If you read some of Emma Scotts ramblings( Cake Tomorrow) you would assume that x y and z did in fact have names, she says in one that when channel 4 HD joins?
Is FreeSat a good alternative?
2 of 5
Originally Posted by baarree:
“If you read some of Emma Scotts ramblings( Cake Tomorrow) you would assume that x y and z did in fact have names, she says in one that when channel 4 HD joins?”
“If you read some of Emma Scotts ramblings( Cake Tomorrow) you would assume that x y and z did in fact have names, she says in one that when channel 4 HD joins?”
When did she say it would be joining?
AFAIA it is still going to join - it's just a matter of when.
Unless she promised it by a certain date I can't see a problem.
Originally Posted by derek500:
“People have bought Freeview and have lost Sky Sports News, it's not Freeview's fault.”
“People have bought Freeview and have lost Sky Sports News, it's not Freeview's fault.”
Neither is it any great loss.
Quote:
“If ITV2/3/4, E4 and More4 go pay, it won't be Freesat's fault”
“If ITV2/3/4, E4 and More4 go pay, it won't be Freesat's fault”
More channels I wouldn't lose any sleep over - in fact, it would tidy up the EPG a bit.
I wonder if they're likely to go soon.
Originally Posted by baarree:
“If you read some of Emma Scotts ramblings( Cake Tomorrow) you would assume that x y and z did in fact have names, she says in one that when channel 4 HD joins?”
“If you read some of Emma Scotts ramblings( Cake Tomorrow) you would assume that x y and z did in fact have names, she says in one that when channel 4 HD joins?”
Unfortunately Emma Scott seems to know nothing about it, Freesat was launched DESPITE Emma Scott, not because of her.
Originally Posted by baarree:
“Well they have at least one happy customer then!”
“Well they have at least one happy customer then!”
I think they have plenty. Everyone I know who uses it is delighted with it.
It's just the 'I want something for nothing' crowd that are vexed. And very vocal.
Edit: Actually, that should probably be the 'I want something for nothing and I want it NOW' crowd.
Is freesat a good alternative?
To What?
As I have said before on similar threads, why choose ONE platform? If you can get both, then freeview AND freesat is the best option, they both have worthwhile channels that the other doesn't.
To someone leaving sky, then keep your old sky box and card as a freesat from sky system instead - more channels than on freesat.
The only compelling reason to junk a sky box for a freesat box is for the free PVR functions, but even then, you are still better off keeping your old sky box as well to watch the free channels not available on a freesat box.
To What?
As I have said before on similar threads, why choose ONE platform? If you can get both, then freeview AND freesat is the best option, they both have worthwhile channels that the other doesn't.
To someone leaving sky, then keep your old sky box and card as a freesat from sky system instead - more channels than on freesat.
The only compelling reason to junk a sky box for a freesat box is for the free PVR functions, but even then, you are still better off keeping your old sky box as well to watch the free channels not available on a freesat box.
Originally Posted by derek500:
“Likewise they don't know if channels are going to leave. They're at the mercy of the broadcasters.
If ITV2/3/4, E4 and More4 go pay, it won't be Freesat's fault”
“Likewise they don't know if channels are going to leave. They're at the mercy of the broadcasters.
If ITV2/3/4, E4 and More4 go pay, it won't be Freesat's fault”
This seems to be your dream Derek, presumably to make you and others who pay Sky large sums of money more happier that your actually getting value for it?
ITV2,3 and 4's SD versions will not go pay as they get too much in terms of advertising revenue. I would predict in 2/3yrs time when HD channels can sustain their own advertising most FTA SD channels with their HD equivalents behind a pay-wall will also go FTA.
If BBC Worldwide take full control of UKTV I would imagine there's a good possibility they'll take some of their channels FTA too providing bandwidth can be found on 2D, this obviously after their contracts finish with Sky.
I think Freesat is doing what it set out to. Yes a few more HD channels would be good but blame Sky for that one by bribing existing channels off the platform with money to go encrypted.
Sky is too big and IMHO should be broken up in to Subscriber services and channel operator.
Originally Posted by M60:
“Sky is too big and IMHO should be broken up in to Subscriber services and channel operator.”
“Sky is too big and IMHO should be broken up in to Subscriber services and channel operator.”
Sky would be absolutely fine if they were just made to sell channels one at a time.
It's the channels that are losing out here because a lot of people who've got rid of Sky did so because there were only one or two channels they ever watched. A lot who'd never consider it would perhaps pay a couple of pounds a month for a favoured channel.
Forcing sky to make channels available one at a time would be better for viewers as it would mean they could just pay for what they wanted and better for channels that provided what the viewers were demanding.
It would also mean that the more popular channels would have more revenue so that could further improve.
Sky really are the dead hand on British pay TV broadcasting.
Originally Posted by M60:
“Sky is too big and IMHO should be broken up in to Subscriber services and channel operator.”
“Sky is too big and IMHO should be broken up in to Subscriber services and channel operator.”
And ISP.
I was only interested in HD and a PVR, for now I will use my sky box and free card with my dvd hdd box as I don't think the price of a freesat PVR is worth cost for what you get, but who knows what may become available in the future!
Originally Posted by Jepson:
“Sky would be absolutely fine if they were just made to sell channels one at a time.
It's the channels that are losing out here because a lot of people who've got rid of Sky did so because there were only one or two channels they ever watched. A lot who'd never consider it would perhaps pay a couple of pounds a month for a favoured channel.
Forcing sky to make channels available one at a time would be better for viewers as it would mean they could just pay for what they wanted and better for channels that provided what the viewers were demanding.
It would also mean that the more popular channels would have more revenue so that could further improve.
Sky really are the dead hand on British pay TV broadcasting.”
“Sky would be absolutely fine if they were just made to sell channels one at a time.
It's the channels that are losing out here because a lot of people who've got rid of Sky did so because there were only one or two channels they ever watched. A lot who'd never consider it would perhaps pay a couple of pounds a month for a favoured channel.
Forcing sky to make channels available one at a time would be better for viewers as it would mean they could just pay for what they wanted and better for channels that provided what the viewers were demanding.
It would also mean that the more popular channels would have more revenue so that could further improve.
Sky really are the dead hand on British pay TV broadcasting.”
If they sold channels one at a time, 1) they would be very expensive, just to break even, and 2) Quite a few would go bust overnight,
Originally Posted by swills:
“If they sold channels one at a time, 1) they would be very expensive, just to break even, and 2) Quite a few would go bust overnight,”
“If they sold channels one at a time, 1) they would be very expensive, just to break even, and 2) Quite a few would go bust overnight,”
1) Yes, they might be more expensive but there's no reason why they should be 'very' expensive. At the moment Sky sell 24 channels in the variety pack for £19. That's ~80p per month per channel. So they could double that and you could still get four channels for around one third of the price.
2) Yes, the channels that no one is interested in watching but they are being railroaded into paying for. Why should people subsidise channels they don't want to watch on a commercial service? They already probably have to do that with the licence fee.
Originally Posted by M60:
“This seems to be your dream Derek, presumably to make you and others who pay Sky large sums of money more happier that your actually getting value for it?”
“This seems to be your dream Derek, presumably to make you and others who pay Sky large sums of money more happier that your actually getting value for it?”
No, but there's many programmes I watch that I know are being paid for by others who don't. Bit like the TV Licence.
Quote:
“ITV2,3 and 4's SD versions will not go pay as they get too much in terms of advertising revenue. I would predict in 2/3yrs time when HD channels can sustain their own advertising most FTA SD channels with their HD equivalents behind a pay-wall will also go FTA.”
“ITV2,3 and 4's SD versions will not go pay as they get too much in terms of advertising revenue. I would predict in 2/3yrs time when HD channels can sustain their own advertising most FTA SD channels with their HD equivalents behind a pay-wall will also go FTA.”
SkyHD/VirginHD are adding HD subscribers at a much faster rate than Freesat. There is no reason why channels would give up 'financial benefits' from Virgin/Sky to give a small minority of viewers a channel they can already watch in SD. Of course C4 is on Freeview HD and 50% of the country can already receive it.
Quote:
“If BBC Worldwide take full control of UKTV I would imagine there's a good possibility they'll take some of their channels FTA too providing bandwidth can be found on 2D, this obviously after their contracts finish with Sky.”
“If BBC Worldwide take full control of UKTV I would imagine there's a good possibility they'll take some of their channels FTA too providing bandwidth can be found on 2D, this obviously after their contracts finish with Sky.”
This argument was doing the rounds on here even before Freesat launched. Why would a company give up lucrative subscription income for a small amount of additional advertising income?
Originally Posted by baarree:
“If you read some of Emma Scotts ramblings( Cake Tomorrow) you would assume that x y and z did in fact have names, she says in one that when channel 4 HD joins?”
“If you read some of Emma Scotts ramblings( Cake Tomorrow) you would assume that x y and z did in fact have names, she says in one that when channel 4 HD joins?”
If you Think Emma Scotts comments are ramblings,I suggest you take a look at yourself when it comes to making "Rambling" comments with little or no thought put into them.You make her look like an amateur!!
compared to freeview, freesat is the business, much better picture quality, a great epg, all the core channels, a few HD channels for good measure, with potentially more. If i want to watch a good uptodate film i get it from blockbuster online 6(4 by post, 2 from the shop) bluray films a month for £11.00, 1080p and great sound, and there are always cheaper options if you need sport. Nobody needs sky at £48/month
the channel line up is different.
Some channels are on Freeview, but over satellite they require Sky. Eg, Yesterday, Virgin1. This is due to contracts that these channels have signed with Sky, locking them behind the Sky paywall on satellite.
Other reasons are due to lack of capacity on the UK narrow satellite beam. These beams are designed to minimise signal leakage to the rest of the EU, so its ideal for PSB channels like BBC, ITV, and others. If channels broadcast on the pan-european beams, they would be picked up all over mainland Europe. We will have to wait for more satellites to be put into space and operate further UK narrow satellite beams before this is fixed.
What would have been a better idea is for Freesat to operate a free-to-view card platform. This way, UK specific channels could use the pan-european wide beams and still only be *unlocked* by UK viewers.
Some channels are on Freeview, but over satellite they require Sky. Eg, Yesterday, Virgin1. This is due to contracts that these channels have signed with Sky, locking them behind the Sky paywall on satellite.
Other reasons are due to lack of capacity on the UK narrow satellite beam. These beams are designed to minimise signal leakage to the rest of the EU, so its ideal for PSB channels like BBC, ITV, and others. If channels broadcast on the pan-european beams, they would be picked up all over mainland Europe. We will have to wait for more satellites to be put into space and operate further UK narrow satellite beams before this is fixed.
What would have been a better idea is for Freesat to operate a free-to-view card platform. This way, UK specific channels could use the pan-european wide beams and still only be *unlocked* by UK viewers.
Having different channels is not always such a bad thing. CBS on Freesat run some good things. Note the original StarTrek series, remastered - looks fantastic.
As for the news, if you stick to BBC and Sky News, you miss out on quite a bit. Its like they are spoon feeding us what they want us to know. If try Euronews (freesat + sky, not Freeview), you can see the difference in content. Having said that the BBC local news is quite good. I no longer rate ITV for news of any sort.
As for the news, if you stick to BBC and Sky News, you miss out on quite a bit. Its like they are spoon feeding us what they want us to know. If try Euronews (freesat + sky, not Freeview), you can see the difference in content. Having said that the BBC local news is quite good. I no longer rate ITV for news of any sort.
Originally Posted by David (2):
“As for the news, if you stick to BBC and Sky News, you miss out on quite a bit. Its like they are spoon feeding us what they want us to know. If try Euronews (freesat + sky, not Freeview), you can see the difference in content.”
“As for the news, if you stick to BBC and Sky News, you miss out on quite a bit. Its like they are spoon feeding us what they want us to know. If try Euronews (freesat + sky, not Freeview), you can see the difference in content.”
Pretty much all of the other news channels are worth watching just to get different perspectives (or just completely different stories) whether you agree with them or not.
Originally Posted by victorslot:
“I agree with you Jepson I love Freesat, ”
“I agree with you Jepson I love Freesat, ”
So do I.
Quote:
“however my feeling before buying into it was that it would provide what was generally available on Freeview for those without a good Freeview signal.”
“however my feeling before buying into it was that it would provide what was generally available on Freeview for those without a good Freeview signal.”
Yes, that's a reasonable expectation and that's all I really expected as its ultimate destination, with anything beyond this being an added bonus.
OTOH, even as is, I don't have the time to watch everything I might want to.
I wish there could be some live and let live with this though. Freesat is no threat to Sky so no need for Sky-ers to keep slagging it off. Sky is a bit of an irritant to Freesat I suppose but it's not making it worse and Freesat does improve albeit very slowly, so no need for Freesat-ers to keep slagging off Sky.
I changed from Sky to Freesat last year. To be honest, the only programme I'm missing is Dexter on FX. (And I've just bought Series 3 on DVD and will do the same again with Series 4 when it comes out next year.) It's still far cheaper than subscribing to Sky for the few programmes I want to watch on there.
I'm happy with the change and haven't been tempted to go back to Sky no matter how many offers they bombard me with!
I'm happy with the change and haven't been tempted to go back to Sky no matter how many offers they bombard me with!
Originally Posted by David (2):
“the channel line up is different.
What would have been a better idea is for Freesat to operate a free-to-view card platform. This way, UK specific channels could use the pan-european wide beams and still only be *unlocked* by UK viewers.”
“the channel line up is different.
What would have been a better idea is for Freesat to operate a free-to-view card platform. This way, UK specific channels could use the pan-european wide beams and still only be *unlocked* by UK viewers.”
You know what would happen if they had done this. All those nasty Europeans and even nastier UK ex-pats would come over here on day trips and buy Freesat boxes with cards to take home with them.
I did exactly the same thing in reverse and brought a Fransat box and card back from France.
Originally Posted by David (2):
“What would have been a better idea is for Freesat to operate a free-to-view card platform. This way, UK specific channels could use the pan-european wide beams and still only be *unlocked* by UK viewers.”
“What would have been a better idea is for Freesat to operate a free-to-view card platform. This way, UK specific channels could use the pan-european wide beams and still only be *unlocked* by UK viewers.”
The BBC firmly vetoed any suggestion of such an inclusion in freesat being scared witless at the thought of a future government (at that time) getting rid of the license fee and making the BBC go subscription to fund itself.
Originally Posted by davemurgatroyd:
“The BBC firmly vetoed any suggestion of such an inclusion in freesat being scared witless at the thought of a future government (at that time) getting rid of the license fee and making the BBC go subscription to fund itself.”
“The BBC firmly vetoed any suggestion of such an inclusion in freesat being scared witless at the thought of a future government (at that time) getting rid of the license fee and making the BBC go subscription to fund itself.”
But it is the only logical way for freesat to expand,and if Sky ever remove the PVR recording charge it would probably kill freesat ! But that's just my Rambling.
Originally Posted by davemurgatroyd:
“The BBC firmly vetoed any suggestion of such an inclusion in freesat being scared witless at the thought of a future government (at that time) getting rid of the license fee and making the BBC go subscription to fund itself.”
“The BBC firmly vetoed any suggestion of such an inclusion in freesat being scared witless at the thought of a future government (at that time) getting rid of the license fee and making the BBC go subscription to fund itself.”
This is often mooted as a reason but is, of course, complete nonsense!
Any government that would do something as drastic as dismantling full scale PSB would have no qualms about making people buy new equipment.
The change form digital to carded digital would be nothing compared to the change from analogue to digital and it would doubtless be phased in over several years with the least watched channels switching first.
2 of 5
