who is your isp?

Good old Sky Connect - need I say more?

I have had quite an interesting discussion today with my local independent AV specialist (not your local purple shop etc but someone with 40 years experience). I was discussing going down the FreeSat route and buying a couple of Humax PVRs from him, what he said surprised me.

He said that had I been in the market for a new TV (which I'm not and he knew this as he sold me my present PDP) he would have recommended another Panasonic PDP with integrated FreeSat and Freeview HD tuners and then to buy not FreeSat PVRs but Freeview. His reason for suggesting this route was that it's by no means certain that FreeSat will survive long term but Freeview will. He wouldn't or couldn't provide any further information and said the choice must be mine but that is what he would do.

I have to say I've always found him to be honest reliable and fair so no reason to doubt his sincerity. It has got me thinking though and now not sure which way to jump as £500 is a lot of money to throw away.

If this means that the trade knows something but continue to sell Freesat devices regardless then there could be a bit of a stink in the brewing.

Does it mean that?

Freesat will survive, if only for the main PSB channels and other BBC services. There are always going to be homes that can't receive Freeview.

I've honestly no idea and not sure that is what he meant. It could be that he thinks Freeview is on a firmer footing, which if you think about it I suppose it is. Freeview won't fail because it won't be allowed too whereas I suppose FreeSat is more of a niche product and relies on support from the broadcasters.

That's true though I'm not sure how many that would be. It wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility for the government of the day to come to some sort of arrangement with the likes of Sky to provide a FTA service for those that can't get Freeview. I would think this would be cheaper than paying the carriage costs of keeping FreeSat on air if it fails to attract enough viewers and receive continued support from broadcasters.

Freesat is fully meeting it's design objectives, I see no reason to think it's any more likely to discontinue than Freeview - it's costs are minimal, it's only an EPG.

I would suggest your dealer is just scare mongering, purely from his own imagination.

This sounds like complete BS.

Not because it's impossible that Freesat might end at some point but because, given the much shorter time we expect complex electronics to last nowadays, it's very unlikely that such a possibility should factor in anyone's buying plans.

Perhaps he's got some sort of a deal whereby he makes more by selling freeview PVR's??

I have to agree with you Jepson.It seems the guys talking out of his A--se!!

Why shouldn't Freesat not surviving.
Freesat is more or less channel recycling and only the epg has to be paid. The channels itself are broadcasting for the sky plattform anyway and exakt the same video and audio streams are used from freesat boxes than from skyboxes for the corresponding channels.

Agree with those above, Freesat is simply an EPG and was also set up on a 'not for profit' basis, thus meaning EPG leverage fees over a certain figure will bring them a net profit which is put back in to advertising etc.

Sky would like to see the back of Freesat but it won't happen. It's also worth adding Freeview has very limited expansion, particularly in terms of HD. Don't expect more than possibly one extra HD service to appear in the next two years and I'm really not sure where the BBC plan to launch a BBC3HD and BBC4HD (even possibly BBC News HD) on Freeview as the bandwidth doesn't and won't, universal coverage-wise anyway, exist.

In the future Freeview has two options:

1. - Reduce channel numbers and increase HD channels by two or three
2. - Leave as is and allow Freesat to be complementary to Freeview, thus offering greater selection of HD (in terms of the BBC's offerings). ITV2,3 and 4HD may go FTA once advertising alone can sustain such a service.

I think it might just suit Sky's management to have freesat around. It is some country wide competition of a resonable standard that presently has a smallish part of the market (I exclude freeview because of freeview lite). It keeps the regulator and others off their back.

If sky REALLY wanted to see the back of freesat, then they could have done that by opening up their sky+ functions to non subscribers. At a stroke, that would have removed a huge chunk of freesat's customer base (cancelling sky subscribers) and would have removed freesat's only unique selling point.

Many of us thought they were going to do that. They even launched a Pay Once Watch forever HD deal at the time freesat launched, which many thought might leave the user with a working sky+ HD PVR even if they didn't subscribe. If they had done that, it would have been a "freesat killer"

But they didn't, which I think was an opportunity sky missed, but pretty much confirming that sky don't see freesat as a threat, and are not bothered about seeing the back of them.

Or were simply too greedy to lose the PVR fees.

I think more likely the reason they didn't want to remove the PVR fee is because it acts as a very effective 'lock-in' for subscribers.

Sky's whole marketing plan is based on obfuscating the cost of what people want by making them pay for things they don't want in order to get the ones they do.

If someone could simply say: "Hey, I only watch non-FSFS channels for two hours a week - I'll cancel and save some money", a hell of a lot of people would.

As it is, if they have a PVR, they have to try and work out the various costs and timescales to break even and then make a profit and, quite honestly, a lot of people simply can't be bothered.

So, keep the PVR fee and you have people locked it but Freesat is viable, get rid of it and Freesat would not have been viable (too late now, of course) but you'd have a lot of people canceling their subscriptions.

Why so aggressive and rude? This dealer is very well respected and a very nice individual. He has plenty of Humax Freeview PVR's and plenty of Humax Foxstat PVR's. He knew full well he wasn't going to sell me a new TV and was simply saying what he thought would be the best option if and I repeat "if" I was starting from a base of a new TV with the twin integrated tuners. I suppose on balance Freeview is the more established product and has by far the largest subscriber base hence less likely to disappear.

Because you don't happen to agree doesn't make him wrong and doesn't make you right either.

If 2D failed tomorrow, FreeSat would cease to exist, at least in its present form, as all the FTA PSB channels could not be transferred to 2A or 2B as FTA. They would have to go FTV because of the wide beam which means being on $ky instead of FreeSat. I hope Freesat have got good insurance. They won't be safe until more narrow beam birds are launched in 2013.

I think that this is why FreeSat could be considered vulnerable as it relies on one narrow beam sat running FTA channels.

If someone comes up with BS then it's not aggressive to point that out.

As to 'rudeness', I could have pussyfooted around the use of that term but what's the point? I thought it was BS so I said I thought it was BS.


Of course not.

But:

I explained very clearly why I thought he was talking BS.

He, on the other hand, came up with some BS 'I can't say any more, nudge, nudge, wink, wink".

It's up to individual readers to actually decide who they think might be right and who they think might be wrong.

Of course, only time will actually tell who is right.

When was the last time a sat used for transmissions to GB completely stopped working on a permanent basis?

I would imagine if any sat failed it would cause major headaches for a lot of people.

Actually it was me that said "he wouldn't or couldn't" say anymore. He was simply offering his opinion of what he would do if I was starting from a base of having a new TV with the twin integrated tuners.


And is that how you normally conduct yourself when you come across someone whose point of view you disagree with?

So, you are now saying that he didn't say that?

He simply didn't say anything further and you made up the 'couldn't or wouldn't'?


All I said, effectively, is that I do not believe what you were told made sense. I'm not really sure why you're getting on your high horse about it.

How you interpret what I said is a matter for you as you clearly seem to have a penchant for firing from the hip?

I have fire insurance for my house but don't expect it to burn down. Astra generally have pioneered redundancy in their provision of in flight spares, which explains their preference by mainstream broadcasters. eg Astra 2C just needs to be moved to 28.8°E to take over from 2A or 2B. Eutelsat doesn't generally do this. Astra 2D is a one off exception that will remain at risk for a few years.

As to complete in flight failures, as more objects get launched into space, the more likely they will collide. IIRC a working Iridium bird was hit by a Russian bird or debris recently. It is only a matter of time before a major DBH satellite fails well before its expected lifetime, just based on probabilities. Nothing has 100% reliability.

So, the answer, after all that, is that no UK DSat channels have been put off air by satellite failures that required their moving to a new sat?

Obviously anything's possible.

It's not a matter of interpretation.

You made a statement: "He wouldn't or couldn't provide any further information".

Whereas you are now saying that he simply didn't say anything else. So we don't know whether he could or would have if asked.

But, basically, he came up with some BS that seems likely and/or intended to spread FUD about the future of Freesat without backing it up in any way.

That's very irresponsible behaviour.