Freesat Benefits

[nehalem]

I'm just not convinced by Freesat. Freeview already has 70% coverage of the UK and this number is increasing all the time. Punters are in effect paying £180 for 2 upscaled HD channels and there is the danger that sky could axe the price of their box and take out Freesat almost overnight. We saw the promotions they carried out in Whitehaven when switchover started.

Granted we still have the HD gap and DVB-T2 is someway off, but is Freesat really a commercially viable proposition?

[ched]

Where do you get the £180? Have I missed the announcements? £180 for a HD with recorder isnt too bad, its a one off payment.

[nehalem]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7202367.stm

For the basic box, recorders will probably be more.

[NickHunt]

My guesses are :

it'll be later 2nd half 08 not Spring
£180 will just be for dish, SD box and installation
HD box will be more £ and only available later

One thing's for sure - we'll have to wait and see. Nick

[Figment]

It is not just a question of 2 HD channels is it ?. There will be 200 free to air channels, many more than available via Freeview plus the fact that 30% of the population according to the figures stated here ( and that is a hell of a lot ) that cannot receive FTA via aerial will now be able to view what they are paying for via licence fee rather than pay again through Sly or Virgin. Add to this that many people I know seem to be having real problems with freeview signals with break up and loosing complete muxs.
Seems to me that freesat is long overdue for the sake of a couple of hundred quid. Its subscriptions a lot of people won't pay and not the initial outlay.

[nehalem]

It is not just a question of 2 HD channels is it ?. There will be 200 free to air channels, many more than available via Freeview plus the fact that 30% of the population according to the figures stated here ( and that is a hell of a lot ) that cannot receive FTA via aerial will now be able to view what they are paying for via licence fee rather than pay again through Sly or Virgin. Add to this that many people I know seem to be having real problems with freeview signals with break up and loosing complete muxs.
Seems to me that freesat is long overdue for the sake of a couple of hundred quid. Its subscriptions a lot of people won't pay and not the initial outlay.


I get what you're saying, sure its not just about the two HD channels, but looking at the lineup its just more shopping channels and junk. I'm just asking the question as although HD would be nice - is it £180 nice? Those who have freeview problems could also either get a new aerial for £100 or pay sky £75 for one of their special offer deals that come around.

There is no noise at a retail level about Freesat and the only A brand talking about it is Panasonic. I get the feeling that pople are pretty lukewarm towards it at best.

[teggs]

i must be missing something. i thought there were more than 2 HD channels that would be available.

[rdmbfossa]

It is going to be late 2010 before freeview is available from our transmitter and even when it comes we will only recieve the minimum muxes. So freesat is very interesting to me, especially if the main 5 channels were all to be aired in HD in the not too distant future, who knows how long it will be before they will be available to me in freeview HD. Many of us have HD televisions and would love to get an HD signal and be able to record it, without having to pay a subscription. I think this is the only real benefit though, recordable SD / HD for free, otherwise just get a standard Sky box without the subscription. The benefit of Sky is you can upgrade to their pay packages if you want to (if there is something you really want to see and they are the only provider), downside is no recording functions if you are not a subscriber. It will be interesting to see Sky's reaction when Freesat is launched, and what offers they are prepared to give to keep their customers.

[Starburst]

i must be missing something. i thought there were more than 2 HD channels that would be available.




Freesat will certainly launch with BBC HD and the initial EPG may include LuxeHD.
It's reasonable to assume ITVHD will also be a launch channel and depending upon when Freesat launches CH4HD may have ended it's encryption contract with SKY, CH5 has not made any announcement about HD.

So guaranteed 1 HD channel, 2 are likely and 4 within a few months of launch.
Be aware that both the BBC and ITV are part time channels and CH4HD will be simulcast (mixture of native and upscaled).

The biggest issue in terms of STB is will the manufacturers only include HD reception in a twin tuner DVR, without any practical way to record HD is the public interested in a cheaper single HD tuner box thus turning the clock back to pre-VHS days.

[Figment]

As I understand it no epg is available from sky unless you take on a subscription which makes it pretty useless for easy recording purposes which puts it back into the subscription only forum. As previously stated many including myself don't want to pay a subscription.
I also don't see that the equipment for getting HD via sky without a subscription is going to be any cheaper than the equipment for getting HD via freesat.
I suppose it is possible that sky will revisit this for their freesat from sky service once the new freesat service starts but personally I very much doubt it and even if they do it will be purely down to the fact that the public service broadcasters have forced them to with freesat. Therefore no freesat no free with epg from freesat from sky.
Also as previously stated many people either cant receive freeview or have problems with it, irrespective of their aerial set up.
OK you may improve the signal with a spanking new aerial that is correct for your area and signal strength but to garauntee that it is worth attempting I suspect a qualified installer would be needed and for one to supply and fit would be well in excess of £150 ( or as in the case of my father-in-law who just had it done nearer £300 ) .
A quick look on a well known auction site and you will find you can buy a dish with a quad LNB included along with 15 meters of twin satellite cable all for £35 which any half competent DIY'er could fit in a couple of hours with the aid of a cheap sat finder or a good compass.
At the end of the day any competition is good for the consumer especially when it comes to forcing the Murdoch empire who seems to want to take over the world to think again and perhaps provide better value for money.

[nehalem]

It is going to be late 2010 before freeview is available from our transmitter and even when it comes we will only recieve the minimum muxes. So freesat is very interesting to me, especially if the main 5 channels were all to be aired in HD in the not too distant future, who knows how long it will be before they will be available to me in freeview HD. Many of us have HD televisions and would love to get an HD signal and be able to record it, without having to pay a subscription. I think this is the only real benefit though, recordable SD / HD for free, otherwise just get a standard Sky box without the subscription. The benefit of Sky is you can upgrade to their pay packages if you want to (if there is something you really want to see and they are the only provider), downside is no recording functions if you are not a subscriber. It will be interesting to see Sky's reaction when Freesat is launched, and what offers they are prepared to give to keep their customers.

Sky are launching Picnic pretty soon which allows you to pick and choose extra channels over freeview so you don't necessarily need a sky dish to record sky.

[rdmbfossa]

I should of pointed out in my earliier post that if you get a sky box without subscription you would be best to get a "freesat from sky" card so that you would get the epg and ch 4 /ch 5.

That is the first I have heard of Sky picnic, thanks. Appears to be Sky premium channels through the freeview service. As we are only going to receive the minimum freeview service I doubt that this would be available to me. It also appeared from a quick search that the cost would be little less than the Sky prices with much less channels, but very good for those who either dont want or cant have a dish.

[nehalem]

Yeah they have a few DTG hurdles to clear before it launches though. As much as don't like Murdoch, Fox, Sky and the Neo-Con, sensationalist approach they have to broadcasting, they do find clever new ways to offer people premium content using existing platforms, something which DTG and Ofcom seem to be unable to do.

Competition is indeed good, but Freesat is far from being a killer proposition as (admittedly) the poll suggests and thus will it actually make much of a dent?

[Starburst]

As I understand it no epg is available from sky unless you take on a subscription which makes it pretty useless for easy recording purposes which puts it back into the subscription only forum. As previously stated many including myself don't want to pay a subscription.
I also don't see that the equipment for getting HD via sky without a subscription is going to be any cheaper than the equipment for getting HD via freesat.
I suppose it is possible that sky will revisit this for their freesat from sky service once the new freesat service starts but personally I very much doubt it and even if they do it will be purely down to the fact that the public service broadcasters have forced them to with freesat. Therefore no freesat no free with epg from freesat from sky.





Every SKY box has access to the EPG, no subscription required as the funding is partly done via payments from FTA channels like the BBC and ITV etc.

SKY hardware for HD may be cheaper since they can sell it at a loss including installation in the hopes of generating future subscriptions, Freesat has to be sold at a profit by the retailers as there is no other revenue source for them.

Only time will tell if the HD boxes specifically can be manufactured in sufficient numbers to drive the cost down to levels that Freeview SD DVR's boxes occupy which is £200 and under without installation.

It will be interesting to see how SKY react to Freesat, they could lower the price of freesatfromsky in terms of a SD product or even launch a HD single tuner box or even a full blown SKY+HD if they so choose, a lot will depend upon how the SKY+ service is affected, it may be time to scrap it altogether and that in itself would be great news.

[Figment]

Every SKY box has access to the EPG, no subscription required as the funding is partly done via payments from FTA channels like the BBC and ITV etc..

Well that is news to me and pretty good news at that, Had I known this I would probably have gone for freesat from sky quite a while ago but when I rang sky the woman there told me that they would not sell HD boxes without a subscription and also that no EPG is available with freesat from sky only with a subscription. ( I know the HD boxes can be bought elsewhere )
Methinks either sky need to train there employees better or they are actively encouraged to tell porkies in hope of getting a subscription out of enquiries of this nature.

What exactly is the + of Sky+ anyway ? is it just the ability to do series record and the overnight downloads onto the reserved portion of the hard drive ? or more or less than this ?.

In regard to DVR prices I really don't see a problem with pricing, manufacturers are not being asked to reinvent the wheel they already make satellite HD DVR's i.e Humax & Topfield the only change needed is to make the Freesat EPG work with them surely ?.

[TommyVecetti]

To people that don't like to watch SKY rubbish I imagine freesat will do quite well. There will also be more than 2 HD channels. Misleading thread.

[Starburst]

What exactly is the + of Sky+ anyway ? is it just the ability to do series record and the overnight downloads onto the reserved portion of the hard drive ? or more or less than this ?.

In regard to DVR prices I really don't see a problem with pricing, manufacturers are not being asked to reinvent the wheel they already make satellite HD DVR's i.e Humax & Topfield the only change needed is to make the Freesat EPG work with them surely ?.




The plus part is basically everything the turns the box into a DVR, twin tuners, internal bitstream recording of both video and audio and using the EPG for manual and programmed recording. To many it's a new concept but TIVO has been around for years, SKY+ since 2001 and Freeview DVR/PVR (Digital Video Recorders or Personal Video Recorders) for nearly as long.

I have yet to see a twin tuner generic Dsat DVR that even comes close to Freeview DVR prices mainly due to the mass market adoption of Freeview, I was shocked how cheap SKY+ HD was two years at £399 unsubsidised.

I would be very surprised if Freesat have a twin tuner HD box for a similar price as a decent Freeview DVR.

[nehalem]

To people that don't like to watch SKY rubbish I imagine freesat will do quite well. There will also be more than 2 HD channels. Misleading thread.

At launch what are the HD channels then?

[thegeby]

The plus part is basically everything the turns the box into a DVR, twin tuners, internal bitstream recording of both video and audio and using the EPG for manual and programmed recording. To many it's a new concept but TIVO has been around for years, SKY+ since 2001 and Freeview DVR/PVR (Digital Video Recorders or Personal Video Recorders) for nearly as long.

I have yet to see a twin tuner generic Dsat DVR that even comes close to Freeview DVR prices mainly due to the mass market adoption of Freeview, I was shocked how cheap SKY+ HD was two years at £399 unsubsidised.

I would be very surprised if Freesat have a twin tuner HD box for a similar price as a decent Freeview DVR.

Just to clarify, Figment was talking specifically about an EPG "for easy recording purposes" and there the Sky is useless unless oyu pay for sky +.

I think we may be missing the point a bit about the pricing dynamics, too. There are a few factors that automatically increases the cost of production for a Freesat PVR (two tuners, smaller production runs). The chips for decoding H264 are also still scarce (competition from cable boxes, blu-ray players, computer cards, etc). But it is not an engineer's game.

Other factors are, no closed system, no cross-subsidising and competition from the Far East. The technology needed to resolve the EPG signal from Freesat and to enable the link to recording is fairly trivial.

Compare DVD players: If you want the best specced player, you buy a Chinese one at Aldi. Only at the very top of the range do the Denons etc pull ahead. The Sony/Phillips/JVC/??? are foundering.

[Starburst]

Just to clarify, Figment was talking specifically about an EPG "for easy recording purposes" and there the Sky is useless unless oyu pay for sky +.







Indeed, in terms of SKY+ the requirement for a fee to use the DVR functions (not the EPG) will make the Freesat version more attractive everything else being equal.


I think we may be missing the point a bit about the pricing dynamics, too. There are a few factors that automatically increases the cost of production for a Freesat PVR (two tuners, smaller production runs). The chips for decoding H264 are also still scarce (competition from cable boxes, blu-ray players, computer cards, etc). But it is not an engineer's game.

Other factors are, no closed system, no cross-subsidising and competition from the Far East. The technology needed to resolve the EPG signal from Freesat and to enable the link to recording is fairly trivial.

Compare DVD players: If you want the best specced player, you buy a Chinese one at Aldi. Only at the very top of the range do the Denons etc pull ahead. The Sony/Phillips/JVC/??? are foundering.



A Freesat SD box will be cheap, no worries there although a combined box and installation package may not undercut freesatfromsky as for a Freesat SD DVR well again look at Freeview DVR prices but no ongoing monthly subscription. A single tuner HD box is foolish, do HD viewers really want a HD box you can not record from (in HD), I suppose time will tell and a HD DVR without subsidies at full market value ain't going to be cheap especially compared to a subdisided SKY+HD with 12 month HD contract or without.

[Figment]

Well then with the information given here that makes Freesat from Sky a no go for me and all systems go for Freesat. There is in fact a thread on Digital Spy that someone has info that Freesat from Sky is slated to be axed as soon as Freesat starts, I have no idea on the validity of this though.
There are of course already units out there that are I imagine are in need of very few tweaks, they are expensive yes but not a deal breaker and the German spec Humax Icord HD Sat DVR that can be see here http://www.humaxdigital.com/global/products/icordhd.asp
is one seriously nice looking piece of kit with some great features such as twin USB ports with a price of around £350. So about the same as the new Topfield TF5810 Freeview PVR.
Then there is Topfield's own TF7710 HD PVR as seen here
http://www.turbosat.com/shop/product.php?productid=83&cat=0&page=1
which is more pricey at £480. The plain vanilla receiver version of this the TF 7700 is £209
I certainly agree with Starburst that there is little point in having HD if you cannot record in HD.
I have been waiting about two and a half years to be able to see some HD content on my Panny even though it is only HD ready so I guess another few months will not be too painful. I think I may have even craftily persuaded the Mrs that HD will be worthwhile when watching Life In Cold Blood last night she was very impressed by the stunning pictures and of course I told her well just imagine how good it would be in HD. Of course I then had to explain what HD was and she even said how long will we have to wait for that then ? :smashin:

[thegeby]

I certainly agree with Starburst that there is little point in having HD if you cannot record in HD.


Just to clarify. You can record, just not record and watch another channel simultaneously. (I have to say your list of receivers makes me positively drool with desire. I know. I'm pathetic)

[Starburst]

Just to clarify. You can record, just not record and watch another channel simultaneously. (I have to say your list of receivers makes me positively drool with desire. I know. I'm pathetic)





A single tuner HD box which doesn't have a internal hard drive creates real trouble if you want to record the HD channel in HD due to the lack of HD recorders on the market:)

It's worth remembering that the BBC and ITV claim Freesat is there to provide the quarter of the country that can not currently get Freeview with a digital service (for their channels) not to provide a HD service or DVR service, I think we all hope they are more forward thinking and manufacturers can rise to the occasion but real world economics and market conditions will probably mean quite a while before Freesat HD/DVR boxes come close to Freeview and SKY hardware.

[Figment]

The Humax Icord in particular does look a fabulous piece of kit. Did you notice you can record 4 channels at once and watch a fith ?.
Take a look at a company called Southern Satellites ( they sell via an auction site easiest way to find is to type in Humax Icord rather than look for the company name) they have the Icord for sale but at £479 a lot more than I saw it for via a German site.
They also have a PVR from Technomate which is HD twin tuner, one tuner being Freeview and the other satellite which is pretty clever and at only £259 a fair price too.

[Figment]

A single tuner HD box which doesn't have a internal hard drive creates real trouble if you want to record the HD channel in HD due to the lack of HD recorders on the market:)

It's worth remembering that the BBC and ITV claim Freesat is there to provide the quarter of the country that can not currently get Freeview with a digital service (for their channels) not to provide a HD service or DVR service, I think we all hope they are more forward thinking and manufacturers can rise to the occasion but real world economics and market conditions will probably mean quite a while before Freesat HD/DVR boxes come close to Freeview and SKY hardware.

Is it not so that current satellite PVR's can already pick up FTA signals including HD then ?
I was under the impression they could and it was only EPG that was an issue. For me EPG is a must but I have no interest in interactive services whatsoever.
I would have thought that with the possibility of the likes of Humax being able to sell a whole pile more of PVR's at a tidy profit they would jump at the chance and from the rumours I have seen that is exactly what they are going to do. Lets hope so anyway.

[Starburst]

Is it not so that current satellite PVR's can already pick up FTA signals including HD then ?
I was under the impression they could and it was only EPG that was an issue. For me EPG is a must but I have no interest in interactive services whatsoever.
I would have thought that with the possibility of the likes of Humax being able to sell a whole pile more of PVR's at a tidy profit they would jump at the chance and from the rumours I have seen that is exactly what they are going to do. Lets hope so anyway.




Any generic Dsat box can pick up FTA channels and if the box supports HD (mpeg2/mpeg4 - DBV-S2) then it'll also be able to pick up the FTA HD channels.
You are right, someone has to spend the money to create and maintain a long term reliable EPG for satellite boxes, SKY do this for the obvious reasons and Freeview/VM do it for their branded boxes. In the market outside of proprietary hardware the EPG is basically now&next which is useless for a proper DVR.

The biggest bonus of Freesat is that the BBC and ITV are creating an EPG and funding it in the same manner as SKY by charging the broadcasters who use it and it will be accessible to Freesat hardware.



Humax are reported as having Freesat DVR's on the way, the SD models may carry a small premium over their highly successful Freeview DVR's but the HD version could be expensive as the current models on the EU market as they have to sell at a profit.

I do seriously like the idea of a combined Freesat and Freeview box, that could hit a niche market.

[temsonic]

A single tuner HD box is foolish, do HD viewers really want a HD box you can not record from (in HD)

This potential HD viewer does for one. I already have a very nice Freeview PVR along with my ex-contract Sky box acting as a Freesat box. I'm actually very happy with SD quality on my Panasonic 32" but would like to try dipping my toe in the HD waters and want to replace the Sky box with a single tuner HD Freesat box, just to watch HD as and when it's broadcast.

Freeview actually has a very good channel lineup compared to Freesat, being that channels like C4, Five, E4, More4, Dave etc, are all currently encrypted via satellite, so satellite is used in our house just as an augmentation to Freeview, mainly just by me for the free music channels and better interactive choices on News24 and events on BBC etc, it couldn't completely replace Freeview for us. The thought of training my family to use 2 different PVR systems for different channels is horrendous.

I suppose time will tell and a HD DVR without subsidies at full market value ain't going to be cheap especially compared to a subdisided SKY+HD with 12 month HD contract or without.

And this is largely the reason why I want the simplest HD Freesat box I can get. I just can't justify spending £400 for a few HD versions of channels I can already watch. £100 is probably my limit for what I want.

[Starburst]

This potential HD viewer does for one. I already have a very nice Freeview PVR along with my ex-contract Sky box acting as a Freesat box. I'm actually very happy with SD quality on my Panasonic 32" but would like to try dipping my toe in the HD waters and want to replace the Sky box with a single tuner HD Freesat box, just to watch HD as and when it's broadcast.






I can see some point in having a very cheap single tuner box with HD capabilities but I honestly can quite grasp why anyone would spend a premium on a HD box and then have no way to record in HD.

I suppose at lot will depend upon the TV scheduling and your own daily viewing, I'll hold up my hand and say I sometimes forget that the majority of the country still haven't grasped the advantages of the DVR let alone the benefit that provides for HD specifically.


Freeview actually has a very good channel lineup compared to Freesat, being that channels like C4, Five, E4, More4, Dave etc, are all currently encrypted via satellite, so satellite is used in our house just as an augmentation to Freeview, mainly just by me for the free music channels and better interactive choices on News24 and events on BBC etc, it couldn't completely replace Freeview for us. The thought of training my family to use 2 different PVR systems for different channels is horrendous.


No argument, I have two Freeview boxes (one of which is a DVR) and SKY+ HD, they serve three different rooms and two display technologies.


And this is largely the reason why I want the simplest HD Freesat box I can get. I just can't justify spending £400 for a few HD versions of channels I can already watch. £100 is probably my limit for what I want.


You've been able to do that for over a year with the PACE and Humax HD boxes and since you can not record HD then the Freesat EPG is not that important nor is the interactive layer which is more for SD channels and both SKY and Freeview already have that.

[temsonic]

I can see some point in having a very cheap single tuner box with HD capabilities but I honestly can quite grasp why anyone would spend a premium on a HD box and then have no way to record in HD. I suppose at lot will depend upon the TV scheduling and your own daily viewing.

Firstly, I only have (and only have room for) a 32" TV, which already upscales SD far better than the majority of LCD TV's out there. Given the screen size I honestly don't think HD is going to be a phenomenal improvement over what I already have. Also, the number of HD channels at launch is very small (and no I don't want to watch Luxe HD any more than I want to watch Luxe SD ;) ). All the same, I'm interested in the technology and would like to try it out just to see if it lives up to the hype and whether it's worth it on a 32" TV. £100 is worth a gamble, £400 could be a total waste of my money.


No argument, I have two Freeview boxes (one of which is a DVR) and SKY+ HD, they serve three different rooms and two display technologies.

Your family are obviously more amenable to such setups than mine! Everyone in my house sticks exclusively to the Freeview PVR, other than me for the FTA music channels and wider interactivity options on satellite, and my eldest daughter who occasionally uses the Sky box for Pop & CITV (which we've lost on Freeview in Wales). I can guarantee SWMBO just wouldn't see the point and will record standard BBC from Freeview anyway. If all the C4 family of channels and Five were FTA on satellite then I could see the point of moving over to exclusively using a satellite PVR instead, but they're not and I can't afford Sky+. Don't think I'm saying that a Freesat multiple tuner HD PVR is a stupid idea, far from it, just that not everyone who would like to experiment with a bit of HD will be able to justify the expense of one, and a single tuner non-recording basic option should be available to those who want it.


You've been able to do that for over a year with the PACE and Humax HD boxes and since you can not record HD then the Freesat EPG is not that important nor is the interactive layer which is more for SD channels and both SKY and Freeview already have that.

There is often a bigger choice of interactivity options on satellite than Freeview, e.g. more additional video streams on News 24 and Sky News, more games on Wimbledon, more stages on music festivals, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it, currently non-Sky boxes don't work with any interactive services, otherwise I'd be very tempted by the Pace. I was waiting for Freesat to show up to see what will be available and hopefully get both HD and interactive services on one box.

EDIT: One additional reason, again relating to cost - I've never had Sky+ so my dish only has a standard LNB and is currently only good for a single tuner anyway. The dish is mounted almost at roof level to avoid a tall tree just behind the house, so getting it changed would involve not only a new LNB but also professional installation on top of the cost of a PVR. Again, I think I'd like to experiment with a cheapish HD option before going the whole hog and discovering it's not really worth it.

[Gavtech]

I'm just not convinced by Freesat. Freeview already has 70% coverage of the UK and this number is increasing all the time. Punters are in effect paying £180 for 2 upscaled HD channels...

Can I just bring to attention a small but important issue in the thread starter.

These will not be 'Upscaled HD channels' ... They will be proper HD channels.

It is probably what you meant anyway, but it is important to differentiate, given the very widespread misunderstanding of what upscaling amounts to.