't happen to digital satellite.

Phew !

carrolls

By regulation, would that mean vetting Sky channel output to ensure that Irish censorship laws are athered to?
If this was the case, A lot of more of the carried channels would have to be blocked.
Why was this legislation not implemented when Sky was an Analogue service.
Well the Sky product wasn't packaged quite as nicely then and It wasn't showing up the cable operators for what they were (Crap).
Now finally Sky have released a package that promises to wipe the floor with the cable operators and suddenly the telecoms regulator is taking action.
The cable companies
(Chorus/Westward/Irish Multichannel/Cablelink)
had the money five years ago to invest in Digital, and get a good service up and running. But they were caught ballwatching (Or creaming their profits, or both), and suddenly when somebody (Sky) comes along with a service that is vastly superior to theirs, they cry to Mammy. (Or Ms Etain Doyle to be exact).

Charles Slane

This is how I see it shaping up (with apologies to Fr Ted)

Ms Doyle to Sky Digital - Would you like to be regulated by an Irish regulatory body ?

Sky - No thnks, Ms. Doyle.

Ms. Doyle - Ah you will.

Sky - No thanks Ms Doyle, sure we're grand.

Ms. Doyle - Ah you will.

Sky - No, honestly.

Ms. Doyle - G'wan !

Sky - No.

Ms. Doyle - G'wan, g'wan, g'wan, g'wan, g'wan, g'wan, g'wan, g'wan, g'wan, g'wan, g'wan, g'wan.

Sky - No really.

Ms. Doyle - G'wan ... you will !!

Sky - No

Ms. Doyle - YOU WILL !!!

Sky - Oh, ok then, maybe a little bit ......

Genghis

I don't think anyone has a more difficult job than Etain Doyle. It does seem that eveything turns to dust for her, but in fairness I think there are a number of other factors that have restricted her offices effectiveness. Eircoms reluctance to unbundle, NTL and Chorus's decision not to invest in their areas, etc. have done more to stifle competition than anything else.

Whether or not Sky being regulated or not is interesting. I certainly feel that any company operating on such a large scale without any answerability to the market is not right, though I would not like to see over-regulation. I don't think regulation would necessarily curb Sky's innovation and investment in technology.

triple-play

I'm all on for competition -it usually makes the deal better for the consumer. But what I don't agree with is that some operators have to abide by stringent (and costly) regulations while others don't. Cable, MMDS and Digital Terrestrial (when it arrives) all have to follow the ODTR regulations. Sky does not and therefore is in an advantageous position compared to the Irish operators.

Also, part of these 'regulations' involve a 3.5% levy on gross revenues which ntl and Chorus pay to the ODTR as a spectrum licencing fee. In addition, ntl and Chorus pay Irish VAT on subscriber revenue (as will it'sTV).

In total the Cable & MMDS operators pay around 4m euro in fees and 24m euro in VAT every year. I'm sure they'd rather not so why should Sky get away without paying their far share.

Sky do not pay spectrum licencing fees or Irish VAT on Irish revenue. Any legal Irish operator, paying spectrum fees and VAT, should get priority over Sky. Sky can't have it every way... they should either pay their way or shut up moaning.

dmeehan

well maybe sky might see ditchin ROI as an alternative to being regulated or forced to pay fees and VAT, and we sure as hell dont want that either

carrolls

It is not exactly Sky's fault that Irish cable operators are being taxed and regulated to the hilt.
You will find that Sky's UK broadcasting license will cover them for both territorys.
The only thing I am worried about is that when Sky wins the ODTR case,
if they even need to go to court,
the Irish government will start taxing the Digiboxes themselves.
They are saying to themselves "All this Sky popularity and success, and we are not making a cent out of it".
(Spoken In a thick Irish farmers accent)

chernobyl

Originally posted by Charles Slane


Do other services (ie. Canal Plus etc) sell their subscriptions to Irish viewers, or are they only available through less legal means ?

Canal STB bought on ebay but getting the sub direct from Canal was simple.
Regulation of Satellite is simply paying it lip service, no one can control what is broadcasted on satellite, if you want hardcore stuff which i think is banned here, you cant get the offical STB yet you can get the Viewing cards without too much difficulty(offically).

bkehoe

I hope that the ODTR are kept well away from Sky.....

triple-play

You will find that Sky's UK broadcasting license will cover them for both territorys

Not possible. Sky is using spectrum which belongs to IRELAND. This is why the spectrum is licensed -it is a natural resource of the Irish people. It should not be plundered by Sky. If they want to use it, then apply for a licence (which they WOULD get from the ODTR). Sky don't want to do this though because they would then have to pay spectrum licensing fees like every other operator. Why should Sky be allowed an advantageous operating position when they pay nothing back in VAT or fees?

Sky us our spectrum, it belongs to all of us, and they should pay for it just like the cable operators, MMDS operators, mobile operators, FWA operators, etc.

OFTEL in the UK cannot license our spectrum.

carrolls

There is no such thing as ownership of Satellite spectrum.
Ireland does not own any Satellite frequencies.
Sky is not using up bandwidth that Irish companies or the Irish government could potentially use or sell to other organisations.


In cables case if say Chorus refused to pay a license fee to the ODTR, the franchise could be given to somebody else.
In Skys case if Sky refuse to pay a license fee I don't see what the ODTR could possibly do.

If the Irish Government (Or the ODTR) want to join the Satellite
ownership club, either
1: Launch their own Satellite. or
2: Lease some bandwidth from the other providers.
Then set up their own satellite company.

triple-play

You are wrong. The Irish Government owns the available Spectrum in Ireland. That is why services using the Irish spectrum are licensed. The only exception to this is Sky. And the ODTR are now beginning to address that issue.

You say that the Irish Govt should not complain as we don't have a satellite service of our own. We didn't have a mobile phone service either... until the spectrum was licensed to a company wishing to set up a mobile phone service. The same would go for a satellite service.

But Sky have circumvented this process as they are not operating their service from Ireland. But when they started targetting the Irish consumer directly and separately from the UK which they have done in the last 18 months then they should be made obey the same rules as everyone else in Ireland.

Because Sky are not licensed in Ireland they have no right to complain if their signal gets interferred with. Another operator could get a licence to operate a service which could interfere with the Sky signal. One company planning to do this is Southcoast TV. They will offer a service in the 2Ghz spectrum (I think) which is likely to cause interference to Sky signals. But since Sky are not licensed and have not applied to the ODTR for a licence then they have no rights. And a company with a licence will always take precedence.

Sky are taking the Irish taxpayer for a ride. Don't get me wrong, I think Sky offer a good (if not pricey) service and should be allowed continue to operate in Ireland. But they must operate on the same basis and the same regulations as the other operators.
But they don't want to do this as they will then be forced to pay spectrum licencing fees and VAT on revenue from Irish subscribers... just like all the other operators.

carrolls

Sky Digital operate on the 'SHF Ku' band of frequencies (Range 10.7 to 12.75 GHZ)

I don't want to start quoting Euro law on this forum, but an independent state is not entitled to claim a bandwidth spectrum as their property unless they have an independent means of allocating for, operating and policing such a bandwidth.

Regarding the 'SHF Ku' (Sky) band of frequencies, clearly this is not the case for the Republic of Ireland.

If it was the case in the future that an Irish Multichannel company wanted to launch a satellite as a means of relaying their programming, then the bandwidth utilised on this Satellite would then have to be policed by regulators in the Irish Republic.

The issue regarding an unlevel playing field for cable operators is a totally seperate issue.
A quick fix to this problem would be to de-regulate cable operators in the Republic.

A quick fix to this problem would be to de-regulate cable operators in the Republic.

Their exclusivity ends at the end of this month doesn't it?

Afaik- the only company so far planning to take advantage of this are ssctv in eye-ing up cork City for their Quasi MMDS service.
I think they'll have their work cut out for them there though-even though going up against Chorus with the bad name they have will be easier.

Regarding regulation of Sky:
There may be many reasons for saying the ODTR should not touch them-mainly based on their Slow bureocracy.
But don't forget Sky digital are an up and running,highly successfull outfit , already providing an excelent quality service-unlike some aspects of it's competitors.
It's unlikely in my view that Murdock would take any nonsense from the likes of the ODTR.He would have his reasons for allowing them to "police" him. The ODTR's Red tape and lenghty process'es wouldn't necessarily apply to Sky as it's already providing the full tv an radio service (bar the ones we are campaigning for).

It is possible that the ODTR could request Sky to provide BBC Choice,News 24,BBC 4,UTV,ch4,5 live etc as the other platforms have them. Sky would have to apply to the ODTR for a price rise ( cue long bureocratic process:) )to cover them-remember that also.
mm

icdg

Originally posted by carrolls

You will find that Sky's UK broadcasting license will cover them for both territorys.

Astra are actually a Luxembourg based system. Sky do not own a licence for a multichannel satellite platform. They own various licences (ITC Satellite Television Services Licence) for *channels* they operate which do cover them for the Republic of Ireland. But there is no provision in UK or Irish law for the type of television service Sky offers to be licenced. Thus Sky One (channel) has a licence, but Sky Digital (platform) does not, nor does it need one.

There was a conference in the late 1970s (WARC) which allocated things like satellite spectrum to each country. At that time it was assumed the future of satellite television would be "high power" satellites covering one or two countries each. Ireland and the UK were each allocated frequencies. In Ireland these were allocated to Atlantic Satellites Ltd which didn't start a service. In Britain they went to BSB which gave up its licence as of 31st December 1992, after its "merge-over" with Sky.

Nobody reckoned that medium power satellites like Astra would prove a threat to high power DBS. Hence they saw no need to regulate it on a national basis.

Here's a question for you. Say the ROI sets technical standards for Sky to operate in its market. Say the UK then establishes *different* technical standards for its market (Which it won't do, for poltical reasons, but lets' ask the question on a theoretical level). What's Sky to do then? It has to dump one market, and that is the ROI.

Regarding must carries: the ODTR had provisions written into Cable contracts that RTE/TV3/TG4 must be carried and that MMDS companies must carry TV3. These provisions have been made law by the Broadcasting Act 2001. But no contract requires any provider to make any other service available, I don't see how the ODTR would impose obligations on Sky that the cable/MMDS companies don't have to meet.

Incidently, there's one interesting provision of the Act (Section 16.5 (b) ) that requires anyone providing an EPG to provide listings for BBC NI/UTV/Channel 4! Sky would have to put them on the EPG (even if choosing them gave "This programme is not available") if it were regulated in ROI.

Originally posted by ICDG:

Incidently, there's one interesting provision of the Act (Section 16.5 (b) ) that requires anyone providing an EPG to provide listings for BBC NI/UTV/Channel 4! Sky would have to put them on the EPG (even if choosing them gave "This programme is not available") if it were regulated in ROI.

It sounds like a typical "flaw" in legislation to me:(
Somebody who drafted that clause was probably assuming listings on an EPG means you get the channel.
They musn't have heard of "08" :rolleyes:
mm

MrPudding

Originally posted by chernobyl


Canal STB bought on ebay but getting the sub direct from Canal was simple.

Can you give me more info on this please?

chernobyl

What more info do you need?
I bought the STB via Ebay, called Canal up and asked for a viewing card for their sports package, oki doki, deal done.

byte

Wow, that was handy! How much is packages for Canal+?