I didn't note anything constructive in the original post, which said that using "red button services" was "using the Freesat to it's extremes".

I think saying "I use these features - it's essential for me that they work" is slightly more constructive than saying "I don't use these features so I'm happy with the system" - but I think the idea that DS is here for constructive comments is about the silliest thing I've ever heard!

I'm using this forum to vent my frustration that I've bought a £250 box on a BBC advertised service, trying to access licence-free funded broadcasts, and
1) neither the box nor the service are finished, while
2) the only "sensible" alternative is paying Sky £10pm for PVR functionality.

Let's not beat around the bush: Freesat was supposed to free people from needing Sky if all they wanted was the "free" channels - yet one year later, if you want all the content the BBC has to offer, you still need a Sky box.

(There's even less on Freeview - not that we can receive it here - and not that we'll get all the channels in 2011 when it finally arrives!)

Cheers,
David.

Where did you get this idea. Freesat was created as an alternative to Freeview to those who can't currently get or may never get all the freeview services and to offer as near as possible similar services. It does exactly what it says on the can. It's not intended to be a competitor to Sky and apart from Skys ludicrous subscription to use your own recorder a sky box can get more epg channels than a freesat box so it's only Skys own policy that makes a freesat pvr a better option for some.

What BBC transmissions do you need a Sky box to receive ?. I don't believe there is anything on a Sky box that originates from the beeb that is not on a freesat box.

On balance I'm more than happy with the box even though it does have a few niggles mainly (for me) being unable to delete while another recording is taking place, the responsiveness of the EPG at times and the remote in having to be so precise in where you're pointing it.

But to say it's a failure or an unfinshed box or service is a bit harsh. I think it's a great bit of kit allowing you to record TV including HD channels for free. There is a lack of channels especially in HD and I would personally like to see those channels added that are on Freeview (Dave, the Five channels etc) and also C4 HD. But this is nothing to do with Humax or this unit so I don't understand the complaint.

Overall, fantastic value for money (if you consider Sky sub prices) and apart from a few niggles with the machine (which will be sorted out soon - hopefully this year) channel choice is the only real issue for me. The lack of HD is a concern and I don't see that changing any time soon. Even if Luxe HD was added to Freesat mode (which seems unlikely) who wants to watch that? I don't want to watch things just because they are in HD, I want to watch the things I want to watch but in HD.

Red button content that is not sport... eg: concerts.
I have to use the bedroom Freeview TV for them!

You said that you had to have a sky box to get some beeb services not freeview. In any case you will lose these anyway to make space for Freeview HD.

Sky could destroy the freesat market completely if they dropped the £10 a month charge for PVR functions. But seemingly they have been too busy counting the profits to notice this glaring opportunity.

Yes - exactly - BBC broadcasts that you have to have a Sky box to receive!

I've heard a few people on DS claim that Freesat was not supposed to be anything more than a fill in for people who can't receive Freeview. That's nonsense - if that's the case, it has about 3 years left to live!

The problem is that we fund PSB services directly through our licence fee (and indirectly through not charging ITV, Channel 4, and five market rates for the terrestrial spectrum they use - but that's another matter). There needs to be a way to receive all the services we are legally obliged to fund without tying us into Pay-TV.

If the solution isn't Freesat, what is it?

(The truthful answer is that there isn't one at the moment - but I don't think that situation is defensible or sustainable).

Some people were daft enough to think the solution was Freeview - the BBC would like the solution to be Freeview - but with increasing HD content and "interactive" content, it's silly to believe that everything you pay for will be supplied via Freeview. It was never true, and it's getting less true each year!

Cheers,
David.

It was very widely expected in the trade they would drop the Sky+ subscription when Freesat launched, but then PVR's weren't available until LONG!!!! after launch, were in very short supply, and were EXTREMELY expensive - as they were HD ones only.

As it was such a monumental 'cock-up' Sky seemed to decide Freesat was no threat at all, and they didn't bother doing anything about it.

If good quality, reasonably priced, Freesat SD PVR's were available in huge quantities at launch it would have been a different story. A 'pay once record for ever' Sky SD PVR deal would have killed Freesat off pretty well, but in the event there was no need for it

The BBC Red Button MultiScreen service is now only available using a Sky STB. Freesat only provides Sports MultiScreen.

Dan.

Eh? How do you work that out?

There are people living in areas of the UK that won't get Freeview even after DSO. Those are the primary targets of Freesat. It's cheaper to cover them from satellite than it is to extend the existing ground-based transmitter network.

Freesat will be around as a 'sticking plaster' for Freeview for as long as Freeview exists.

Oh and Sky haven't tried to kill off Freesat for the same reason that Ferrari don't try to kill off Ford

Well that statement alone tells me everything. Who turned on the dark.....

Where's the three years come from ?

Yes because Ford would smash them to pulp because there bigger than ferrari ?
Anyway your not comparing ferrari with bleedin sky,
the only comparison is the rip off pricing.

A later prediction of Erasmus, (1466 – 1536), perhaps?

I wish posters would post their sources.

David
Last edited by SWIZZ? : 04-11-2009 at 20:47

Rubbish - analogue reaches 98.5% of the country - digital (Freeview) will reach even further after switch over (more robust signal - look at the reports from post-switchover areas - main problem is too much signal!).

You honestly think they launched Freesat for the tiny proportion of the country who never had TV before Sky came along, will never be served by a terrestrial transmitter, and can have a satellite dish? Do you honestly think that those people who couldn't get any TV in the 1980s but can now get satellite haven't got Sky already (assuming they want TV)?


Freesat isn't only for the people who won't get digital and don't want Sky after 2012 - if it was, it would be cheaper to post those few people DVDs of programmes than provide Freesat just for them!

Cheers,
David.

I have relatives in Cumbria and my parents live in North Wales.Their experience contradicts you. Luckily my folks live in towns and Freeview is fine for them(*) but they know of a lot of people who are facing a relatively poor service after DSO.

The 98.5% you mention is only the PSB channels (around a dozen from what I'm hearing). Okay so some would argue that's enough for anyone but compared to the majority of the country it's poor. Freesat primarily exists to correct that imblance. In creating Freesat it has the ability to be a lot more and clearly there is some awareness of that. Unfortunately at the moment I don't see it being able to capitalise on the opportunity. What with Astra 2D and the general state of free TV in the UK I don't see it getting much better.

Anyway - in a sense we are both right. Freesat doesn't exist to ensure people can still get TV. It does however exist so that everyone has access to roughly the same level of service.

(*)Well actually my parents are going to get a cheap Freesat receiver so that they can still get BBC Normal instead of BBC Wales(**) after DSO

(**) Should really be called BBC WhereTheHellIsMyProgramme judging from my experience.

Showing your ignorance again, analogue is transmitted from hundreds of fill in relay stations, after dso most of these relays will only carry the so called psb mux, that's why Channel 5 was recently moved to the ITV mux to ensure reception after dso.

You also seem to misunderstand what Freesat is and what they do. It's certainly not expensive, Freesat although jointly owned by the BBC and ITV is a ring fenced not for profit company whose only job is to provide an 8 day alternative epg to the sky one but incorporating only freely available channels on any platform (With the possible exception of ITV HD on some receivers). They dont make programmes, they dont transmit anything but the epg, they like Sky don't own any satellites but simply rent space on a single Eurobird 1 transponder to provide the epg.

It's not in any way in competition with Sky (pretty sure if Sky thought it was they would be complaining about unfair competition). The only advantage Freesat really has over Sky is the fact that you can record free channels for free, that's entirely down to Sky's decision to charge a subscription simply to record.

How many more times are people going to post this nonsensical statement?

Anyone deciding at any point what TV services they wish to obtain can (at present, in most locations) make a choice from:

Analogue
Freeview
Freesat
Sky
BT

As such, any potential Sky customer who finds that Freesat provides what they need can use that service rather than Sky.

As such it provides significant competition.

Unless you believe that if Freesat had never started Sky would have exactly the same number of customers as it has now.

..and the second is the fact that they are not SKY!

Very informative summary Graham.

Patrick

Is the sky epg data encrypted or something? I've never really understood why it is separate as surely the Freesat channels could simply use the same (or a subset of) data?

As I understand it, there are a number of FTV channels which could be added to Freesat but are not simply as they have chosen not (or don't want to pay?) to be on the Freesat EPG.

I'm guessing the data is encrypted or something but what is the background on this?

Also, while we're on the subject of those FTV channels why can't we just live with a now/next? Would look a bit pants on the Freesat guide and not exactly obvious perhaps but at least we could access them in Freesat mode so would expand the channels a bit more even if they may not be great channels...

You have missed out a massive user base and a significant factor why freesat's not in competition with Sky. There are hundreds of generic fta satellite tuners available that neither use either the Freesat epg or Sky's. These include single tuner SD and HD non recording and pvr ready models and top of the range boxes offering amazing capabilities including twin tuner DVB-S2 recording (Check out the new Topfield SRP2100). You can buy a pretty good SD fta box that can record to USB for as little as £50.00. Any of these can receive all the freesat SD channels, many of the HD models can also get ITV HD and many in addition support diseqc and usals offering potentially thousands of free TV and Radio stations

Incidentally Sky has more customers now than when freesat launched. Sure some have replaced Sky boxes with Freesat ones, those that have done so for non recording freesat boxes have wasted their money as they have gained precisely nothing.

Nope its not in competition with SKY...

What it adds is choice. For those like me who couldn't justify paying monthly subscriptions for sky+, couldn't see the point then in paying further subscription on top to get HD.

The HDR gave me a choice that I could get some HD content, record as I did with my SKY+ box all for a one off fee. I think there are a few people out there like me.

SKY is there for those who want what it sells and are happy to pay. Over the years I have enjoyed my subscription to SKY for what I wanted out of it but at the price I was happy to pay.

Back to the original point. How can a service like Freesat which other than the hardware doesn't actually sell programs be in competition with a Subsciption service like SKY ?

More SKY is in competition with Virgin and even the BT offering, this is the choice for paying consumers.

There are a few otherwise free channels that are encrypted mainly because there is no space for them on The UK focussed Astra 2D which has a narrow beam. The holders of the broadcast rights for the programmes insist on encrytion to in theory restrict viewing to UK license payers. That's essentially why these channels need a card to view (Apart from contractual obligations). Without such a card even if they were added to the freesat epg you could not view them. There are loads of potential free to air channels (about 99% rubbish) but why would Freesat allow these on the epg without paying the fee to support their inclusion. It's not as simple as just including the data there is the additional support of providing mheg facilities like allowing scheduling of recording from the epg

In addition Sky's approval is required before any channel is added to the Freesat epg to avoid potential confilcts between the two systems

But that kind of person wouldn't be a subscriber in the first place. There probably are some people unfortunate or stupid enough to have subscribed to Sky just for the free channels but I doubt there's very many.

There may also be some people subscribing in order to get the PVR facilities but again I don't think there's very many.

So really it's like saying that a fancy upmarket restaurant is in competition with McDonalds. Anyone who's hungry could be a customer of either but, seriously, it's hardly 'significant' competition.

Some people can. Then again some people can live without the Internet.

I guess if you're happy to pay for a paper-based TV guide and don't record anything then fair enough.

OTOH anyone wanting to record something will have a different view. Some of us remember having to do that back in the 1980s with VCRs and even when PDC came out it was a bit of a pain doing the typing and prone to mistakes.

Even if you're just using your PVR as a disk based version of a VCR the convenience of browsing an electronic EPG and hitting one button to get a recording is worth having. Those of us using the PVR 'properly' to time-shift 99.9% of what we watch are gaining even more.