<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Broadcast Projects - Independent Consulting NetworkBroadcast Projects - Independent Consulting Network | Broadcast Projects - Independent Consulting Network</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.broadcastprojects.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.broadcastprojects.com</link>
	<description>Experience Leadership Results</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:39:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ATVOD Fees Update by Fred Perkins</title>
		<link>http://www.broadcastprojects.com/2011/06/28/avms-watch-atvod-fees-update/#comment-192</link>
		<dc:creator>Fred Perkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:39:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.broadcastprojects.com/?p=1479#comment-192</guid>
		<description>While the new fees are a moderate &#039;win&#039; for smaller businesses, they probably serve mainly to divert attention away from the core objective of getting ATVOD killed off altogether. I&#039;ve yet to see ATVOD do ANYTHING meaningful except collect fees. 

I&#039;m also surprised there hasn&#039;t been an outcry form the bigger businesses, who (if they are not already planning to move VoD operations abroad altogether) should be demanding a proper definition of &#039;turnover&#039;. Even Ofcom has clauses in  appropriate situations, which use the metric of RELEVANT turnover... ie turnover relating to the service which is being focused upon. Or does ATVOD assume corporates will change their corporate legal structure, just to minimise their exposure to outrageous ATVOD fees?

It&#039;s patently rubbish for ATVOD to claim that VoD is so advanced in the UK that regulatory costs don&#039;t bear comparison with other countries.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While the new fees are a moderate &#8216;win&#8217; for smaller businesses, they probably serve mainly to divert attention away from the core objective of getting ATVOD killed off altogether. I&#8217;ve yet to see ATVOD do ANYTHING meaningful except collect fees. </p>
<p>I&#8217;m also surprised there hasn&#8217;t been an outcry form the bigger businesses, who (if they are not already planning to move VoD operations abroad altogether) should be demanding a proper definition of &#8216;turnover&#8217;. Even Ofcom has clauses in  appropriate situations, which use the metric of RELEVANT turnover&#8230; ie turnover relating to the service which is being focused upon. Or does ATVOD assume corporates will change their corporate legal structure, just to minimise their exposure to outrageous ATVOD fees?</p>
<p>It&#8217;s patently rubbish for ATVOD to claim that VoD is so advanced in the UK that regulatory costs don&#8217;t bear comparison with other countries.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

