back to article Sky: We're no longer calling ourselves British. Yep. And Broadcasting can do one, too

BSkyB has ditched the words British and Broadcasting from its name, after the media and telecoms company completed its takeover of Sky Italia and Sky Deutschland yesterday. From now on, it will simply be known as Sky, but shareholders will be asked to approve the name switch at the firm's AGM on 21 November. Its company stock …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Another set of takeovers making sky an international company rather than a national one, and taking the headcount up to 31,000?

    I feel sorry for the folks who are going to find themselves redundant in a few years once the books have been sorted. I see it dropping down to 25,000 or thereabouts

    1. James 51

      Beat me to it. Was going to say

      "he merger obviously also means more staff on Sky's books with the headcount now reaching 31,000 across 30 main sites" not for long.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I think that outcome is pretty much clear from the following:

      The opportunity ahead is substantial and we believe the new Sky will be good for customers, content creators and shareholders alike.

      Notice who is missing?

      1. Ogi

        > Notice who is missing?

        The people who pay for the service? What, you thought they were the customers? The customers are the advertising agencies. I believe the term for those who stump up the money are "consumers", a word I despise personally.

        Man as I age, I get more and more cynical...

        1. FlatSpot

          I thought the "who is missing" is the staff ?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          > I believe the term for those who stump up the money are "consumers", a word I despise personally.

          Having briefly been a Sky customer, I think the term is "victims".

          1. HelpfulJohn

            How did you manage to escape?

            I had to argue with a lovely little lady on the phone for *ages* before she would accept that I wasn't after an upgrade, downgrade, sidegrade or any other sort of grade but really, truly, honestly did want to stop having their offerings. She seemed to think this was an impossibly irrational decision on my part. She almost convinced me.

            Almost. But I've been trained on Mormons and JW's, mere salesmen are never going to defeat me.

        3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          I believe the term for those who stump up the money are "consumers"

          I think the word you are looking for is "product". The only industry where the product pays its own money to be sold to customers (advertisers)

  2. Stuart 22

    Once upon a time ...

    There was a squaerial and a company named British Satellite Broadcasting. Satellite became Sky when they merged so both identities were preserved as BSB but no longer. Oh well RIP.

    1. AbortRetryFail

      Re: Once upon a time ...

      Indeed. Frankly I'm surprised they kept up the "BSkyB" charade for as long as they did.

      I expected them to revert back to just Sky years ago, in much the same way as Autocar magazine "merged" with The Motor to form "Autocar & Motor" before the "& Motor" got continually smaller in font until it disappeared altogether and the magazine became known as just "Autocar" again.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Once upon a time ...

        "Frankly I'm surprised they kept up the "BSkyB" charade for as long as they did."

        Yes- although it was presented as a "merger" at the time, it was clear which identity and vision won out, and I've learned that in retrospect that it was always intended as a takeover, with Murdoch's chums in the final days of Thatcher's government permitting and effectively colluding in the charade.

        1. apepper

          Re: Once upon a time ...

          ISTR that legally BSB took over Sky because Sky wasn't allowed to buy BSB because BSB had the license to broadcast in the UK.

        2. Michael Jennings

          Re: Once upon a time ...

          It's a very rare (possibly nonexistent) "merger" that isn't really one company taking over another.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Once upon a time ...

      BSB was a failed attempt at providing competition to Turdoch. With him buying out the venture it was a totally pointless exercise.

      Cable TV was the next attempt and that's failed too since the cable companies have to show Sky channels to get any decent sports and TV content.

    3. Michael Jennings

      Re: Once upon a time ...

      One of the basic rules of company mergers is that when a series of mergers occur and the company name is constructed by combining the names of the parties that merged, then *eventually* the company name will revert to that of the company that was dominant in all this. Hence "Total Elf Fina" reverting to "Total", "Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Discover" (the comma in that one was a work of genius) reverting to "Morgan Stanley", "Maersk Sealand" merging with "P&O Nedlloyd" to form "Maersk", and "British Sky Broadcasting" merging with various other companies to form "Sky".

    4. This post has been deleted by its author

  3. ukgnome

    So does this mean

    That I will be getting a lower price....nah thought not.

    1. gv

      Re: So does this mean

      Paying £60+ a month for a service that I would value at £20-25 tops. All to keep those footballers in Bentleys...

      1. Andy 97

        Re: So does this mean

        Ah, but they invest SO much in their 'high quality' product.

        It's not all about the football.

        Just think about all of the ...er.. homegrown quality drama they make.

        *tumbleweed*

        No?

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: So does this mean

          "Just think about all of the ...er.. homegrown quality drama they make."

          Was it not Sky who paid to make the Terry Pratchett Discworld stuff?

          Ah,yes, here it is.

          I'm not really defending Sky, and certainly not Murdoch, but bare in mind roses grow in shit ;-)

      2. FlatSpot
        Pirate

        Re: So does this mean

        Seriously you think approx £240 a year is good value for entertainment? I wouldnt pay that unless it danced around a pole on my birthday.

        1. NumptyScrub

          Re: So does this mean

          Seriously you think approx £240 a year is good value for entertainment? I wouldnt pay that unless it danced around a pole on my birthday.

          £240 is peanuts; if you include the cost of the internet connection and XBox Live, you barely have change for 2 XBox One games. For a whole year.

          If you have no TV, or computer, or console, or internet connection, then you could use £240 to buy around 20-30 books, aka 2-3 a month on average. I could just about squeeze by on that (I can finish a standard paperback in around 1-2 weeks).

          You could do pretty well on £240 if you only play RPGs; that would get you a good few dice, plus stationary supplies (pads, pens, folders, gaming mat etc.) and have enough left over for a few models and official game system handbooks / modules.

          I do all of the above, so I potentially spend £2400 or more a year on "entertainment" when you include internets, TV subscription, PC games, console games, books, and pen&paper RPGs. That's ignoring incidentals like beer, snacks, and travel expenses (when gaming at a mates house instead of mine).

          I wouldn't spend £240 on a pole dance though. That's a waste of money ;)

          1. sabroni Silver badge

            240 quid to watch adverts?

            Do one,

          2. DrXym

            Re: So does this mean

            "£240 is peanuts; if you include the cost of the internet connection and XBox Live, you barely have change for 2 XBox One games. For a whole year."

            It's peanuts if you find yourself immersed in Sky's content and are prepared to overlook the copious amount of advertising which goes with your paid subscription.

            Personally I'm happy with freesat although I augment it with a netflix sub.

          3. graeme leggett Silver badge

            Re: So does this mean

            " then you could use £240 to buy around 20-30 books, aka 2-3 a month on average. I could just about squeeze by on that (I can finish a standard paperback in around 1-2 weeks)."

            [cough] Public library [cough]

            (it's one of the things you get from your council tax. if you're choosy £240 would pay for reserving 400 books, or get about 40 on interlibrary loan, )

        2. mrmond

          Re: So does this mean

          The words subscription free does suggest not paying anything ^^

    2. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

      Re: So does this mean

      The way I see it is they offer what they do at the price they want to ask and you can take it or leave it, which seems to be what everyone else offers as well. I don't particularly like Murdoch but Sky doesn't seems any worse than other companies and their TV offering is better than many.

      A subscription-free Sky box without a viewing card is very good value for money so you don't have to pay if you don't want to. I find that just as good as what anyone else offers for the price and Murdoch doesn't get a penny.

    3. Graham Marsden
      Unhappy

      @ukgnome - Re: So does this mean

      > That I will be getting a lower price..

      Not while they can sell you a "package" which contains all the channels *apart* from the "Premium" ones which make them the most money and which you have to pay through the nose for because they've spent huge amounts making sure that they have a monopoly on new films and sports and...

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Does this mean

    I no longer need a Squarial?

    I really don't care. Anything owned by Murdoch is almost as Evil as Microsoft, and neither get a single cent of my money.

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: Does this mean

      IIRC Murdoch owns somewhere around 7% of Sky, it's hardly "owned by" him. These days most things seem to be largely owned by pension funds. Retirement is coming...

    2. Daniel Hall

      Re: Does this mean

      So, you dont use Windows, MS office or anything MS created legally then....

      1. hplasm
        Gimp

        Re: Does this mean

        "So, you dont use Windows, MS office or anything MS created legally then...."

        or At All.

    3. Anonymoist Cowyard

      Re: Does this mean

      I don't care how much he or his evil offspring own, and no, I have gotten rid of Microsoft in the home. I still have to suffer it at work.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Do we really need more Internationalism?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Do we really need more Internationalism?"

      No, you don't. But this increases Murdoch's reach and makes him more money, and poor old Rupert needs the money more than the bill payers do. Sadly for Sky's other shareholders I wouldn't consider doing business with them whilst the shrivelled old c**t is a major beneficiary. Or his revolting offspring.

    2. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Maybe this will finally encourage "Sky" to sell subscriptions across Europe?

      (OK, it's a slim hope...)

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    It used to be that...

    ... England Rugby internationals - in fact, most decent games of sport, thinking about it - were broadcast on either the Beeb or ITV. Not any more. It appears that even national team games are ones you have to pay through the ring, if you want to see them live.

    It's bloody disgusting.

    And Murdoch and his ilk are to blame. Oh, and the politicians we voted in, who allowed it to happen.

    It's still bloody disgusting.

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: It used to be that...

      And Murdoch and his ilk are to blame. Oh, and the politicians we voted in, who allowed it to happen.

      It's still bloody disgusting.

      Don't forget all those vulgar, disgusting customers who paid for it as well. If they had refused to cough up the pay channels would never have been successful.

      1. theblackhand

        Re: It used to be that...

        Didn't the ECC and IRB sell cricket and rugby rights to Sky to help develop the game and international players?

        I know it means those that want to watch the game have to pay, but doesn't the counter argument also apply? Why should those with no interest in these games pay for them out of the TV licence fee?

        As for Sky - can you create a Sports product without football as an option so that those who watch rugby and cricket don't have to pay a fortune for something that we never watch? I know - they won't kill the cash cow...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: It used to be that...

          You can watch 'Pick' if you like, or get Sky1 through a cable package.

          Though both largely consists of unending adverts for Ladbrokes, and, you guessed it, Sky Sports packages.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm waiting for BBC to follow suit

    Wouldn't it be great if they were just called "C"?

    "The Corporation". Cool.

    1. Ken 16 Silver badge

      Re: I'm waiting for BBC to follow suit

      would they collect the bins too?

  8. MJI Silver badge

    Never used the Bs

    Dropped the better technical system. Not a merger but a close down of a good system for a worse system..

    Never used them, never will.

  9. Nigel Whitfield.

    In memoriam

    A rare sighting of a BSB Squarial in the wild (on the Clapton Cinematograph Theatre).

    1. DrXym

      Re: In memoriam

      It might not a BSB dish because some wireless ethernet / broadband antennae look like that.

      1. Nigel Whitfield.

        Re: In memoriam

        Given how long that particular building has been disused, it's very unllikely to be anything other than a squarial, but if I can get a bit closer (there's finally hoarding up, and the possibility of building work) I shall see if I can spot any more marks on it.

    2. Jamie Jones Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: In memoriam

      There is still my squarial and one of the parabular equivalents up where I used to live (my parents house!)

      Revealing no more than if I'd posted a link to my website, and you did a whois on my domain...

  10. Slx

    Seems like a reasonable move as BSkyB comes from the "merger" between the original Sky and BSB which in reality seems to have been a complete take over by Sky.

    Nobody actually calls Sky BSkyB other than business journalists anyway.

    Sky UK

    Sky Ireland (recently split off from being just a marketing division of Sky UK's operations and now has a significant office in Dublin to support Irish customers for TV and broadband).

    There are localised versions of a lot of Sky's content with Irish adverts running on them, but other than that they're pretty much identical to the UK versions.

    Sky Deutschland

    Sky Italia

    There are several other Sky televisions that have nothing to do with them though like Sky in NZ had a minority shareholding by News Corp, no longer the case.

    Sky in Japan, Sky México and Brazil are nothing to do with News Corp either.

  11. Red Bren
    Pirate

    Pirate TV

    Until the merger with BSB, Sky were broadcasting to the UK without a licence, effectively making them a pirate TV operation. But Uncle Rupert was such a generous supporter of the government, so it was ok for him to unfairly compete with the legitimate operator.

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: Pirate TV

      broadcasting to the UK without a licence,

      What licence do you think he would have needed???

      1. Nigel Whitfield.

        Re: Pirate TV

        Licence may not be quite the word, but BSB (the original one) was the holder of the officially awarded franchise for direct to home broadcasting in the UK. Sky was not, and so in that sense, could be considered a pirate - certainly, if someone were to do the same thing from a ship in the north sea, or from a tower block roof, they would be considered one.

        Regulation was very different then, of course; I think this was even before the days of the original Television Without Frontiers directive, amongst other things.

        While perhaps not a pirate in the traditional sense, he was operating stations outside the framework that had been laid down governing the allocation of frequencies for broadcasting to the home and the technologies to be used.

        You might even draw an analogy with some of the 'disruptive' tech startups like Uber, in that like them, Sky decided the rules didn't apply, and just threw money at the problem until the incumbents had to surrender.

        1. JimWin

          Re: Pirate TV

          I worked for the IBA V&C Labs at the time Murdock started to ruffle British broadcast feathers. The IBA had mandated multiplexed Y,Cb,Cr analogue components for BSB, while Sky stuck with PAL to the annoyance of many in the broadcast industry.

          These were, of course analogue signals at that time. During this same period, Y,Cb,Cr/4:2:2 digital production was being developed initially by the IBA and followed by the BBC. Some years later, digital transmission adopted Y,Cb,Cr components and finally (and thankfully) killed off analogue PAL.

          So the original Sky was disruptive in one sense. But eventually even Sky had to move to component colour when it adopted digital transmission based on ITU-R Rec 601 (Y,Cb,Cr/4:2:2) video sources.

        2. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

          Re: Pirate TV

          You might even draw an analogy with some of the 'disruptive' tech startups like Uber, in that like them, Sky decided the rules didn't apply, and just threw money at the problem until the incumbents had to surrender.

          You could also consider that Sky didn't want to throw as much money at it as the EU-mandated formats required, and went for a cheap'n'cheerful solution that satisfied the punters' idea of value for money.The same thing happened eleswhere in Europe. As usual quantity won out over quality.

    2. Slx

      Re: Pirate TV

      Not quite true, Sky just broadcast from outside the UK in those days. They didn't need a license as it became a right to receive television from other countries via satellite.

      BSB was overwhelmed with red-tape and over-regulation forcing it to actually own its own satellites and have duplicated satellites and use strange broadcast standards (DMAC). Meanwhile, Sky went on air with pretty straight forward PAL television and it rented space on satellites instead of owning them.

      Sky's business model was FAR more successful.

      I think the only reason they clung onto the BSkyB name for so long was because it's a legacy of keeping regulators happy in the early 1990s and pretending they were still nice, tame, sensible BSB.

      It's easy to forget just how patriarchal the BBC was and how protectionistic the law was about broadcasting. Everything was about limiting competition and over regulating the industry which is why most European countries at the time had very limited choice on television.

      Sky basically bypassed by making use of European Union regulations at the time and pulled the rug out from the old state monopoly setup.

      1. MJI Silver badge

        Re: Pirate TV

        I actually wanted better than PAL and was rather annoyed by the success of Sky to the detriment of BSB. Yes I have seen analogue Sky, not impressed.

        Now we have MP3 being sucessful and SACD DVD-A virtually disappearing

        Broadcast HD being a bodge (too low bit rate, too many moronic logos.)

        Quality never wins.

  12. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

    History

    This discussion prompted me to dig out old copies of "Television" magazine. It's easy to forget how things changed.

    1981: The Home Office expecting 5 DBS channels by 1986

    1984: Collapse of BBC plans to start a 2-channel service, decoder costs of 500GBP "beyond what the public would find acceptable".

    1988: Quite a lot of equipment around, to find satellites they recommended the "World Satellite Almanac", at 30GBP :) Lyngsat.com wasn't even a dream!

    1989: A BBC Basic program (two pages to type in yourself) to do dish alignment calculations.

    February 1989 Sky TV started.

    February 1990 Sky Movies in scrambled form, half of Sky users signed up.

    April 1990 BSB started, first Squarials.

    25 years on we have hundreds of channels, digital, 3D, Dolby sound, and 95% of the programmes are still crap.

    1. Tim Almond

      Re: History

      So? 95% of what's on the BBC is crap. Homes under the Hammer, National Lottery: In it to Win It, Question Time, Children in Need. At least Sky customers aren't forced to pay for it if they want to watch the BBC.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Tim Almond Do away with the licence fee and TV as we know it will cease to exist. It probably will anyway, but it's not that time yet. The BBC is most of what I can tolerate watching on TV as it is.

    If Sky were brave enough, they could go Freemium. What about ad supported programming for zero subscription and extra/unbroken content for recording / subscription viewers? Live events would have directed (targeted), gapping adverts or PIP, broadcast content would start on time and end early with a placeholder.

    All viewers on the one platform, and that platform will have to be IPTV.

  14. Stevie

    Bah!

    British, Italian and German companies merged.

    Movies still mostly American.

    1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Bah!

      British, Italian and German companies merged.

      BIG Sky

  15. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
    Facepalm

    No British Tax

    I guess they'll want to be excused from paying British Tax.

    A novel idea eh?

  16. JustNiz

    ...In other news, BP are following Sky's lead and becoming "P".

  17. Yugguy

    It was never a merger.

    It was always a takeover of British Satellite Broadcasting by SKY, the new name being kept for commercial reasons - i.e. to not piss off the customers too much.

    I was working at Nationwide when they took over, er, I mean merged, with the Portman.

    The announcement said:

    "Nationwide Building Society will be merging with The Portman Building Society. The new name for the merged company will be.... Nationwide Building Society."

    Er.

  18. John Doe 6

    HEY!!! Does that give all of us EuroFags the right to watch SKY ???

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon