Why not? nothing wrong with a VHS recorder, darn sight cheaper than buying a freesat box! !
I am glad you would be happy with a VHS recorder I prefere to use a PVR Freesat or Freeview that I can record 2 channels and Watch another with a 7 day EPG so I can select any number of recording's, as for HD thats not my most important need
On the sat front - Not that I always agree with this site but http://www.ukfree.tv/helpme.php?faqid=4875 points out that the terrain limitation is about 98% but this is degraded in Urban areas and people in say flats do not live where they can "see" a Satellite... Hence about 95%....
Why would prefere sky with, a very bad EPG with hundreds of channels you can not get or want without paying and if you DO NOT PAY you cannot record on the sky+ box
But then those who use a Sky box to receive the free channels already have the box, are familiar with the layout of the menus, and don't need to spend money buying a new set top box.
I had sky before they had the 4 main PSB's and it was very bad, People would leave sky if they did not have the 4 main PSB's and that's why sky should pay the 4 main PSB's to be on the sky EPG and yes they should remain FTA.
You say there is no alternative to sky, you may be right at the moment but with Broadband getting better all the time there soon will be, and if you do not want to pay sky there is always Freesat where you can record for FREE and I think the Freesat EPG is a lot better than fsfs
SO yes sky should pay the 4main PSB's to have them on there sky EPG and they should remain FTA
As I have already said I think the 4 main PSB's should remain on the sky epg, but sky should admit the Worth of having these channels and pay for there Worth to be on the sky epg as I beleive they add all the PSB's HD channels in there list of HD channels available
IPTV is a very long way off being a reliable source for TV.
The internet connections need to improve massively before we can rely on it. It is fine if it is the only device using your net connection, but as soon as I started using other devices it created problems.
Sky shouldn't pay for channels to be on their EPG, in the same way none of the other platforms do. But they certainly shouldn't be charging fees like they are doing. The charge to be on EPG is a cost that should be accepted, it is one of the necessary costs.
Sky did quite nicely before and they would do OK without now! It is the BBC / ITV that would lose if they left the EPG and by quite a margin I would have thought, and all this record for free crap, my Mother in Law has FSFS and records 'free' simply does it on a VHS recorder ! and maybe I should get part of my LF back, as this funds freesat, which I do not have !
Use a VHS recorder :eek: No thanks. I prefer to have decent video and sound quality. I don't care about HD but I don't want to have to suffer VHS playback again.
The ONLY reason freesat exists is because Freeview does not cover the UK as it should, so they sunk millions into FS to cover the gaps, had FV worked properly, there would be no FS.
FS is a sort of stop gap, and as it can be rec'd by those that should not really get it, then it also the reason some FV channels do not, and will never appear on FS
I personally think that they should scrap Freeview and just invest money in Freesat. The limitations of the DVB-T system is going to be a problem in the future as we demand a better service.
Why not? nothing wrong with a VHS recorder, darn sight cheaper than buying a freesat box! not everyone is blinded by HD! anyway he did not 'suggest' as such it was his in laws that did it!
Except the grainy picture and poor sound...
I certainly aren't a HD snob but I don't want to go back to relying on VHS to record programmes.
You might like Freesat, personally if it's all I had I would never turn the TV on. It's boring.
The Freesat EPG is probably better than what you'd get without paying Sky - but at what cost to the licence fee payer? How much am I paying for you to use Freesat, as a non-Freesat user?
.
I am glad you are happy not watching any channels that are on Freesat.
To look at your point
How much am I paying for you to use Freesat, as a non-Freesat user?
I would ask how much are people without sky paying for you to Watch the 4 main PSB's on your sky box, as sky charge the 4 main PSB's milions to be on sky, which means people have to pay licence fee money for you to Watch your programmes on sky and as for ITV channel 4 & 5 they could spend the milions they give sky on better programes
which is the whole point of this thread
Sky shouldn't pay for channels to be on their EPG, in the same way none of the other platforms do. But they certainly shouldn't be charging fees like they are doing. The charge to be on EPG is a cost that should be accepted, it is one of the necessary costs.
Well we agree on something, skycertainly shouldn't be charging fees like they are doing
and all this record for free crap, my Mother in Law has FSFS and records 'free' simply does it on a VHS recorder ! and maybe I should get part of my LF back, as this funds freesat, which I do not have !
You can record for free on numerous PVR's that work in the same way as the Sky Plus does of course.
If you want some of your LF back because you don't have freesat, perhaps you should demand some of your Sky Sub back too, as you will be paying for channels you don't use - unless you watch them all of course....
I would ask how much are people without sky paying for you to Watch the 4 main PSB's on your sky box, as sky charge the 4 main PSB's milions to be on sky, which means people have to pay licence fee money for you to Watch your programmes on sky and as for ITV channel 4 & 5 they could spend the milions they give sky on better programes
which is the whole point of this thread
There are 10 million Sky customers (from their annual report), and TV Licensing reports approx. 22 million TV licences issued per year.
Therefore I'd estimate that since approx 50% of licence fee payers are Sky customers, that you're not subsidising Sky viewers at all. We more than pay for the BBC's costs of being on the EPG.
Meanwhile there are 3 million Freesat viewers, apparently. I wonder if they're paying their way, or are Sky or Freeview-only viewers helping subsidise Freesat's costs?
Unless you use all three platforms you are going to be helping pay towards somebody's viewing.
There are 10 million Sky customers (from their annual report), and TV Licensing reports approx. 22 million TV licences issued per year.
Therefore I'd estimate that since approx 50% of licence fee payers are Sky customers, that you're not subsidising Sky viewers at all. We more than pay for the BBC's costs of being on the EPG.
Meanwhile there are 3 million Freesat viewers, apparently. I wonder if they're paying their way, or are Sky or Freeview-only viewers helping subsidise Freesat's costs?
Unless you use all three platforms you are going to be helping pay towards somebody's viewing.
But sky are the only TV Platform that charges million of pounds to be on there TV Platform BT and VIRGIN do not nor do FREESAT or FREEVIEW and once again I do not mean the EPG charges
But sky are the only TV Platform that charges million of pounds to be on there TV Platform BT and VIRGIN do not nor do FREESAT or FREEVIEW and once again I do not mean the EPG charges
BT doesn't charge because BT Vision is Freeview with BT's video on demand service and a couple of other channels tacked on. They can't really charge since they aren't doing anything.
Freesat does charge for channels to be put on their EPG - and Freesat itself is owned by the BBC and ITV and I would assume as owners they are putting their own money into it. That comes out of licence fee payers pockets.
They (and Sky) don't charge for transmission because the BBC does this themselves from space they rent from the satellite owner.
Do the BBC not fund Freeview since they're part of the consortium? They also have to pay to transmit two multiplexes at hundreds(?) of transmitter sites across the country. That isn't cheap.
Virgin subscribers effectively pay to retransmit the BBC. You can't (at least not legitimately) access the BBC on Virgin unless you subscribe. You keep saying that Sky should do this but Sky boxes are usable even if you don't subscribe.
All of the other platforms have some sort of cost to them, not including EPG fees. That's not to say that Sky aren't taking the piss with some of the fees they charge but there is no real reason to be paying the BBC for channels they don't profit from.
But sky are the only TV Platform that charges million of pounds to be on there TV Platform BT and VIRGIN do not nor do FREESAT or FREEVIEW and once again I do not mean the EPG charges
Virgin Media cannot otherwise they probably would.
Virgin Media is in fact the only platform that the BBC do not have to pay anything to on there.
BT don't carry the BBC channels. BT's TV uses the Freeview signal, and offers extra channels over IPTV.
Edit: Moox has already beat me to it. Should read all post before replying
But sky are the only TV Platform that charges million of pounds to be on there TV Platform BT and VIRGIN do not nor do FREESAT or FREEVIEW and once again I do not mean the EPG charges
Sorry, but who do you think actually funds the Freesat and Freeview operations then? Does the BBC appear on them magically through a process of osmosis? Do you really think it costs broadcasters nothing to be on Freesat or Freeview?
The BBC spends over £200m a year on distribution costs. The charges for Sky are only a very minor part of that. Instead of fixating on the £5m Sky charges to be on its platform perhaps you should be asking where the other £195m goes, and whether that is providing value for money?
Sorry, but who do you think actually funds the Freesat and Freeview operations then? Does the BBC appear on them magically through a process of osmosis? Do you really think it costs broadcasters nothing to be on Freesat or Freeview?
The BBC spends over £200m a year on distribution costs. The charges for Sky are only a very minor part of that. Instead of fixating on the £5m Sky charges to be on its platform perhaps you should be asking where the other £195m goes, and whether that is providing value for money?
INSTEAD of querying why they have to pay the £5 million to Sky you mean?;)
INSTEAD of querying why they have to pay the £5 million to Sky you mean?;)
Yep. Sky is small change to the BBC compared to its other distribution costs. That the BBC spends its time bleating about the £5m Sky charges whilst spending another £195m on distribution costs all sounds a bit like political point scoring rather than genuinely trying to reduce costs. Where are the BBCs complaints about the hundreds of millions that the operation of Freeview, Freesat and iPlayer is costing them?
INSTEAD of querying why they have to pay the £5 million to Sky you mean?;)
or why do those that do not have freesat have to pay the BBC to be part of freesat? those that have a skybox, will not I assume have freesat, but they still pay the BBC (LF) for the to run it and be part of it,
so are we saying if transmission on the Sky EPG should be free should those that do not have Freesat get a 25% refund ? We also all pay towards FV, but as every TV has that anyway can't argue the funding from the LF
I read with interest all the posts from sky people, who think Freesat and some of you that also think Freeview should not be there , I too once had sky and if there was only 3 or 4 channels available to the UK puplic then I think a lot more of us would have stayed with sky, But alas digital tv has arrived for the whole of the UK and we can now get well over one hundred channels,
So now there is no need for the 4 main PSB's to give sky millions of pounds so that they can be on a digital Platform,
Sky have done very well out of the 4 main PSB's giving sky millions and milions possibly billions of pounds over the years, BUT now it is time it STOPPED, Well over half the UK puplic do not want sky and further more do not need sky, and with Broadband getting better all the time, There is absolutly no need for the 4 main PSB's to pay sky milions and millions of pounds
I personally think that they should scrap Freeview and just invest money in Freesat. The limitations of the DVB-T system is going to be a problem in the future as we demand a better service.
but there are about 5 time the number of TV Sets receiving DTT than there are for all other platforms....
the UK (unlike many other (european) countries has about 3 to 4 TVs sets per home ... (say 65M in 2M Households) and these are easily connected to DTT - but more difficult to connect to DSAT...
and may not choice come though IP systems ....
Comments
Please provide a link.
I am glad you would be happy with a VHS recorder I prefere to use a PVR Freesat or Freeview that I can record 2 channels and Watch another with a 7 day EPG so I can select any number of recording's, as for HD thats not my most important need
Coverage has been found to be a bit better ....
On the sat front - Not that I always agree with this site but http://www.ukfree.tv/helpme.php?faqid=4875 points out that the terrain limitation is about 98% but this is degraded in Urban areas and people in say flats do not live where they can "see" a Satellite... Hence about 95%....
This shows you what you need to do to add channels to a Sky box.
Adding channels to Freeview is a lot easier, you just set it to do a full retune and it does everything itself.
The internet connections need to improve massively before we can rely on it. It is fine if it is the only device using your net connection, but as soon as I started using other devices it created problems.
Sky shouldn't pay for channels to be on their EPG, in the same way none of the other platforms do. But they certainly shouldn't be charging fees like they are doing. The charge to be on EPG is a cost that should be accepted, it is one of the necessary costs.
I certainly aren't a HD snob but I don't want to go back to relying on VHS to record programmes.
To look at your point
How much am I paying for you to use Freesat, as a non-Freesat user?
I would ask how much are people without sky paying for you to Watch the 4 main PSB's on your sky box, as sky charge the 4 main PSB's milions to be on sky, which means people have to pay licence fee money for you to Watch your programmes on sky and as for ITV channel 4 & 5 they could spend the milions they give sky on better programes
which is the whole point of this thread
You can record for free on numerous PVR's that work in the same way as the Sky Plus does of course.
If you want some of your LF back because you don't have freesat, perhaps you should demand some of your Sky Sub back too, as you will be paying for channels you don't use - unless you watch them all of course....
Except when you do that you can't record, live pause etc. With a Freesat box you buy you can.
There are 10 million Sky customers (from their annual report), and TV Licensing reports approx. 22 million TV licences issued per year.
Therefore I'd estimate that since approx 50% of licence fee payers are Sky customers, that you're not subsidising Sky viewers at all. We more than pay for the BBC's costs of being on the EPG.
Meanwhile there are 3 million Freesat viewers, apparently. I wonder if they're paying their way, or are Sky or Freeview-only viewers helping subsidise Freesat's costs?
Unless you use all three platforms you are going to be helping pay towards somebody's viewing.
BT doesn't charge because BT Vision is Freeview with BT's video on demand service and a couple of other channels tacked on. They can't really charge since they aren't doing anything.
Freesat does charge for channels to be put on their EPG - and Freesat itself is owned by the BBC and ITV and I would assume as owners they are putting their own money into it. That comes out of licence fee payers pockets.
They (and Sky) don't charge for transmission because the BBC does this themselves from space they rent from the satellite owner.
Do the BBC not fund Freeview since they're part of the consortium? They also have to pay to transmit two multiplexes at hundreds(?) of transmitter sites across the country. That isn't cheap.
Virgin subscribers effectively pay to retransmit the BBC. You can't (at least not legitimately) access the BBC on Virgin unless you subscribe. You keep saying that Sky should do this but Sky boxes are usable even if you don't subscribe.
All of the other platforms have some sort of cost to them, not including EPG fees. That's not to say that Sky aren't taking the piss with some of the fees they charge but there is no real reason to be paying the BBC for channels they don't profit from.
Virgin Media is in fact the only platform that the BBC do not have to pay anything to on there.
BT don't carry the BBC channels. BT's TV uses the Freeview signal, and offers extra channels over IPTV.
Edit: Moox has already beat me to it. Should read all post before replying
Sorry, but who do you think actually funds the Freesat and Freeview operations then? Does the BBC appear on them magically through a process of osmosis? Do you really think it costs broadcasters nothing to be on Freesat or Freeview?
The BBC spends over £200m a year on distribution costs. The charges for Sky are only a very minor part of that. Instead of fixating on the £5m Sky charges to be on its platform perhaps you should be asking where the other £195m goes, and whether that is providing value for money?
INSTEAD of querying why they have to pay the £5 million to Sky you mean?;)
Yep. Sky is small change to the BBC compared to its other distribution costs. That the BBC spends its time bleating about the £5m Sky charges whilst spending another £195m on distribution costs all sounds a bit like political point scoring rather than genuinely trying to reduce costs. Where are the BBCs complaints about the hundreds of millions that the operation of Freeview, Freesat and iPlayer is costing them?
or why do those that do not have freesat have to pay the BBC to be part of freesat? those that have a skybox, will not I assume have freesat, but they still pay the BBC (LF) for the to run it and be part of it,
so are we saying if transmission on the Sky EPG should be free should those that do not have Freesat get a 25% refund ? We also all pay towards FV, but as every TV has that anyway can't argue the funding from the LF
So now there is no need for the 4 main PSB's to give sky millions of pounds so that they can be on a digital Platform,
Sky have done very well out of the 4 main PSB's giving sky millions and milions possibly billions of pounds over the years, BUT now it is time it STOPPED, Well over half the UK puplic do not want sky and further more do not need sky, and with Broadband getting better all the time, There is absolutly no need for the 4 main PSB's to pay sky milions and millions of pounds
What are the implicaions for national security if diverse terrestrial transmission is abandoned in favour of a single satellite?
the UK (unlike many other (european) countries has about 3 to 4 TVs sets per home ... (say 65M in 2M Households) and these are easily connected to DTT - but more difficult to connect to DSAT...
and may not choice come though IP systems ....