Andy Hall wrote:

As for Rupert Murdoch charging twenty pounds for a card to watch
free channels; that's nice business if you can get it, but
eventually people will learn that it is a rip-off.

So who should pay for the supply and administration of this and the use
of the satellite capacity?

Sky charge 20 quid for a card to un-encrypt Channel 4 and 5. Those two
broadcasters for programming rights reasons, encrypt their satellite
broadcasts to avoid (in theory) reception outside of the UK. They have chosen
Sky's encryption system, because the vast majority of satellite boxes in use
in the UK are Sky Digiboxes. Sky's encryption scheme is proprietary, called
VideoGuard, and unlike other systems no external CAM etc exists or can be used.
The VideoGuard CAM is hardware and software embedded into Sky's boxes.
This is what many consider to be anti-competitive, Sky charge C4 and 5 for use
of their encryption system, they are not obliged to use it, though it's
thought Sky present them with a 'good deal'. If they dropped the encryption,
they'd have to re-negotiate their programming and film rights. Most probably
the increase of cost of this outweighs what Uncle Rupert charges them for
encryption.

The BBC decided in July 2003 not to play this silly game any more, and ditched
Sky's encryption, ITV followed in Nov 2005. Therefore both those broadcasters
are available for viewing on any make of satellite receiver. It is rumoured
however that Sky still charge them a fortune for full regional inclusion on
Sky's EPG. Remember both broadcasters have about 25 regions, in order for the
correct regions to appear on a Sky box in a given area, Sky have to map each
viewer's viewing card.

As far as payment for the satellite capacity goes, BBC, ITV, and C4 all pay
SES Astra directly, and up-link directly themselves. None of that is passed on
etc to Sky.
C5 are different, Sky uplink them, and they 'sub rent' the satellite's
capacity to C5.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.