I agree. As mentioned it's 2014, and (mostly) everything these days is done in HD. All the facilities are already in place.
HD is the norm as far as filming and distribution goes; it isn't a premium product anymore, although companies like Sky will keep telling customers it is so they can fleece some extra cash from them.
Even Sky will one day realise that they will have to make HD availible at a reasonable price to their base pack subscribers, (thats the basic entertainment stuff not the premium channels!), but then they are looking at 4K so they will always be in a position to charge more for something!
They have close to a monopoly which I made clear in my posts. If Tesco were the only major supermarket and the only place you could buy bread they would have a "virtual" monopoly and this would not be allowed.
EDIT: It's worth pointing out that in the UK if a major company attempts to get more than 25% of the market they will likely be referred to the monopolies commission.
Not really a good example, a better one would be supermarkets all selling bread, but with higher quality only being available in Sainsbury's and Waitrose.
Yes because of their monopoly, that was the point I made, that's the whole point of a monopoly in that no one else sells the same stuff or provides the same service. The problem is with the set up and regulation, I don't blame Sky for this they are just using the system that exists,
HD only really being available on VM and Sky has little to do with what you call their monopolies, the broadcasters could choose to make their channels available via subscription free services if they wish to.
But Freeview and both BT's and TalkTalk's TV services are both crippled by the technology they use. They are both crippled by lack of bandwidth. IPTV services like BT and TalkTalk provide are slowly being improved, but they still rely on your internet connection to provide the channels that aren't available via the Freeview tuner in the boxes, not good if you have a poor (slow) connection.
Streaming HD over the internet requires a very good connection, even my 16mb Sky Broadband doesn't perform that well sometimes.
It's not quite the premium product it was in fact amongst the larger broadcasters it's pretty much the standard.
Only two of the larger commercial broadcasters provide (some of) their HD channels FTA. The BBC as a publicly funded broadcaster are different, unlike commercial broadcasters they are balancing the cost with the return they get.
Commercial broadcasters want to make money, if they did not receive money for the HD channels, which cost more to broadcast, then they would not broadcast their channels in HD at all.
I never disputed that TV companies should be allowed to charge for services just that the problem is if you want Ch5 HD or ITV4 HD you have to pay Sky around £400 a year. To use the supermarket comparison again it's like Tesco being the only supermarket and if you want a loaf of bread you also have to buy a £40 bottle of champagne.
It isn't Sky's fault that the other TV distribution methods can't handle multiple HD channels (if you choose to use Freeview, you can't really complain as it is your choice to use a crippled by design method of TV deliberately) or if the broadcasters use pay TV services to subsidise the cost of having the HD channels in the first place.
This is a poor argument. In a proper market, a company creates a product then another risks capital to make it better, to get in on the action. The consumers then all move en mass to the better product, and the cycle continues again. The only reason Sky can charge for HD, and pay backhanders to ring fence HD, is because the pay TV market in this country has been allowed to act as giant a monoply. If the above argument was correct a section of society would now still be sitting watching mono, 4:3, Black and White TVs while the priviaged few drank from the top table.
Sky (and VM, which people forget...) charge for HD because they can! Broadcasters are forced to put their HD channels behind paywalls, they CHOOSE to!
ITV choose to put their HD channels (except ITV HD) behind paywalls, just as the previous owners of Channel 5 chose to put 5 HD behind a paywall to inflate the sale price of it.
And again Sky DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY... Other providers DO have HD channels. Even BT offer HD channels!
HD will inevitably become the standard, but that time is far off, and even then there will be UHD as the premium product being sold at extra cost too.
And again Sky DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY... Other providers DO have HD channels. Even BT offer HD channels!
You really don't understand what a monopoly is and shouting won't help you. Other companies having limited offerings that do not compete with Sky in any meaningful fashion do not stop Sky being a monopoly.
As I said before in the UK if a firm tries to get more than 25% of market share it is said to have monopoly power, Sky completely exceeds that. Tesco regularly have problems with the competition commission yet their dominance in supermarkets doesn't even begin to approach Sky's in pay TV.
Sky (and VM, which people forget...) charge for HD because they can! Broadcasters are forced to put their HD channels behind paywalls, they CHOOSE to!
.
So they do it because 'they can'! This is morally wrong and should be prohibited. As a previous subscriber said, it is simply another of Sky's money making rackets and the reason I dumped them earlier this year.
So they do it because 'they can'! This is morally wrong and should be prohibited. As a previous subscriber said, it is simply another of Sky's money making rackets and the reason I dumped them earlier this year.
Hang on, charging more for a better product if morally wrong...
I must ring ASUS up and complain that I paid more for the 10" Tablet I bought than I would have to for the 7" model...
If you want HD pay for it, if you aren't prepared to pay for it STFU. When I used Freesat and Freeview for my viewing and I wanted more, I had to pay more, that is how it works.
If you want HD pay for it, if you aren't prepared to pay for it STFU. When I used Freesat and Freeview for my viewing and I wanted more, I had to pay more, that is how it works.
This is a forum and the whole point of a forum is that people don't STFU just because they disagree with you.
The problem (from my point of view) is not that you have to pay for services but the lack of choice because of Sky's monopoly means for instance if I want to watch cycling in HD on ITV4 I have to pay Sky around £400 a year for the privilege because I have to purchase a lot of other channels I don't want. In most other industries this monopoly position would not be allowed and a break up would be enforced.
You really don't understand what a monopoly is and shouting won't help you. Other companies having limited offerings that do not compete with Sky in any meaningful fashion do not stop Sky being a monopoly.
Oh I understand what a monopoly is that is why I can see that Sky does not have one when it comes to HD.
Monopoly
"A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity."
"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products."
Sky is not the only supplier that charges more for HD, Sky have gone from requiring a separate HD package to including them in one of their packages instead (although they have overly complicated it with the stupid names), Virgin Media also charge in the form of requiring their top XL TV package to get the HD channels and BT charges £3 for HD too (and this also requires you to have BT Infinity Fibre Broadband too, at extra cost to the standard Broadband).
As I said before in the UK if a firm tries to get more than 25% of market share it is said to have monopoly power, Sky completely exceeds that. Tesco regularly have problems with the competition commission yet their dominance in supermarkets doesn't even begin to approach Sky's in pay TV.
So what do you want Pay TV providers to do? Stop subsidising the cost of HD channels. That doesn't mean HD channels would remain and simply become FTA.
It certainly wouldn't mean that more HD channels suddenly started popping up on Freeview, since broadcasters already have the choice to put HD channels on Freeview but choose not to because of the cost of doing so.
Sky is going to have an advantage of most other providers because they use Satellite to power their services, which is a superior delivery method compared to DTT and IPTV which the other providers use.
Hang on, charging more for a better product if morally wrong...
I must ring ASUS up and complain that I paid more for the 10" Tablet I bought than I would have to for the 7" model...
If you want HD pay for it, if you aren't prepared to pay for it STFU. When I used Freesat and Freeview for my viewing and I wanted more, I had to pay more, that is how it works.
Wow, unpleasant guy aren't you? Do you work for Sky?
This is a forum and the whole point of a forum is that people don't STFU just because they disagree with you.
The problem (from my point of view) is not that you have to pay for services but the lack of choice because of Sky's monopoly means for instance if I want to watch cycling in HD on ITV4 I have to pay Sky around £400 a year for the privilege because I have to purchase a lot of other channels I don't want. In most other industries this monopoly position would not be allowed and a break up would be enforced.
How are you not getting this? ITV are not forced to put ITV HD behind a pay wall. They choose[/] to, Sky does not force them to do this, neither does Virgin Media force them to have ITV4 HD on the top XL package they provide either.
ITV4 HD not being available free is the fault of ITV, and it very possible that without the money ITV receive from having their HD channels behind pay walls they wouldn't exist at all.
Broadcasting in HD costs a lot of money, and most broadcasters can only justify this cost by getting a return on this cost by locking their channels behind pay walls.
Freeview users need to face reality. It costs far more to broadcast on the DTT platform than it does to broadcast on other platforms, which means Freeview is always going to provide a poorer service compared to the others. This is a consequence of the limited space and technical challenges of broadcasting on DTT.
Personally I see DTT services as being basic TV services, and if you want anything more, such as premium channels or HD, you will have to switch to a platform that can provide these services, such as Satellite, IPTV or Cablle.
Wow, unpleasant guy aren't you? Do you work for Sky?
Nope, although I do pay for Sky. I pay for the product I want to receive rather than complaining that the TV service that I don't pay a penny for isn't providing me with something I want.
In the past I have had Virgin Media, Freesat and Freeview as TV providers, but when I wanted something more I put my hand in my pocket instead of complaining about it not being given to me for free.
Nope, although I do pay for Sky. I pay for the product I want to receive rather than complaining that the TV service that I don't pay a penny for isn't providing me with something I want.
In the past I have had Virgin Media, Freesat and Freeview as TV providers, but when I wanted something more I put my hand in my pocket instead of complaining about it not being given to me for free.
Any Freeview channel which is broadcast in HD should be available as free to air from the Sky platform and not be included in one of their pay to view bundles. At least until such time as they become available on Freeview or Freesat, which they inevitably will.
It certainly wouldn't mean that more HD channels suddenly started popping up on Freeview, since broadcasters already have the choice to put HD channels on Freeview but choose not to because of the cost of doing so.
Here's the industry view:
pay TV platforms pay millions every year to keep HD channels off free-to-air
That's from Charles Constable, Managing Director of Digital Platforms at Arqiva. In short, HD channels are being paid not to be Freeview.
Looking at carriage contracts, with the exception of Film4HD which originally launched on Virgin Media first, it is Sky who has been the other party in carriage contracts keeping HD channels off Freeview.
For many Sky is the monopoly supplier of particular channels, as Virgin Media isn't available everywhere, and suitable broadband speeds for BT/TalkTalk's offering isn't there either. That Sky has a dominant and potentially anti-competitive position in its market is the view of the relevant competition authorities and Ofcom, otherwise there wouldn't have been restrictions and regulations that limit Sky's presence on Freeview, Sky's role in sports channel wholesale deals and why Sky's business dealings are under constant scrutiny. While Sky uses its position to limit the supply of HD channels on other platforms, BT is using its position to limit supply of its sports channels on other platforms as both operators jockey for dominance. (Keeping the likes of ITV4HD off Freeview also means BT YouView viewers can't get the service). Neither is ideal for the consumer; Virgin Media is now complaining about spiralling costs that it has to pay and pass on to consumers, and all of this will keep the relevant authorities busy in the coming years.
Darren Childs, the boss at UKTV stated in September that
"the [pay-TV] platforms are having to make big choices about where they’re investing,” he said. “We’ve got the benefit of scale. Some of the smaller niche players are going to struggle.”
He was talking about the prospect of fewer TV channels being available to UK viewers in the future. What we have seen is that Sky has moved away from supporting smaller SD channels, and I suspect this might have contributed to the Box Music channels going free-to-air in 2013 and the reduction of channels available free-to-view rather than free-to-air on what was known as 'freesat from sky', as Sky moves to spending money on supporting HD channels.
Any Freeview channel which is broadcast in HD should be available as free to air from the Sky platform and not be included in one of their pay to view bundles. At least until such time as they become available on Freeview or Freesat, which they inevitably will.
Then most of the HD channels would not exist. Again, the broadcaster themselves choose to add the HD channels to pay TV services, to offset the cost of launching them.
Other than the PSB channels; ITV(1), Channel 4, Channel 5 and all BBC channels, which are required to be freely available without subscription, there is no obligation for any other channel to be FTA.
Only the SD channels are classed as PSB channels anyway, so the HD versions of ITV(1), Channel 4 and Channel 5 are not classed as PSB so can be put behind paywalls if they choose to, as Ch5 has done.
There are only 4 broadcasters that have channels that are available in SD for free, but require you to pay for the HD channels, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and UKTV.
ITV & Ch4 having 3 such channels each, with Ch5 & UKTV having 1 such channel each.
But Ch4 also has HD channels on Freeview that are not available on Sky, Ch4+1HD and 4SevenHD.
Then most of the HD channels would not exist. Again, the broadcaster themselves choose to add the HD channels to pay TV services, to offset the cost of launching them.
Other than the PSB channels; ITV(1), Channel 4, Channel 5 and all BBC channels, which are required to be freely available without subscription, there is no obligation for any other channel to be FTA.
Only the SD channels are classed as PSB channels anyway, so the HD versions of ITV(1), Channel 4 and Channel 5 are not classed as PSB so can be put behind paywalls if they choose to, as Ch5 has done.
That's from Charles Constable, Managing Director of Digital Platforms at Arqiva. In short, HD channels are being paid not to be Freeview.
Looking at carriage contracts, with the exception of Film4HD which originally launched on Virgin Media first, it is Sky who has been the other party in carriage contracts keeping HD channels off Freeview.
For many Sky is the monopoly supplier of particular channels, as Virgin Media isn't available everywhere, and suitable broadband speeds for BT/TalkTalk's offering isn't there either. That Sky has a dominant and potentially anti-competitive position in its market is the view of the relevant competition authorities and Ofcom, otherwise there wouldn't have been restrictions and regulations that limit Sky's presence on Freeview, Sky's role in sports channel wholesale deals and why Sky's business dealings are under constant scrutiny. While Sky uses its position to limit the supply of HD channels on other platforms, BT is using its position to limit supply of its sports channels on other platforms as both operators jockey for dominance. (Keeping the likes of ITV4HD off Freeview also means BT YouView viewers can't get the service). Neither is ideal for the consumer; Virgin Media is not complaining about spiralling costs that it has to pay and pass on to consumers, and all of this will keep the relevant authorities busy in the coming years.
That's from Charles Constable, Managing Director of Digital Platforms at Arqiva. In short, HD channels are being paid not to be Freeview.
Why am I not surprised that someone with a vested interest is the one complaining...
This is a bit like Murdoch complaining about the BBC, it is done for personal gain.
Charles will of course say it is Sky's fault that the broadcasters aren't launching their HD channels on Freeview instead of blaming the high costs of Freeview, because it is in his own interests to do so.
Looking at carriage contracts, with the exception of Film4HD which originally launched on Virgin Media first, it is Sky who has been the other party in carriage contracts keeping HD channels off Freeview.
Which has aided the creation of a lot of HD channels that would not have existed otherwise. It was in Sky's interests to increase the number of HD channels available via their platform as they were at the time selling Sky as a big HD provider.
They may be in Exclusivity contracts at first, but once they end then it is up to the broadcaster which platforms they broadcast on, in ITV's case they decided to put them on VM too, but decided not to make them available on Freeview or FTA satellite.
For many Sky is the monopoly supplier of particular channels, as Virgin Media isn't available everywhere, and suitable broadband speeds for BT/TalkTalk's offering isn't there either. That Sky has a dominant and potentially anti-competitive position in its market is the view of the relevant competition authorities and Ofcom, otherwise there wouldn't have been restrictions and regulations that limit Sky's presence on Freeview.
I accept that Sky are in a dominant position, but that is not entirely their own fault.
By utilising Satellite as their delivery method, their services are widely available.
Other providers having restrictions on their services because of the constraints of the particular delivery method they use is not Sky's fault.
In the future, as IPTV continues to improve as does the broadband infrastructure, IPTV will likely start to compete with Sky more, but for now it can't.
Sky's role in sports channel wholesale deals and why Sky's business dealings are under constant scrutiny. While Sky uses its position to limit the supply of HD channels on other platforms, BT is using its position to limit supply of its sports channels on other platforms as both operators jockey for dominance. (Keeping the likes of ITV4HD off Freeview also means BT YouView viewers can't get the service). Neither is ideal for the consumer; Virgin Media is now complaining about spiralling costs that it has to pay and pass on to consumers, and all of this will keep the relevant authorities busy in the coming years.
Now this is something where I agree something does need to change, I believe Sky the TV Platform, and Sky the broadcaster, should be separated.
With other platforms treated the same by Sky the broadcaster as Sky the Platform does, and vice versa. The same applying to BT now they have entered in to the broadcasting market with BT Sport.
Why am I not surprised that someone with a vested interest is the one complaining...
This is a bit like Murdoch complaining about the BBC, it is done for personal gain.
Charles will of course say it is Sky's fault that the broadcasters aren't launching their HD channels on Freeview instead of blaming the high costs of Freeview, because it is in his own interests to do so..
Charles Constable will be fully aware of the situation which led to Channel 5 HD rejecting its Freeview slot within days of signing up with Sky. And as much as some forum members do object to 6 HD channels per multiplex, it does bring down the cost for commercial broadcasters - but services will be still restricted until existing carriage contracts end. I suspect if the carriage fee for C4 is reduced (ongoing spat between C4 and Sky; only BBC and ITV have had their bills reduced), the money C4 loses by making the likes of Film4HD fta is cancelled out by a reduction in the overall carriage fee (also technically incorrectly called retransmission fees).
The wider context of his statement shows it wasn't actually a complaint:
Some people pour cold water on HD saying consumers only notice when it’s sports programming, but the fact that pay TV platforms pay millions every year to keep HD channels off free-to-air, reveals HD’s importance. I think this will only increase as 4K sets and audiences’ seamlessly endless appetite for larger screen sizes continues, particularly with the World Cup.
So what do you want Pay TV providers to do? Stop subsidising the cost of HD channels. That doesn't mean HD channels would remain and simply become FTA.
Pay TV providers do not subsidise the cost of HD, even with Sky channels you pay more for the slight extra cost. Yes companies like Ch5 will take the extra revenue from Sky while they can that does not mean they would remove the channels without that, they wouldn't.
The individual channels themselves can do little because of Sky's monopoly position, that's why in other industries the rules of monopoly are applied.
Oh I understand what a monopoly is that is why I can see that Sky does not have one when it comes to HD.
Monopoly
"A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity."
"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products."
In the UK a firm is said to have monopoly power if it has more than 25% of the market share. For example, Tesco @30% market share or Google 90% of search engine traffic.
The simple fact is that by any normal economic standards Sky are in a monopoly position for pay TV. I could understand you saying this is a good thing though I would very much disagree but cannot understand why you keep saying it isn't, you just can't let go even when you must know you are wrong.
Now this is something where I agree something does need to change, I believe Sky the TV Platform, and Sky the broadcaster, should be separated.
With other platforms treated the same by Sky the broadcaster as Sky the Platform does, and vice versa. The same applying to BT now they have entered in to the broadcasting market with BT Sport.
Well we agree on this, that's the main point of my argument and is something that only legislation can sort out.
Oh I understand what a monopoly is that is why I can see that Sky does not have one when it comes to HD.
Monopoly
"A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity."
"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products."
Sky is not the only supplier that charges more for HD, Sky have gone from requiring a separate HD package to including them in one of their packages instead (although they have overly complicated it with the stupid names), Virgin Media also charge in the form of requiring their top XL TV package to get the HD channels and BT charges £3 for HD too (and this also requires you to have BT Infinity Fibre Broadband too, at extra cost to the standard Broadband).
So what do you want Pay TV providers to do? Stop subsidising the cost of HD channels. That doesn't mean HD channels would remain and simply become FTA.
It certainly wouldn't mean that more HD channels suddenly started popping up on Freeview, since broadcasters already have the choice to put HD channels on Freeview but choose not to because of the cost of doing so.
Sky is going to have an advantage of most other providers because they use Satellite to power their services, which is a superior delivery method compared to DTT and IPTV which the other providers use.
HA I think you forget there is some parts of the UK that nether Virgin or YouView can reach due to the fact there is no fibre broadband or no Virgin network, yes there may be a few places that Sky doesnt reach too, but Sky certainly are available in a lot of areas that the other two cant be!
So he is right that they have a technical monopoly in those areas! They also monopolize pay TV via satellite in this country, if there was another satellite pay TV provider there woudnt be this argument of monopoly!
Whats needed is a new satellite pay TV provider to launch and the government put all halts on Sky ether buying them out or restricting their business, until they are big enough then they can compete, but Sky still cant ever buy them out!
Comments
Even Sky will one day realise that they will have to make HD availible at a reasonable price to their base pack subscribers, (thats the basic entertainment stuff not the premium channels!), but then they are looking at 4K so they will always be in a position to charge more for something!
HD only really being available on VM and Sky has little to do with what you call their monopolies, the broadcasters could choose to make their channels available via subscription free services if they wish to.
But Freeview and both BT's and TalkTalk's TV services are both crippled by the technology they use. They are both crippled by lack of bandwidth. IPTV services like BT and TalkTalk provide are slowly being improved, but they still rely on your internet connection to provide the channels that aren't available via the Freeview tuner in the boxes, not good if you have a poor (slow) connection.
Streaming HD over the internet requires a very good connection, even my 16mb Sky Broadband doesn't perform that well sometimes.
Only two of the larger commercial broadcasters provide (some of) their HD channels FTA. The BBC as a publicly funded broadcaster are different, unlike commercial broadcasters they are balancing the cost with the return they get.
Commercial broadcasters want to make money, if they did not receive money for the HD channels, which cost more to broadcast, then they would not broadcast their channels in HD at all.
It isn't Sky's fault that the other TV distribution methods can't handle multiple HD channels (if you choose to use Freeview, you can't really complain as it is your choice to use a crippled by design method of TV deliberately) or if the broadcasters use pay TV services to subsidise the cost of having the HD channels in the first place.
ITV choose to put their HD channels (except ITV HD) behind paywalls, just as the previous owners of Channel 5 chose to put 5 HD behind a paywall to inflate the sale price of it.
And again Sky DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY... Other providers DO have HD channels. Even BT offer HD channels!
HD will inevitably become the standard, but that time is far off, and even then there will be UHD as the premium product being sold at extra cost too.
You really don't understand what a monopoly is and shouting won't help you. Other companies having limited offerings that do not compete with Sky in any meaningful fashion do not stop Sky being a monopoly.
As I said before in the UK if a firm tries to get more than 25% of market share it is said to have monopoly power, Sky completely exceeds that. Tesco regularly have problems with the competition commission yet their dominance in supermarkets doesn't even begin to approach Sky's in pay TV.
So they do it because 'they can'! This is morally wrong and should be prohibited. As a previous subscriber said, it is simply another of Sky's money making rackets and the reason I dumped them earlier this year.
I must ring ASUS up and complain that I paid more for the 10" Tablet I bought than I would have to for the 7" model...
If you want HD pay for it, if you aren't prepared to pay for it STFU. When I used Freesat and Freeview for my viewing and I wanted more, I had to pay more, that is how it works.
This is a forum and the whole point of a forum is that people don't STFU just because they disagree with you.
The problem (from my point of view) is not that you have to pay for services but the lack of choice because of Sky's monopoly means for instance if I want to watch cycling in HD on ITV4 I have to pay Sky around £400 a year for the privilege because I have to purchase a lot of other channels I don't want. In most other industries this monopoly position would not be allowed and a break up would be enforced.
Monopoly
"A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity."
"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products."
Sky is not the only supplier that charges more for HD, Sky have gone from requiring a separate HD package to including them in one of their packages instead (although they have overly complicated it with the stupid names), Virgin Media also charge in the form of requiring their top XL TV package to get the HD channels and BT charges £3 for HD too (and this also requires you to have BT Infinity Fibre Broadband too, at extra cost to the standard Broadband).
So what do you want Pay TV providers to do? Stop subsidising the cost of HD channels. That doesn't mean HD channels would remain and simply become FTA.
It certainly wouldn't mean that more HD channels suddenly started popping up on Freeview, since broadcasters already have the choice to put HD channels on Freeview but choose not to because of the cost of doing so.
Sky is going to have an advantage of most other providers because they use Satellite to power their services, which is a superior delivery method compared to DTT and IPTV which the other providers use.
Wow, unpleasant guy aren't you? Do you work for Sky?
How are you not getting this? ITV are not forced to put ITV HD behind a pay wall. They choose[/] to, Sky does not force them to do this, neither does Virgin Media force them to have ITV4 HD on the top XL package they provide either.
ITV4 HD not being available free is the fault of ITV, and it very possible that without the money ITV receive from having their HD channels behind pay walls they wouldn't exist at all.
Broadcasting in HD costs a lot of money, and most broadcasters can only justify this cost by getting a return on this cost by locking their channels behind pay walls.
Freeview users need to face reality. It costs far more to broadcast on the DTT platform than it does to broadcast on other platforms, which means Freeview is always going to provide a poorer service compared to the others. This is a consequence of the limited space and technical challenges of broadcasting on DTT.
Personally I see DTT services as being basic TV services, and if you want anything more, such as premium channels or HD, you will have to switch to a platform that can provide these services, such as Satellite, IPTV or Cablle.
In the past I have had Virgin Media, Freesat and Freeview as TV providers, but when I wanted something more I put my hand in my pocket instead of complaining about it not being given to me for free.
You clearly are missing the point.
Here's the industry view:
That's from Charles Constable, Managing Director of Digital Platforms at Arqiva. In short, HD channels are being paid not to be Freeview.
Looking at carriage contracts, with the exception of Film4HD which originally launched on Virgin Media first, it is Sky who has been the other party in carriage contracts keeping HD channels off Freeview.
For many Sky is the monopoly supplier of particular channels, as Virgin Media isn't available everywhere, and suitable broadband speeds for BT/TalkTalk's offering isn't there either. That Sky has a dominant and potentially anti-competitive position in its market is the view of the relevant competition authorities and Ofcom, otherwise there wouldn't have been restrictions and regulations that limit Sky's presence on Freeview, Sky's role in sports channel wholesale deals and why Sky's business dealings are under constant scrutiny. While Sky uses its position to limit the supply of HD channels on other platforms, BT is using its position to limit supply of its sports channels on other platforms as both operators jockey for dominance. (Keeping the likes of ITV4HD off Freeview also means BT YouView viewers can't get the service). Neither is ideal for the consumer; Virgin Media is now complaining about spiralling costs that it has to pay and pass on to consumers, and all of this will keep the relevant authorities busy in the coming years.
Darren Childs, the boss at UKTV stated in September that
He was talking about the prospect of fewer TV channels being available to UK viewers in the future. What we have seen is that Sky has moved away from supporting smaller SD channels, and I suspect this might have contributed to the Box Music channels going free-to-air in 2013 and the reduction of channels available free-to-view rather than free-to-air on what was known as 'freesat from sky', as Sky moves to spending money on supporting HD channels.
Other than the PSB channels; ITV(1), Channel 4, Channel 5 and all BBC channels, which are required to be freely available without subscription, there is no obligation for any other channel to be FTA.
Only the SD channels are classed as PSB channels anyway, so the HD versions of ITV(1), Channel 4 and Channel 5 are not classed as PSB so can be put behind paywalls if they choose to, as Ch5 has done.
There are only 4 broadcasters that have channels that are available in SD for free, but require you to pay for the HD channels, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and UKTV.
ITV & Ch4 having 3 such channels each, with Ch5 & UKTV having 1 such channel each.
But Ch4 also has HD channels on Freeview that are not available on Sky, Ch4+1HD and 4SevenHD.
Love the movies in the afternoon
That's from Charles Constable, Managing Director of Digital Platforms at Arqiva. In short, HD channels are being paid not to be Freeview.
Looking at carriage contracts, with the exception of Film4HD which originally launched on Virgin Media first, it is Sky who has been the other party in carriage contracts keeping HD channels off Freeview.
For many Sky is the monopoly supplier of particular channels, as Virgin Media isn't available everywhere, and suitable broadband speeds for BT/TalkTalk's offering isn't there either. That Sky has a dominant and potentially anti-competitive position in its market is the view of the relevant competition authorities and Ofcom, otherwise there wouldn't have been restrictions and regulations that limit Sky's presence on Freeview, Sky's role in sports channel wholesale deals and why Sky's business dealings are under constant scrutiny. While Sky uses its position to limit the supply of HD channels on other platforms, BT is using its position to limit supply of its sports channels on other platforms as both operators jockey for dominance. (Keeping the likes of ITV4HD off Freeview also means BT YouView viewers can't get the service). Neither is ideal for the consumer; Virgin Media is not complaining about spiralling costs that it has to pay and pass on to consumers, and all of this will keep the relevant authorities busy in the coming years.
Note the word 'monopoly'!
This is a bit like Murdoch complaining about the BBC, it is done for personal gain.
Charles will of course say it is Sky's fault that the broadcasters aren't launching their HD channels on Freeview instead of blaming the high costs of Freeview, because it is in his own interests to do so.
Which has aided the creation of a lot of HD channels that would not have existed otherwise. It was in Sky's interests to increase the number of HD channels available via their platform as they were at the time selling Sky as a big HD provider.
They may be in Exclusivity contracts at first, but once they end then it is up to the broadcaster which platforms they broadcast on, in ITV's case they decided to put them on VM too, but decided not to make them available on Freeview or FTA satellite.
I accept that Sky are in a dominant position, but that is not entirely their own fault.
By utilising Satellite as their delivery method, their services are widely available.
Other providers having restrictions on their services because of the constraints of the particular delivery method they use is not Sky's fault.
In the future, as IPTV continues to improve as does the broadband infrastructure, IPTV will likely start to compete with Sky more, but for now it can't.
Now this is something where I agree something does need to change, I believe Sky the TV Platform, and Sky the broadcaster, should be separated.
With other platforms treated the same by Sky the broadcaster as Sky the Platform does, and vice versa. The same applying to BT now they have entered in to the broadcasting market with BT Sport.
and the UKs second largest ISP after BT ...
Charles Constable will be fully aware of the situation which led to Channel 5 HD rejecting its Freeview slot within days of signing up with Sky. And as much as some forum members do object to 6 HD channels per multiplex, it does bring down the cost for commercial broadcasters - but services will be still restricted until existing carriage contracts end. I suspect if the carriage fee for C4 is reduced (ongoing spat between C4 and Sky; only BBC and ITV have had their bills reduced), the money C4 loses by making the likes of Film4HD fta is cancelled out by a reduction in the overall carriage fee (also technically incorrectly called retransmission fees).
The wider context of his statement shows it wasn't actually a complaint: http://www.arqiva.com/our-views/spectrum-allocation-and-the-future-of-digital-terrestrial-television/
Pay TV providers do not subsidise the cost of HD, even with Sky channels you pay more for the slight extra cost. Yes companies like Ch5 will take the extra revenue from Sky while they can that does not mean they would remove the channels without that, they wouldn't.
The individual channels themselves can do little because of Sky's monopoly position, that's why in other industries the rules of monopoly are applied.
Oh please, we can all do quotes. http://www.economicshelp.org/microessays/markets/monopoly/
The simple fact is that by any normal economic standards Sky are in a monopoly position for pay TV. I could understand you saying this is a good thing though I would very much disagree but cannot understand why you keep saying it isn't, you just can't let go even when you must know you are wrong.
Well we agree on this, that's the main point of my argument and is something that only legislation can sort out.
HA I think you forget there is some parts of the UK that nether Virgin or YouView can reach due to the fact there is no fibre broadband or no Virgin network, yes there may be a few places that Sky doesnt reach too, but Sky certainly are available in a lot of areas that the other two cant be!
So he is right that they have a technical monopoly in those areas! They also monopolize pay TV via satellite in this country, if there was another satellite pay TV provider there woudnt be this argument of monopoly!
Whats needed is a new satellite pay TV provider to launch and the government put all halts on Sky ether buying them out or restricting their business, until they are big enough then they can compete, but Sky still cant ever buy them out!