Charters: The BBC are allowed to charge a fee on the proviso they don't advertise. ITV granted a charter on the basis they gain income from advertising but NOT through a fee. Both the above can have one but not t' other. How come Sky can charge a fee AND gain revenue from advertising ? Do the rules above only apply to terrestrial TV ? Just wondered.
It was a genuine question, not a criticism. Am moving to BT Vision imminently, same question probably still applies.
You pay your fee to Sky for provision of a service (receiving tv channels over satellite/phone/broadband/etc). Sky TV channels are owned by the same parent group, but are probably separate companies that make their money through advertising and program sales. I think all channels get a proportion of the fees from Sky to help pay for them too. So their money comes partly from Sky and partly through advertising.
how come if you've got cable you have to have a t.v. license, surely your set is just a monitor as the recievers can be miles away at the head end and arrive at yours through a cable, so 1 license should cover all ( army camps just used to have 1 license and all sets on camp were by that 1, mind you I remember the van turning up at topcliffe, he got as far as the main gate and then got a rifle shoved in his face and told to **** off)
That's sort of what I was thinking but then that doesn't really explain the addition subscription fee for sports or movies. Not that I mind the ads on those too much as there aren't that many and at least on the movies channels they only put them in a block between the films.
