1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

SKY attepts to stop Free Sat ITV,Ch,4 & 5

Discussion in 'Sky Digital TV Forum' started by rogerh, Jul 9, 2004.

  1. rogerh

    rogerh
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    412
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Maidstone
    Ratings:
    +10
    Anyone heard about Skys' latest attempts to stop ITV, Ch4 and Ch5 following the BBC and going free to air?
    It seems they're trying to keep these channels encrypted after the current contracts run out next year in order to force viewers to subscribe to Sky for a viewing card.
    Not bad for the Governments attempt to create competion !
    Seems to me that free to air ought to be the same on satellite as it is on terrestial. Viewers receive the main channels when they buy their tuners and NOT on condition that they subscribe to channels they don't want in order to recieve the channels currently available via Analogue.
    It's well known that there are many places where the only way to receive these "Free" channels after Analogue switch-off will be from satellite, so why should these viewers be penalised, let alone those of us who want Sky+ but don't want to subscribe to channels we will never watch.
     
  2. LDJ

    LDJ
    Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    590
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Ratings:
    +26
    I'm disliking sky more and more by the week!
    They are also 'in negotiations' with ITV to stop their forthcoming channel ITV3 being added to the Freeview platform or cable, thus keeping it exclusive to Sky! :mad:
    They are offering ITV all kinds of incentives not to goto Freeview with the new channel, because freeview is currently outselling Sky by about 10:1 so Sky are naturally worried but this is a bit underhand if you ask me.

    Not sure what all the fuss is about anyway, because if its anything like ITV2 it will be full of crap! :laugh:
     
  3. Starburst

    Starburst
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    17,838
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ilkeston
    Ratings:
    +979
    Do tell us what these attempts are:)
    It seems to me you've read a report or article from last year when the FTV/Solus scheme was closed and there was only a SKY subscription left as an option, since then the £150 FTA/FTV package has been announced and expected soon.
    Ch4 and Five have already extended their contracts with SKY so I am not exactly sure why SKY would be interested in doing anything else in that regard, ITV are currently in negotiations with SKY, time will tell if they choose to stay encrypted of go FTA.

    It's all very well saying channels should be FTA on terrestrial and Dsat but the simple fact is that program owners and distributers have a say in how a program is broadcast, terrestrial by it's nature has a limited coverage while Dsat does not.

    As for ITV3 well are you forgetting that ITV are a PROFIT motivated company, if they can make more money by having ITV3 as a FTA channel on digital platforms then that is what it will be. SKY as they have always done make offers to broadcaster for channels that are suitable for inclusion in SKY's subscription packages.
    An offer will/has been made probably more than one with ITV2 and EPG, Postcode mapping all tied together, if it's in their best interest ITV will take, if not they won't.
    ITV3 won't be exclusive to SKY, it will certainly be carried on cable platforms and who knows maybe even TUTV.

    It's quite amusing, Freeview seems to have created a section of the TV viewing public whi think they have a right to watch anything they want free of charge, it doesn't work that way:)
     
  4. Stereo Steve

    Stereo Steve
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,914
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +7
    Why not? We should have free stuff forever at no cost, completely gratis. Maybe ITV can make some more money by putting more ads in my F1 coverage as it's ruined already the bunch of Sunday Mirror reading, football watching, stereotype reinforcing, stupid statements about anything from asylum to Europe making bunch of low life filth.

    Please give me a pay per view F1 service like we had for a breif time. If ITV can not have any ads for a bunch of overpayed, low IQ prima donna's chasing a ball, why not for a real sport?

    Eh?Eh?

    Mind you, I am wasted, and the French GP was pretty boring. That's only cuz it was a French director though and he didn't show our boy losing. we was robbed etc.
     
  5. Lex

    Lex
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,089
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Cornwall
    Ratings:
    +4
    There's going to be an ITV3?!?! What have we done to deserve that?! I thought ITV1 & 2 were bad enough! :rolleyes:
     
  6. rogerh

    rogerh
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    412
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Maidstone
    Ratings:
    +10
    First of all lets hear a round off applause for the good old BBC :clap:
    They've led the way towards Free to Air Satellite TV for the UK, starting the move towards the type of broadcasting available in Germany and Italy, for example, where the major channels are FTA and viewers can choose to subscribe for more if they want.
    My info. about the potential for FTA ITV1, Ch4 and Ch5 is based on the attempts to encourage those channels to renew encryption and get viewers to buy a one off deal from Sky for access to 200 channels. This is of course going to be the usual crafty marketing ploy, 200 being made up from a large chunk of sound only/radio, shopping, US God Channels, pay per view and perhaps a few token "goodies like Sky Travel, Discovery Home & Leisure and even Sky One"
    The "Deal", as I understand it, will not be for "life" but for a specified period, perhaps 2/3 years. This is not the same as FTA.
    It means that viewers will still have to buy equipment which can decode the unique Sky encryption code and as the licence for this is held firmly by Sky.It means that there will still Not be a free market for recievers for those who want to watch Satellite transmissions of the 5 main channels. The choice of equipment will continue to be restricted to what Sky wants you to have, and
    of course this equipment will not enable you to watch other satellites (no diseq. switching) and won't have any cam or card slots to take any other encryption systems.
    The issue of the "Solus" cards was different in that it was a way around the fact that the UK did not have FTA broadcasting from satellite. It enabled access to certain channels which were coded by SKY.
    Sky has already successfully blocked UK viewers from watching channels which are FTA to other viewers - Eurosport, the French international channel TV5 and the Spanish International Channel TVEi are just three examples of where those who want to view in the UK must pay Sky. (Or buy special kit).
    In my view the Government should ensure that Free Market and Competition
    exists in satellite broadcasting in the UK and legislate (or instruct the regulator) that the 5 Channels currently available to all UK viewers via Anaogue Terrestial Broadcast remain so and this requires the provider of Satellite Broadcasting to transmit those channels Free To Air!
    After all, if subscription channels are any good then viewers will no doubt subscribe to them. What cannot be defended is the forcing of viewers to subscribe to channels they already receive as Free to Air.
     
  7. Starburst

    Starburst
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    17,838
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ilkeston
    Ratings:
    +979
    So all those UK FTA channels that were on analogue and digital satellite before the BBC are not worth mentioning then? Perhaps if the BBC and other terrestrial broadcasters had been on satellite back in 1990 then the situation would be vastly different but they were content to sponge off the public and ignore satellite/SKY safe in their delusions of a pampered existence with no threats to their money making ability.
    You can not compare Germany and Italy to the UK.
    Germany had political/geographic reasons for satellite broadcasting coupled with a seriously strong ecomony that could support many advertising based channels.
    Italy had massive de-regulation of it's media which is something the BBC and come to think of it the commercial UK channels would resist quite strongly.

    As I have said, Ch4 and Five have renewed their contracts with SKY and ITV are in negotiations, their decison will be based on what is good for ITV not what is good for you or me, bottom line is MONEY!

    The PR of SKY's recently announced offer is no different to the spin that surrounded the launch of Freeview, they both included shared/part-time channels and radio stations as part of their packages to make them look better.
    The FTV smartcard which will come witht he £150 deal (which includes dish/digibox and install) is only guaranteed for two years (not bad, kettle normally only comes with a 1 year guarantee). The original SKY smartcards lasted over 5 years, the second issue could very well last as long so is it unreasonable that SKY should be responsible for a multi-million pound bill 5 or more years down the line for viewers who contribute nothing?

    How exactly did SKY "block" TV5 and TVEi from broadcasting to the UK?
    SKY has no way to stop anyone from broadcasting to the UK, if SKY can offer a cheaper alternative to a broadcaster by using a digibox and Videoguard (if encryption required) then they are free to make the offer but that is a far cry from claiming they block other broadcasters.
    As for Eurosport they are free to choose to broadcast encrypted or FTA, once again SKY can only make a financial offer and the broadcaster can either accept it or not, you do realise all commercial broadcasters are in the business to make MONEY?

    Is a Free Market one that evolves through legal business practices or one that is engineered through government/political dogma and regulation created by the personal opinions of those in power?
    Why only satellite?
    Cable companies are allowed to charge a subscription fee to watch the digital versions of the BBC, ITV, CH4 and Five channels, since they are the only legal source of digital STB's they have far more control over their platform than SKY has ever had.
    It's no surprise that some Dsat broadcasters complain that getting cable carriage is so difficult since broadcasting to the UK via Dsat is far easier since you DO NOT have to use SKY for any step of the process whereas you have to deal with the cable provider and that normally means money changing hands.

    So you would be happy if the regulator forced ITV1, CH4 and Five to be FTA on Dsat even if that meant some programming was replaced and others vanished on the Dsat service due to the increased costs of programming rights and in some cases the absence of any FTA option?
    That sort of decision is not so easy once you look beyond the idealistic viewpoint:)

    I totally agree that being forced into a SKY subscription to watch ITV1, CH4 and Five on Dsat is totally wrong, I've held that opinion from the day the BBC abandoned the FTV system and the commerical broadcasts repeatedly failed to implement an alternative. This latest SKY offer is at least an attempt to provide nearly a quarter of the poplulation who can not get DTT or cable a non-subscription digital service which is viable under the current broadcasting conditions. Long term this could bring about analogue closure much earlier which means DTT covergae for over 98% of the nation which is good for everyone.
     
  8. GalacticaActual

    GalacticaActual
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Messages:
    5,597
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Galactica C.I.C.
    Ratings:
    +199
    Are we forgetting that all television costs money to watch any way? The tv licence for example?
    As long as this HAS TO BE PAID BY LAW :mad: Then even free to air channels arent really free ,are they?
     
  9. Stereo Steve

    Stereo Steve
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,914
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +7
    Yeah but imagine a world without the BBC. It would be Blind Date and naff US imports all around. We should treasure the BBC and I for one am happy to pay my yearly subs. It's one example of nationalisation that actually works well.

    I think without BBC1 I would bin the TV altogether.
     
  10. mark.carline

    mark.carline
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Messages:
    2,129
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Chester, Cheshire
    Ratings:
    +125
    I think that SKYs tatics are not doing them any favours....

    The thing that the goverment should be doing is encouraging as many people as possible to move away from anologue TV as soon as possible so that the old anologue transmissions can be switched off.

    Now if you wanted to get digital TV which method are you doing to choose ?

    1) Freeview box for £60

    2) Sky box "freeview" for £150.

    3) Sky box with "free" installation with a minimum 12 month contract for £14 (ish) month.

    My guesses is that most of the population (thinking brittish for a moment) are going to go for option 1. This isnt very good for SKY as the hassle for most people in changing their system to a satellite is too much. Its also not good for the general public as the SKY option means you have to pay to watch ITV etc which are free in option (1).

    I think this is what should be done:

    a) Scrap the TV license fee (ok bear with me on this one!!)

    b) The digital transmitters, satellites, contract boxes, card technology etc etc (ie the TV infrastruture) should be owened by a non profit making organisation that are responsible for maintenance & development of the technology.

    c) The broadcasting companies (like SKY, BBC, ITV etc) with their own brand of channel packages should be allowed to buy a licence to resell channel packages to the general public. You also should be allowed to choose the exact channel package you want (ie you dont want ITV or BBC then you dont have to have it).

    d) All types of receivers (either ariel or satelllite) should be able to pick up (via a card) any of the packages given out in (c).

    hey presto!....

    I personally think that this is going to happen, look at your electic, gas, telephone etc etc - WATCH OUT SKY!!!!!!!!
     
  11. Stereo Steve

    Stereo Steve
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,914
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +7
    That would lead to the BBC not getting the same amount of revenue as they do at the moment and we would lose a source of great programming. Do we want another Sky 1? I mean, has there ever been anything on it worth watching (apart from The Simpsons?).
     
  12. rogerh

    rogerh
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    412
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Maidstone
    Ratings:
    +10
    Once again may I suggest another round os applause for the BBC :clap:
    I think there is general concensus that the BBC is where the decent programmes are!
    However we are all now accustomed to be able to view ITV1,Ch4,& Ch5 as additional Free to Air channels.
    The Government has decided that we change to Digital and has committed to making sure that our access to these 5 channels will remain Free to Air.
    Sky provides the only way that many can view these channels and forces those who want to do so to take out a subscription to view. When Analogue is switched off those who have chosen to take up a subscription and then wish to discontinue that subscription will not be able to revert to watching the 5 channels for free but will need to continue to pay Sky or purchase Freeview kit (which will not work in some areas).
    If the 5 channels were made to broadcast Free to Air on Satelite by Government Legislation (as they are on Freeview}then there would be no problem.
    The problem is the devious way they are coluding with Sky in order to force the viewer to pay out - often for channels they don't want (as Sky insists on grouping channels together in packages).
    As to the FTA Channels on air before the BBC and to those early beginnings in Analogue Days, a mistake was made by not forcing Free to Air transmissions of the main channels from the beginning and as for the others I seem to remember that the German and Shopping etc FTA channels weren't worth mentioning!
    We have geographical reasons for broadcasting FTA on Satellite. That's exactly why those viewers in areas that won't receive Freeview need it! As to Political reasons we are being told by Government that we need Regional Assemblies (going towards German Regionalisation) and indeed have a Welsh Language Regional Assembly Channel on FTA! (Funny how Polititians ensure they can be seen FTA!) We also have a certain Media Family in close
    support of the existing Government - although I'm sure that's a side issue!
    The Italian Media is of course directly linked to their Prime Minister, but nevertheless Italy still has RTI broadcasting FTA on Satelite. I also have to say that like, I'm sure most of us, I would not like the Licence system scrapped and as I said we have a National Asset in the BBC.
    I take the point about commercial decisions determing whether Channels like
    TV5 ,TVEi and Eurosport are encrypted and accept it was a bit hopeful!
    :rolleyes:
    I don't agree that Sky dosen't control the Satelite Set Top Boxes :nono:
    It does exactly that be keeping control of it's encryption system and thus ensuring that anyone who buys one of the many set top receivers not linked to Sky on the market, either FTA or fitted with cam/card slots, is unable to use them to watch ITV1,Ch4 and Ch5. Just like cable companies do!
    I agree that Legislation is needed to ensure proper competition and force the cable companies to provide the 5 channels without subscription.
    Program rights is a whole different issue. I strongly believe that the European
    Directive on broadcasting rights accross EU is intended to allow viewers access to transmissions from within the union. It is time to take Government
    action to enforce EU directives and bring about the issueing of EU wide rights
    and NOT country of transmission which is a nonsense for satellite transmissions, but of course is a great arrangement for Hollywood who can sell the same item over and over on the pretext that the EU dosen't exist.
    This also provides sport rights with the same nonsense as sport can be sold over and over again. All to the cost and detriment of the EU (which includes the UK) viewer.
    A good example of this is where the Irish Republic broadcasts are not able to be viewed in the UK. What a nonsense when there is clearly a good potential
    audience in the UK (and not just in NI). And what happens in Eire to viewers who would like to see the UK transmissions? Once again they can thank the BBC at least (but keep it secret in case Hollywood finds out).
    An interesting idea from mark.careline but don't we already have a non-profit making organisation in the form of the BBC and aren't they already providing us with FTA boadcasts? I know we pay the Licence but who would pay for the equipment etc otherwise?
    Chosing the channels we want is a great idea, but how would the commercial channels included within Sky and Cable packages get viewers? After all many of them only make money from the very subscribers who are forced to contribute to them by Sky and ths Cable Companies!
    Oh and by the way Stereo Steve does that mean you don't want to subscribe
    to Sky 1 just to get the 5 main channels (Including the occasional Simpsons on BBC2)?
     
  13. Starburst

    Starburst
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    17,838
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ilkeston
    Ratings:
    +979


    Why do you keep going on about needing a SKY subscription for viewing ITV1, CH4 and Five?
    We have already covered the fact that it was the BBC that caused the failure of the FTV system and then the commercial broadcasters indifference kept it buried for a good 6 months which finally resulted in the £23.50 limited offer FTV cards. Once that offer finished there was no official way to get a FTV card, by default that left a SKY subscription as the only option but that is being addressed by a non-subscription £150 deal.
    You do realise that a SKY subscriber can cancel their subscription and their existing smartcard will continue to decode the FTV channels without further payments?
    You obviously don't otherwise you wouldn't make that claim:)

    I am not aware that I said they controlled anything but there own hardware.
    SKY controls access to Videoguard in it's own digiboxes BUT that wasn't the issue was it? If a broadcaster wants to launch a FTA channel to the UK they don't have to pay SKY a single penny to do so.
    If the same broadcaster wishes to launch a PAY channel to the UK then he has a choice of using an existing system (SKY) either as a stand alone channel or within a SKY package or using a different encryption system and supplying the subscibers with a card to use in a suitable CAM equipped Dsat receiver. Hardcore porn channels seem to be capable of doing that:)
    The simple truth is that the SKY solution is probably the easiest and cheapest method even with the overhead payments to SKY. Now some may say that situation has been achieved by underhanded methods others would say it was the result of excellent business and marketing practices:)
     
  14. Starburst

    Starburst
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    17,838
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ilkeston
    Ratings:
    +979


    Does the BBC really need £2.5 BILLION to meets it's basic PSB remit and continue to make quality programming?
    Not in my wildest dreams/nightmares would I ever even consider comparing SKY1 to the BBC in terms of programming/target audience or budget:)
    Perhaps if FIVE can do what they do on around £200 million then maybe the BBC could do a good job on £1 Billion?
     
  15. Stereo Steve

    Stereo Steve
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,914
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +7
    The fact that FIVE have only 200 million is a glaring example of why the BBC need as much as possible.
     
  16. Lexeus

    Lexeus
    Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    542
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Crumlin, South Wales / Bristol
    Ratings:
    +7
    Do people really think channel five is worth watching ?? American sports and car chase programs seems to be the majority of the programming ....

    I really think its outrageous the ammount sky charges. If there were no adverts maybe it wouldn't be so bad, but when you have to pay to watch tv which is about 25% adverts .........
    Sky have for too much control over the digital sat equipment, I mean charging a subscription for using sky+ even after you have to pay £250 for the box, what exactly are they charging you for in that initial fee if they can then justify charging an extra subscription ...

    I am opposed to the TV license as the TV is not only for watching broadcast programs. If all you want is to have a game console you still have to pay the TV license, or am I mistaken in this ? The way I understand it is any TV tuner requires a license, inclusing PC TV tuners etc, regardless ?

    Does anyone know if you can watch E4 free without paying for cable or Sky ?
     
  17. sparkybun

    sparkybun
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,185
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Location:
    EN8 area
    Ratings:
    +23
    Hi,

    Yes E4 is on Freeview. Well I'll check on that - It is certainly on my 'guide' but I have to admit to not actually having watched it on Freeview.

    Mel
     
  18. Starburst

    Starburst
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    17,838
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ilkeston
    Ratings:
    +979


    Not sure I can justify a personal opinion on the merits of a channels programs, you either like them or not:)
    I have no love for UK televison which is why I have been paying for SKY for 12 years, Five have good quality US drama and movies, not for everyone but it's the most watch terrestrial channel in my home.
    Channel 5 (as it used to be) was really trashy in it's young days but then that's to be expected, however the revamp which introduced widescreen and the removel of the onscren ident (DOG) really gave it a step up in class.

    You need a license to own and operate a device which is cable of receiving UK broadcast television so that covers a TV with analogue or digital tuner plus a VCR, HD recorder (with tuner) or PC television card.
    The grey area is owning such a device but not operating it, the licensing authorities have to prove you have been watching TV so in that case if you only ever used the TV as a display for a console you would be alright but they would hassle you, much easier to buy a monitor/panel that didn't have a tuner.


    E4 is also on TUTV, it is a subscription channel on every platform.
     
  19. Starburst

    Starburst
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    17,838
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ilkeston
    Ratings:
    +979


    Not sure I follow you:)
    Perhaps we should give £500 million from the License fee to Five in return for going ad free and upping the UK content?

    FIVE of course have to operate in the real world and generate all it's operating revenue from it's own efforts, where as the BBC just turns up and is given the cash.
    Perhaps that in itself is an unfair advantage the BBC has over it's commercial rivals!
     
  20. rogerh

    rogerh
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    412
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Maidstone
    Ratings:
    +10
    Afternoon all :hiya:
    First of all let me say the Free to View is NOT the same as Free to Air.
    As Starburst rightly says you have to subscibe to Sky for a minimum period of One Year in order to get their viewing card which can only be used in their sanctioned receivers. Having paid your 1 year subscription you can indeed continue to use their card (only in the hardware they specify of course) to view the major channels until Sky decide they are going to change the card and then you may or may not have to pay again. This is what's called Free to View - meaning "free" if you give Sky some money first!
    Free to Air means you can watch the channel without an encryption decoder, just like we can watch Analogue and the BBCs' channels from both Terrestial and Satellite.
    Free to Air is what the UK has/had for 5 channels with Analogue and what the Government promised we would get with Digital. It is not what suits SKY!!
    The issue on Hardware is that Sky ensure that the hardware which can use their system cannot be fitted with another cam (for a different encryption system) and neither, of course will it accept any other programme card nor will it allow any switching between satelite positions. It means that unlike other countries the market between manufacturers is strickly contolled by the progamme transmitter and unless companies like Echostar, Force etc toe the Sky line their products cannot be used except for the reception of Free to Air from 28deg. This ensures that only marginal channels such as "Adult" are used for their receivers.
    In addition the control over the Program Guide ensures that any channel broadcasting from 28deg.does not appear easily available to the viewer unless they know how to tune it in (Dubai Channels for example). This ensures that any channel wishing to get a reasonable number of viewers must pay to go into the guide.
    As to whether the BBC needs the money it gets, well the provision of all that qualitity TV and Radio both within the UK and as the UK voice to many other countries, added to a brilliant Web Site and leading tchnology development, makes it terrific value in my opinion.
    :smashin: I agree with Stereo Steve!
    By the way doesn't Sky or one of Mr Mudochs companies own a large chunk of Channel 5?
     
  21. Starburst

    Starburst
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    17,838
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ilkeston
    Ratings:
    +979
    Why ignore cable when criticising SKY for what is at the end of the day a decision made by ITV, CH4 and Five?
    You can not watch any digital channels on cable unless you pay a subscription, there is no FTA on that system at all unlike digital satellite.

    SKY's encryption provided by NDS has been hack proof for 6 years, no doubt SKY's control of the baseline hardware has helped in this regard plus their decision to subsidise the hardware from launch explains why they wanted and do have such tight control of receiving their service. It would be rather stupid to subsidise a STB and then have the purchase use it on a rival PAY system:)
    SKY exists to make money, the service can only survive if it can continues to do so and I appluad SKY's marketing and business sense in providing a service other broadcasters choose to use and pay for.

    BBC license fee value for money?
    I can't accept that anything you have no option but to pay for (well apart from not watchin any telly at all) can be regarded as value for money, if it's that good give people the choice:)
    Amusing that the BBC have been criticised for spending license payers money on websites that too closely mirror what is already on offer from commercial companies, they have agreed to close a number of them.

    Five is owned by RTL and United Business Media, there was talk that News Corp might purchase Five when the communications bill came into force but nothing happended on that front.
     
  22. rogerh

    rogerh
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    412
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Maidstone
    Ratings:
    +10
    Afternoon All.
    Starburst - Free to Air is not the same as Free to View, as I'm sure you know.
    The Sky method of enabling you to view ITV1, Ch4 and Ch5 does entail a years subscription/one off payment of £150 to get the Sky card and of course the purchase of their tuner. You can indeed then cancel your subscription and view these channels until Sky decides not (perhaps when a new card is issued). This is not Free to Air and is only Free to View if you've paid Sky first! e.g. you pay Sky a years subsciption or £150 for a period which will expire when Sky decides.
    Only equipment with the Sky encrytiption system will allow decoding of these 3 channels.The tuner you buy cannot easily view other channels whether they are Free to Air or not. (It doesn't allow other systems to be de-coded, doesn't allow other systems viewing cards and because it doesn't include diseq switching control, doesn't allow easy switching between satelite positions). Therefore competition in the market is restricted and other manufacturers, Echostar, Force etc are left to supply only enthusiasts or the "Adult" market.
    The control over FTA channels comes from the payment they must make to appear within the Sky Planner if they wish to make their prescence known to the majority of viewers. Channels that don't. e.g. Dubai, can be viewed but only if you know how to tune them in. Effectively Sky again holds control. If the market for equipment was opened up, more viewers would be able to watch Free to Air channels without any payment to Sky.
    I would say that Sky has got to the stage of having the monopoly of UK satelite by a number of means, not least of which has been close links with UK Government. Free to Air satelite broadcasting for ITV1, Ch4 and Ch5 could have easily been achieved if the Government had enforced legislation to make sure all carriers (including cable) had to provide the UK viewer with what they can receive through Analogue Terrestial at the moment.
    As to Starbursts comment about BBC finance, I reckon that the wealth of TV and Radio broadcsating (including programme making), overseas broadcasts, a terrific website and being a leader in development of broadcasting technology is worth every penny we give to the BBC!
    I once again agree wholeheartedly with Stereo Steve.
    Incidently on the subject of Ch5, who are United Buisness Media? Anyone know if they have any Murdoch/Sky connections?
     
  23. Starburst

    Starburst
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    17,838
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ilkeston
    Ratings:
    +979
    I totally agree that SKY's reported £150 deal should not be labelled as a FTA system, it is not as you rightly point out but at least SKY are doing something about the 25% (ish) of households that can't currently get DTT or cable digital services.
    All the broadcasters that covered this should have known better but we will see what happens when this offer is officially released.

    I will take exception to you calling the £150 deal a subscription, there is no subscription for you to cancel, the card will remain active for as long as the current codes are being used and it's quite possible that in it's lifetime channels currently FTV might become FTA. In some respects the deal is very similar to Freeview, buy the hardware and it will continue to work as long as there are suitable broadcasts.
    After all who thought when buying a Freeview box there would be channels that couldn't be accessed launched a year later:)

    There is nothing stopping any FTA channel from not being on the EPG, it is hardly SKY's fault that they created a system that works and is far cheaper than any alternative and any business has to put it's interest first before their rivals. Even the BBC aren't going to spend money promoting ITV which I imagine was a reason to abandon the FTV system:)

    No matter what you think of the BBC or it's services I can't really believe that anyone would consider £2.5 billion is needed to do the job. Perhaps if the threat of legal action was removed from not paying the License fee we would see the true value of the BBC to the British public:)

    Did a google and came up with this yahoo profile which looks about right since it's a broadcasting/media concern. News Corp certainly doesn't own any part of the company as to individuals within Ruperts family I wouldn't know, they probably have an extensive portfolio:)
     
  24. rogerh

    rogerh
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    412
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Maidstone
    Ratings:
    +10
    Hi.
    Thanks for the Yahoo profile. It doesn't seem as though there is a Sky link to Ch5.
    So I take my comment back!
    As to the viewing of the BBC and the other 3 channels available currently on Terrestial TV (in analogue), it seems that those who won't be able to receive Freeview will indeed have to pay Sky for the priviledge of watching what they already have as a Free to Air service. Not what I thought the Government intended and not very good news for the people concerned. :suicide:
    Everyone else will have to buy new kit, but that would happen anyway as existing TV sets wear out and need replacing/updating. At least we can choose to pay a subscription/one off payment if we want.
    I still believe that the Government has got it wrong in not requiring ITV1, Ch4 and Ch5 to be broadcast Free to Air. I beleive that the viewer should have at least been given the choice of method of receiving TV and which ever they chose (including cable) should have been able to watch the 5 existing main channels without having to pay to receive/decode the signals :cool:
    It would also have ensured proper market competition which would have been in the Public interest and helped control prices
     
  25. Trick

    Trick
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    22
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    4
    Location:
    Northamptonshire
    Ratings:
    +0
    My sky subscription was cancelled a few months ago, and for a short while i could watch BBC1,2,ITV,Ch4,5 foc.

    But now the signal has gone off completely.

    Does this mean i now have to re-subscribe to watch digital TV?
     
  26. dontasciime

    dontasciime
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    103
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +5
    look on ebay for a new card, or ask sky for one, without subs
     
  27. C-M

    C-M
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Messages:
    52
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Ratings:
    +1
    I am amazed at the amount of BBC fan boys out there,for a channel that plays mostly reapeats and second rate sports contests, Yes minister, fawlty towers, only fools and horses. I don't want to pay to see the same programme over and over again. The best thing about BBC is News 24.

    Plenty of other countries have state owned channels without a license and still have decent broadcasting. look at ORF in austria, they show main stream football, tennis, F1 and movies.
     
  28. Uridium

    Uridium
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    14,415
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    North West Leicestershire
    Ratings:
    +1,858
    OK in addition to repeats of Only fools and horses what about world beating comedy (the Office/Alan Partridge/League of gentlemen/Little Britain etc..etc...) 11 of the world's best radio stations, 2x QUALITY kids tv channels with decent educational content (not spewing out constant reruns of Sesame street & power rangers etc), one of the worlds most visited websites (25 million hits a day!) and as far as second rate sports contests; at least they have the decency to recognise that sport extends beyond football and F1 and give people without a sky subscription the opportunity to see MotoGP\WSB\Rugby\Tennis\Golf etc..

    AND NO ADVERTS every 7 minutes.

    I'm not a "BBC Fanboy" but am merely able to acknowledge that although the BBC don't get it right all the time they make a half decent attempt and other than Channel 4 don't have much competition in the UK when it comes to actually "making TV programmes" rather than just buying in the lastest dull sitcom from the US
     
  29. Nick_UK

    Nick_UK
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,748
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Ratings:
    +270
    God knows what UK TV would be like without the BBC to set a few standards, with excellent productions like The Office. Endless rehashes of Big Brother, no doubt, and mindless talent contest shows where the winner is never seen again. And that's what you call quality TV, is it ?
     
  30. Starburst

    Starburst
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    17,838
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ilkeston
    Ratings:
    +979
    Just a shame the BBC are not setting the standards for digital picture quality and pure uncluttered pictures free of what are in effect adverts for the channels and their content.
     

Share This Page

Loading...