OFCOM has no durastiction over RTÉ, it is an Irish broadcaster.

Fair enough, but could they not 'persuade' Sky to move transponders? Doesn't bother me anyway as I have a Sky HD box/sub, would be good for Freesat users though.

Don't forget there's more to this than space on 2D. There's also the financial help that Sky are giving C4 and C5 for their HD channels.

ITV being a partner in Freesat was obliged to do something, they'd have looked pretty stupid if they'd put their HD channel on Sky.

C4 and C5 have no financial interest in Freesat and the increase in potential viewers is very small to what they can get on Sky and Virgin (in C4's case).

In Q4 of 2009, Sky were installing 5,300 HD boxes per day compared with 1,600 Freesat unit sales. And of course as we know, many Freesat sales are for additional boxes and integrated TVs in Sky HD homes.

That we all 'assume' they are giving!

I don't believe any of the parties has ever admitted it - but it's certainly seems likely.

I would have thought there would be more advantage in increasing viewer numbers for the modest costs of appearing on the freesat EPG.

The conspiracy theorist in me says Sky is leaning on Five in the same way it's keeping Channel 4 HD off freesat.

The only hint I've seen was the quote from the C4 spokesperson saying


I assume they weren't referring to the £30k EPG slot!!

I think it is a fair bet they get reduced cost or free transponder space, if not actual payment for content from Sky. Moving FTA would therefore involve the costs of leasing an HD transponder and bandwidth. I suspect the "market rate" for this is set in much the same way as sports broadcasting rights are, ie the price paid people willing to pay the most.

Let's not forget that Five is on Freesat because it became FTA only when the BBC allocated them space on one of their transponders.

It was only announced this morning! Transmissions arent expected to start until July, theres plenty of time for the test label to be set up

C4 HD will shortly be on Freeview, and, whilst far from free, is also on Virgin Media.

You are quite right.

I had miss understood this bit from Ofcom

Initially I read that as neither five or channel 4 HD were now going to launch on freeview. That's why my reaction to this has been one of dispair, thinking only BBC and ITV HD would be available other than via sky.

But re reading that rather ambiguous statement suggests after five failed to "resolve it's outstanding issues" that Ofcom offered five's slot to channel 4 / S4C to launch a second channel, which they couldn't do, so it's reverted back to the BBC.

All very confusing.

Yup.

The plan was:

BBC HD
ITV HD
Channel 4 HD

with another slot open to offers (people expected Five to get this).

Five wasn't ready and Channel 4 didn't want to put up a channel like E4, More 4 or Film4 in HD, so the slot now seems to belong to the BBC.

I'm still trying to understand how Sky giving free or reduced cost carriage in return for being encrypted and sky exclusive can be "Fair, Reasonable and non discriminatory" which are the terms under which sky has to operate it's platform.

If they give five HD, and for that matter channel 4 HD reduced or free carriage, then they are discriminating against all the channels who do not get free or reduced carriage.

Ofcom really need to pull their finger out and sort this out and stop this practice.

Yes - the reference is to a second C4 / S4C channel. The channel would have included Film4 and 4 hours of children's programmes from S4C. Presumably, having originally bid for the service, the partners now do not think that the economics stacks up.

The Five service was for peak times only (after 5pm) with off peak being leased out. There are reports that the reason they turned down the licence was a failure to lease out the off-peak hours, which the viability of the service depended upon.

You're trying to apply a rule about something very specific, to the whole platform.

That refers solely to the EPG launch queue. As that queue is closed, they are fulfilling that requirement fully.

What you suggest is a level of control that is simply unreasonable. The deals you describe allow channels to exist on not just Sky, but Freesat and Freeview (and Cable for that matter).

The only rights issue is that C5 aren't prepared to pay the presumably somewhat higher fee for the rights to broadcast to a larger audience.

You mean like every other broadcaster?

It would be crazy to pay rights for all of Europe, assuming you were even able to. 'Somewhat' higher is somewhat of an under exaggeration - what's the population of all of Europe compared to the UK?.

I think Five HD will be a long time coming to Freesat, we've not got Fiver or Five US yet.

There was never any suggestion we would - again it's down to rights issues and money.

So you'd prefer FIVE HD not to broadcast at all rather than be allowed to broadcast to the largest installed base of HD receivers. What an odd attitude.

A very selfish attitude!.

Nigel, have you got anything positive to say?

No.

I would prefer it if sky were not allowed to do sneaky deals to subsidise what are supposed to be free channels to be exclusive to the sky platform, and therefore not recordable for freesat from sky customers.

If we had a level playing field where the broadcaster paid for transmission, encryption and EPG slots as separate items, then five might well have launched five HD FTA, and the money they saved on not paying for encryption would have paid for a freesat EPG slot as well,

I'm not being selfish, I just want ALL viewers, whether subscribers or not to be able to watch AND record what are supposed to be free channels.

The problem is it would have to go on 2D, so either BBC or Sky would have to give up space, and Five would have to be willing to pay for it.

Or perhaps Sky should be ordered to move their encrypted channels because they are preventing free market competition.

Here, here.