Trusted
Chorus
sbiddle: Sky Digital's original big selling point was the originally the availability of FTA channels. It wasn't the fact you could get Sky channels nationwide - it was the fact you could get TV1 and TV2 and people were rushing to get Sky Digital installed just so they could get FTA channels on Sky. Rural uptake in particular was huge.
Sky were effectively making lots of money out of providing TV1 and TV2 and my understanding is that TVNZ were never paid as part of this arrangeent. You can argue that they shouldn't be paid - afterall they're a publically owned network but is it fair that a private company makes money out of a state funded organisation? Most people would say no.
Sky and TVNZ were bitter enemies with plenty of ongoing issues that caused the bitterness including the Avalon uplink saga. Sky need to be able to offer FTA channels as part of it's package. The question really is whether they should be paying for access to these or not.
Sky's Satellite service started in 1997 and TV 1/2 were not on Sky until the end of 2001 so I can't see how Sky Digital's original big selling point was the availability of FTA channels as they weren't on there. As someone who couldn't get Sky until the Satellite service started I can confirm it WAS the fact you could get Sky channels nationwide that was the important factor as 95% of the population could already receive TV 1 & 2.
Anyway, my point on all of this discussion is there is benefit to both parties in having the service on Sky, and you could argue forever exactly how much benefit there is either way. I would simplify it to 50/50 and I think that is why no money exchanged hands originally. For all we know there could be no money involved with this latest deal either, or at least very little.
Retired Mod
