91Èȱ¬

Interesting to see that Murdoch and BSkyB are planning to pull Sky News (and Sky Sports News) from the Freeview platform this Spring. Whilst I don't see News 24's recent re-launch as a threat to Sky News's overall viewing figures, it does pose several questions:

1) Is BSkyB, in removing its news services from Freeview, planning instead to concentrate whole-heartedly on its HD services and therefore compete directly against the Freeview (and potentially Top Up TV) DTT platform?

2) Will viewing figures for News 24 suffer as a result of little or no direct competition on one digital platform?

3) Can we expect to see viewers lured (albeit reluctantly) to subscription-based platforms, thus causing a dip in DTT viewing figures when the analogue signal is switched off?

I too can understand the commercial and economic reasons behind Murdoch's motives.

When he launched Sky Television in the late 1980's, he originally invested heavily in Sky News, believing that this was what the British public wanted. To his cost, he soon realised that the diet of imported entertaiment shows on Sky One was proving to be more attractive to the early converts to sattelite television.

At the end of the day, it will be interesting to see how the post-analogue television landscape shapes up, whether or not Ofcom agree to BSkyB's plans.

Yes I think this is a great shame. With the departure of ITV News and now Sky News the 91Èȱ¬ has the Freeview market to itself. I am mostly a 91Èȱ¬ News 24 viewer so in theory this should not bother me too much but in fact I appreciate being able to switch to another service to get a different perspective or just to watch something else during sports coverage or something else I am less interested in. Diversity of news sources is a good thing!

A "double-edged sword" ?

Sounds like rhetoric, OM! You don't explain with any clarity how this has a 'backhand' aspect, at all!

Mr Murdoch recognises that maintaining the on-the-spot international network is not worth the investment, surely?

The old adage of needing a worthy adversary isn't always a truth - though it can be played upon by those who might gloat over their traditional monopoly!

No surprises here!

"I firmly believe competition is a good thing for the audience."

So then you support the abolition of the licence fee and having the 91Èȱ¬ compete on its own merits?

So am I right in thinking that this means that less people get the chance to watch the same four or five news stories being endlessly replayed 24 hours a day?

Lucky them.

No loss there then.

There was a time Sky News used to seriously show you guys up, but now it's the other way round. I'm sure you'll be raising your celebratory champagne glasses when it finally shoves off freeview, which you deserve. You're not selling out your audience, or your staff. I do realise that it's not as easy for Sky to just broadcast as they dont have license fee, however they charge customers hundreds a year to get the same services as you get on freeview. So there is a parallel. Sky News into their revamp has taken a considerable tumble, and I would imagine in this era of the Slow Sky News death you won't have problems with your journalist shortages planned for this month... at least anna jones still has friends at news 24!

So a tax funded, protected organisation has distorted the market to such an extent its competitor has had to pull out. Shame on the 91Èȱ¬. This is an inevitable consequence of the outdated TV-tax.

Perhaps you might like to prefer a small proportion of the £3 billion poll tax to the hard up skynews. Let's face it, a news organisation that can afford to employ in excess of 3,500 staff in its news division, run stand alone news bulletins on 91Èȱ¬1 at 1pm 6pm and 10pm whilst its news (24)channel presenters go off for a cuppa clearly has more money than sense.Add to that the duplication of bulletins on four and five live, the trivia that passes for news on 91Èȱ¬3 and the unwatchable 'world' on 91Èȱ¬ four it's obvious that the only real competition that the 91Èȱ¬ leviathan has is the 91Èȱ¬ leviathan. Give them some money, afterall you lot are in the vanguard of diversity.

@JG. I think you'll find that the market is working fine. Mr Murdoch has simply decided he can make more money for shareholders by withdrawing Sky News and replacing it with subscription channels.
The only distortion here is that thanks to the unique way it's funded the 91Èȱ¬ can continue to deliver News 24 for freeview viewers.

Quote; "So a tax funded, protected organisation has distorted the market to such an extent its competitor has had to pull out"

err... Surely this is a commercial broadcaster more interested in making profits than providing a universal news service which has dropped its news service because it doesn't make money. Just as the other lot (ITV) did. And wasn't it the 91Èȱ¬ that got Freeview back on its feet in the first place after ITV's failure. Thank God for a tax-funded protected organisation.

It is hardly surprising that Sky news is losing Viewers to 91Èȱ¬ news 24. It takes two clicks of the remote control to switch from Sky news to 91Èȱ¬ news when the adverts come on and then forget to switch back. Viewers of news channels are not a receptive audience for adverts. Surely the solution is obvious!!

Kevin, In reference to JGs comment, my parents have some type of satellite dish, not a 'sky' one, and no sky digibox, so can get 'Sky News' now, and one suspects in the future. Clearly they can't get all the movie channels but they don't really want these.

I think many people, myself included, are still somewhat in the dark about the options for digital TV. The working assumption is that you either have Sky or Freeview or cable. I am not sure this represents all the available options.

Clearly it does for most of those who want 'multi-channel entertainment' including, say, Film Four, Channel5, MTV channels and all the various children's channels. But I am not convinced that they are a majority.

My folks are pensioners, living in Wales, so having access to Welsh TV, 91Èȱ¬ and maybe the news from Sky, plus a couple of other free channels is enough-they don't want to pay extra.

Maybe this message is being lost in all the 'hype' from Sky and Virgin.

Hallo News 24 controller!! Nothing to do with the subject at hand, but can we PLEEEEZE have a little less soccer? Not everybody is obsessed with it, and for those who are, there are plenty other places to go. You say yourself ("you can make money out of movies and sport but not easily from news") sport and news are not the same thing.

Sky should be kick out of the Free view Consortium! How can they change the free view licence to pay-tv? Ofcom should stop this now.

Oh great - so now we'll have no choice but to watch 91Èȱ¬ 24's "balanced" view of the world. Yet another reason why the license fee should be abolished.

The beeb have had the monopoly for ever funded by licence money whether you liked it or not. At least with sky what you see (literally) is what you get and you pay for it. Stop whingeing beeb about the competion you so richly deserve and which delivers so much more for the money. Your licence fee is a total rip off with millions hardly watching you but still having to fork out. It would be very interesting if you had an opt out option but you would not dare as you know what would happen

I think 91Èȱ¬ should fully privatise and not seek government funding. Although, it has state connections, the company is in a desperate need for a private makeover judging by the most recent funding fiasco.

Take Time Warner and CNN, for example. It is a perfect example of how privatisation can actually work for a news channel. I don't think that there is a difference between a 'free' news service and a 24/7 channel. While they have a limited timeslot and summarize information, you provide more information and details, hence seek to be compensated. But is this exploited service enough? No.

From the figures, you do have a loyal 4 million a week viewership and this viewership may have it's own demographics. I don't see why 91Èȱ¬ cannot practice aggressive privatisation and advertising while retaining the ethics that made it what it is today.

I am not suggesting that you start spending less on other services, such as the multi-language radios. But you may easily integrate expansion strategies and minimize expenditure on variable costs, while your core income pays for the fixed costs.

91Èȱ¬ has the brand equity and value, the audience and brand salience. You could easily earn that extra revenue without state intervention. What Sky lacks at the moment is that image projection that you have:

Impartiality. At least that's the public view.

This must be a very disappointing development for Sky News staff.

That said, from an editorial perspective, I don't think the competition between Sky News and 91Èȱ¬ News 24 has always been a good thing. News 24 seems preoccupied with being more Sky News than Sky News.

I would prefer it if News 24 pursued a broader agenda than Sky News and put more resources into exploring issues in depth rather than being obsessed with breaking news and having correspondents reporting live purely for the sake of being live.

I rarely watch Sky News or Sky Sports News (just as I rarely watch 91Èȱ¬ News 24). Although, I found Sky Sports News very useful to catch their equivalent of "Final Score" when 91Èȱ¬1 pushed it back to show the Rugby on saturday.

So it will be missed a little by me but not much.

For me if I want to check the news I go to a news website as it allows me to read the stories I wish rather then sit through items that have zero interest to me.

Sky News is junk television, mostly. They are good on breaking news, as they don't seem to be too worried about double-checking facts before going to air. The breathless reporting and tabloid content is sickening. However, competition is essential to maintain quality, from this point of view it could be bad news for News 24.
If it takes a licence fee to maintain quality, then long live the licence fee.
Advertising is a nuisance, but it's acceptable if the content is really good - in my opinion 91Èȱ¬ World is actually the best international all-news channel, head and shoulders above CNN, Fox and the rest of them.

I'll miss Sky News for the breaking news as they do a far better job of it then the 91Èȱ¬ without the politically correct self censorship the 91Èȱ¬ engage in. That said Sky News has been going downhill fast for a while now and the way things are going soon it will be nothing but ads, trailers and plugs for their website 24 hours a day. I hope someone steps in to take their place as only having one dedicated news channel isn't good especially one that seems to have it's own left wing agenda.

It may not be the case that Ofcom consent to changes in the licence for National Grid Wireless, (the Mux operator for Mux C) or a change in the channels provided by Sky (which were only allowed as FTA channels).

Certainly, I'd expect to see some consultation if applications to change are received by Ofcom, which apparently, to date, have not been.

It is interesting to note that NGW recently advertised a FTA only 4.00am to 12.pm slot with a proposed start date of 1st Feb, hopefully this wasn't just an artificial exercise to establish little demand for FTA broadcasting space by NGW, before broadcasting services are sold off by them, (to Sky?)

Last year, both the 91Èȱ¬ and five did not support the removal of FTA channels to allow Pay channels on Mux B, C or D,when consulted by Ofcom and Channel Four was opposed to any change to allow Pay TV on them, I'd hope that these broadcasters would at least reiterate their opposition to removal of FTA channels, and support their replacement with other channels, (on the same terms and conditions), such as CNNI, Euronews, extended broadcasting hours for Disney's abc1, or the soon to be launched RTE:International (which could replace Sky three and help Ofcom to carry out its duties under the Communications Act 2003 regarding quality, plurality, etc.)

I suppose as a last resort, given the changes to the Charter, 91Èȱ¬ World, 91Èȱ¬ Entertainment/Prime and 91Èȱ¬ Knowledge could replace the Sky channels, adverts included!