Re: Question the Governors AGM 19th July - London

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:56:53 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
<dab.is@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>They're still encrypted using Sky's encryption scheme which they won't
>make available to any non-Sky digibox manufacturers, so although they
>don't cost anything I don't they should be referred to as being "free",
>because they're not free of encryption.

Kind of a pointless technical distinction, though. As you say, ITV, C4
and 5 could easily simulcrypt if they thought there was any
significant market amongst non-Sky satellite box owners. Apparently
they don't think that there is. This reinforces the position that
they're unlikely to put themselves out for any BBC-backed "Freesat"
system, when what they have now seems to do the job just fine for
their purposes.

>Unique folly? Prey tell why you think it is a "unique folly"?

I did.

>That'd probably be true if you added the caveat: so long as 10m-dimaeter
>dishes are allowed for reception in southern Europe.

Yes, but in most parts of central Europe the BBC is easily receivable
on more ordinary sized dishes.

>If you look at the trends though, it seems that ITV and C4 are moving
>towards the FTA model: ITV3 is FTA on DSat. E4 and E4+1 changed from
>being on Top-Up TV to being FTA on Freeview and they're launching More4
>on Freeview. C4 bought a load of capacity recently on the same satellite
>that the BBC uses for its FTA channels.

True, but don't confuse FTA terrestrial with FTA satellite - the two
are quite different things. You don't need to worry about any
significant overseas reception with FTA terrestrial, whereas FTA
satellite is virtually DESIGNED to beam your channels across a wider
area.

E4 going FTA on Freeview is indeed a significant move - the fact that
they remain encrypted on satellite is most likely to be equally
significant, and a sign that aimlessly beaming their signals all over
Europe is not something that would help their business. Also remember
that Channel 4 operates FilmFour, an encrypted premium service, so it
is still very much in their interests that people going for satellite
get Sky rather than some FTA receiver.

>It's in the best interests of ITV, C4 and five that FTA is successful,
>because otherwise they'll see their market share carry on declining on
>DSat and cable.

Their market share is always going to decline in homes where the most
numbers of channels are available - especially if people choose to pay
for extra channels, because that indicates pretty strongly that
they're not content with what they get for free. But that's a question
of basic maths, it's not an issue of whether "FTA" is successful.
Obviously in digital satellite homes where only the free channels are
available, then ITV, C4, Five, etc, will have correspondingly higher
viewing shares. That doesn't change whether you're FTV or FTA.

>The BBC have already done this with Freeview, so it's not as important
>that there's no conditional access on Freesat.

It obviously is important to them to the extent that they made such a
point of going FTA on satellite. But assuming that a lack of
conditional access is not so important for Freesat, then what exactly
WOULD the point of such a venture actually be? It would just be
duplicating a service that's already available. What's the benefit?

>> Fine for the BBC. But what's in it for ITV, C4, or C5? What is the
>> benefit TO THEM of broadcasting completely in the clear,
>
>They could simulcrypt, using a similar card to the one that Sky uses for
>FTV. My problem with Sky's FTV is that we're forced to use their low
>specification receivers, and if we want to use a PVR then we either have
>to pay Sky £10 per month (it was the last time I looked) if we want to
>watch channels from ITV, C4 and five or buy a non-Sky PVR and go without
>those channels.

Perhaps, but if you only want those channels then you can buy a
Freeview PVR already, can't you?

>Again, not necessary if they simulcrypt. ITV have already said they're
>considering this.

Simulcrypting would certainly be an interesting idea, but again..
what's the point? It's a lot of money to service a market that is
already served. No benefit to the commercial channels, just a
potentially risky venture. No benefit to the BBC, because they don't
get their CA-free equipment in everyone's homes.

>Not so. If Freesat becomes successful -- and it could, especially if
>they carry FTA HDTV -- then it is very much in the interests of ITV, C4
>and five for Freesat to be successful because they'd be big fish in a
>small pond -- like on Freeview -- rather than a big fish in a big ocean
>on Sky.

I'm not sure I agree. If you're talking HDTV then even the Sky pond is
going to be extremely small - at first - anyway. Even as the Sky pond
grows, being available "free" on pretty much the only kind of set top
box that you're going to find in the high street is still a pretty
good position to be in. Hi Def is a natural premium market anyway -
it's hugely unlikely that there'll be any significant number of
non-Sky HD channels available for many years.

The small pond argument just reinforces the case for terrestrial
broadcasting anyway. If ITV, C4, C5 want to be dominant players within
the restricted channel space offered by ventures like Freeview, then
their best bet is to make that the clear choice for anyone wanting
digital television. Actively trying to build their own 'Freesat'
platform with the BBC is just launching themselves into a much bigger
pond with much more (low quality) fish, who will still all be after
the same food. Sure, be available on satellite so that your ratings
don't completely die in Sky homes (the lesson it took ITV several
years to learn) but don't go making free satellite any more attractive
then it is, when the cosy playground of terrestrial Freeview is much
more under your control.

>Just look at the viewing figures for Freeview: 87% of all Freeview
>viewing consists of watching the "big 5" channels. What do you think
>that percentage is on Sky? It'll be bugger all in comparison.

Says more about the low quality of the other Freeview channels, if you
ask me. :-)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Question the Governors AGM 19th July - London
    ... FreeSat (the proposed free-to-air ... given that sales of Freeview boxes are now at 6.6m, ... still a lot of useful channels) ... It's obvious that at the moment there's not a large enough FTA user-base ...
    (uk.tech.broadcast)
  • Re: Help me to decide whichDigital method to use
    ... Freeview is received through TV aerials without paying a subscription ... The BBC and ITV are to launch a free-to-view satellite TV service to cater ... interactive and radio services plus other channels. ... demonstrates how highly free digital television is valued by many people," ...
    (uk.tech.digital-tv)
  • Re: tv via satellite, cable, freeview etc
    ... is satellite a better picture, are there more channels or different ... is there any reason to have it on top of freeview? ... satellite will give better pictures. ...
    (uk.people.silversurfers)
  • Re: tv via satellite, cable, freeview etc
    ... standard 'freeview' and 'freesat' ... are there more channels or different ... is there any reason to have it on top of freeview? ... If you bought a remote controlled motorized satellite dish it can pick up other satellites from around the world and give you hundreds more channels. ...
    (uk.people.silversurfers)
  • Re: In Aldi from Thursday 9 August
    ... analogue switch off. ... It would be much cheaper to do it by satellite, ... I think it's fair to provide some HD channels on Freeview if they can find ...
    (alt.radio.digital)