[Bruntas]

is it really worth getting?

i have freeview built into my tv, and have sky hd downstairs but was contemplating buying a freesat box.

is it with the cash?


Thanks.

[markie101]

if you have freeview and sky hd then I can't see any point getting freesat. Unless you want ITV HD.

[philofcas]

Originally Posted by markie101

Unless you want ITV HD.

or want to save the cost of Sky HD subscription ?

[Chris Muriel]

Part of the "hype" is that freesat does not have the service area limitations that prevent people living in more rural, less populous or remote areas receiving digital TV in any other form.

Chris Muriel, Manchester

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by Bruntas

is it really worth getting?

i have freeview built into my tv, and have sky hd downstairs but was contemplating buying a freesat box.

is it with the cash?


Thanks.

It's primary purpose is to offer the 25% of the country who couldn't get Freeview an alternative non-subscription and non-commercial service, while SKY's freesatfromsky service is perfectly ok it is intended just as much as a SKY marketing tool and you still have to pay to use the PVR functions of a SKY+.

Obviously if you already have two out of the three digital platforms then Freesat may not be for you but it does also offer some free HD again via a service that has no obvious commercial interests. Freesat may still be a decent choice for a second or third HD source even for a household with SKY HD and until Freeview HD comes along it has appeal.

Most of the hype it has to be said has been created on public forums in terms of what Freesat would do to the PAY market when in reality it was never going to be the saviour of advertising driven TV in the UK. So for

[den9112]

Its a plus hype for me as i cannot get freeview untill nov 09 , I now have a choice with sky and freesat . If it were not for lost on sky one i would be on freesat now. To me not being able to get freeview , ........Freesat is a big plus even though thier are not as many channel choices .

[pdoherty76]

Freesat is doing great for me. i got the goodmans HD box for £49.99 on christmas eve. Just watched 2 FA cup games this weekend in HD and have watched many great films and programmes on BBC HD over crimbo. No subscription and a very good chance of more HD channels. I certainly wont ever be paying sky 40 quid plus for HD.

[Bodger15]

I have been using Sky+ HD for nearly a year and I have come to the conclusion its a rip off. Firstly Its £10 per month just for watching HD then most of the lesser channels are only showing either repeats of very old programs along with +1 channels ect.,....

[kmm66d]

Originally Posted by pdoherty76

Freesat is doing great for me. i got the goodmans HD box for £49.99 on christmas eve. Just watched 2 FA cup games this weekend in HD and have watched many great films and programmes on BBC HD over crimbo. No subscription and a very good chance of more HD channels. I certainly wont ever be paying sky 40 quid plus for HD.

For £49.99 that's a great deal.
Is this still available as it would make a great second box for me.
Any details on where you got it?

[pdoherty76]

Originally Posted by kmm66d

For £49.99 that's a great deal.
Is this still available as it would make a great second box for me.
Any details on where you got it?

It was empire direct. They had about 100 on christmas eve and they were all sold out that day. Havent seen it for that price since but if you keep looking on the forums etc im sure youll find one a lot cheaper than the 150 quid argos are asking.

[sunshine20]

I have freeview and like the selection of channels - I don't need sky because I don't need all those extra channels. I would love to watch freeview in HD but I can't bring myself to spend £300 on the freesat PVR and £80 on the instillation just to watch repeated programs shown on BBC 1 HD and the odd program on ITV.

Is it really worth £400 just to watch the odd program in HD on only two channels? When will other broadcasters start streaming HD?

A friend of mine mentioned that Aldi have previously sold a complete Freesat kit for £80. Not seen anything since or found anywhere else that does that though.

[davemurgatroyd2]

Originally Posted by Molsonboy

A friend of mine mentioned that Aldi have previously sold a complete Freesat kit for £80. Not seen anything since or found anywhere else that does that though.

These are NOT freesat kits - they are FTA satellite kits and are NOT HD. The difference is freesat has a full 7 day EPG on the freesat channels plus interactive functions, whereas FTA satellite kits will only have a "now and next" EPG at most and will NOT have interactive functions and screens available via the red button but some of these screens would have to be tuned as seperate manual channels. They also lack some of the other freesat capabilities such as automatic update of channel lists when new channels launch, connectivity to iPlayer.

Similar kits have been available from B&Q, Lidl, Maplins and several others.

[Bruntas]

thanks for all the feedback lads, and your right i dont seem to need one, wouldve just been boosting my leccy bill :P


Tom

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by sunshine20

I have freeview and like the selection of channels - I don't need sky because I don't need all those extra channels. I would love to watch freeview in HD but I can't bring myself to spend £300 on the freesat PVR and £80 on the instillation just to watch repeated programs shown on BBC 1 HD and the odd program on ITV.

Is it really worth £400 just to watch the odd program in HD on only two channels? When will other broadcasters start streaming HD?

That's a fair enough assessment, for millions the extra channels on Freeview are more than enough
The problem with HD is the cost to the broadcasters and lack of new money it brings in, SKY make it work by charging a tenner for it which it uses to cover the costs and to pay the channels supplying the HD. For the likes of the BBC and more so for ITV, CH4 and Five the use of HD increases the budgets but doesn't bring in new advertising revenues, they simple movie viewers from SD to HD.

I think the mass market will embrace Freeview HD far quicker than Freesat HD, I expect prices thanks to the potential bigger market at launch will be cheaper and with guaranteed bandwidth for the BBC, ITV and CH4 (five expected to get the fourth slot) then there will be more "free" HD to capture the public's imagination and it will be simple box swap for a greater percentage of households compared to Freesat.

Is £400 (HD PVR and Install) worth it for the free HD content, not really but a lot of people may have been paying SKY £120 a year for the SKY+ use so suddenly a one off payment makes some sense and HD thrown in.

[Mr K.]

Originally Posted by Starburst

The problem with HD is the cost to the broadcasters and lack of new money it brings in, SKY make it work by charging a tenner for it which it uses to cover the costs and to pay the channels supplying the HD. For the likes of the BBC and more so for ITV, CH4 and Five the use of HD increases the budgets but doesn't bring in new advertising revenues, they simple movie viewers from SD to HD.

Is the cost for BBC/ITV/etc of transmitting HD higher than for SD? I know that already a lot of 'quality drama" etc is produced in HD already so from a show production cost it should not make that big a difference - or?


Mr K.

[Broadz]

Originally Posted by philofcas

or want to save the cost of Sky HD subscription ?

People paying for a Sky HD subscription are not paying for the two channels that you get on Freesat HD, they are paying for the other 18 to 28 channels that are available only on Sky HD, and not available anywhere else. If people only wanted two high definition channels they wouldn't be paying a Sky HD sub anyway - they'd have sourced a Sky HD box from somewhere other than Sky, or a Freesat HD box, already. Just like people don't pay Sky for a Sky TV subscription to only watch the free channels - why would they, when they are freely available elsewhere for nothing?

[nwhitfield]

Yep, at the moment, HD does cost more to produce.

Cameras are more expensive, and their cost will be recovered over time, one way or another. You need better quality make up and scenery too, for a drama. If you're sending the work hither and yon, you need higher capacity links (or to take longer, but that's not always possible); that includes within the production process, when you're cutting and editing - more HD equipment, with a cost to be recovered, and in some cases, studios will have needed massive rewiring to carry the all the extra data.

Some of these - studio upgrades, for example - will have had to happen sooner or later anywyay, but of course the bean counters will be wanting to get as much money back as soon as they can, so if you're hiring time in an edit suite, it's likely you'll be paying more for a shiny new HD suite than if you could make do with a much older SD one.

Over time elements like that will cease to be as important; when most stuff is in HD, you're not going to have to pay such a premium for time in an HD suite. But things like a need for more convincing sets and costumes will remain.

I daresay some actors may well continue to require rather more makeup to look good in HD, as well ;-)

[kar999]

Originally Posted by Starburst

I think the mass market will embrace Freeview HD far quicker than Freesat HD, I expect prices thanks to the potential bigger market at launch will be cheaper and with guaranteed bandwidth for the BBC, ITV and CH4 (five expected to get the fourth slot) then there will be more "free" HD to capture the public's imagination and it will be simple box swap for a greater percentage of households compared to Freesat.

There wont be a mass launch of Freeview HD as it will be a gradual process until switchover is complete. Some regions wont get a sniff of Freeview HD for a few years yet and some maybe not until 2012.

"Football fans in some areas of the UK will be able to watch the 2010 World Cup in high definition on Freeview after Ofcom announced that ITV, Channel 4 and the BBC will launch channels next year. (2009)

The media regulator today revealed the results of a competitive tender process to launch the first three HD channels in "late autumn" next year, with a fourth expected to launch by 2010.

Freeview HD services will be available in the Granada region next year*, *(2009) followed by Wales, Scotland and the West Country in 2010; Central, Yorkshire, Anglia and Meridian in 2011; and London, Tyne Tees and Ulster by 2012.

However, the almost 17m UK households that have Freeview will need to buy a new set-top box compatible with two new technology standards - MPEG4 and DVB-T2 - to watch the new HD channels." (c. Guardian Oct 08)

But when it eventually does take off I think you are correct and it will engage a much bigger market.

Personally I dont wont to wait up to 4 years for Freeview HD to come to me and in that time I would have paid Murdosh/$ky between £500 and £1000.

Freesat HD PVR is just the job for me.

[Jonstone]

Originally Posted by kar999

[I]"Football fans in some areas of the UK will be able to watch the 2010 World Cup in high definition on Freeview after Ofcom announced that ITV, Channel 4 and the BBC will launch channels next year. (2009)

The media regulator today revealed the results of a competitive tender process to launch the first three HD channels in "late autumn" next year, with a fourth expected to launch by 2010.

Freeview HD services will be available in the Granada region next year*, *(2009) followed by Wales, Scotland and the West Country in 2010; Central, Yorkshire, Anglia and Meridian in 2011; and London, Tyne Tees and Ulster by 2012.

Where did you get those quotes?

Was any comment made on ch4 gaining an hd channel on freeview whilst not being on the freesat epg?

I would hope that any channel being granted a licence to have a terrestrial hd channel via freeview would be forced to provide the same channel on freesat as that is precisely what the freesat platform is supposed to be for, providing a freeview service to those who cannot receive it

[kar999]

Originally Posted by Jonstone

Where did you get those quotes?

Was any comment made on ch4 gaining an hd channel on freeview whilst not being on the freesat epg?

I would hope that any channel being granted a licence to have a terrestrial hd channel via freeview would be forced to provide the same channel on freesat as that is precisely what the freesat platform is supposed to be for, providing a freeview service to those who cannot receive it

Quote was from here: London may get HD Freeview by 2010 | Media | guardian.co.uk

"ITV will simulcast evening ITV1 on its Freeview HD service and sub-let the channel to others outside prime time. It also plans to offer coverage of major sporting events. Channel 4 will also simulcast its normal programming in HD, particularly films and documentaries. Ofcom said would a fourth possible Freeview HD channel would launch in 2010."

Above was from similar article here: Ofcom confirms three Freeview HD channels 'by end of next year' • The Register

[steb]

Originally Posted by davemurgatroyd2

These are NOT freesat kits - they are FTA satellite kits and are NOT HD. The difference is freesat has a full 7 day EPG on the freesat channels plus interactive functions, whereas FTA satellite kits will only have a "now and next" EPG at most and will NOT have interactive functions and screens available via the red button but some of these screens would have to be tuned as seperate manual channels. They also lack some of the other freesat capabilities such as automatic update of channel lists when new channels launch, connectivity to iPlayer.

Similar kits have been available from B&Q, Lidl, Maplins and several others.

Is this iplayer connection available or on the wish list?

[davemurgatroyd2]

Originally Posted by Jonstone

Where did you get those quotes?

Was any comment made on ch4 gaining an hd channel on freeview whilst not being on the freesat epg?

I would hope that any channel being granted a licence to have a terrestrial hd channel via freeview would be forced to provide the same channel on freesat as that is precisely what the freesat platform is supposed to be for, providing a freeview service to those who cannot receive it

Once again the freesat platform is NOT to provide a Freeview service for those who cannot receive - its prime purpose is to provide nationwide coverage of the SD digital versions of the PSBs. There is absolutely no mandate for it to be a copy of Freeview. HD channels where available are a bonus feature of that platform.

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by kar999

But when it eventually does take off I think you are correct and it will engage a much bigger market.

Personally I dont wont to wait up to 4 years for Freeview HD to come to me and in that time I would have paid Murdosh/$ky between £500 and £1000.

Freesat HD PVR is just the job for me.

Yeah I think OFCOM are being a little over optimistic but I still think even the lead Freesat HD has it will be outgunned on price and hardware options very quickly as soon as Freeview HD gets a foothold in one or two regions.

I have SKY+HD now and enjoy the content the subscription gives me and I'm not paying nearly £300 for a Freesat HD PVR or less for a single tuner, not enough HD to make it worthwhile for me anyway, however in a year or two I could easily see myself replacing both my Freeview boxes (one single tuner one DVR) with two Freeview HD DVR's.

[Jonstone]

Originally Posted by davemurgatroyd2

- its prime purpose is to provide nationwide coverage of the SD digital versions of the PSBs.

I know, but I think it could well be argued that if those PSBs were to be granted a licence on freeview for an hd channel it would not have been unreasonable for ofcom to insist that the same PSBs had to provide the same service on a ftv basis via satellite as well rather than being allowed to take money from sky so that it is only available on their platform which hardly fits in with the term PSB

[nwhitfield]

I think it would be entirely unreasonable to insist that any terrestrial service must be accompanied by the same service broadcast on satellite.

One potential consequence of such a short-sighted ruling, for example, could be that any terrestrial service would be delayed depending on the availability of suitable transponders on a satellite operated by a third party over which Ofcom has no control.

Another may be that, if only certain transponders are available, certain elements of a service may not be possible to transmit via satellite, for rights reasons. A link between that and a terrestrial service might mean the latter had to cease certain transmissions, just because it couldn't offer the same on satellite.

Remember that C4HD is not at present a distinct service, like BBC HD, with programming that can't be seen elsewhere. Everything on C4HD can also be seen, at the same time, on C4, on the same platform.

As such, no programming is being withheld from people; rather, a very small number of those able to receive HD are unable to see those programmes in HD, but must view in SD instead. A pretty insignificant number, right now, in PSB terms.

It would not, in any way that I can see, enhance the PSB element, if some petulant decision by Ofcom were to insist that when terrestrial HD is possible, C4 can't use it unless it can also be available via Freesat - you'd be denying a large number of people something, just because a few can't access it on one platform.

Would you suggest refusing them a licence for terrestrial HD unless they're also available on the VM network? Some people can only get digital TV that way (certain blocks of flats, for example). If not, why not? Does your PSB multi-platform argument apply only to those platforms you use?

C4 will get on Freesat when they can; it's not for Ofcom to deny other people the chance to view their service in some sort of adminstrative hissy fit over Freesat.

Nigel.

[grahamlthompson]

Originally Posted by steb

Is this iplayer connection available or on the wish list?

Not yet available.

[arthurdentpc]

Freesat works well for us.

We finally cancelled Sky SD completely a few months ago, so we could have continued watching via the Sky box, but the Bush HD box gives us almost the same channels plus BBC and ITV HD, and hopefully C4 HD to come soon. To me it was well worth the cost of the box. We can also watch Fiver, Five US, Dave & Virgin on Freeview, though the picture quality isn't as reliable 100% of the time.

I expect to upgrade to an HD PVR in a year or so - or maybe hold off to 2012 (Ulster) for a Freeview HD PVR if it proves a reliable service and/or has more HD channels than Freesat, and possibly RTE too.

[pkalva]

Originally Posted by pdoherty76

It was empire direct. They had about 100 on christmas eve and they were all sold out that day. Havent seen it for that price since but if you keep looking on the forums etc im sure youll find one a lot cheaper than the 150 quid argos are asking.

Humax direct are doing "grade A" HD boxes for £99......but, you only get 12 mths warranty. Have a look here:

Buy Humax Products Direct from HUMAX - LCD TV - Digital TV - PVR TV - DTR TV - Flat Screen TV - Flat TV - PVR - tv recorder - Personal video recorder - video - television - LGB - DZT - DTT :HUMAX DIRECT Ltd:

[Bodger15]

Originally Posted by Broadz

People paying for a Sky HD subscription are not paying for the two channels that you get on Freesat HD, they are paying for the other 18 to 28 channels that are available only on Sky HD, and not available anywhere else. If people only wanted two high definition channels they wouldn't be paying a Sky HD sub anyway - they'd have sourced a Sky HD box from somewhere other than Sky, or a Freesat HD box, already. Just like people don't pay Sky for a Sky TV subscription to only watch the free channels - why would they, when they are freely available elsewhere for nothing?

What other 18 to 28 HD channels.....???? I have been using Sky+HD for the last year I not found anywhere near that amount of channels........