|
||||||||
do freesat care? do humax? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: hull
Posts: 21
|
do freesat care? do humax?
when was the last meaningful channels included?efforts by freesat to follow up on promises to have major channels in the line up seem to have been hollow promises coupled with Humax inability to provide updates verrbal or firmware will put off many people who would like an alternative to the ever present Sky monopoly of all things media.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,699
|
Freesat was not envisaged, and can never be seen, as a direct alternative to Sky. It's really as simple as that. For confirmation of that, this is from the Freesat site: Quote:
freesat was set up to ensure that everyone can access the best of free digital TV, no matter where they live in the UK. freesat is a not-for-profit company owned by the nation's two most popular broadcasters, the BBC and ITV.
http://freesat.co.uk/index.php?page=...13imic7fekrlu3If it's an alternative to anything, then it's an alternative to freesatfromSky, or even an alternative to Freeview. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: hull
Posts: 21
|
Quote:
Freesat was not envisaged, and can never be seen, as a direct alternative to Sky. It's really as simple as that.
For confirmation of that, this is from the Freesat site: http://freesat.co.uk/index.php?page=...13imic7fekrlu3 If it's an alternative to anything, then it's an alternative to freesatfromSky, or even an alternative to Freeview. it all seems to be happening with freeview(hd e.t.c.)and Itv seem to be backing freeview from what has been posted here,so so much for freesat. its been left to die a very slow death |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,494
|
Exactly what I just said in another post.
Making Freeat inferior in content and quality to Freeview is going to kill it. The BBC Trust need to realise, most of the people on Freesat are on it because they envisaged it being a better platform NOT because they can't get Freeview - that's only a small proportion of users. If they want people to desert it in droves they just need to carry on as they are making it inferior. See where it is then when most of the audience disappear and the channels and advertisers follow. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Wales
Posts: 192
|
the trouble is what channels could they add, you can bet sky would put a stop to all that, what we need is channels to come out in support of freesat, like that guy said the other day, when he called for more hd channels to come to freesat, at the moment all freesat has is potential, hopefully the potential will be realised
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Singapore
Posts: 709
|
Quote:
coupled with Humax inability to provide updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Singapore
Posts: 709
|
Quote:
coupled with Humax inability to provide updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 66
|
'concideration'
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,494
|
Quote:
the trouble is what channels could they add, you can bet sky would put a stop to all that, what we need is channels to come out in support of freesat, like that guy said the other day, when he called for more hd channels to come to freesat, at the moment all freesat has is potential, hopefully the potential will be realised
Now if the BBC Trust were to wake up to themselves, realise that people who can't get Freeeview only make up a small proportion of Freesat's audience and that its become something not originally envisaged and were to then decide to take advantage of Freesats bandwidth to position it as a quality alternative to Freeview in terms of PQ and HD content, then both products could sit in the market place and appeal to differing audiences on a cost basis. Freesat would also become attractive to channel providers and advertisers as the quality alternative to Freeview. There's place in the market for both Freeview and Freesat but they need to play both platforms to their strengths. Max Freesat out with HD content, HD channels (obviously beyond their control but subject to channel providers becoming interested, has the potential to carry more HD channels that Freeview) and PQ, and max Freeview out in terms of cheap cost and easy availability. That way Freesat becomes the platform for enthusiasts and those who simply can't get Freeview and Freeview becomes the cheap easy option to suit the masses who aren't bothered about HD content or PQ but just want cheap easy to receive traditional style tv reception. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: St Albans
Posts: 282
|
I think one of the problems is advertising. Most of the people I know have never heard of Freesat, and to be honest if it hadn't been for a newspaper article I wouldn't know myself.
I have seen many large adverts in papers for Freeview, but not a word about Freesat. Is there some rule that forbids BBC & ITV from advertising. Why is nothing ever mentioned during broadcasts? This, I think, would be a perfect opportunity to tell viewers about Freesat. As a viewer of mostly the standard channels, I quickly discovered that Freesat was a cheaper alternative than Sky. I saved £10 every month by coming away from Sky which will pay for the humax HDR before the guarantee expires. There could be a lot of people with sky who only use Sky+ for recording and could save £10 pounds a month if they only knew about Freesat |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Nottinghamshire
Posts: 1,233
|
Quote:
'concideration'
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
|
Quote:
Now if the BBC Trust were to wake up to themselves, realise that people who can't get Freeeview only make up a small proportion of Freesat's audience and that its become something not originally envisaged and were to then decide to take advantage of Freesats bandwidth to position it as a quality alternative to Freeview in terms of PQ and HD content, then both products could sit in the market place and appeal to differing audiences on a cost basis.
The ONLY thing that's gone wrong with Freesat is the ludicrous idea of adding HD on Freeview - there isn't room, and the entire system has been further compromised by doing so. Freeview should have been left SD only, with HD users doing so via Freesat - even though the chances of ever getting much HD in a reasonable time span is pretty slim. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: provided by Google Earth
Posts: 165
|
Quote:
You could have corrected it instead of quoting the error!
![]() I just love forums ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: hull
Posts: 21
|
all the time Sky dictate what channels freesat can and cannot have freesat will always be a nonentity
its not in skys intrest to allow decent channels HD wise to broadcast,thats why freesat will always be limited to bbc hd,itv hd(red button)luxe hd(non-freesat) what use is a hd box with that kind of content? |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dordogne, France
Posts: 15
|
I don't understand this thread. I am perfectly happy with the channels that are available on Freesat. There is so much to watch that I cannot see what more is needed.
My Humax HD box works fine without any problems, as I am sure many do, so why do we need a software update? |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 237
|
Quote:
My Humax HD box works fine without any problems, as I am sure many do, so why do we need a software update?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
|
Quote:
its not in skys intrest to allow decent channels HD wise to broadcast,thats why freesat will always be limited to bbc hd,itv hd(red button)luxe hd(non-freesat)
Luxe HD isn't on Freesat - end of story - Freesat is just an EPG, and Luxe HD isn't on it. It's pretty certain that CH4 HD will appear on Freesat, but no one can predict when, and other channels will appear if and when it's viable. Luxe HD would be an obvious easy one, but I doubt Luxe think it's worth spending an extra £30,000 per year for the small difference it would make. I also doubt that Luxe HD is viable in the first place, it's just completely bizzarre. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Nás na Ríogh
Posts: 793
|
The picture quality of channels on Freesat has nothing to do with Freesat.
If a channel looks bad on Freesat, it looks bad on Sky. In general, they are the exact same feed. I think Channel 5 is the only channel that has a different feed for Freesat. With regards to HD, how are sky holding back HD channels? The channels are the ones that signed up with Sky, did sky put a gun to their heads and force them to sign??? @White Knight Just how do you expect Freesat to "Max Freesat out with HD content"??? Freesat don't own the channels, they cannot force anyone to produce HD channels. Whilst we would love more HD, it boils down to simple economics for each channel. If they think it will be a money spinner, then they will find a way to launch in HD. If not, then they wont. Freesat never said it was an alternative to Freeview. They never said they would have the same channels. They never said that there would be loads of HD. The only area where Freesat have no come through are in the amount of channels they had hoped would be on the EPG. Unfortunatley for them and many channels, the financial crisis has meant this is just not feasible for some and has forced other channels to shut. MJ |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: hull
Posts: 21
|
Quote:
It certainly won't, and Freesat is 'held back' (if that's the right term?) by simple economics and lack of space, nothing to do with Sky.
Luxe HD isn't on Freesat - end of story - Freesat is just an EPG, and Luxe HD isn't on it. It's pretty certain that CH4 HD will appear on Freesat, but no one can predict when, and other channels will appear if and when it's viable. Luxe HD would be an obvious easy one, but I doubt Luxe think it's worth spending an extra £30,000 per year for the small difference it would make. I also doubt that Luxe HD is viable in the first place, it's just completely bizzarre. sky do hold all the cards when it comes to allowing a channel on freesat(if they dont want a channel on freesat economicaly viable or not then it wont be allowed on) simply because sky dictate how much space frresat is allowed on "THEIR" satellites |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
|
Quote:
luxe hd can be viewed only in non-freesat mode if a scan is done
Quote:
sky do hold all the cards when it comes to allowing a channel on freesat(if they dont want a channel on freesat economicaly viable or not then it wont be allowed on) simply because sky dictate how much space frresat is allowed on "THEIR" satellites Any broadcaster is free to lease space and transmit from Astra2/Eurobird, then pay Freesat and Sky for EPG inclusion, with no one commiting commercial suicide by going only on Freesat. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Nás na Ríogh
Posts: 793
|
Quote:
sky do hold all the cards when it comes to allowing a channel on freesat(if they dont want a channel on freesat economicaly viable or not then it wont be allowed on)
simply because sky dictate how much space frresat is allowed on "THEIR" satellites The Astra sats. are owned by SES Astra: http://www.ses-astra.com/business/uk/index.php Eurobird sats are owned by Eutelsat: http://www.eutelsat.com/home/index.html If I wanted to launch a channel on satellite tomorrow, Sky have no say in the matter at all. The only time Sky or Freesat come in to it is if I want my channel on their EPG. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: hull
Posts: 21
|
i think you'll find that sky have more influence than youy think
and to think otherwise is naive sky is like an octopus a tentacle in everything and the power or clout to dictate |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
|
Quote:
i think you'll find that sky have more influence than youy think
and to think otherwise is naive
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Brackley, UK
Posts: 16,657
|
Quote:
Exactly what I just said in another post.
Making Freeat inferior in content and quality to Freeview is going to kill it. The BBC Trust need to realise, most of the people on Freesat are on it because they envisaged it being a better platform NOT because they can't get Freeview - that's only a small proportion of users. Freesat can never compete with Sky content. Sky content is by definition 'premium'. If you want premium content you have to pay more for it. You never get premium content for free otherwise it wouldn't be premium content. I still think that long term Freesat will offer more HD than Freeview but for the next couple of years it remains what it was supposed to be:An alternative for those who can't get the proper 'Free UK TV system'. Once you realise what Freesat is you won't be so dissappointed and in a couple more years you might actually start to see things changing. Maybe. Unless TV over Internet takes off in which case Freesat will vanish and Sky will become a hybrid system. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Brackley, UK
Posts: 16,657
|
Quote:
Luxe HD would be an obvious easy one, but I doubt Luxe think it's worth spending an extra £30,000 per year for the small difference it would make. I also doubt that Luxe HD is viable in the first place, it's just completely bizzarre.
Who would they be targetting on Freesat?
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:20.


when was the last meaningful channels included?

