a matter of a legal position with a sky

[flashgordon1952]

i am very interested in learning what ones legal position if yu use a third party for your sky subscription. Do you lose any rights on the contract with sky because you have used a third party. also there has been a court case in recent months regarding a public house being sued by sky for watching there footie supplied from a third party company based abroad (satellite company) to me its just fair trading ! where things are going to get interesting is when FREESAT starts up and offers deals for a subscribed service. Freesat is owned by BBC and ITV. ie not the free to view service but say a footie /or films subscription similar to what sky offer. then the gauntlet will be thrown down. Sky did think they would stop this ever happening by buying up shares in ITV,which is deemed illegal by the fair trading standards/(alledged) I think there is plenty of room in the market especially with the HD service to allow this to happen.
Did sky really think they could control the TV service world wide. (they own Fox and they are a listed company in the USA and own several newspapers) I would personally like to see independant tv companies offering a satellite and terrestrial service. The biggest problem to this is revenue from advertiseing ,which is the only way a tv company survives, except BBC which is public subscription . but does allow indendant film makers to make programs for them (due to being a cheaper alternative).
FREESAT could end up like the south sea bubble in the 18th century a white elephant with millions going in and nothing comeing out. It has to be a success . This hopefully make sky cut there subscriptions. and the public get good value for money.

[Analoguesat]

The legal position is very simple if you use a third party - your contract is with the reseller. If they fould up its up to them to sort it out.

The football in public houses is an entirely different kettle of worms. Watching 3pm footy in your own house is one thing, but in a commercial property is quite another, and until the ongoing court cases are settled no-one will know if its allowable - remember Sky UK have paid billions of pounds to be sole suppliers of Premiership football to the UK.

And remember - the 3pm blackout which so many folk are deseprate to get around is nothing to do with Sky - its imposed by the FA to protect attendances at the bottom of division 2 no hopers.

[rd100]

There will be NO pay services on FREESAT and never will be also FREESAT is just a marketing name like FREEVIEW is as it is easy for joe public to go in to a store and ask for a FREESAT box and not a dvb-s or dvb-s2 satellite receiver,

Originally Posted by flashgordon1952

i am very interested in learning what ones legal position if yu use a third party for your sky subscription. Do you lose any rights on the contract with sky because you have used a third party. also there has been a court case in recent months regarding a public house being sued by sky for watching there footie supplied from a third party company based abroad (satellite company) to me its just fair trading ! where things are going to get interesting is when FREESAT starts up and offers deals for a subscribed service. Freesat is owned by BBC and ITV. ie not the free to view service but say a footie /or films subscription similar to what sky offer. then the gauntlet will be thrown down. Sky did think they would stop this ever happening by buying up shares in ITV,which is deemed illegal by the fair trading standards/(alledged) I think there is plenty of room in the market especially with the HD service to allow this to happen.
Did sky really think they could control the TV service world wide. (they own Fox and they are a listed company in the USA and own several newspapers) I would personally like to see independant tv companies offering a satellite and terrestrial service. The biggest problem to this is revenue from advertiseing ,which is the only way a tv company survives, except BBC which is public subscription . but does allow indendant film makers to make programs for them (due to being a cheaper alternative).
FREESAT could end up like the south sea bubble in the 18th century a white elephant with millions going in and nothing comeing out. It has to be a success . This hopefully make sky cut there subscriptions. and the public get good value for money.

[flashgordon1952]

I assume FREESAT owners hope to make money on the venture ITV will want more advertiseing revenue and BBC be able to sell there programs and videos. it interesting that sky has decided they dont want the name freesat i had the opinion they use to own the name. i wonder if this had anything to do with there share holding in ITV. Whic they have been told to sell off there shares as its illegal to own more than a small percentage in a major TV company due to the monopolies verdict.

[Analoguesat]

Originally Posted by flashgordon1952

it interesting that sky has decided they dont want the name freesat .

Freesat is a BBC registered trademark. It was temporarily licenced to Sky until the BBC decided they wanted to use it. Hence Sky started using FreesatfromSky instead