Also Pick TV have recently started showing many of the programs I wanted to watch on Sky, Stargate SG1, Terra Nova, Warehouse 13 and next week Game of Thrones starts.
...
With more UKTV channels moving to Freeview and Youview's growth here's hoping for a sharp decline in Sky subscribers over the next couple of years!
You do realize that it's because of the money that stations like HBO get from Sky that they can afford to make series like Game of Thrones in the first place? :rolleyes: Those Sky subscribers are paying for your "free" TV, be careful what you wish for.
Free TV is the best it's ever been and certainly it must be the best in the World? With the advent of Youview which has more than enough on demand programs to keep anyone busy (I'm with TalkTalk), the promise of much more free on demand content coming soon, a good selection of different channels on Freeview, many of which you pay for on other platforms. free plus recording, free HD on main channels and more promised in the near future, what more could you ask for? I also have Free Sky so I get the extra channels that offers. Also Pick TV have recently started showing many of the programs I wanted to watch on Sky, Stargate SG1, Terra Nova, Warehouse 13 and next week Game of Thrones starts. My problem with Sky is that you pay for hundreds of channels many of which show utter rubbish on a loop, you have to pay for the use of plus recording and HDTV and still be bombarded with adverts. I remember when Sky first started and the whole idea was that the channels you paid for, e.g movies, there were no adverts at all just wall to wall films and the likes of MTV and Sky channel (as it was then) were free with adverts. $ky got greedy and knew at the time they had a monopoly and took over.
With more UKTV channels moving to Freeview and Youview's growth here's hoping for a sharp decline in Sky subscribers over the next couple of years!
Why do you want a sharp decline in Sky's subscribers? You have got what you want — Freeview TV, be happy with it, it's free.
But you are very disillusioned if you believe Sky TV, whether they have a decline in subscriber numbers or not, will be providing you and other Freeview viewers complete series of these programmes for free. What next, would you like to see, Sky Sports on Freeview for free:D
That is why Sky are still in business and still increasing subscriber numbers.
Anyway you also no doubt have plenty to watch with some of the crap channels occupying valuable Freeview space.
You do realize that it's because of the money that stations like HBO get from Sky that they can afford to make series like Game of Thrones in the first place? :rolleyes: Those Sky subscribers are paying for your "free" TV, be careful what you wish for.
Not exactly true, HBO was making programmes long before any deal with Sky. The UK market is relatively small for them, most of their income will be from their home market.
I think it does need a bit of revamp as in ONE of the freesat music channels to come onto the system. I mean how much will it cost to have a music channel 6am to 3am that JUST PLAYS MUSIC?
As mentioned, it's what brings money in - hence shopping and babe channels :rolleyes: Profit before people.
I think it does need a bit of revamp as in ONE of the freesat music channels to come onto the system. I mean how much will it cost to have a music channel 6am to 3am that JUST PLAYS MUSIC?
As mentioned, it's what brings money in - hence shopping and babe channels :rolleyes: Profit before people.
The lucky few that receive the Manchester multiplex can get Capital TV. An all music channel.
As mentioned, it's what brings money in - hence shopping and babe channels :rolleyes: Profit before people.
First you'll need to find a music channel willing and able to fund the relatively high cost of carriage on DTT. I would doubt that any of those channels can generate sufficient cash through advertising to pay royalties to the music industry and the cost of carriage required by the multiplex operator.
The "babe" channels only pay for carriage for a few hours and probably get reduced rates from the multiplex operators because there is little demand at those hours. They fund it by charging ridiculously high call rates to deluded members of the public wishing to chat with these "babes".
If they know about the proposals, I wonder if the OP of this thread considers the proposed new DVB-T2 multiplexes on the 600Mhz band to be "something exiciting happening to this service"?
I was with Sky from 2000 to 2006 when my digibox upped and died. I had been considering switching to Freeview anyway as I was becoming tired of paying to watch the same old repeats of things I had already seen for free on the mainstream channels. When the box died, I switched to Freeview and haven't regretted it. Now I have YouView and I thought I might experiment by paying the extra tenner a month to have some of my old Sky channels back. I am on the point of cancelling the Entertainment Boost and keeping my tenner for on demand stuff because Sky are still showing many of the same programmes now as they were when I was a subscriber. They recycle them endlessly and people are still paying for it. That is a brilliant business plan from their point of view: require people to pay year-in, year-out for the same old programming plus a sprinkling of new stuff from time to time - and you can't deny that they have been successful. I know that Freeview is full of repeats as well, but we are not being charged a subscription to watch them.
Honourable exception for Sky Sports. If you are a serious sports fan (I am not) obviously it is a must.
I was with Sky from 2000 to 2006 when my digibox upped and died. I had been considering switching to Freeview anyway as I was becoming tired of paying to watch the same old repeats of things I had already seen for free on the mainstream channels. When the box died, I switched to Freeview and haven't regretted it. Now I have YouView and I thought I might experiment by paying the extra tenner a month to have some of my old Sky channels back. I am on the point of cancelling the Entertainment Boost and keeping my tenner for on demand stuff because Sky are still showing many of the same programmes now as they were when I was a subscriber. They recycle them endlessly and people are still paying for it. That is a brilliant business plan from their point of view: require people to pay year-in, year-out for the same old programming plus a sprinkling of new stuff from time to time - and you can't deny that they have been successful. I know that Freeview is full of repeats as well, but we are not being charged a subscription to watch them.
Honourable exception for Sky Sports. If you are a serious sports fan (I am not) obviously it is a must.
Sky would have a killer product if the service with no adds. As it is, it is just Freeview with more channels and a hefty price tag.
A lot of people like to slate UK tv and seem to think the grass is greener on the other side. I have lived in 7 countries over the years and what the UK has on offer, particularly for free (aside from the license fee) represents good value, For a couple of comparisons.. In the U.S. it was very noticeable how expensive it was to get a good range of content, the pay per view scene in particular is extremely expensive.. $40-50 for most big events, we get most of these in much cheaper monthly packages, When I spent time living near Cork, right on the south coast of Ireland, it was like getting a lift from Marty McFly in the Delorean and popping up in 1985.., without sky from the UK you were stuck with 4 channels and that was in 2006.
re Ireland, in 2006 most places here local to me in wilts uk had the same 4 ch analogue service. Most people were unable to get freeview at that time, and during that whole era massive numbers of people got fed up with it and went for skys offering even though they had to pay. As a end result most people in this area are no longer using their tv aerial even though they could (since switchover in 2010).
Dont forget theres pauper view and also "even more pauper view", which is freeview lite or core psb freeview - only half the chs which is what most people here have, or Rather "would have" if most had not gone to sky before Dso. Not sure why viewers of the lite service should pay the same licence fee as those with more freeview chs. And why should lite viwers be expected to pay sky for chs like Drama, Quest, Dave, and Yesterday.
I like Freeview as well, although I would prefer it if the +1 channels were removed so that more bandwidth could be freed up for the likes of Yesterday, Dave and Drama, all three of which are rather dependant on how well your TV displays low bitrate SD broadcasts. I suppose I am lucky because my TV manages reasonably well, although Drama only just makes the grade. Unfortunately, what I would like and what actually happens are very unlikely ever to be the same thing. The provision of channels is not determined by quality control, but by market forces.
I am intrigued at the thought of what might happen over the next 10-15 years. The new multiplexes will have come (and probably gone) by then as the SD versions of the mainstream channels are replaced by their HD incarnations, the number of people still owning SD-only Tvs having fallen below the level to justifiably support them. Personally, I would not be surprised if we were all on Freeview Light with the remaining channels being delivered over the Internet, fibre optic being the norm by then. That would effectively turn Freeview into a hybrid service, much like YouView is today. The bandwidth thus freed up would, I imagine, find plenty of takers among the mobile phone companies. Thoughts anyone?
re freeview lite - I cant see how anyone can defend it.
Anyhow,
You live in a village and have to make a short trip to the closest town to do your shopping and the first supermarket you go in is selling a whole chicken for £5.00. Alongside it, is half a chicken, also priced £5.00.
You ask the assistant if they can sell the half a chicken to you for £2.50. They say, only if you live in this town - if you don't you have to pay £5.00 for it. You ask, surely you can adjust the price - they say no, the price is fixed.
You go out and go into the next supermarket just over the road. They have identical whole chickens, which they are willing to sell to you, but the fixed price in there is £10 per chicken.
My point is, if the freeview lite situation were reflected in the things we buy, it wouldn't be tolerated. So why is it tolerated in the digital service sector?
re freeview lite - I cant see how anyone can defend it.
Anyhow,
You live in a village and have to make a short trip to the closest town to do your shopping and the first supermarket you go in is selling a whole chicken for £5.00. Alongside it, is half a chicken, also priced £5.00.
You ask the assistant if they can sell the half a chicken to you for £2.50. They say, only if you live in this town - if you don't you have to pay £5.00 for it. You ask, surely you can adjust the price - they say no, the price is fixed.
You go out and go into the next supermarket just over the road. They have identical whole chickens, which they are willing to sell to you, but the fixed price in there is £10 per chicken.
My point is, if the freeview lite situation were reflected in the things we buy, it wouldn't be tolerated. So why is it tolerated in the digital service sector?
Except, in your village you are paying £2.50 for half a chicken. In the big town you are paying £2.50 for the half chicken too - it just happens to be on a BOGOF offer.
You are only paying for the PSB muxes/channels. The rest are commercially funded. In fact I'd go so far as to say you are only paying for the two BBC muxes, and the BBC channels on them. The rest are present because they have an obligation to be available, but you are not directly paying for D3&4, any of the channels on it, or ITV HD and C4 HD.
And the chicken analogy has to be the worst one I have heard. Well done.
Comments
You do realize that it's because of the money that stations like HBO get from Sky that they can afford to make series like Game of Thrones in the first place? :rolleyes: Those Sky subscribers are paying for your "free" TV, be careful what you wish for.
See http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1784971
Why do you want a sharp decline in Sky's subscribers? You have got what you want — Freeview TV, be happy with it, it's free.
But you are very disillusioned if you believe Sky TV, whether they have a decline in subscriber numbers or not, will be providing you and other Freeview viewers complete series of these programmes for free. What next, would you like to see, Sky Sports on Freeview for free:D
That is why Sky are still in business and still increasing subscriber numbers.
Anyway you also no doubt have plenty to watch with some of the crap channels occupying valuable Freeview space.
Not exactly true, HBO was making programmes long before any deal with Sky. The UK market is relatively small for them, most of their income will be from their home market.
As mentioned, it's what brings money in - hence shopping and babe channels :rolleyes: Profit before people.
First you'll need to find a music channel willing and able to fund the relatively high cost of carriage on DTT. I would doubt that any of those channels can generate sufficient cash through advertising to pay royalties to the music industry and the cost of carriage required by the multiplex operator.
The "babe" channels only pay for carriage for a few hours and probably get reduced rates from the multiplex operators because there is little demand at those hours. They fund it by charging ridiculously high call rates to deluded members of the public wishing to chat with these "babes".
Capital TV and Heart TV are also streamed online, so available to anyone with a decent broadband connection.
Honourable exception for Sky Sports. If you are a serious sports fan (I am not) obviously it is a must.
Not everyone can...using freeview, Quest is not a nationwide channel.
^^^ (c) pinkteddyx64, 2013
re Ireland, in 2006 most places here local to me in wilts uk had the same 4 ch analogue service. Most people were unable to get freeview at that time, and during that whole era massive numbers of people got fed up with it and went for skys offering even though they had to pay. As a end result most people in this area are no longer using their tv aerial even though they could (since switchover in 2010).
Because they are commercial broadcasters who need to make money.
I am intrigued at the thought of what might happen over the next 10-15 years. The new multiplexes will have come (and probably gone) by then as the SD versions of the mainstream channels are replaced by their HD incarnations, the number of people still owning SD-only Tvs having fallen below the level to justifiably support them. Personally, I would not be surprised if we were all on Freeview Light with the remaining channels being delivered over the Internet, fibre optic being the norm by then. That would effectively turn Freeview into a hybrid service, much like YouView is today. The bandwidth thus freed up would, I imagine, find plenty of takers among the mobile phone companies. Thoughts anyone?
Anyhow,
You live in a village and have to make a short trip to the closest town to do your shopping and the first supermarket you go in is selling a whole chicken for £5.00. Alongside it, is half a chicken, also priced £5.00.
You ask the assistant if they can sell the half a chicken to you for £2.50. They say, only if you live in this town - if you don't you have to pay £5.00 for it. You ask, surely you can adjust the price - they say no, the price is fixed.
You go out and go into the next supermarket just over the road. They have identical whole chickens, which they are willing to sell to you, but the fixed price in there is £10 per chicken.
My point is, if the freeview lite situation were reflected in the things we buy, it wouldn't be tolerated. So why is it tolerated in the digital service sector?
Except, in your village you are paying £2.50 for half a chicken. In the big town you are paying £2.50 for the half chicken too - it just happens to be on a BOGOF offer.
You are only paying for the PSB muxes/channels. The rest are commercially funded. In fact I'd go so far as to say you are only paying for the two BBC muxes, and the BBC channels on them. The rest are present because they have an obligation to be available, but you are not directly paying for D3&4, any of the channels on it, or ITV HD and C4 HD.
And the chicken analogy has to be the worst one I have heard. Well done.
Still sticking up for Freeview Lite........the brits got to get rid of this "accept it" or "make do" concept. It wont do.