[scotorca]

Looking forward to You Tube on my new Humax Receiver. As to the other "additions", hopefully Netflix will be one of them along with the C4 and ITV players. So, what comes next? Anyone got a crystal ball?

[peter05]

Originally Posted by scotorca

Looking forward to You Tube on my new Humax Receiver. As to the other "additions", hopefully Netflix will be one of them along with the C4 and ITV players. So, what comes next? Anyone got a crystal ball?

It seems a few have a crystal ball, and they will tell us when the time is right,
But the furture is FREESAT

[Eston Bleu]

Originally Posted by scotorca

Looking forward to You Tube on my new Humax Receiver. As to the other "additions", hopefully Netflix will be one of them along with the C4 and ITV players. So, what comes next? Anyone got a crystal ball?

What's next will be any internet multicast business who want to be on the platform: Netflix, LoveFilm, etc. And any free service that wants in too.

Subject to the Freesat guardian's approval, of course.

[White-Knight]

4K tv probably next year to consoles and discs and 2015 to broadcast.

Also, maybe 4K 3D.

Then SuperHiVis around 2018-20.

Better get saving as all will need a new TV + a New sat receiver as I'm pretty sure non of the current boxes can decode 4K resolutions or above.

[TelevisionUser]

Originally Posted by Eston Bleu

What's next will be any internet multicast business who want to be on the platform: Netflix, LoveFilm, etc. And any free service that wants in too.

Subject to the Freesat guardian's approval, of course.

From what's been said and published, there's likely to be more online entertainment, catchup and film options but no live sports options.

I also expect more linear channels to join Freesat in the future including ones that are currently free to air and free to view. I also expect some of the local city news channels will join Freesat at some stage and there'll probably be a few more HD channels with even C5 HD eventually joining.

[mudhuts]

Not sure if this has been posted already however heres a link to a Interesting interview with Graham North – Commercial Director from Humax UK on James Woodcock podcast.

http://www.jameswoodcock.co.uk/2013/...-technologies/

[Vetinari]

If services like Lovefilm and Netflix become available and work seamlessly with Freesat boxes I can see it being something of a shot in the arm.

It would certainly reduce the attraction of other forms of Pay TV where you have to pay an arm and a leg for a bunch of channels that someone else has picked for you when, for a fraction of the cost, you can have a menu of films, programmes and series from which to pick and choose.

Given that most of the people who subscribe to Pay TV spend most of their time watching programmes that are available FTA the attraction of a cheap and varied 'top-up' service cannot be denied.

[peter05]

Originally Posted by mudhuts

Not sure if this has been posted already however heres a link to a Interesting interview with Graham North – Commercial Director from Humax UK on James Woodcock podcast.

http://www.jameswoodcock.co.uk/2013/...-technologies/

What a lot of imformation in that interview, does sound like Freeview and Freesat along with Humax are going to take these two platforms up one or two notches over the next couple of years with as Graham North say's having some pay tv on a non subscibtion basis, but just paying for as much or as little as you want, I can see some sport and film suppliers wanting to go down that route, whether it is good for FTA Freeview and Freesat I do not know, we will have to wait and see

[Vetinari]

Originally Posted by peter05

What a lot of imformation in that interview, does sound like Freeview and Freesat along with Humax are going to take these two platforms up one or two notches over the next couple of years with as Graham North say's having some pay tv on a non subscibtion basis, but just paying for as much or as little as you want, I can see some sport and film suppliers wanting to go down that route, whether it is good for FTA Freeview and Freesat I do not know, we will have to wait and see

I would think that any sport originator with any sense would.

Sky force their customers to pay an enormous fee, most of which almost certainly pays for things they never want and will never watch.

I know several people who would never consider paying what Sky ask for a sport sub but would happily pay a lesser amount for cricket, motor sport or what have you.

[DragonQ]

Fressat + Sky Sports HD would be perfect for me. Alas, I cannot see it happening any time soon.

[peter05]

Originally Posted by DragonQ

Fressat + Sky Sports HD would be perfect for me. Alas, I cannot see it happening any time soon.

I don't know but I do not think he was thinking of anybody paying a monthly sub to any sports channel although he did say maybe netflix films etc but I would imagine on a film to film basis or a sport to sport basis, there are a lot of us that do not want to pay sky or any other provider monthly subs and a lot more that do not want to pay for any T V, and yes a lot who feel paying a monthly sub ta a provider gives them more TV but the gap is closing

[Vetinari]

Originally Posted by DragonQ

Fressat + Sky Sports HD would be perfect for me. Alas, I cannot see it happening any time soon.

That was not what I had in mind. That would just perpetuate the severely flawed 'bundling' system that we have at the moment.

What one should be able to do is purchase individual sports or even leagues/series/matches rather than being forced to either pay for all sports or get nothing (beyond the limited FTA).

Unfortunately, the way things are set up at the moment, Sky have a virtual monopoly on a great deal of the most popular sport.

The demolition of their monopoly on films is already under way (DVD rental has been an alternative for years and the Lovefilm/Netflix services will continue to very rapidly erode the value of the film element of the Sky offerings as time goes by.)

[Nigel Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Vetinari

That was not what I had in mind. That would just perpetuate the severely flawed 'bundling' system that we have at the moment.

What one should be able to do is purchase individual sports or even leagues/series/matches rather than being forced to either pay for all sports or get nothing (beyond the limited FTA).

Depends what you mean by 'flawed' - purchasing individual sports or events would be EXTREMELY expensive to make it viable - and un-bundling would result in the closure of many (if not most?) of the existing channels.

If people had to pay for individual channels, then most of the BBC ones would cease to exist - never mind the far more minor channels.

[Vetinari]

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

Depends what you mean by 'flawed' - purchasing individual sports or events would be EXTREMELY expensive to make it viable

Do you have any evidence or even some vaguely cogent argument as to why that should be the case?

If I want to go and see one football match I can buy a ticket. If I want to see all of one clubs matches I can buy a season ticket. If I want to buy a bottle of milk, Tesco do not insist I buy a bundle of foods I do not want or need - they just sell me a pint of milk. It seems that it's only Sky and others of their ilk that cannot sell people what they want without forcing them to buy things they don't.

- and un-bundling would result in the closure of many (if not most?) of the existing channels.

Thank you for supporting my point. The fact that (you believe that), without Sky's monopolistic pricing and bundling scheme, many channels would not survive as they are not providing enough of what people want to get the revenue to keep going very clearly demonstrates why the current system is flawed.

If people had to pay for individual channels, then most of the BBC ones would cease to exist - never mind the far more minor channels.

That's as may be but I wasn't suggesting that public service broadcaster channels should join commercial ones. Merely that if you want to pay for some channels it should be for you to decide which ones you want and not Rupert Murdoch.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Vetinari

Do you have any evidence or even some vaguely cogent argument as to why that should be the case?

You expect a broadcaster (such as Sky) to pay X millions of pounds for the rights to show sport - then hope to reclaim a small fraction of the costs back by selling 'tickets' cheaply to each match? - get real

Just like your individual channel idea it would soon be reduced to only a tiny of matches getting shown, as they are the only ones that could show a profit.

If I want to go and see one football match I can buy a ticket. If I want to see all of one clubs matches I can buy a season ticket. If I want to buy a bottle of milk, Tesco do not insist I buy a bundle of foods I do not want or need - they just sell me a pint of milk. It seems that it's only Sky and others of their ilk that cannot sell people what they want without forcing them to buy things they don't.

It's the ONLY viable system - used by every subscription broadcaster world wide, and by all PSB's as well - why do you think we don't still have just BBC1 and ITV1, it's because those channels generally subsidise the rest.

Thank you for supporting my point. The fact that (you believe that), without Sky's monopolistic pricing and bundling scheme, many channels would not survive as they are not providing enough of what people want to get the revenue to keep going very clearly demonstrates why the current system is flawed.

So all TV should consist of reality shows, quiz shows and cooking shows - sounds a pretty boring future

That's as may be but I wasn't suggesting that public service broadcaster channels should join commercial ones. Merely that if you want to pay for some channels it should be for you to decide which ones you want and not Rupert Murdoch.

So you expect PSB's to subsidise channels that don't perform well enough to exist, but expect all the other channels that YOU don't watch to simply close?.

[Vetinari]

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

You expect a broadcaster (such as Sky) to pay X millions of pounds for the rights to show sport - then hope to reclaim a small fraction of the costs back by selling 'tickets' cheaply to each match? - get real

Nigel, I think you should try and understand a little of how a business works before suggesting others 'get real'.

Why would Sky sell views of matches 'cheaply'? They should sell them at an economic price. That is the way a free market works. The only reason Sky get away with their appalling monopolistic practices is that they have no real competition.

And you have not answered the question: "Why can others sell people exactly what they want but Sky have to force people to buy what they don't in order to get what they do.

All you've managed is a piece of circular logic followed by a facile: 'get real'.

It's the ONLY viable system - used by every subscription broadcaster world wide

It's the only system because no one has used another yet.
Impeccable logic ( Not! )

So all TV should consist of reality shows, quiz shows and cooking shows - sounds a pretty boring future.

Straw many argument.

None of the PSB channels show exclusively what you mention. Neither do most of the subscription ones.

You'll need to do better than making up nonsensical scenarios if you want to prosecute your argument properly.

So you expect PSB's to subsidise channels that don't perform well enough to exist.

No, Nigel, that is the point of a public service broadcaster. The government set goals and targets for what they are expected to provide and finance it separately from the normal commercial channels. (Or, in some cases, add a public service element to commercial channels.)

Again, you really need to learn the whys and wherefores of public service broadcasting before making frankly rather hysterical arguments based on a clearly incomplete understanding.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Vetinari;*****551

Again, you really need to learn the whys and wherefores of public service broadcasting before making frankly rather hysterical arguments based on a clearly incomplete understanding.

I think I'll just leave you in your own little imagined world, obviously you know better than everyone else - and the commercial reasons for everything you don't like are there just to annoy you

[peter05]

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

I think I'll just leave you in your own little imagined world, obviously you know better than everyone else - and the commercial reasons for everything you don't like are there just to annoy you

I think 20 years ago, if you would have said that sky would be like it is today, People would have said you lived in your own little imaginary world,
Not that I am saying sky is good but satalite TV is,

So don't rubbish Vetinari comments too quick

[Vetinari]

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

I think I'll just leave you in your own little imagined world, obviously you know better than everyone else - and the commercial reasons for everything you don't like are there just to annoy you

Nigel, just because you cannot come up with a sensible argument to explain why the likes of Sky and Virgin seem to need to operate in a completely different way to virtually every other business does not mean that anyone who does not consider that indicative of some commercial necessity is 'living in a world of their own'.

I think it is a lot closer to the truth to say that those who defend monopolistic practices without any credible argument lack both the imagination and and business understanding to see that something is inherently wrong with the paradigm.

After all, in your little world, Lovefilm and Netflix cannot possibly be offering their streaming service because if Sky cannot offer single channels how on earth can companies offer unlimited access to single programmes and series at a small fraction of the cost?

[derek500]

Originally Posted by Vetinari

After all, in your little world, Lovefilm and Netflix cannot possibly be offering their streaming service because if Sky cannot offer single channels how on earth can companies offer unlimited access to single programmes and series at a small fraction of the cost?

Their content costs are much lower than Sky's. They get the fllms a year after Sky and most of their TV content has previously been shown on other channels.

As for Lovefilm PPV, the prices are on a par with Sky Box Office.

[Vetinari]

Originally Posted by derek500

Their content costs are much lower than Sky's. They get the fllms a year after Sky and most of their TV content has previously been shown on other channels.

Indeed, but when you ask people who subscribe to Sky what they watch, the vast majority of it is available FTA and most of the rest is repeats.

As for Lovefilm PPV, the prices are on a par with Sky Box Office.

Quite so, but you don't have to pay the £20 odd basic subscription before you can access this programming.

The Lovefilm and Netflix offerings are seriously better value than Sky and as people come to realise this, together with realising that most of what they watch is available FTA (as a result of getting Freesat or Freeview boxes for second and thord TV's), the more people are going to use alternatives to Sky's seriously expensive offerings.

[glidem]

Hello everyone

Glad you seem to be enjoying the podcast, I see the debate of non-subscription and subscription rumbles on

Exciting times ahead with so many various media options and I am happy to see Humax and other set-top boxes are really starting to look ahead and make use of it all. Certainly opens up the playing field a little more!

[peter05]

Originally Posted by glidem

Hello everyone

Glad you seem to be enjoying the podcast, I see the debate of non-subscription and subscription rumbles on

Exciting times ahead with so many various media options and I am happy to see Humax and other set-top boxes are really starting to look ahead and make use of it all. Certainly opens up the playing field a little more!

Yes I did enjoy the podcast, and it does seem like there are exiting times ahead for Freesat Freeview and FTA, I wonder will subsciption TV be around in a few years maybe not, but it is good times ahead for us that do not want subsciptoin TV

[glidem]

To be honest I am not sure if even Sky and Virgin Media know as certainly Sky are expanding into digital streaming with Now TV to broaden their appeal.

I personally believe that there is plenty of room for both, it is just a shame for those like us who are sticking with non-subscription that we often feel left behind in certain areas (such as limited HD selection), yet that is inevitable really.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Originally Posted by glidem

To be honest I am not sure if even Sky and Virgin Media know as certainly Sky are expanding into digital streaming with Now TV to broaden their appeal.

I personally believe that there is plenty of room for both, it is just a shame for those like us who are sticking with non-subscription that we often feel left behind in certain areas (such as limited HD selection), yet that is inevitable really.

Inevitable yes, but there WILL be more free HD coming, although there's likely to be even non-Free HD coming.

But unfortunately I can't see very much extra free HD coming any time soon - but it will eventually.

Like it or not, HD will be replacing SD in the coming years.