Regulate / interfere if it becomes abusive in it's dominance, not before it's even started. It's clear that sky/virgin can't distinguish between their sitting bone and their arm joint.

A product can't dominate a market that doesn't exist yet, and can't do anything other than dominate a market which it creates (at least initially).

Also - there is nothing inherently wrong with a dominant product in a market. The likely outcome is genericide (see sellotape, hoover, xerox) as and when other people enter the market.

That made me chuckle.

"Project Kangaroo might be able abuse that power to inflate prices and restrict how consumers are able to access shows"

So lets get this right. This complaint was brought by Sky who are the primary cause of inflated prices and restriction of access to football coverage, but that apparently OK?

Somebody being bunging the the regulators some cash in brown envelopes?

I'm sick and tired of hearing the private sector bitch and whine at every single turn about things being anti-competitive. Whenever there's a hint that the private sector might be allowed into some government area you can't move without tripping over some lobbyist telling you how much more efficient everything is when it's market driven (into the ground).

When Sky and Virgin are both complaining, you know that whatever it is will probably good for us, the public. If there wasn't a risk that we would prefer the competing service, they wouldn't be complaining.

I've been waiting for Kangaroo for too long already.

I don't care about anti-competitive behaviour I just want my BBC and I want it now!

(As an Englishman living abroad you soon realise what you had in good old auntie beeb, oh how I miss her)

I know I have access to 'BBC America' and DVD's (and of course those funny torrent things, but for some reason I don't like that route, call me old fashioned but I genuinely don't like breaking the law, even if it seems the laws are stupid and that society is trying to make me do it)

I wait the time when I can get access to up to date BBC programming, and am willing to pay subscriptions for the privilege, so OFT you can go pleasure yourself.

"He [Michael Grade] charged that ITV, the BBC and Channel 4's broadcasting rivals were trying to piggyback on their investment in web TV while contributing virtually nothing to the UK's creative economy."

Oh please, Michael, dry your eyes. ITV, the BBC and Channel 4 are contributing virtually nothing to the UK's creative economy and you of all people should know that. Be honest now, you are no more than "cut and paste artists", choosing programming from an independent palette of production companies, who do all your Programmed Thinking for you.

If Sky wants to win, how about producing something that competes in the open market place. If others can provide a zero cost solution (to the consumer that is), that is just the market place rules, live with it. Sky knew the day it was created that it would have to compete with the BBC, to complain now is rather pathetic.

I'd love a monopoly on TV. That way I wouldn't have to pay for Sky + Virgin + Setanta + TV license just to watch the sodding football. One high monthly payment of say £50 is a damn site cheaper than 4 cheap subscriptions + 2 lots of equipment + 2 lot of installation charges...

And god help me if I want to watch it in HD with extra euipment/subscription charges + freesat equipment too for ITV HD.

What makes you think Kangaroo content will be available to you overseas? As far as I'm aware the rights landscape for BBC Kangaroo content is no different to the BBC iPlayer situation. You might get some Kangaroo content available internationally, but don't bet on it in the short term; there's a lot of distribution deals for the broadcasters to unpick first.

"Oh please, Michael, dry your eyes. ITV, the BBC and Channel 4 are contributing virtually nothing to the UK's creative economy and you of all people should know that. Be honest now, you are no more than "cut and paste artists", choosing programming from an independent palette of production companies, who do all your Programmed Thinking for you."

A coherent comment from amanfromMars? Shame it's wrong, then.

The BBC in particular are forced to commission from independent companies. Doesn't mean that they're unable to think for themselves.

"Oh please, Michael, dry your eyes. ITV, the BBC and Channel 4 are contributing virtually nothing to the UK's creative economy"

That Martian!

As soon as anyone tries, some else goes whining off to so quango to complain it's not fair.

"I'm sick and tired of hearing the private sector bitch and whine at every single turn about things being anti-competitive."

How about one mobile operator (BT) to rule over us?

Seems like you can't get enough of these good old fashioned, unregulated private sector cartels like Kangaroo. Are you by any chance American?

Follow your own logic for a couple of seconds. If investors stop getting a return on investment, then the investment will eventually stop. That means the only investment in the future will come via additional £££ on your license fee / tax bill. And with all the strings that Nu Labour or Nu Tory can attach.

The traditional terrestrail channels team up to provide unified broadcasting services via the web, and they get screwed.

This is rubbish. Absolute rubbish.

Mine's the one with an analogue TV in it.

"The BBC in particular are forced to commission from independent companies. Doesn't mean that they're unable to think for themselves." ... By teacake Posted Monday 30th June 2008 15:36 GMT

Ok, I withdraw the sentiment .... "who do all your Programmed Thinking for you."

It would be nice though to have independent companies commissioning Programming from the BBC, because it offers added value without consumer costs..... although I suppose that would be too much like Spooky Proxy Leadership.

It is bound to be an improvement though on the Terror/Warmongers peddling their Simple Chaos and Destruction Shows, which they like to tell us is World News, as if they are not scripting it ..........

How can it 'rival' anything? I've paid for my BBC programmes and how I watch them is up to me and the BBC. I've paid for my ITV/C4 programmes via the purchase of advertised goods, how I watch them is up to me and the ITV companies. If they want to provide me with a free web service to watch their programmes (the programmes that they have already broadcast to me), that's no different from me watching them on my television or recording them on VCR for later viewing, at zero marginal cost to me.

If Sky want to 'compete', they have to provide programmes that I want to watch at a price I'm prepared to pay. I doubt if they could do that - they've already lost the contest as far as I'm concerned.

"...OFT speculated that Project Kangaroo might be able abuse that power to inflate prices and restrict how consumers are able to access shows online."

How can you inflate a price that's already zero? Given that I never had online access until the free streaming came along, how could it be restricted? Well, they could say to me 'you can't watch any show that was broadcast more than 3 days ago'....well, I couldn't do that anyway until the streaming catch-up service was given to me for free! I may be missing something but none of their arguments make sense in the real world.

The first time I read the story, I started humming the theme song to Skippy The Bush Kangaroo

... bittorrent and a player of your choice for your chosen OS.

I can see why sky and virgin are up in arms.

If the bbc do this then everyone in the uk will recieve a letter that says this:

"You are now able to watch *commercial* tv through your computer, we know this because your IP accessed our paying service. You now have to pay a TV license even though you dont own a tv or ariel or satellite dish."

basically we can no longer watch the bbc programs for free at all, anywhere. Personally if i was in charge I'd tell the bbc to shut the hell up and put adverts on their channels. They only produce rubbish anyway, eastenders? coronation street? what a load of tripe. Aside from Dr who and top gear, they have yet to produce a decent tv program that isnt geared towards house wives and home alone losers. The US has it right, shove commercials in and give tv to people for free. If I could I would sue the bbc for unfairly charging people for a service that should be free. They only provide pathetic tv that they cant even make right, AND scam you out of millions via fraudulent telephone competitions and think they are tv gods. Sky has it right, they know what is good tv and what is better off in the bin. 95% of BBC programming belongs in the bin because its been made by people who dont have a ruddy clue what people actually want on tv.

I hope that Scotland become independant because it means we can tell the BBC where to stick their tv license and rubbish tv programs.

>Sky has it right, they know what is good tv

Sorry but I have just had to clean coffee from my screen after that comment !!

Sky produce next to no original programming, then they charge you a subscription (licence fee?), then they force endless ad-breaks on you.

Sky know NOTHING about good TV but LOTS about how to screw punters.

Sky is great if you want 90% of your primetime viewing to originate in Merica and dont mind endless ads.

As far as I'm concerned, Sky lost the competition when it got owned by Murdoch. I don't see any reason to contribute to his coffers, and I wish the football fans would grow a collective pair and all refuse to pay his subscription for a season's coverage just to give him a reality check. Sky works on the principle of paying silly money for exclusive rights and then screwing the viewers to pay for it (more fool them). I just find something else to do with the money.

This comes down to the tax on tv we have called the TV license. Haven't we paid for this programming already? Are being asked to pay for this kangaroo service?

The BBC should be reduced to News and public service broadcasting (so just News 24 then).

Then as a commercial outfit they could make and sell the likes of Top Gear (sold to 200 countries so far) and Doctor Who and that kind of activity can fund any commercial broadcasting they do. Why do i need to be taxed in this? Other TV companies manage, the BBC is trading on past reputation and is becoming like the NHS... ever more expensive for a second rate service.

Many think their news is no longer impartial, but they do have reporters in pretty much every location there is news.

If Freeview is OK on anti-trust... you know, all free channels together in one place, for free, over the air - how can there be anti-trust implications in doing the same online, with some or all of the free channels?

(In both cases "free" needs a bit of hardware - freeview box, or PC or the like.)

(Actually, yes, can't Kangaroo invite *ALL* those who provide Freeview channels to provide their content for this online player? "Freeview online"?)

Get yourself round to your local supermarket, have a word with the staff and see if they'll sell you a fucking clue.

"Many think their news is no longer impartial, but they do have reporters in pretty much every location there is news."

Right words, wrong order.

It should be "They do have news in pretty much every location they have reporters."

There is no such thing as 'news' any more. It's a media machine. It's all speculation & opinion (from some pundit/pontificator they wheeled in from somewhere). And the BBC inparticular is breathtaking in its bias towards NuLab and the Broon boy. Makes me want to puke.

A few years ago a friend taught me how to "read" newspapers and "listen" to the news on TV/Radio. My world hasn't been the same since.

Mines the one with the tin foil lining. Anyone got a colander?

It is all associated with the fact that our TV broadcasters are not happy with the terrestrial TV transmission model in this country.

When stuff is sent over the air, "no-one can hear you listening".

What they want is a connection based model. Then they'll know EXACTLY who is watching what, and when they're watching it.

And of course, they can charge you for it.

Oh, and of course they can sell your data to marketing profiling companies:

"Fred Bloggs is a 38 year old professional man and watches a lot of holiday programmes. A good candidate for Portugese property purchase."

It's fine with me. If they want to go down that route, it's really no problem. I'll just take the TV to the tip and they can fuck off. Just done the same with my mobile phone.

You're a troll right? You're not serious?

"Sky has it right, they know what is good tv and what is better off in the bin. 95% of BBC programming belongs in the bin because its been made by people who dont have a ruddy clue what people actually want on tv."

Oh what a bounty of intellect your household must be. Eating your chips out of paper and swigging Omega cider while you watch American Chopper.

Paris. Because I think you'd get on well together.

"basically we can no longer watch the bbc programs for free at all, anywhere."

Well, no. TANSTAAFL. If you watch BBC content, you should be paying a licence fee. If you don't watch any TV, then get rid of it - you'll save money and a surprising amount of space in your living room.

I have Sky, and it is frankly rubbish - virtually the only things I ever watch are the repeats of BBC shows on Dave (I probably watch 1-2 hours of TV a week). Why do I have it? They were the only people around who offered >2Mb broadband in my area at the time.

"Be honest now, you are no more than "cut and paste artists", choosing programming from an independent palette of production companies, who do all your Programmed Thinking for you."

Obviously you don't know the difference between "choosing" and "commissioning".

... we have a serious problem where any sort of "public service" is seen as anti-competitive because someone else wants to sell you the same thing.

*Will the record companies try to shut down Creative Commons because it is unfair competition?

*We've already seen a failed attempt to claim that GNU/Linux is anti-competitive because it queers the pitch for new entrants who want to charge money for the same thing.

*Will safety equipment makers claim that public safety films are anti-competitive?

*We've already seen educational publishers complain that BBC revision guides are anti-competitive, and the BBC took them down.

Truth is: we live in an abundant economy, a culture of plenty, where people, organisations and nations can afford to give stuff away. Dumping goods into developing economies can do real harm to emerging producers: sharing information and knowledge, however, is still sharing even if someone else wants to charge you for it.

Sorry. I don't believe it. He's no Lew, and he never will be.

Before he starts bitching about stuff like this, perhaps he might consider why people are switching ITV off in such big numbers.

Will it work on a Mac, unlike the current versions...