Why are they more shopping channels on Freeview?

MiresiaVertetaMiresiaVerteta Posts: 1,242
Forum Member
✭✭✭
I know we are in a recession, but what is the need for the influx of shopping channels on Freeview? Surely people haven't got the cash to throw around to buy crap?

Why not use the bandwith for proper channels and programmes or is that not allowed?
«1

Comments

  • commsengcommseng Posts: 5,466
    Forum Member
    I know we are in a recession, but what is the need for the influx of shopping channels on Freeview? Surely people haven't got the cash to throw around to buy crap?

    Why not use the bandwith for proper channels and programmes or is that not allowed?

    A mate of mine who worked at On Digital many years ago told me that the only channels that were profitable were the porn and shopping channels. I suspect that's why there are so many of them during the recession.
    Horrible to think what that says about us!
  • PrinceOfDenmarkPrinceOfDenmark Posts: 2,761
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I know we are in a recession, but what is the need for the influx of shopping channels on Freeview? Surely people haven't got the cash to throw around to buy crap?

    Why not use the bandwith for proper channels and programmes or is that not allowed?

    I find it annoying too. As far as I understand it the taxpayer bore the cost of the DSO, and it just seems to have become a portal for people to try to flog us crap.
  • MiresiaVertetaMiresiaVerteta Posts: 1,242
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Surely the public should have a say what they want if we are funding this? Why not 50% the CEOs and people in charge, 50% us?
  • technologisttechnologist Posts: 13,334
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    When Freeview started there was not many broadcasters wanting to be on the UK DTT platform -other than some Shopping channels - which got a few of them (with low LCNs) ...
    but it is a commercial platform - get your licence from OFCOM talk nicely to the Mux operators and others and when a slot becomes available buy your slot at about £6 per bit per year ...

    so if shopping get the income they can afford the prices!

    What is on the UK DTT platform is nothing to do with freeview or any central organisation.

    While the BBC (hence LF payers) paid for the digital help scheme - the cost of DSO was borne by the agreements with the mux owners C&M and transmitter services companies which each broadcasters has negotiated with for"carriage"
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,345
    Forum Member
    What influx? All the usual "proper" channels for the last few years are still there in the same number.

    There may be more turnover of shopping channels but there aren't actually more of them filling up the bandwidth. Quite a lot of shopping channels broadcast for only a few hours per day and share their time with other channels, so whilst there may be more individual shopping channel numbers on the guide, they're not actually using more space.
  • soulboy77soulboy77 Posts: 24,396
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Many broadcasters sub-let off peak space to shopping channels which means they don't have to invest in programming for that time period.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 199
    Forum Member
    I know we are in a recession, but what is the need for the influx of shopping channels on Freeview? Surely people haven't got the cash to throw around to buy crap?

    Why not use the bandwith for proper channels and programmes or is that not allowed?

    And what's with those tity channels, a complete waste of bandwidth!
  • PrinceOfDenmarkPrinceOfDenmark Posts: 2,761
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    311059 wrote: »
    And what's with those tity channels, a complete waste of bandwidth!

    Who on earth are the numpties who still pay for that stuff given that the internet is chock full of it for free?
    (so I'm told :D)
  • Tony RichardsTony Richards Posts: 5,742
    Forum Member
    Let's get real - given the cost of putting channels on Freeview there is little incentive for FTA entertainment channels; otherwise there would be more on the platform.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 736
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    If shopping and porn channels are on Freeview it's because large numbers of ordinary people want them and are buying the products.

    It's a kind of democracy and no-one is forced to watch them.

    And if they are subsidising more "worthy" but less profitable stuff shouldn't we be thanking them?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 867
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It may seem unfair but with the cost etc. only shopping and dodgy adult services seem to really make any money out of the freeview set up. Added to this as noted most of them timeshare space and the handful that do run most of the day are the big well known services.

    I must admit I don't think it's fair when there could be space for a couple more real channels but it is so expensive to get on freeview that it puts off alot of companies who may not get much return for their outlay.

    When freeview started, as noted above, there where not that many companies who wanted in so space was sold off to anyone who would pay and those services that make a profit will stay put even if it does drive you batty.
  • PrinceOfDenmarkPrinceOfDenmark Posts: 2,761
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Fairness wrote: »
    If shopping and porn channels are on Freeview it's because large numbers of ordinary people want them and are buying the products.

    It's a kind of democracy and no-one is forced to watch them.

    And if they are subsidising more "worthy" but less profitable stuff shouldn't we be thanking them?

    It's an odd form of democracy. Just because a small number of people make them profitable enough to be viable certainly doesn't mean that significant numbers of people want them.
  • technologisttechnologist Posts: 13,334
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Fairness wrote: »
    If shopping and porn channels are on Freeview it's because large numbers of ordinary people want them and are buying the products.

    It's a kind of democracy and no-one is forced to watch them.

    And if they are subsidising more "worthy" but less profitable stuff shouldn't we be thanking them?

    As Others have pointed out - and I ought to have earlier - the Adult channels and some shopping use time when other channels do not want to broadcast and thus sub let the capacity -

    so they are not taking up bit rate that others want to use.

    One is tempted to say that these Time exclusive services make the platform more efficient. ... and by providing income for that channel slot make it cheaper for a Normal Day/Peak time channel to transmit
  • tghe-retfordtghe-retford Posts: 26,449
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's an odd form of democracy. Just because a small number of people make them profitable enough to be viable certainly doesn't mean that significant numbers of people want them.
    But on the other hand, free market capitalism suggests that if they were unpopular and people stopped buying from them or calling them, they won't afford the carriage costs and cannot continue to broadcast. Clearly that cannot be the case. In the case of the "babe" channels, they're probably subsidising the cost of carriage of a free-to-air channel (including ironically, a shopping channel!).

    The only way you'll get rid of these channels is vote for a political party who wins the 2015 election that has a policy of axing Ofcom (a free market capitalist media regulator) for a media regulator who tightly controls the media platforms it licences or a coup who overthrows the current Government but would likely draw International condemnation. You could always write to your MP of course as a start.
  • PrinceOfDenmarkPrinceOfDenmark Posts: 2,761
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    But on the other hand, free market capitalism suggests that if they were unpopular and people stopped buying from them or calling them, they won't afford the carriage costs and cannot continue to broadcast. Clearly that cannot be the case. In the case of the "babe" channels, they're probably subsidising the cost of carriage of a free-to-air channel (including ironically, a shopping channel!).

    The only way you'll get rid of these channels is vote for a political party who wins the 2015 election that has a policy of axing Ofcom (a free market capitalist media regulator) for a media regulator who tightly controls the media platforms it licences or a coup who overthrows the current Government but would likely draw International condemnation. You could always write to your MP of course as a start.

    Aye - the market is all that's important these days. I should just be grateful we still have the BBC I guess.
  • AngusMastAngusMast Posts: 5,153
    Forum Member
    It's an odd form of democracy. Just because a small number of people make them profitable enough to be viable certainly doesn't mean that significant numbers of people want them.

    That sounds just like what we call democracy :D
  • gomezzgomezz Posts: 44,517
    Forum Member
    On the other hand there is only so much quality programming worth watching and hours in the day to watch them in. Replacing shopping channels won't change that.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,139
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If it isn't shopping and porn it's pointless catch-up channels
  • freetoview33freetoview33 Posts: 2,921
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Well a new UKTV channel is launching in the new year. If there is space going and the only deal that can be made with a shopping channel than so be it! It is just better than watching a blank screen!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,139
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Well a new UKTV channel is launching in the new year. If there is space going and the only deal that can be made with a shopping channel than so be it! It is just better than watching a blank screen!

    Can't agree, I've deleted all the shopping, porn, text etc channels

    Never watch them so no point in them being in my epg
  • cnbcwatchercnbcwatcher Posts: 56,681
    Forum Member
    Who on earth are the numpties who still pay for that stuff given that the internet is chock full of it for free?
    (so I'm told :D)

    Sad losers with nothing better do in their lives I suppose :p
  • leicslad45leicslad45 Posts: 299
    Forum Member
    I know we are in a recession, but what is the need for the influx of shopping channels on Freeview? Surely people haven't got the cash to throw around to buy crap?

    Why not use the bandwith for proper channels and programmes or is that not allowed?
    I have asked that question myself. Surely there are more channels that could be on in their place.
  • CocaColaCocaCola Posts: 463
    Forum Member
    It's not hard to work out... who ever offers the most money gets the slot.
  • cnbcwatchercnbcwatcher Posts: 56,681
    Forum Member
    leicslad45 wrote: »
    I have asked that question myself. Surely there are more channels that could be on in their place.

    CNBC could join Freeview if some of the shopping channels left! :D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 736
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    soundstory wrote: »
    Can't agree, I've deleted all the shopping, porn, text etc channels

    Never watch them so no point in them being in my epg

    Good for you. If only other people who complain about porn/shopping/God/propaganda channels had the sense to do the same.
Sign In or Register to comment.