|
||||||||
do freesat care? do humax? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: hull
Posts: 21
|
Quote:
In that case it should be put down now before too much more money is wasted on it.
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. so in otherwords its pointless buying a freesat hd box if you want hd content buy a freeview hd box when possible give satellite a few more years when Mr Murdoch has taken over the media world completely.Blessings be upon him |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 66
|
Quote:
You could of corrected it instead of quoting the error!
I can't correct other peoples replies. |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Brackley, UK
Posts: 16,657
|
Quote:
so in otherwords its pointless buying a freesat hd box if you want hd content
Freeview has limited space available to it so if/when HD becomes the expected standard Freesat will be sitting pretty. Until then I think all it can be is a sticking paster solution for the minority of people who can't get the proper thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Nottinghamshire
Posts: 1,233
|
Quote:
You could have corrected it?
I can't correct other peoples replies. |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 55
|
Quote:
Well the number one problem stopping that Colonel in my opinion is Freesat's positioning in the market place - its just a inferior version of Freeview right now - inferior in content and inferior in PQ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 237
|
Quote:
Inferior in picture quality ...... really ?? ..... perhaps its your equipment that is at fault then because the picture quality I get on freesat is definitely better than that on Freeview.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Redditch Worcs
Posts: 17,289
|
Quote:
ITV1 is one of the channels that has a much smaller picture resolution on Freesat compared to Freeview I'm afraid. And it is very noticeable on my 42" plasma- so much so, that if there is a good film or program on that channel, I tend to switch over to my plasma's built in Freeview instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,699
|
Quote:
For the moment, perhaps. I do think though that if Freesat survives long term it will pick up more HD channels.
You can also look at both FreeviewHD and Freesat as complimentary to each other, and there might be no reason not to have both. |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,699
|
Quote:
inferior content can never be considerd to be an alternative
For example: For supper tonight, you can have sausage sandwiches or you can have roast beef & yorkshire pud. The one is still an alternative to the other, more so if you are very hungry and the sausages can be cooked in 15 mins whilst the roast beef will take 3 hours (thus delaying your meal by that time). the perceived value of any alternative is dependant upon circumstances and taste. |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Brackley, UK
Posts: 16,657
|
Quote:
AND the Freeview platform is more limited in bandwidth
Sky has oodles of bandwidth because it has a viewing card and encryption package that means channels can broadcast from Eurobird or any other satellite that hits the UK without having to pay pan-European rights. |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,699
|
Surely bandwidth will always be more constrained on DTT, even allowing for the improvement in compression technologies etc.
But leaving that aside, it is beyond little doubt that currently and into the immediate future DTT is much more bandwidth-constrained than satellite |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
|
Quote:
Surely bandwidth will always be more constrained on DTT, even allowing for the improvement in compression technologies etc.
Quote:
But leaving that aside, it is beyond little doubt that currently and into the immediate future DTT is much more bandwidth-constrained than satellite |
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Sticks
Posts: 3,720
|
I feel like a minority member - I subscribed to sky some years ago just for widescreen content! I'm currenltly on freeview and freesat because I can't justify (not even to myself) paying any more money for the content Sky offer.
If it's a good film, I have the blu ray or dvd. If it's good TV, it was on a free channel. |
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,190
|
Quote:
it all seems to be happening with freeview(hd e.t.c.)and Itv seem to be backing freeview
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,190
|
Quote:
I think one of the problems is advertising. Most of the people I know have never heard of Freesat
Quote:
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tonbridge, Kent
Posts: 2,582
|
Hey everyone, I haven't been here for months and months! Just thought I'd check in to see if anything has changed - nope.
Sadly folks, Freesat isn't what it could have been, and never will be imho. People can say "it was never meant to compete with Sky" til they are blue in the face, but the reality is that it is barely competing with Freeview, let alone Sky. Sky have agressively locked down contracts to prevent many of Freeview's humble but decent channels from appearing on freesat, so the new boys don't stand a hope in hell. And because HD is coming to Freeview after analogue switch off, and iPlayer too, even those advantages will no longer be exclusive. Freesat is the poor man's Freeview, strictly for those who can't pick up a DTT signal. With a heavy heart, I've concluded that Freesat is the new Betamax. I so wish it wasn't so, but that's how it is. But best of luck to all of those still fighting the fight! |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Brackley, UK
Posts: 16,657
|
Quote:
Surely bandwidth will always be more constrained on DTT, even allowing for the improvement in compression technologies etc.
But leaving that aside, it is beyond little doubt that currently and into the immediate future DTT is much more bandwidth-constrained than satellite There's two 'kinds' of bandwidth available from satellite. Some of it nominally only covers the UK(*) - that's Astra 2D. Most of it though covers all of Europe - typically Eurobird at the moment but I think more is coming on stream later this year. If you broadcast FTA (ie;in the clear) from 2D you only have to pay UK broadcast rights. If you broadcast from the other satellites you have to pay pan-European rights. Broadcasting English language content across all of Europe is very expensive - way outside of a free operator's budget. Sky's encryption system gets around this problem because they can claim that cards are only sent to UK postcodes so no-one outside of the UK can decode the transmissions and thus they only have to pay for UK rights even though in some cases all of Europe can pick up the signal. Astra 2D is already over subscribed and that's where Freesat hits a brick wall. They can only carry FTA channels and FTA means Astra 2D and Astra 2D is full. So yeah - tons of capacity on satellite but none that Freesat can use. (*)Okay so with a big dish you can get 2D outside the UK but officially it's UK only. |
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,460
|
Quote:
Astra 2D is already over subscribed and that's where Freesat hits a brick wall. They can only carry FTA channels and FTA means Astra 2D and Astra 2D is full.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,494
|
Quote:
Inferior in picture quality ...... really ?? ..... perhaps its your equipment that is at fault then because the picture quality I get on freesat is definitely better than that on Freeview.
Assuming all of the above to be true, they are positioning Freesat as an inferior product to Freeview (at least in the future market place). Quote:
Sadly folks, Freesat isn't what it could have been, and never will be imho. People can say "it was never meant to compete with Sky" til they are blue in the face, but the reality is that it is barely competing with Freeview, let alone Sky. Sky have agressively locked down contracts to prevent many of Freeview's humble but decent channels from appearing on freesat, so the new boys don't stand a hope in hell. And because HD is coming to Freeview after analogue switch off, and iPlayer too, even those advantages will no longer be exclusive. Freesat is the poor man's Freeview, strictly for those who can't pick up a DTT signal. With a heavy heart, I've concluded that Freesat is the new Betamax. I so wish it wasn't so, but that's how it is. But best of luck to all of those still fighting the fight! |
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 253
|
Quote:
With a heavy heart, I've concluded that Freesat is the new Betamax. I so wish it wasn't so, but that's how it is. But best of luck to all of those still fighting the fight!
Apart from that worse case, hopefully unlikely scenario - If Freesat does go down the same route as Betamax in several years - I will have to polish up the old Tivo.. I bet that will be still going strong.. shame about the single tuner though. Also - remember we would still have all the non freesat channels - it would need a decent upgrade though with a more extended EPG or/and better non freesat recording capability or perhaps hand over some of the source code to the users Who knows what is going to happen.. Patrick |
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Brackley, UK
Posts: 16,657
|
Quote:
As I have stated many times, 2D is not full. There is space on ITV and BBC transponders for other channels including HD.
That would mean it's full then. It is possible to negotiate with existing renters and shoehorn the odd channel in here and there but it's a tight fit. I'd say that Freeview/Freesat are about equivalent in that respect. Shuffle things around, come to agreements and you can get extra channels on both. |
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Redditch Worcs
Posts: 17,289
|
Quote:
So it's not full as long as existing renters let other broadcasters use their capacity?
That would mean it's full then. It is possible to negotiate with existing renters and shoehorn the odd channel in here and there but it's a tight fit. I'd say that Freeview/Freesat are about equivalent in that respect. Shuffle things around, come to agreements and you can get extra channels on both. If I remember correctly 2D has encrypted channels that could be moved to other satellites to make space for fta. |
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
|
Quote:
If I remember correctly 2D has encrypted channels that could be moved to other satellites to make space for fta.
CH4 even have two entire transponders leased on 2D, which they currently sub-lease to other channels - presumably the reason for leasing them in the first place was in anticipation of going FTA, and sub-lease in the meantime. |
|
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,460
|
Quote:
...will in turn reduce the quality below Freeview because of the extra error correction needed to be included in the bandwidth alongside the transmission for satellite.
Quote:
So it's not full as long as existing renters let other broadcasters use their capacity?
That would mean it's full then. It is possible to negotiate with existing renters and shoehorn the odd channel in here and there but it's a tight fit. I'd say that Freeview/Freesat are about equivalent in that respect. Shuffle things around, come to agreements and you can get extra channels on both. |
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Brackley, UK
Posts: 16,657
|
Quote:
Yes, there's plenty of ptoential space available, it's purely a question of negotiation and MONEY.
CH4 even have two entire transponders leased on 2D, which they currently sub-lease to other channels - presumably the reason for leasing them in the first place was in anticipation of going FTA, and sub-lease in the meantime. I don't deny that things could be jiggled around and agreements reached - I know that's happened already. The main point I'm arguing against is the assertion that Freesat has significantly fewer bandwidth problems in the short term than Freesat. The problems seem to be very similar. Bandwidth that Freesat could use is being 'withheld' by other broadcasters. Bandwith that Freeview could use is being 'withheld' by Ofcom in cahoot with telecoms companies. In both cases, agreements between companies, a little common sense (hah) and consideration for the consumer (hah?) would resolve the problem. Hmmm. Although 2D might not be long for this world anyway. Wikipedia says it was launched in 2000 with an expected lifetime of 12 years. Maybe by then IPTV will be viable and no-one will care. Oink, oink, flap, flap
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:20.



