Apologies, I meant FTA not FTV. True most of them are rubbish but I did spot a film channel or two which may have been OK. Still, point understood.

I don't understand why people must insist on arguing a point that is so obviously incorrect.

It's very, very, simple.

An entity is in competition with another entity if that entity utilises the same finite resource as the other entity.

This is clearly the case with Freesat v Sky.

It may not be significant competition, or important competition, or any other term you choose to use but competition it most certainly is.

It is like saying your local library is in competition with your local bookstore.

One is free and has a limited availability of new titles and very often a long waiting time for them whilst the other costs money, has a wider choice and has earlier availability of choice. Is that competition or provision of two different services?

Competition is when they are offering the same (or very similar) product, which is not really the case with Sky and freesat.

Here is a list of channels on Freesat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...els_on_Freesat

These are the common channels that many many people with and without SKY are happy to watch - if you can live with that list then Freesat is in direct competition to Sky.

I can and therefore SKY don't get my business.


Patrick

Well if the library is next to the book shop and someone wants to read a book that's available in both the library and the book shop, then the book shop could lose a customer, so in that case the library provides competition for the bookshop.

And i am sure that the bookshop would prefer it if the library wasn't there, just as Mr Murdoch would prefer it if freesat wasn't there.

I still fail to see how Sky would be bothered if someone bought a freesat box instead of a Sky box or swapped an existing sky box for a freesat box, in this situation Sky would gain no income anyway even from those using sky boxes. (Who needs that sort of customer). Neither Sky nor Freesat provides the free channels (apart from may be sky News) so the platform used to receive them is not really relevant except to provide meaningless statistics. The broadcasters won't care anyway as provided they have a viewing audience the label on the box used to watch makes no difference

But surely if someone swaps a $ky box for a freesat box then $ky loses a customer ??

They don't lose a paying customer, if the subscriber stopped paying and kept his box (apart from the much mentioned recording) he/she would still have more epg channels than a freesat customer would have (including a few that you cant watch on a freesat box in any mode), a sky box used to watch fta stuff makes no contribution to Sky. Freesat would gain an extra customer but apart from the headline users figure would gain no extra income.

Wouldn't freeview be the same then ?

People don't leave SKY because FREESAT or FREEVIEW offer free channels. They leave because they stop paying and no longer pay the monthly subscribtion.



Oh Tern that augument is vise versa.

Oh I can accept that argument. But if it isn't significant or important then it..um..doesn't matter

Someone moving from Sky to Freesat won't appear as that on a balance sheet. It's just a customer no longer paying the subscription. They come, they go - it's all just churn. Been going on for years and no-one much cares about the why. They just launch a new offer if the churn gets a bit high.

OK, i will rephrase.

If someone chooses to stop their $ky subscriptions in favour of buying a freesat+ box then $ky lose a customer.

And if somebody chooses to get a dish installed and get freesat then $ky fail to gain a customer.

Well, you thought it was important enough to post about.

And I only said 'may' not be considered significant or important.

Anyway, a great many people have interest in a great many things that are not 'important'.

I dare say Murdoch would be an extremely happy man if Freesat and Freeview had never been available as I'm quite sure he would have a lot more customers (particularly as FSFS was such a well kept secret).

Someone moving from Sky to Freesat won't appear as that on a balance sheet. It's just a customer no longer paying the subscription. They come, they go - it's all just churn. Been going on for years and no-one much cares about the why. They just launch a new offer if the churn gets a bit high.[/quote]

Absolutely.

An excellent analogy.

Bookshops rely on customers purchasing books to make their money.

I a person wants to read a book and can make a choice between:

1) A local bookshop
2) Amazon
3) The local library

it's self evident that the library is just as much in competition with the bookshop as is Amazon.

No problem with that but if I dig out the old skybox my son gave me or buy one off fleabay and connect to a spare lnb ouput have sky gained a customer (I used it to line up my dish while waiting for a hdr). I think not they don't even know I have it. This is an option available to anyone who sets up a dish. If Sky would cancell the £10.00 a month recording subscription there would be zero incentive to swap.

That's true (apart from the overloaded up Sky EPG) but it's not really the point as far as the overall question of competition is concerned.

As long as there exist people who can, when deciding on a method of obtaining TV, as part of their decision process, make a choice between subscribing to Sky or getting true Freesat, then Freesat is competition for Sky.


The existence of FSFS is just an irrelevance.

........anyway......5th of November and still no update.

Ae you trying to put a rocket up Humax's ****

I would rather thought it a Roman Candle......

A slow burner....well it's topical.

More like a damp quib really.

I dont think even putting a nuclear bomb up their a*s would get them moving any quicker.

Joking apart i am pretty sure the delay in firmware release is not the fault of humax but rather as a result of the ongoing bbci development

Very happy to wait until they are sure its right, I want it quickly but more importantly, I want it right.

Yes it does seem that way and I can imagine that this has caused far more frustration than most of us have had to deal with.

If I remember correctly I did read (pvrjunction) that the time would be used wisely to maybe have a look at a few more enhancements....so for me I hope they allow me just to plug in a usb drive and have no file limit.

Not sure what you mean about file limit. A FAT32 drive is limited to 4Gb files not by anything Humax has done it's a fundamental limit imposed by the way the file system tracks clusters belonging to individual files. A drive formatted EXT3 can handle massive files.

Correctamondo. You can read about the history of such stuff here is you're inclined or bored http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Al...on_Table#FAT32

Guys - a thought.... may be its done but due to the BBC dragging their feet on the iplayer Beta its not been released ? ( Ok I know that opens up another can of worms but its just a thought ).

Heres another thought, if it works with Iplayer then it should work with at least ITV as they use the same tech.... in fact didnt I see some thing about iPlayer been sold now as a package ?

Terran