[Klug-general] Re: Mark Shuttleworth interview

George Prowse cokehabit at gmail.com
Thu Aug 24 14:04:30 BST 2006

On 23/08/06, Peter Apps <peter at sheppey.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
> I have been reading the various emails on this subject and  have been
> amazed at the acrimony and petulance in some of the messages.
I've been quite matter-of-fact-ly about it but yes, i agree
> There are two question I would like answered. First, as a free public
> service channel, should C4, ITV or the BBC exclude 20% of it's audience
> because of the make of receiving equipment they have. Does anything in
> their charters cover this point?
well it is more like 10% but i can imagine that C4 and ITV dont have
to do anything they dont want to because they are commercial comanies
and dont have an public service obligation (except in exceptional
circumstances, i think).
> When the nationalised companies were sold off, great efforts were made
> to give rival companies to compete and to destroy monopolies. By tying
> their Internet audience to Microsoft products are the TV companies going
> against these anti-monopoly principles?
Unlikely. The anti-monopoly laws were brought into place to stop any
one company using their position in the marketplace to deliberately
disadvantage others.

Because we have whats called "precedent" in british law it would have
bound to have come up before so the outcome may be decided on the
outcome of the previous case.

In this case, because they are tring to reach a wide audience of
around 90% then that is more than sufficient to be 'within reason'


More information about the Kent mailing list