tdgeek: DS9, I agree.
If Sky has to share its currently exclusive content, then it is devalued to them. They won't have the pulling power to attract/retain their subscribers, as viewers can also watch it on free TV. So, they will have to pay less, and then, won't get the content from the content providers. Or Free TV also pays a share, which the makes free TV into pay TV. And no, I am not a Sky advocate, but the bottom line is Sky can afford to buy content, as it is a pay tv business. You cannot expect it to pay top dollar for premium content when viewers can cancel Sky and watch it for free. Free TV cannot afford to pay for that cream content either as its revenue is lower. So, you may not see the cream content as it is now not affordable.
I hear where everyone is coming from. If Sky did what many here want, that is, to pay for shows rather than $70 per month for multi channels. That will save consumers money, it will cost Sky money, then Sky will have less funds to buy that cream content. Chicken and the Egg, primarily due to a low, low population here.
Thats a nice story, what was their recorded profit this year again?