Because!

Dan

That's what the thread is about.

I'm asking where the money is even if a 2D slot was available? How can a company that just wrote off £100 million invest in HD when there won't be any return for it?

Five have pulled out of its freeview slot. The good news for Freesat is it should mean another BBC service.

Yes.

I'll concede that it's unhelpful and doesn't really put the customer first but then this is business we're talking about.

Let me pose you a question:If you had been running an established business from premises and a new company turned up next door then demanded that you move because their new premises were too small - would you move?

Because that's what Freesat did. They moved into an existing situation with known limitations. Personally I don't think Freesat are the ones doing the crying. It's naive customers that didn't understand what they were getting into that are all worked up about this. Back at Freesat HQ the issue probably doesn't even rate five minutes chat around the water cooler.

So go on - answer my question.

Presumably you meant Freeview?.

Considering the BBC can't even afford a full time channel now, how are they expected to fund two HD channels?. By making the existing part time channel 24 hour, they would effectively give themselve three 'channels', compared to what they have currently.

Is it that the BBC can't afford a full time channel or is it because they don't have enough HD content to fill a full daily schedule and don't want to upscale SD?

RTÉ have no say on which satellite their channels are placed on. Sky give RTÉ a free ride and really, since the four Irish terrestrials are not FTA or FTV there is no justification for placing them onto Astra 2D and using up a whole transponder in the process.

The Irish channels *ought* to be on another Astra 2 or the Eurobird satellite - having them on 2D is a useful excuse not to provide proper FTA versions of Channel 4 HD, etc.