[neiljones]

I am extremely disappointed with the HD broadcasts on Freesat.

ITV is almost non existant.
BBC is not much better.

Anyone any idea when the service will improve ??

[Starburst]

It will improve when the BBC decided that channel has the status of BBC3 and the demand for HD from overseas can make the BBC more money.
ITVHD will improve when the advertising market improves and the HD userbase expands and there is a chance HD will bring in new viewers not simply move them from ITV SD.

The bottom line is there is a reason why SKY HD has the content and that is the price tag, HD costs money and without a subscription doesn't really bring money back in and unlike the US there UK TV market is not that cut-throat so HD is not the marketing tool is could be.

[derek500]

Originally Posted by neiljones

I am extremely disappointed with the HD broadcasts on Freesat.

ITV is almost non existant.
BBC is not much better.

Anyone any idea when the service will improve ??

It's very difficult for the BBC to justify paying too much of license payers' money on a service that so few are benefiting from. Which is why the bulk of HD programming has international sales in mind.

The week ending 28/12 showed BBC HD's best audience figures to date. But still only 788,000 viewers watched it for at least three consecutive minutes!!

Compared to other BBC minority channels, BBC3 16,637,000 and BBC4 6,680,000 it shows that BBC HD has got a long way to go before the accountants will get the cheque book out more often.

[deezel]

Originally Posted by derek500

It's very difficult for the BBC to justify paying too much of license payers' money on a service that so few are benefiting from. Which is why the bulk of HD programming has international sales in mind.

The week ending 28/12 showed BBC HD's best audience figures to date. But still only 788,000 viewers watched it for at least three consecutive minutes!!

Compared to other BBC minority channels, BBC3 16,637,000 and BBC4 6,680,000 it shows that BBC HD has got a long way to go before the accountants will get the cheque book out more often.

This argument is a little 'catch22' don't you think?

How can it be expected that HD viewing will increase unless they increase the content to include not only more but more of the popular stuff.

On what planet can these people be to expect more veiwing when they are showing Bu**er All.


Whereas one can understand the argument for ITV, being a pauper, cannot afford to increase its output but no such argument can be proposed for the BBC since their revenue stream is already 'in the bag'

Personally, I think they are uniquely placed to 'kick on' with HD. After all its mainly their baby and they have our dough via the licence fee.

Ive bought the HD telly, the humax receiver, now its your turn BBC

GET YOUR FINGER OUT

[davemurgatroyd2]

Pray tell how the BBC can justify spending more on a very minimal audience - there are around 700,000 maximum potential sets capable of receiving it compared to the rest of the population with an audience of approx 58 million?

HD will expand but not very quickly at present - FTA HD channels require advertising revenu to exist and in this recession that pot is shrinking - we already have one major TV advertising broker go bust plus four FTA channels. The only HD channels likely to launch in the near future will be pay channels where subscription makes up for a lack of advertising revenue. You will have to wait until we are through this recession for any major improvement.

[IanS]

As I see it, Freesat was not set up as a vehicle to "sell" HD, it was set up primarily to compliment Freeview and thereby to aid DSO.

The BBC has a commitment to produce more and more programming in HD, but before that can happen much of the production chain has to be upgraded. This costs money, as well as the additional cost of the actual programme production. And as HD is still only a niche product (despite the numbers on this and other forums, it is still very much a nice product) the BBC has a duty to produce programmes from their fixed budget. I am sure that the majority who are happy with SD would want to see the money spent on programmes rather than a technology which few are demanding (I think that the latest figures are around 4% HD penetration).

[Andrew277]

The new BBC news studio put into use last year is not HD only SD - gives you an idea of what to expect

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Andrew277

The new BBC news studio put into use last year is not HD only SD - gives you an idea of what to expect

Probably news will (should?) be the last to go HD, as the vast majority of news feed in the bulletins are likely to be SD at best, mobile phone or satellite phone footage at worst. Hardly a good idea to have the news reader and set in glorious HD when the vast majority of the actual content (filmed reports, live links etc) are going to be SD.

[Tony B]

Well, I am not sure about the 700,000 maximum. Most TVs sold in the last couple of years have been HD ready. People who have invested in HD TVs want to see HD material.

I have a major problem with the way the BBC are handling the "launch" of HD, although describing it as a launch is way too complimentary.

1. When it happens, they practically never publicise the fact that a programme now on an SD channel is actually also on in HD.
2. There are no programme listings (that I can find, at least) other than the "Whats on BBC" website, where of course the HD channel is hidden down at the bottom of the list.
3. When not simulcasting in HD, they find some utterly bizzare time to push out the programme, e.g. the James Martin Mille Miglia programme at Christmas. Shown in SD at 21:00, the HD "repeat" was on next day at 16:00. This happens so many times, that I miss much of what is actually available.
4. Large chunks of the content are programmes aimed at kids (and I do mean kids as in 10 years old, or less) - now please tell me how they can justify producing kids' programmes (which don't get sold worldwide) in HD?
5. The repeats policy on HD is completely ridiculous. How many times do we have to see chuffing Coldplay, or KT Tunstall's "classic performance" from Later? I don't know whether they have been shamed into it by my recent complaints to their head of HD programming, but at last it is possible to see just how many times some of the content has been repeated if you follow the right link on the website.
6. Most - repeat - most of the quality programmes produced by BBC for overseas consumption are already made in HD, otherwise they could not sell them these days. But it seems that those chosen for broadcast in the UK in HD are typically of the "costume drama" variety.
7. Anything shot on high quality film or HD equipment could benefit by being broadcast in HD. So make that any recent feature film, then. But how many recent feature films get shown on HD? Practically none. And if I see that bloody "Ladies Detective Agency" film one more time I will throw a major wobbly. Likewise "Red Dust".

So, actually getting to watch something worthwhile, which you have not already seen in SD, that you actually want to see now - at this time - is just a game of hit (occasionally) and miss (most of the time).

At this moment, I am watching "The Horse Whisperer". Quality film, stunning scenery. Not on in HD.

I could rant on and on, but the fact of the matter is, the BBC seems to have this remarkably patronising approach to allowing us to watch HD. Its like the elderly grandparent who only lets you play with your toys for half an hour at a time, because they are very expensive and must remain special. So back in the box they go after half an hour. You can play with them again, next time you visit, but only if you are very good.

They have the material. Why do they not show it, when those who have the means to watch it in HD want to watch, at the same time as the SD broadcast?????

[davemurgatroyd2]

The 700,000 refers to HD satellite boxes and TVs sold as they are the only way at present to receive BBC HD

[davemurgatroyd2]

Originally Posted by Tony B

I have a major problem with the way the BBC are handling the "launch" of HD, although describing it as a launch is way too complimentary.

1. When it happens, they practically never publicise the fact that a programme now on an SD channel is actually also on in HD.
2. There are no programme listings (that I can find, at least) other than the "Whats on BBC" website, where of course the HD channel is hidden down at the bottom of the list.

Decent TV listing magazines list the BBC HD schedule

3. When not simulcasting in HD, they find some utterly bizzare time to push out the programme, e.g. the James Martin Mille Miglia programme at Christmas. Shown in SD at 21:00, the HD "repeat" was on next day at 16:00. This happens so many times, that I miss much of what is actually available.
4. Large chunks of the content are programmes aimed at kids (and I do mean kids as in 10 years old, or less) - now please tell me how they can justify producing kids' programmes (which don't get sold worldwide) in HD?

BBC HD is not a simulcast of BBC 1 it includes programming from all 6 BBC channels

5. The repeats policy on HD is completely ridiculous. How many times do we have to see chuffing Coldplay, or KT Tunstall's "classic performance" from Later? I don't know whether they have been shamed into it by my recent complaints to their head of HD programming, but at last it is possible to see just how many times some of the content has been repeated if you follow the right link on the website.
6. Most - repeat - most of the quality programmes produced by BBC for overseas consumption are already made in HD, otherwise they could not sell them these days. But it seems that those chosen for broadcast in the UK in HD are typically of the "costume drama" variety.
7. Anything shot on high quality film or HD equipment could benefit by being broadcast in HD. So make that any recent feature film, then. But how many recent feature films get shown on HD? Practically none. And if I see that bloody "Ladies Detective Agency" film one more time I will throw a major wobbly. Likewise "Red Dust".

Rights fees for HD films are more expensive for HD versions compared to the SD version. Also other broadcasters could have the exclusive rights to the HD version (they are sold seperately)

So, actually getting to watch something worthwhile, which you have not already seen in SD, that you actually want to see now - at this time - is just a game of hit (occasionally) and miss (most of the time).

Try buying a decent listing magazine - TV and Satellite Week and I believe Radio Times give full BBC HD listings.

At this moment, I am watching "The Horse Whisperer". Quality film, stunning scenery. Not on in HD.

I could rant on and on, but the fact of the matter is, the BBC seems to have this remarkably patronising approach to allowing us to watch HD. Its like the elderly grandparent who only lets you play with your toys for half an hour at a time, because they are very expensive and must remain special. So back in the box they go after half an hour. You can play with them again, next time you visit, but only if you are very good.

They have the material. Why do they not show it, when those who have the means to watch it in HD want to watch, at the same time as the SD broadcast?????

As stated above it is NOT a simulcast of BBC1 no matter how much you wish it were. The whole transmission chain costs big money to run and at the moment they have limited funds available to provide extras for a minimal audience

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Tony B

Well, I am not sure about the 700,000 maximum. Most TVs sold in the last couple of years have been HD ready. People who have invested in HD TVs want to see HD material.

The fact that someone has bought a HD Ready TV does not on its own indicate a demand for HD, especially as the vast majority of sets in the shops are HD Ready! You have difficulty buying anything else these days.

I have a major problem with the way the BBC are handling the "launch" of HD, although describing it as a launch is way too complimentary.

1. When it happens, they practically never publicise the fact that a programme now on an SD channel is actually also on in HD.

They mote it on the trailers, and they also state it on the announcement before the start.

2. There are no programme listings (that I can find, at least) other than the "Whats on BBC" website, where of course the HD channel is hidden down at the bottom of the list.

Have you tried the paper Radio Times? It's listed there, as well as on the online version

3. When not simulcasting in HD, they find some utterly bizzare time to push out the programme, e.g. the James Martin Mille Miglia programme at Christmas. Shown in SD at 21:00, the HD "repeat" was on next day at 16:00. This happens so many times, that I miss much of what is actually available.

Partly due to there being only one HD channel, which has to cover live HD content from BBC1/BBC2/BBC3/BBC4. Quart into a pint pot.

Also partly due to the rights agreements - it was an issue with Ep1 od S3 Heroes as I recall.

4. Large chunks of the content are programmes aimed at kids (and I do mean kids as in 10 years old, or less) - now please tell me how they can justify producing kids' programmes (which don't get sold worldwide) in HD?

Prpgrammes such as what? Or are tou talking about what is regarded as "family viewing" by most (such as Robin Hood)?

7. Anything shot on high quality film or HD equipment could benefit by being broadcast in HD. So make that any recent feature film, then. But how many recent feature films get shown on HD? Practically none. And if I see that bloody "Ladies Detective Agency" film one more time I will throw a major wobbly. Likewise "Red Dust".

Probably rights issues again.


There are some interesting points from those in charge of HD at the BBC on the BBC HD Blog:

BBC Internet Blog

Some of the issues that you raise were mentioned there - take some time out to read through it.

One very relevant blog entry:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...orks_best.html

[derek500]

Originally Posted by Tony B

When not simulcasting in HD, they find some utterly bizzare time to push out the programme, e.g. the James Martin Mille Miglia programme at Christmas. Shown in SD at 21:00, the HD "repeat" was on next day at 16:00.

The HD version started at 9.30pm, straight after the BBC1 simulcast of The 39 Steps. It started on BBC2 at 9.15pm, so the HD version was delayed 15 minutes.

There was no way they could have simulcasted both 39 Steps and the James Martin programme. They did the next best thing.

[derek500]

Originally Posted by Tony B

Most - repeat - most of the quality programmes produced by BBC for overseas consumption are already made in HD, otherwise they could not sell them these days. But it seems that those chosen for broadcast in the UK in HD are typically of the "costume drama" variety.

Can you give any examples?

[col996s]

Originally Posted by Tony B

3. When not simulcasting in HD, they find some utterly bizzare time to push out the programme, e.g. the James Martin Mille Miglia programme at Christmas. Shown in SD at 21:00, the HD "repeat" was on next day at 16:00. This happens so many times, that I miss much of what is actually available.

Watched the SD version twice, wishing it was in HD. I wish I'd known it was repeated in HD. Mind you 16.00 on a Monday would have been no use to me.

[Tony B]

Kids Programmes taking up an inordinate amount of HD funding and a large chunk of the timeslots:

In the Night Garden
Raven
Slammer

I would include Parents of the Band, but possibly not aimed at 10 year olds. Perhaps 13 or 14 would be closer to the mark. Note also the occasional totally irrational decision to broadcast a few - lets say 6 - episodes back to back.

Quality Programmes made for sale overseas NOT in HD - it might be difficult to find one. Costume drama made in HD that gets repeated ad infinitum:
Lark Rise to Candleford
Bleak House
Little Dorrit (although this one has a way to go before catching up with BH)

Irrational choice of programming to showcase HD (and in so doing build up a demand from viewers for more HD programmes):
The Life of Riley
The Green Green Grass
Last of the Summer Wine
After you've gone
Coming of Age

Perhaps someone could illuminate me on the additional rights costs of broadcasting a recent feature film in HD?

Needlessly repeated show - Top Gear Polar Challenge. How many times has that been on now? 9, 10? And I am a Top Gear fan. Why can't they show the one with the lightweight supercars crossing the Alps? That was shot in HD and it has been shown precisely zero times in HD.

I take the blog point that the HD channel has a limited number of hours available in which to show all the best HD content. If that is the case then why do we have to have so many repeats (please don't take my word for it, follow the links on the BBC HD website)???? And why are some programmes never shown?

On the one hand they don't have enough content, and then on the other, they have too much.

Why does the HD listing appear (on the website) after BBC 3 and 4? Hardly showcasing the technology is it?

And for anyone to say that buying an HD TV is not an indication of wanting to receive HD content - well that is like saying even though you have bought a colour TV (you can't buy a black and white one) then you will be happy watching B&W programmes.

And why should I have to buy Radio Times or a specialist listings magazine to find out whats on - why do they not ensure that the mainstream listings publications (Sunday Times, say) carry the HD listings? Maybe that's another question entirely and has an Australian accent...

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Tony B

And for anyone to say that buying an HD TV is not an indication of wanting to receive HD content - well that is like saying even though you have bought a colour TV (you can't buy a black and white one) then you will be happy watching B&W programmes.

That ius not the same thing at all. A colour TV picks up colour broadcasts with no additional kit . A HD Ready TV does not pick up HD broadcasts without adding additional kit. The purchase of such kit is the indicator that the customer wants HD. And as I stated, it is rather difficult NOT to buy a HD Ready TV in the shops. And I would suggest that there are many reasons why someone buys an LCD or plasmas these days (most of which will be HD Ready) apart from wanting HD content NOW:

a) Because CRTs are almost impossible to buy
b) For space reasons (being much slimmer than CRTs)
c) For size reasons (they are much lighter and more easily moved than CRTs)
d) Because they want a larger screen
e) For style factors
f) "Keeping up with the Jones"
g) Old TV has expired
h) They may want to go HD at some point in the future (but not now) so are buying a futureproof TV

And why should I have to buy Radio Times or a specialist listings magazine to find out whats on - why do they not ensure that the mainstream listings publications (Sunday Times, say) carry the HD listings?

Why not take it up with the newspapers then? After all, it is they who are there primarily to provide a news service, not a TV listings service. It is also the choice of the newspaper to carry the listings, not the broadcasters.

[deezel]

Originally Posted by davemurgatroyd2

Pray tell how the BBC can justify spending more on a very minimal audience - there are around 700,000 maximum potential sets capable of receiving it compared to the rest of the population with an audience of approx 58 million?

HD will expand but not very quickly at present - FTA HD channels require advertising revenu to exist and in this recession that pot is shrinking - we already have one major TV advertising broker go bust plus four FTA channels. The only HD channels likely to launch in the near future will be pay channels where subscription makes up for a lack of advertising revenue. You will have to wait until we are through this recession for any major improvement.

Short answer: Speculate to accumulate.

As said if there is little worth watching, wheres the spur?

We should be looking to improve the standard, thats the idea isn't it.

We would still have 405 lines otherwise

[lara]

Thank goodness for this post.

I amcurrently deciding which HD route to go down - Sky /Freesat / Blu ray etc and the one thing that has stopped me up til now was the lack of information as to what I'd get for the money.

On the freesat website it lists tons of stations but no actual programmes that I can find.

The TV listings were no better.

So how do I find what's on ITV, Channel 4 and 5?

Thanks

[derek500]

Originally Posted by col996s

Watched the SD version twice, wishing it was in HD. I wish I'd known it was repeated in HD. Mind you 16.00 on a Monday would have been no use to me.

It was nearly simulcasted!! It had a 15 minute delay because of The 39 Steps.

I'm sorry, but do not people look on the EPG to see what's on?

[davemurgatroyd2]

Originally Posted by lara

Thank goodness for this post.

I amcurrently deciding which HD route to go down - Sky /Freesat / Blu ray etc and the one thing that has stopped me up til now was the lack of information as to what I'd get for the money.

On the freesat website it lists tons of stations but no actual programmes that I can find.

The TV listings were no better.

So how do I find what's on ITV, Channel 4 and 5?

Thanks

As stated above a decent TV listings magazibe (TV and Satellite Week certainly does) shows the listings for all BBC channels ITV (although not for HD), channel 4 (Inc HD although that is not on freesat only on Sky) and Five (there is no HD). Once you have a box then the 7 day EPG lists the programmes.

[davemurgatroyd2]

Originally Posted by Tony B

And why should I have to buy Radio Times or a specialist listings magazine to find out whats on - why do they not ensure that the mainstream listings publications (Sunday Times, say) carry the HD listings? Maybe that's another question entirely and has an Australian accent...

You spend several hundred pounds on an HD TV and yet seem reluctant to actually spend just over a pound a week to find what is on. You have a 7 day EPG free for BBC HD and a minimalistic listing of HD availability of HD within ITV's listings. The mainstream free listings magazines are minimal in their listings and cater for the mainsream of viewers they will not cater for less than 2% of the population. You have what is at the moment a niche product looking for niche aervices, do not expect that mainstream publications will cater for you yet until that niche audience expands.

You seem to want a totalitarian state where everyone must support your minority viewpoint. Broadcasts are limited to your tastes only, noone else is catered for, listing magazines must all list all channels next, what next.

[jwball]

I think complaining about FTA broadcasts is a bit off.
If you were paying for it I could understand.
It should in theory get better over time, lets not forget freesat has not been running for a year yet.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by jwball

I think complaining about FTA broadcasts is a bit off.
If you were paying for it I could understand.
It should in theory get better over time, lets not forget freesat has not been running for a year yet.

And the broadcasters (especially the BBC) have a clear duty to the vast majority of viewers who are still more than happy with SD content and therefore expect the money to be spent on a greater range of programmes rather than targeted at a technology that is still (despite what some might think) a niche market.

HD programme production will increase, it's just a matter of waiting. And as no-one was forced to buy Freesat, and the available HD content & broadcast schedules were pretty well publicised at the start (or, at the very least, there was no attempt to "big up" the broadcast hours), most purchasers should have gone into this with their eyes wide open.

[deezel]

Originally Posted by IanS

And the broadcasters (especially the BBC) have a clear duty to the vast majority of viewers who are still more than happy with SD content .........................................

Hmm, if the so-called vast majority had actually experienced HD in all its glory and still said that then perhaps it would have some credibility

If you could show every broadcast for a week in HD, you would soon find that statement fraying very badly.

IMO Peeps cannot make a valid judgement without the necessary experience.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by deezel

Hmm, if the so-called vast majority had actually experienced HD in all its glory and still said that then perhaps it would have some credibility

Looking at the many very badly adjusted pictures that I have witnessed, and people's propensity to endure stretchyvision and squashyvision does not fill me with much hope.

And yes, of course you can always stimulate demand by allowing people to sample things (this holds true for any consumer item or service), but we are not talking about that are we? We are talking about increasing the Freesat HD content (which of course presumes the existence of a Freesat HD box does it not). Quite simply, if demand existed, then people would buy. But as a large number have only just moved from analogue, and have therefore had no desire to go digital never mind go HD, then as it stands (which is what we are talking about0, many seem happy with SD. Given that Freesat SD boxes are still selling, that in itself suggests that, for some at least, HD is not of interest.

If you could show every broadcast for a week in HD, you would soon find that statement fraying very badly.

IMO Peeps cannot make a valid judgement without the necessary experience.

So how do you accomplish that then, given that most HD Ready TVs have no direct HD capability? It requires the purchase of additional kit or the subscription to additional pay services. Failing that, they can quite easily see the BBC HD previews in shops .... so what approach would you take (given that people should be more than capable of doing their own research, looking at various display and asking relevant questions).

My view is that there are people who want HD and will wait until the time is right. Others want it, and must have it NOW. Whilst many others remain pretty ambivalent, or simply assume that the picture on their LCD is already HD.

[Tony B]

Originally Posted by IanS

That ius not the same thing at all. A colour TV picks up colour broadcasts with no additional kit . A HD Ready TV does not pick up HD broadcasts without adding additional kit. The purchase of such kit is the indicator that the customer wants HD. And as I stated, it is rather difficult NOT to buy a HD Ready TV in the shops. And I would suggest that there are many reasons why someone buys an LCD or plasmas these days (most of which will be HD Ready) apart from wanting HD content NOW:

a) Because CRTs are almost impossible to buy
b) For space reasons (being much slimmer than CRTs)
c) For size reasons (they are much lighter and more easily moved than CRTs)
d) Because they want a larger screen
e) For style factors
f) "Keeping up with the Jones"
g) Old TV has expired
h) They may want to go HD at some point in the future (but not now) so are buying a futureproof TV

Why not take it up with the newspapers then? After all, it is they who are there primarily to provide a news service, not a TV listings service. It is also the choice of the newspaper to carry the listings, not the broadcasters.

So you agree with my other points then? Good.

Summary of key points with respect to the OP's concerns:
- provide sufficient content and people will show interest and drive demand
- don't expect to generate much interest with massive numbers of repeats
- don't expect to generate much interest by providing a preponderance of kids' programmes (kids don't buy the kit) and situation comedies (who needs HD to watch Nicholas Lindsay?) to showcase the technology
- don't hide away the programmes that people will want to see, and appreciate in HD, e.g. all of the current crop of nature programmes, first run films, with a bizarre/obscure or non-existent scheduling policy
- push the message to the listings providers to get people interested in what they might be missing (that's called "selling", and why should the BBC be exempt from having to do that?)

Oh - and no point in telling me to consult the EPG. I have now/next only on my Humax 2000, which I have been using since March 2006, in the vain hope that the BBC will finally get its act together and behave as if they really mean to deliver a broad, comprehensive HD service, rather than just dabble with it.

The content exists. Just get on and show it!

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Tony B

So you agree with my other points then? Good.

No, or at least, I was not aware that I was.

[Geofbob]

Originally Posted by IanS

Looking at the many very badly adjusted pictures that I have witnessed, and people's propensity to endure stretchyvision and squashyvision does not fill me with much hope.

What you've put your finger on there, IanS, is the fact that most people - unlike a largish proportion of the users of these Forums - are more interested in the content of progammes than in their form, so long, of course, as the picture is reasonably clear.

With particular reference to stretchy- and squashy-vision, one of the most contentious issues in digital TV is that of aspect ratio. I know from bitter experience that it's almost impossible to maintain settings which wll ensure the "true" ratio for the various combinations of satellite & terrestrial channels feeding into the one TV. At the same time, because at the end of the day I'm more interested in the movie etc than precisely how it looks, I put up with the actors having slightly fatter or thinner heads than on the original print (which itself of course is often a distortion of "real life").

That's why, coming back to HD, - and I think you agree with me - it's going to take a long time before there's going to be a mass audience, apart perhaps from Sky, where viewers are used to paying for new developments (though they may not like it). But Joe "Terrestrial" Public - especially that portion still content with 5 analogue channels - are hardly going to fork out their hard earned cash on hardware for a few channels supposedly with slightly sharper pictures, unless they belong to that minority forced to have Freesat because they can't receive Freeview.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Geofbob

That's why, coming back to HD, - and I think you agree with me - it's going to take a long time before there's going to be a mass audience, apart perhaps from Sky, where viewers are used to paying for new developments (though they may not like it). But Joe "Terrestrial" Public - especially that portion still content with 5 analogue channels - are hardly going to fork out their hard earned cash on hardware for a few channels supposedly with slightly sharper pictures, unless they belong to that minority forced to have Freesat because they can't receive Freeview.

Yes, I do agree with that