I have seen that other platforms are getting new channels and all have more HD then freesat, so why freesat owners ( BBC & ITV ) can not make room for more channels by dropping regional channels at this time to give more space for HD & SD channels???

Also it was put out that Freesat would have 200 channel by the end of the 1st year BUT years on and still not seen....

May be they should drop the cost to channels that wish to join, so that channels that are not on UK only beam would join quicker...?

We also need more news of plains for channels from public Tv freesat after the new space from new sat' coming next year....

Perhaps YOU would care to launch a channel? - where's the money going to come from?.


That as never going to happen - it was just a flight of fantasy by Emma Scott, who seems to know little about TV broadcasting.


The Freesat EPG charge is insignificant compared to all the other costs - and it's got nothing much to do with UK 'only' beams.


Again, who's going to pay for it?.

Freesat are starting to get new channels!!

Although Nigels comment about Emma Scott may have some substance another contributory factor has been the recession.
With regard to the epg cost if a channel cannot afford the £30,000 then they are hardly likely to succeed anyway(IMO)
Too many posters seem to expect Freesat to match Sky,for free,well that will not happen.All in all I think that for those viewers not wanting to partake of subscription tv then Freesat is damned good value for just the initial cost of the equipment you need to receive it!!

Why does England need so many ...

No chance if they wish to keep their privileged PSB status and the BBC keep receiving the license fee. Yes lets make them subscription.

Do people really believe marketing bulls*** from people who do not have a clue.


What a dreamer you are - EPG fees are a very minor part of launching on freesat compared to the "rights fees" they would have to pay being FTA on a Europe wide beam. You really do not have a clue.


Again dream on, the new satellites will be replacements for the present satellites. There will be a limited amount of additional "spot beam" capacity, but it will NOT initially be the "cure all" that you seem to be hoping for. Also where is the money coming from to launch all these brand new channels you want?

AFAIK, a Freesat EPG is £30,000, and 24 hours of bandwidth is £70,000, so there is £100,000 before buying content, there is no guarantee of how much return you would get from advertisers.

This is why most start-ups choose to go with Fred Perkins @ Information TV, it's far cheaper to start a Micro Channel than a TV Channel.

The NME TV channel has just been added to Freesat
it is on Channel 503

[quote=joshua_welby;41188387]The NME TV channel has just been added to Freesat
it is on Channel 503[/QUOTE

was added last week mate.

Instead of wanting brand new channels we would be better off convincing channels that are encrypted on Sky coming out of encryption - channels like Dave.

If you want to launch a channel, £500,000 should give you a good start, you would be waiting about 3 to 5 years before you break even though.

I've tried that, they don't want to listen though, subscription is a gurantee'd income, free-to-air isn't gurantee'd and a high risk.

-

IMOO I think broadcasting is outdated for pre-recorded content, the future IMOO is VOD, people's life-styles change all the time, VOD is far better for pre-recorded content.

We have been told so many times over the last year or two that space is not there for more channels on our public freesat and that is the reason for no channels yet
ITV 1HD has gone full time and by the end of this year we are going to have BBC one HD and few other channels too have came along too......

So was there real space trouble ??

or was it the cost of the epg ??

or was it sky holding back with testing to allow channels to join freesat epg ??

or was it the cost to the TV channel companies in showing programmes on another platform ??

But what ever reasons or not the freesat epg needs to have more channels that are from freetosky epg and freeview too

So channels like yesterday, dave, viva, quest, virgin1 could join freesat to make both public systems have the same channels match.....

Also with other channels from the UKTV shed that belong to our BBC and private company virgin like gold, watch, alibi, and others could have a +2 channels that could be on freesat only and as these would not be contacted to sky or other platforms ....
Or the BBC could just take over UKTV fully and this would make easy for them to be put on freesat...

Also to say that all other free channels could not come onto freesat because of copy right issues is not right as the channels like shopping and game channels that would have no copy right trouble as they are selling to UK in £'s and ship to UK only,

So a drop in cost may help ....

^^ You havent got a clue have you pal??



Not going to happen - these channels all get a few pennies per subscriber. Do the sums - even if the channel only gets 1p per subscriber there are ten million subscriptions which is 100,000 quid a month.

If a channel goes fta they need to make an extra £100,000 quid in extra advertising from being on Freesat just to cover the loss of guaranteed income from being on the sky platform.

And if you seriously think Virgin 1 is going to go fta on satellite now Sky own it you need your head looking at.

Freesat said"UPTO 200 channels by end of 1st year"

But as I have said previously we went into recession now channels are starting to come to Freesat,Perhaps this is because broadcasters are seeing a continuous rise in viewers joining Freesat.
I doubt you will get your wish of the free platforms having the same channel line up simply because in the future Freesat will have far more capacity than its DTT counterpart.The majority of us are more than happy with Freesat and to be honest I don;t think the channels you wanted on Freesats EPG are that exceptional.That of course is my opinion .:yawn:

Definitely. Unfortunately there are supposedly capacity problems on Astra 2D. That means we need the cooperation of the channels and the rights holders.

There are rumours of more capacity coming online but I'm not sure there's anything concrete been announced. There's a new satellite being built but since 2D is nearly at the end of her life it may just be a replacement. It could have more capacity on it though.

Meanwhile it's a shame that Sky can't/won't shift their pay content off 2D to free up space. It's their choice (I've defended that myself on several occasions) but it's still not helping us, the customers.

Slight caveat to that statement...

"Virgin1, ..., is also a part of the deal, but will be rebranded or closed, as the Virgin name will not be licensed to Sky."

(Virgin secures new Sky carriage deal after VMTV sale)

so ofcom has ok'ed this ? , sky = greedy bastards !!!

Tell me about it!

That's the same form of weasel words as the ISPs use. "Up to 8Mbps" actually means "Guaranteed never to exceed 8Mbps"

Sky = Very good business sense

To be fair to ISPs if it says up to 8MB you would not expect it to exceed 8MB!

I was pointing out that there was no promise of 200 guaranteed channels by the end of the 1st year.IMHO the poster who said that Freesat had said that wouldn't be happy if there were a thousand channels on the platform!!
With regard to your remark,my ISP at one time guaranteed me up to 8Mbps they now guarantee up to 24Mbps!! So that rather blows your comment out of the water.

They did last month, so the ITV1 HD regions could launch on 2D.

OK, I'll rephrase that "Guaranteed never to achieve 8Mbps"

What's really annoying is the way Ofcom and the ASA roll over on their backs and allow them to do so.

These weasel words remind me of the 99p shops that sprang up over London a few years ago.

Their proprietors realised that they were being severely limited in the stock they could sell so started adding a '+' after the 99. Then they thought they'd like to sell cheaper items so they added 'or less'.

So now you see "99p+ or less Shop".

Or, more concisely; A Shop.