Why do Sky keep getting blamed for this one?? They were on 2D first and no-one actually knows if SES require them to have some 2D transponders in case of potential technical failures!

This problem was blindingly obvious when Freesat was being planned - and is the reason that many other countries use some form of encryption for their PSB channels! Of course this is just the thing that the BBC did not want - due to their desire to keep the licence fee!

Because Astra 2D is short of capacity and Sky have it within their ability to do something about it but they don't.

Correction - people here think they can! Based on no knowledge at all of the contracts between Sky and SES!

I responded to a question of why Sky get blamed. Did your response add anything to that? There is no point in saying they shouldn't get blamed because they must have some hidden contract. The fact is they do get blamed.

As well as using an encryption standard that was compatable with sky boxes. What should happen is that freesat should encrypt the NIT tables instead. this would allow the service to be placed on widebeam satellites but only have it work on freesat and Sky boxes.

You're only assuming Sky are subsidisng it - you don't know that.


How could it be on Freesat? (the EPG fee is only peanuts), there's currently no space on 2D.


CH5 HD is launching the ONLY place it can - you gave the impression that you're prefer it not to launch at all if you can't have it free.

2D was the satellite no one wanted, it was the last one launched, and because of the spurious narrow beams (it wasn't ordered to be like that, it was a 'second hand' satellite built for someone else) only the stragglers ended up on there. This mean mainly ITV - because of their crazy decision not to go on satellite earlier - and everyone laughed when they ended up on 2D.

It was only when the BBC negotiated with the rights holders that 2D was 'UK only' that it became desireable. By that time even some of the later subscription channels had moved there as well, due to lack of room elsewhere.

It's not as simple as that, Sky own the leases on the transponders, SES can't just shuffle around channels where they like.

So why can't Sky say shuffle one of the Sky channels off 2D, shuffle back a FTV channel which should be FTA and shuffle the Sky channel into the place the FTV channel freed up?

And why exactly should they do that?

Since the thread was discussing why they get blamed for not doing it then presumably so they no longer got blamed for not doing it!

The cost of an EPG slot is irrelevant compared to the cost of a broadcaster starting up a HD operation.

ITV see freesat as a way to gain more viewing for its channels so its HD channel being free is worth the cost.

Channel 4 and Five don't have this revenue. RTL just wrote off a huge amount for Five and C4 wouldn't be able to get state support so they need private finance.

Setting up on Sky is the only way to one day transmit free to air when new satellite capacity is launched with spare room.
Without the initial investment from Sky and Virgin for Film Four, C4 , E4 or Five the channels wouldn't be in HD at all.

So are you agreeing that it is OK for Sky to keep their FTV channels on 2D when they know that this is preventing channels from going FTA and therefore keeping out competition ?

These channels can't afford broadcast at all without help. Where will they get the millions from to start up?

ITV has been able to justify the cost because freesat gives it a greater captive audience with less channels available.

C4 is owned by the state which won't fund it and the owner of Five has written down the value of Five and won't see any benefit of FTA HD broadcasting considering the cost.

So was that a "yes?"

They're referring to themselves as a Free-to-air broadcaster, which I think is I little generous in this instance.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to start an anti-Sky rant, it's my choice not to subscribe, I'm sure some people find it very worth while, but I do think Ofcom should enforce some kind of rule that PSBs should not be encrypted by a system restricted to a single commercial operator.

Even if it means some kind of additional USB CAM for Freesat boxes or something as a short term measure.

Perhaps the licence fee top slicing should be reinvestigated for supporting C4 and Five with their satellite launches.

All the more reason for it to be stopped making exclusive contracts with a foreign owned for profits company whose principal shareholders are dedicated to the destruction of FTA services from state owned broadcasters. (Read the Dimbleby Lectures by Murdoch pere et fils if you doubt that)

These stations, as well as a public service duty, have a duty to the public in not restricting their access to services they own.


The Murdoch's already provide Five with a UK version of Fox News (called that because it focks news) via Sky's facilities. That jawdropping dreadful show with Ian Wright counts as "News Content" towards their public service obligations.

RTL are shortsighted as surely if people do want to see the HD versions of their US imports - which are let's face it their best quality programmes - they will take the Sky package that shows them before Five get them "secondhand". It's not benefit from having HD they ought to be worried about, it's the benefit of not having their advertising income nosedive because they do not have it.

Well, regarding Five, their FTV channels are on their own transponder so they can't just swap with channels on Sky's transponders. Regarding HD channels, it would require a S2 transponder on 2D, which may be happening, see here.

I hope so. It would be nice to get an unbiased view of all the information. It does make commercial sense for Sky to try to protect their revenue but then I never could work out why they did things like put Sky channels on Freeview which you couldn't get on Freesatfromsky. At the risk of getting sniped at by one of the multi-thousand posters for using the wrong example, I think the example I am thinking of was Sky Travel. I remember asking Sky why I couldn't get it on FSFS and they said that they saw it as a subscription only channel. I replied that it couldn't be a subscription only channel because it was free on Freeview. They later replaced it on Freeview with Sky 3 which you can get on FSFS. Similarly I can't understand why Sky want Sky News on Freeview but not on the Freesat EPG. Surely Freeview is a much bigger competitor to them than Freesat.

By the way, sorry to all for being grumpy today!!

Where would the justification be? Sky were there first. I believe they were the only ones interested in Astra 2D at the time. Arguably Sky have been doing the industry a favour by finding a use for a second-rate satellite and avoiding cluttering up a more useful satellite.

Freesat must have known about the capacity issues when they launched. If they didn't then they don't deserve to be in the business. It's no use crying to Ofcom. Sky has every right to refuse to do anything thing or at least demand that these newcomers underwrite the venture.

Basically:Sky was doing perfectly well minding it's own business and now some Jonny-come-lately wants to barge in and start rearranging everything. Get real.

To be in ten million homes with Freeview as the main platform and millions of other homes on additional sets in the house, with the benefit of every ad break having promos for pay content.

Versus the majority of Freesat customers who seem to be Sky haters!!

The majority of Sky's new subscribers come from Freeview households, surely?

Even if Astra 2D had a free slot Five doesn't have the money to invest in HD. Even Ofcom is giving its slot to the BBC because of this issue despite it having a slot for Freeview HD.

It's owner just wrote off over £100 million. What financial benefit is there for them of showing it FTA? It won't drastically alter its share of the advertising market where Five makes it money so how would they profit from it?

I feel like Jeremy Paxman here. What I originally asked you is: "So are you agreeing that it is OK for Sky to keep their FTV channels on 2D when they know that this is preventing channels from going FTA and therefore keeping out competition?" (please note Mr. Sky's Lawyer I'm asking a hypothetical question). I didn't mention Channel 4 or Channel 5. IF Sky are deliberately keeping their encrypted channels on 2D when they could move them to another satellite and thereby preventing more FTA channels on 2D then do you think that is OK - yes or no?

Hopefully this will help you understand, from Freeview site

Freeview is managed by DTV Services Ltd, a company owned and run by its five shareholders - BBC, BSkyB, Channel 4, ITV and Arqiva. Launched in October 2002, the Freeview service provides free-to-air digital TV channels, radio stations and interactive services through an aerial.

dan.

OK so it makes sense for them to have a presence on something they partly own. The thing is they must be doing this because they think it is in their interest. So why don't they think it is in their interest to be on Freesat?