# New Sky terrestrial service to use MPEG4



## SteveA (Oct 30, 2000)

Be interesting if this gets off the ground. Hopefully the box will be compatible with existing MPEG2 services (including Pay services), and hopefully will work with TiVo!

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/ondigital/message/59758


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

SteveA said:


> Be interesting if this gets off the ground. Hopefully the box will be compatible with existing MPEG2 services (including Pay services), and hopefully will work with TiVo!
> 
> http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/ondigital/message/59758


I can't get access to that Yahoo group. Can you summarise the product or point to another website this is mentioned on.


----------



## SteveA (Oct 30, 2000)

Hmmm - the reason I posted the Yahoo Group link was because the original poster posted the (copyrighted) text of a (closed) Guardian story - which I didn't want to do here!

Here's the BBC version:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6343715.stm


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

From the BBC website story:-



> The four channels on the new service will offer a range of shows for a *monthly subscription* from this summer.
> 
> Viewers will receive them through a normal TV aerial, with a new set-top box, rather than satellite or cable.
> 
> *Sky Three, Sky News and Sky Sports News will disappear from digital terrestrial to make way. Media regulator Ofcom must approve the plans before they go ahead.*


Surely even the stunningly incompetent Ofcom won't allow this quite blatant attempt by Sky to turn Freeview into Payview. It only has 30 channels or so and 4 are already in use by TopUpTv!  

Removing Sky Sports News from Freeview is little loss but for Sky Three and Sky News to be taken off it would be quite outrageous. All the more reason though it seems to go down the Freesat rather than the Freeview route.


----------



## frogster (Jan 4, 2006)

SteveA said:


> Hopefully the box will be compatible with existing MPEG2 services (including Pay services), and hopefully will work with TiVo!


Any set-top box with a scart output will work with Tivo but you may have missed:

_"The company hopes a range of set-top box manufacturers *will start making receivers* with compatible software once the service has launched."_

and:

_"Viewers will receive them through a normal TV aerial, with *a new set-top box"*,_

AFAIK there are few if any existing Freeview boxes that will work with MPEG4.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Well done Sky for starting the long and tortuous process of converting DTT to MPEG-4. It'll bring HD on DTT a step nearer too.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Well done Sky for starting the long and tortuous process of converting DTT to MPEG-4. It'll bring HD on DTT a step nearer too.


I don't thing any congratulations are in order if its going to be Pay DTT thank you very much.

If people want Pay Tv they can get Sky, Cable or now broadband tv.

And why do you want HD on DTT when Freview's point is to be cheap and cheerful. HD on DTT will probably mean only about 12 channels to watch.

Why do we need Pay Sky on DTT too. Is this to give the company a total UK Pay Tv broadcasting monopoly?


----------



## Tony Hoyle (Apr 1, 2002)

Sky are using their own proprietary encryption - So no CAM, no independent boxes, only Sky branded ones.

This is *not* a good move. mpeg4 is a good idea eventually but not at the expense of a single vendor lockin.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Tony Hoyle said:


> Sky are using their own proprietary encryption - So no CAM, no independent boxes, only Sky branded ones.
> 
> This is *not* a good move. mpeg4 is a good idea eventually but not at the expense of a single vendor lockin.


More importantly its not a good idea at all that Freeview bandwidth is allowed to change over to Pay Tv. :down: 

If Ofcom allow this they will prove that they are entirely in the pockets of their New Labour masters who in turn do whatever Sky tell them they want so as to keep Murdoch on side to tell The Sun's readers to vote Labour at the next election.  

It goes without saying that Sky will go with a non open standard technology for any encryption system they use but surely it would have made more sense for them to buy out TopUpTv, which is not itself exactly a rip roaring success story.


----------



## mikes2 (Feb 6, 2003)

Don't I remember from the dim and distant past that news channels would always be broadcast FTA?

Or is my memory deceiving me?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

mikes2 said:


> Don't I remember from the dim and distant past that news channels would always be broadcast FTA?
> 
> Or is my memory deceiving me?


They aren't proposing to charge for the news channel though are they. They just propose to close it down on Freeview and replace it with more pay tv football junk.

Also you will find that Sky has no qualms at all about charging for Fox News so I don't think it can be correct that news channels are always guaranteed to be free of charge.


----------



## frogster (Jan 4, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Also you will find that Sky has no qualms at all about charging for Fox News so I don't think it can be correct that news channels are always guaranteed to be free of charge.


Fox News is many things but no honest person could ever describe it as "news".


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

frogster said:


> Fox News is many things but no honest person could ever describe it as "news".


Pumped up American Red Neck Propaganda then?


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> More importantly its not a good idea at all that Freeview bandwidth is allowed to change over to Pay Tv. :down:
> 
> If Ofcom allow this they will prove that they are entirely in the pockets of their New Labour masters who in turn do whatever Sky tell them they want so as to keep Murdoch on side to tell The Sun's readers to vote Labour at the next election.
> 
> It goes without saying that Sky will go with a non open standard technology for any encryption system they use but surely it would have made more sense for them to buy out TopUpTv, which is not itself exactly a rip roaring success story.


I can see no reason why pay TV should not be allowed on any given platform, particularly one which was founded as a pay TV platform, currently carries one pay TV provider, is about to add another and now with Sky a third. Given the precedent it's hard to see on what grounds Ofcom could object?

Sky doesn't actually own the any of the multiplex licenses, it rents space from the license owners and can presumably do what it like with , having paid for it, so long as the channels it shows are approved (which they would be).

I'm sure many flat dwellers or people who live in conservation areas or listed buildings will be delighted to finally have the option to enjoy the choice of pay TV. Or those who hate dishes on principle.

I'd guess this is an attempt by Sky to get fisrt mover advantage in this sphere, and I would think it heralds a bid by them for bandwidth to run a full multiplex when the spectrum is sold post switch off.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> I can see no reason why pay TV should not be allowed on any given platform, particularly one which was founded as a pay TV platform, currently carries one pay TV provider, is about to add another and now with Sky a third. Given the precedent it's hard to see on what grounds Ofcom could object?


Actually Sky was one of the prime movers in the creation of the Freeview consortium following the demise of OnDigital so for them to try and withdraw these channels watched by many and put on pay tv watched by few is a major act of betrayal. I also thought there were restrictions on those channels offering anything other than FTA content. There was a change to allow pay tv channels on those Muxes a while back but my understanding was that this was so extra channels could be launched in new capacity liberated by enhanced compression techniques and not to allow mainstream channels like Sky Three and Sky News to be wiped out and abolished and replaced by Pay television.

The reason there shouldn't be more Pay Tv on Freeview is because it is scheduled to replace conventional terrestrial transmissions entirely and has limited capacity in being able to only carry 35 or so channels in total.

I would have agreed with the arguments about subscription tv in flats on DTT once upon a time but with the advent of pay broadband tv via the BT OpenReach broadband system from almost all providers during the course of this year and with Sky having launched their Sky Free Dish product in 2005 that requires just four flats in a communal block to sign up to a minimum Sky package for just one year to get a free communal system installed by Sky these arguments no longer seem valid (see http://communaltv.sky.com/page.aspx?pageId=327). There is no no case for pay tv television on DTT any more with its very limited total bandwidth capacity.

On mediums with near unlimited capacity like Digital Satellite and broadband tv I have no issue in there being as many subscription tv channels as broadcasters want to launch. This is because the launch of such channels does not squash out the existence of Free To Air channels.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Actually Sky was one of the prime movers in the creation of the Freeview consortium following the demise of OnDigital so for them to try and withdraw these channels watched by many and put on pay tv watched by few is a major act of betrayal.


Sky TV is part of the marketing consortium but was not allowed to actually own any of the licenses for the multiplexes - they are owned by the BBC and NGW. If they'd wanted to tie Sky in for the long term perhaps Sky should have been allowed to be a full partner rather than an add-on.



> I also thought there were restrictions on those channels offering anything other than FTA content.


There was, but it was removed after consultation last year.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/paytv/statement/



> The reason there shouldn't be more Pay Tv on Freeview is because it is scheduled to replace conventional terrestrial transmissions entirely and has limited capacity in being able to only carry 35 or so channels in total.


It only need five FTA channels to replace analogue.



> On mediums with near unlimited capacity like Digital Satellite and broadband tv I have no issue in there being as many subscription tv channels as broadcasters want to launch. This is because the launch of such channels does not squash out the existence of Free To Air channels.


We seem to be at or near the viable limit of advertising funded FTA channels now. Any more just seem to be shopping, quiz channels or those text-a-slapper services. So I don't see this as significantly restricting FTA choice. Of the Sky channles being withdrawn, only Sky News appears to be of any value, the others just being promo reels for Sky's pay TV services.

Whatever, it's happening, Ofcom are not going to intervene.


----------



## Tony Hoyle (Apr 1, 2002)

Personally I wouldn't have any objection if it wasn't for the proprietary element - if Sky just went to mpeg4, produced a CAM and allowed people to buy boxes (plus sold their own) then it'd be a kickstart for other mpeg4 services and improved boxes.

What they're going to do is have a locked down box that can only receive their service, preventing those who have it from receiving any rival pay sevice. If that gets enough customers it effectively locks out any rival pay tv service from actually appearing... you get a repeat of the satellite debacle. The current PVRs, toppys, dvd recorders, etc. all the clever devices become redundant in favour of a Sky produced box. There's no competition at all in the satellite market - that's what has allowed Sky+ to exist for so long. I'd hate to see DTT go that way.

The best case I can see (given that ofcom don't care) is that it fails.. too expensive, people aren't prepared to pay, etc.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> We seem to be at or near the viable limit of advertising funded FTA channels now. Any more just seem to be shopping, quiz channels or those text-a-slapper services. So I don't see this as significantly restricting FTA choice. Of the Sky channles being withdrawn, only Sky News appears to be of any value, the others just being promo reels for Sky's pay TV services.
> 
> Whatever, it's happening, Ofcom are not going to intervene.


Do you work for Sky then as you seem to know its bound to go ahead. Strange that when Ofcom haven't even consulted on the issue yet. And aren't Ofcom's consultations meant to affect the possible outcome? I don't think anyone realised when they consulted on having some pay tv on these Muxes last year that this meant axeing the existing FTA Sky channels. This is typical slight of hand by Ofcom and its croneys in the industry while it as usual ignore the best interests of uk citizen consumers who it is supposed to consider as its principal duty under the Communications Act 2003.

Also to claim that no one watches Sky Three is ridiculous. On Freeview its one of the most popular channels, even if the programs on it are usually only repeats of what was first on Sky One or Sky Two, which obviously Freeviewers will not yet have seen.

As I particularly like Sky News this is all the more case to go for Freesat and not Freeview.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Tony Hoyle said:


> What they're going to do is have a locked down box that can only receive their service, preventing those who have it from receiving any rival pay sevice. If that gets enough customers it effectively locks out any rival pay tv service from actually appearing... you get a repeat of the satellite debacle. The current PVRs, toppys, dvd recorders, etc. all the clever devices become redundant in favour of a Sky produced box. There's no competition at all in the satellite market - that's what has allowed Sky+ to exist for so long. I'd hate to see DTT go that way.


And my money would be on Sky also swallowing up and incorporating the TopUpTv channels soon after it gets the go ahead. So poorer people will only be left with the five channels they originally had plus a few more scarcely worth watching with mainly repeats from the BBC, ITV, C4 and Five. But no other broadcasters managing to provide FTA television on Freeview. In other words a total disgrace.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> It only need five FTA channels to replace analogue.


There wouldn't then be any point in having closed down the more robust analogue service and incurring all the costs involved in building what has to be a far more extensive DTT transmitter network due to its inferior reach in certain terrain conditions.

The whole proposition of DTT (especially now when there are numerous pay choices emerging by broadband) is to offer a greater choice of free television to the public who do not want to pay for subscription television.

As usual Murdoch is hard at work trying to convert everything back into subscription tv.


----------



## Raisltin Majere (Mar 13, 2004)

I don't think the DTT transmitters are inferior, just that they can't operate at "full power" because of the analogue transmissions. This can be remedied when analogue is shut off.

And isn't the whole point of this so that the government can make millions selling bandwidth to mobile phone companies?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Raisltin Majere said:


> And isn't the whole point of this so that the government can make millions selling bandwidth to mobile phone companies?


Yes I know about that part but after Freeview was established I thought it was meant to be guaranteed that those channels we have on Freeview weren't going to be converted to pay television - even if the actual channels might sometimes change for commercial reasons. Also I thought there were specific requirements about a News and general entertainment channel element on Freeview.

As ever Ofcom has been failing in its primary duty to protect the best interests of the UK citizen consumer. It seems New Labour will tell Ofcom and its overpaid senior lackeys to allow almost anything so long as Murdoch guarantees he will get The Sun to tell its readers to still vote Labour at the next election.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Do you work for Sky then as you seem to know its bound to go ahead. Strange that when Ofcom haven't even consulted on the issue yet.


Ofcom consulted last year on whether FTA channels on the Freeview multiplexes should continue to need Ofcom's permission to change from FTP to pay. They concluded after the consultation that they did not.

So Ofcom have already said that Ofcom does not need to give approval for convertion from FTA to pay.

That debate has been had.

Ofcom will of course have to approve the proposed new channels, but it won't be looking at the pay/free issue.



> Also to claim that no one watches Sky Three is ridiculous. On Freeview its one of the most popular channels, even if the programs on it are usually only repeats of what was first on Sky One or Sky Two, which obviously Freeviewers will not yet have seen.


I didn't claim that. I said it was a promo showrrel for Sky one. Which it is.

It get 0.6% of viewing in multichannel homes, so yes it beats BBC4, but hardly one the most popular on Freeview.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> It get 0.6% of viewing in multichannel homes, so yes it beats BBC4, but hardly one the most popular on Freeview.


One of the most popular new channels on Freeview then. Of course channels 1 to 5 still get the Lion's share of viewing.

From your attitude I imagine you to be a £60 per month Sky HD man.

Let them eat cake I hear you say.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> One of the most popular new channels on Freeview then. Of course channels 1 to 5 still get the Lion's share of viewing.
> 
> From your attitude I imagine you to be a £60 per month Sky HD man.
> 
> Let them eat cake I hear you say.


What channels I have doesn't come in to the maths of whether 0.6% qualifies as "one of the most popular".

It ranks 13th or 14th, behind E4, More 4, BBC 3, ITV 2, ITV 3, Cbeebies - should I go on? In fact Sky Sports News out-ratings it.

I can understand that people would prefer Sky Three to be FTA. E4 and Film4 have gone the other way. Swings and roundabouts.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> What channels I have doesn't come in to the maths of whether 0.6% qualifies as "one of the most popular".
> 
> It ranks 13th or 14th, behind E4, More 4, BBC 3, ITV 2, ITV 3, Cbeebies - should I go on? In fact Sky Sports News out-ratings it.
> 
> I can understand that people would prefer Sky Three to be FTA. E4 and Film4 have gone the other way. Swings and roundabouts.


Sky Three is a pretty popular channel in the overall scheme of all Freesat channels outside of the top 10. Of course it ranks lower on Freeview proportionately because there aren't many channels in total.

The consultation by Ofcom last year implied it was about new channels on these Muxes allowed by enhanced compression from National Grid Wireless to possibly be pay. Now we learn it was in fact a trojan horse by Ofcom to allow two founding Freeview channels and one popular subsequent one to be wiped out. The consultation about Pay tv channels on this Mux and wiping out Sky News and Sky Three and Sky Sports News should have been taken together. So typical of Ofcom to slide it through by the back door to keep Murdoch sweet over editorial in The Sun newspaper. Such sleaze typifies this corrupt New Labour government.

It is totally disgusting for Murdoch pay stuff to be put on Freeview when the medium doesn't have the space to support adequate pay tv choice. The only point of this exercise is as a spoiler to wipe out Freeview as competition to Sky.

From your comments clearly you are a £60 per month Sky man so can't imagine the position of people who cannot afford this.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> The consultation by Ofcom last year implied it was about new channels on these Muxes allowed by enhanced compression from National Grid Wireless to possibly be pay. Now we learn it was in fact a trojan horse by Ofcom to allow two founding Freeview channels and one popular subsequent one to be wiped out.


It implied no such thing! You are confusing it with the earlier consultation re: Top Up TV I think.

There was no mention WHATSOEVER of new services in the process.

Here's what it said: "It considers that finding the right balance between pay and free to air services on DTT can be left to the multiplex licensees."

As bandwidth is fixed adding pay servicees by definition means losing FTA ones. that's just obvious.



> So typical of Ofcom to slide it through by the back door to keep Murdoch sweet over editorial in The Sun newspaper. Such sleaze typifies this corrupt New Labour government.


  Do you actually beleive this piffle? And no, I don't vote Labour.



> It is totally disgusting for Murdoch pay stuff to be put on Freeview when the medium doesn't have the space to support adequate pay tv choice. The only point of this exercise is as a spoiler to wipe out Freeview as competition to Sky.


You think really losing Sky Sports News will cripple Freeview? you really think Sky thinks of Freeview as its competition? You're looking in the wrong place.

The point of the excercise is that Setanta will have Premiership football on DTT next year. Premiership Football is Sky's lifeblood. Sky want to make life as hard as possible for them by making sure they do not have a clear run at being the only footie package on DTT. Both will require you to buy a new STB (for most people); so do you buy the Sky comaptible box (with some Sky One and Movies as well0 or the Setanta compatible one.

Fewer will choose Setanta now. Anything else is incidental.



> From your comments clearly you are a £60 per month Sky man so can't imagine the position of people who cannot afford this.


Yep, people with Sky subs just have no imagination, unlike Freeviewers. In fact they make you do a test to ensure that you have no abilty to empathise with others before they'll take your money.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> The point of the excercise is that Setanta will have Premiership football on DTT next year. Premiership Football is Sky's lifeblood. Sky want to make life as hard as possible for them by making sure they do not have a clear run at being the only footie package on DTT. Both will require you to buy a new STB (for most people); so do you buy the Sky comaptible box (with some Sky One and Movies as well0 or the Setanta compatible one.


A reasonable person might think that as Sky have a near monopoly on satellite and are in 8 million UK homes that it would be healthy for another platform to offer a pay tv choice that is not Sky. If there was an OFT and a Competition Commission controlling broadcasting I am sure they would have reached the same conclusion.

Instead of which we OfCoN who are a useless and corrupt organisation who seem to exist only to provide well paid stepping stones to let media and telecoms executives have a sabbatical to find out how to subvert the whole regulatory process.

If people want to compete for pay football rights it should all happen on satellite and broadband tv platforms and not be allowed to wipe out channel choice on Freeview. There isn't enough room on Freeview to support competitive Pay tv and an adequate choice of free channels.

Clearly you seem to resent anyone who doesn't pay £60 a month on a sub as a poor pleb and are quite happy to see a decent choice of free to air tv for the masses wiped out by one of the most greedy and monopolistic corporates in the Western World.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> A reasonable person might think that as Sky have a near monopoly on satellite and are in 8 million UK homes that it would be healthy for another platform to offer a pay tv choice that is not Sky. If there was an OFT and a Competition Commission controlling broadcasting I am sure they would have reached the same conclusion.


Commercial competition is not part of Ofcoms's brief. Maintaining a breadth of services on Freeview is. But losing a general entertainment channel and a rolling news channel does not demisish that breadth.

They might well argue that losing SSN _ does_ as there is no other FTA sports channel. That could be an interesting one.



> Instead of which we OfCoN who are a useless and corrupt organisation who seem to exist only to provide well paid stepping stones to let media and telecoms executives have a sabbatical to find out how to subvert the whole regulatory process.


Corrupt? Evidence? Example? Anything at all to back that up? I guess that's another of your opinions stated as facts.



> If people want to compete for pay football rights it should all happen on satellite and broadband tv platforms and not be allowed to wipe out channel choice on Freeview. There isn't enough room on Freeview to support competitive Pay tv and an adequate choice of free channels.


Then your beef is with Sentata, who brought the pay football battle to DTT, not Sky.



> Clearly you seem to resent anyone who doesn't pay £60 a month on a sub as a poor pleb.


Pete, you don't know me, kindly refain from accusing me of snobbery based only on the fact that I don't agree with your paranoid world view. Tt's childish.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Pete, you don't know me


Would you be Vice President, Research & Strategy of MTV UK? 

Or would this be you with all the Java connections?

http://weblogs.java.net/blog/simongbrown/

You don't sound like you are Simon Brown, QC

Damn, Simon Brown is such a common name.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Commercial competition is not part of Ofcoms's brief


Then who's brief is it as the Competition Commission don't seem to have any remit to control broadcasting companies.


----------



## Raisltin Majere (Mar 13, 2004)

Pete77 said:


> Would you be Vice President, Research & Strategy of MTV UK?
> 
> Or would this be you with all the Java connections?
> 
> ...


I remember once a forum member telling another forum member (to paraphrase) "you are arguing with one of the most respected members of the tivo hacking community. You're making yourself look a fool"

And yes, I know this discussion has nothing to do with tivo hacking, but it's quite uncanny nonetheless.

And there's a clue in there some where


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Then who's brief is it as the Competition Commission don't seem to have any remit to control broadcasting companies.


Yes they do. They just don't seem to want to use it. Or is that what you meantt?

I wish they would mandate that Sky have to make CAMs available to work with their encryption - that would be a huge leap forward.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Yes they do. They just don't seem to want to use it. Or is that what you meantt?.


Well then they ought to have something to say or investigate about a company as large as Sky also trying to turn the main free rival to pay Sky tv into another pay tv platform


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

If it limited competiton or consumer choice, they no doubt would. In fact it will enhance consumer choice, and whether it is anticompetitive it's hard to say without more details on services and pricing.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> If it limited competiton or consumer choice, they no doubt would. In fact it will enhance consumer choice, and whether it is anticompetitive it's hard to say without more details on services and pricing.


No what it will do is let Sky put Setanta, who only have one channel that was never used as a Freeview channel so I don't have much problem with, out of business and then let Sky establish a pay tv bridgehead on Freeview to gradually get rid of any other free channels apart from those run by BBC, ITV, C4 and Five.

Those who want to pay are already well served and those who don't aren't. This will only make things worse. Do you work for Sky by any chance.

This is precisely the sort of thing the Competition Commission was created to investigate.


----------



## britcub (Jan 19, 2004)

Pete77 said:


> Those who want to pay are already well served and those who don't aren't.


Just like any other service then.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

britcub said:


> Just like any other service then.


We do pay though through the advertising in the products we buy and through the BBC licence fee though.

Most pay per channel tv does not actually give customers greater viewing choice it just restricts viewing to the better off and makes football clubs and their players unreasonably well off by charging monopoly prices

Most of the decent television and new programs are still on channels 1 to 5. The only exception is if you love watching like football and cricket where you are forced to buy Sky. Luckily I like Formula 1 motor racing.


----------



## mikerr (Jun 2, 2005)

Raisltin Majere said:


> And there's a clue in there some where


 



Pete77 said:


> Most pay per channel tv does not actually give customers greater viewing choice it just restricts viewing to the better off


So you'll agree the "better off" customers have greater viewing choice then?

It would be better if we could pay the channels directly, or pay on a per channel (not per package) basis. Assuming that would be less money of course 

I'm paying to get lots of channels, when its only really SciFi that I would miss, but can't downgrade without losing it...


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

mikerr said:


> So you'll agree the "better off" customers have greater viewing choice then?


Only so far as Premiership Football and Test Cricket is concerned and of course before Pay tv was invented that used to be on terrestrial tv as part of the licence fee.

For the rest of the stuff the better off have the illusion of more choice but in reality the vast majority of it is stuff repeated from Channels 1 to 5 or bought in from US or Canadian television.

Most of the real choice comes from owning a PVR and time shifting the many new series that constantly appear on Channels 1 to 5 to a time of day when you can watch. The 24 hour news channels also come in handy for live viewing and Sky News would be a great loss to Freeview, as in my opinion its often better than BBC News 24.

I'm not being selfish here as I also have a Freesat box so the removal of these channels from Freeviewers won't affect me personally and I will still have access to Sky News, Sky Three and Sky Sports News plus the often entertaining Men & Motors that has viewing figures massively higher than the crappy and appalling ITV Play that swept it off Freeview a year or so ago.

The way things are going it seems that Freeview is soon going to be wiped out for a real choice of viewing and only the BBC and ITV's HD satellite box coalition against Sky offer any hope for those of us not wanting to add to the bank balances of the monopolistic Murdochs.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> No what it will do is let Sky put Setanta, who only have one channel that was never used as a Freeview channel so I don't have much problem with, out of business and then let Sky establish a pay tv bridgehead on Freeview to gradually get rid of any other free channels apart from those run by BBC, ITV, C4 and Five.


How will having Sky pay on DTT "get rid" of any non-Sky existing Freeview channels? Please explain the mechanism by which this will happen.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> How will having Sky pay on DTT "get rid" of any non-Sky existing Freeview channels? Please explain the mechanism by which this will happen.


UK History, FTN, TMF, The Hits, UK Bright Ideas. All of them could disappear in favour of a further expansion of Murdoch pay tv as they are not protected against conversion as I understand it. Sky just has to make a good enough offer to those channels to take them off air and replace them with encryption as well as buying out TopUpTv of course and probably the shopping channels in due course.

Et voila Freeview then consists only of offerings from the BBC, ITV, C4 and Five so its crap and people have to get full blown Sky. Just want Murdoch wanted.

Ok so you can afford £60 a month because you earn £50k a year or whatever. Perhaps if you were ever reduced to a lower income then you might start to get what this is all about.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Only so far as Premiership Football and Test Cricket is concerned and of course before Pay tv was invented that used to be on terrestrial tv as part of the licence fee.


You memory fails you. There were (and still are) highlights of league football on terrestrial, but not regular whole live games. And cricket was limited to England games.



> For the rest of the stuff the better off have the illusion of more choice but in reality the vast majority of it is stuff repeated from Channels 1 to 5 or bought in from US or Canadian television.


Just beacuse a show is American doesn't mean it isn't an extra choice. the extra chice is real. You may not fel it offers value for moany but to deny it even exists is, erm, curious.

As an F1 fan you should be screaming for Murdoch to buy the rights, as there is no sport on the planet that ITV are capable of shoing competently.



> I'm not being selfish here as I also have a Freesat box so the removal of these channels from Freeviewers won't affect me personally and I will still have access to Sky News, Sky Three and Sky Sports News plus the often entertaining Men & Motors that has viewing figures massively higher than the crappy and appalling ITV Play that swept it off Freeview a year or so ago.


Actually ITV Play draws four times the audience of M&M according to BARB. I can offer no explaination for that...



> The way things are going it seems that Freeview is soon going to be wiped out for a real choice of viewing .


Three Sky channels have gone. Get a grip!


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> UK History, FTN, TMF, The Hits, UK Bright Ideas. All of them could disappear in favour of a further expansion of Murdoch pay tv as they are not protected against conversion as I understand it. Sky just has to make a good enough offer to those channels to take them off air and replace them with encryption as well as buying out TopUpTv of course and probably the shopping channels in due course.


Paranoia, pure and simple.



> Et voila Freeview then consists only of offerings from the BBC, ITV, C4 and Five so its crap and people have to get full blown Sky. Just want Murdoch wanted.


As i've said, you're missing the point. This is an attack on Setanta not Freeview.



> Perhaps if you were ever reduced to a lower income then you might start to get what this is all about.


I'm going to ask you nicely once again to stop making disparaging remarks about me based on no knowledge whasoever.

"You wouldn't understand" is a very poor style of debating.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Fundamentally you don't accept the right of Freeview to be preserved for Free to View DTT, even with its very limited bandwidth, as you seem to think all tv should be pay tv. Also if you were not on a high income you would have told us by now instead of beating about the bush by suggesting you are offended by the question. You obviously only don't like the question because it accurate reflects your situation.

Also what is your basis for suggestion that UK History, FTN, The Hits, TMF etc might not disappear? All it requires is an Ofcom consulation paper, Ofcom to then ignore any objections as they always do and then the whole thing is waived through.

To me it is unthinkable that three founding FTA Sky channels suddenly disappears from Freeview and Sky then has no presence on Freeview. That means Sky says it wants Freeview to fail. Pretty worrying to be that mean spirited and hard nosed considering how much of the pay market they already have. The withdrawal of these channels is more about wrecking Freeview and spoiling Setanta's chances in my opinion than it is about Sky offering any meaningful pay service on DTT. With advances in broadband tv and Virgin Media rolling out to all homes by broadband there is no case at all for the limited medium of Freeview to be further narrowed in appeal by more pay tv that only a tiny percentage of DTT homes will watch.

But this is a pointless discussion as you clearly have your mind already set that you don't mind DTT being whittled down to just BBC, ITV, C4 and Five channels and nothing else.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Fundamentally you don't accept the right of Freeview to be preserved for Free to View DTT, even with its very limited bandwidth, as you seem to think all tv should be pay tv.


Please find one post where I have said anything even vaguely like that. You are spectacularly good at stating your groundless opinions as if they were undeniable facts.

Ofcom has said - after a public consultaion - that the free/pay split should be down to market forces, not me.



> Also if you were not on a high income you would have told us by now instead of beating about the bush by suggesting you are offended by the question. You obviously only don't like the question because it accurate reflects your situation.


I am not in the least offended by the question. Rather, I object to your patronising and insulting suggestion that I cannot empathise with people who cannot afford Sky, not your plucked-out-of-the-air suggestion of what I earn.



> Also what is your basis for suggestion that UK History, FTN, The Hits, TMF etc might not disappear? All it requires is an Ofcom consulation paper, Ofcom to then ignore any objections as they always do and then the whole thing is waived through.


There is no suggestion that any non-Sky channels would join their DTT pay platform. While you can't completely rule it out, to worry about it now with not the slightest vestage of a hint of any reason to is just paranoia.

Do the math. Were any of these channels to join Sky DTT, initial subs base = 0 initial revenue to share £0, they would have to be compensated for the complete loss of all the ad revenue that they carry, and would then be totally dependent on Sky's largess for all revenue. Not really very likely is it?

Sky's service may well attract a small share of the market, but most of the 8m Freeview houshold who have so far resisted pay TV on satellite or cable aren't suddenly going to undergo a damascine conversion buy a new box and give their credit cards to Rupert. If it got to 1m subscribers in any foreseeable timeframe I'll eat my hat and yours. And they won't be able to charge the full £42 for three channels so there won't ever be much revenue to share.

C'mon Pete, engage brain for a while and put yourself in the shoes of the people who run those channels (poor Freeview owners can put themselves in the shoes of rich executives can't they?  ). On satellite, Rupert can offer access to 8m subscribers. On DTT he can offer none. It's a complete non starter.



> To me it is unthinkable that three founding FTA Sky channels suddenly disappears from Freeview and Sky then has no presence on Freeview.


Sky Three is not a "founding" channel, it was only introduced last year.



> That means Sky says it wants Freeview to fail.


Freeview is in more homes (8.8m) than Sky and all remaining analogue terrestrial homes are to be forced to switch to it over the next 5 years; how can it "fail"? It's not some fledgeling startup!



> The withdrawal of these channels is more about wrecking Freeview and spoiling Setanta's chances in my opinion than it is about Sky offering any meaningful pay service on DTT.


I agree about Setanta, but fail to see how withdrawing those channels "wrecks" Freeview.



> With advances in broadband tv and Virgin Media rolling out to all homes by broadband there is no case at all for the limited medium of Freeview to be further narrowed in appeal by more pay tv that only a tiny percentage of DTT homes will watch.


That decison was made when Top Up TV re-introduced pay TV to DTT. No point bleating about it now.

BTW IPTV is not the panacea its made out to be. Current broadband systems are not capable of dealing with any widespread switch; even if you're one of the handful lucky enough to get a fast enough connection, contention at the exchange and the ISP is based around normal usage, not a whole street tuning in to Strictly Come Dancing at the same time. the infrastructure just isn't there.



> But this is a pointless discussion as you clearly have your mind already set that you don't mind DTT being whittled down to just BBC, ITV, C4 and Five channels and nothing else.


You know Pete, I like a debate as much (more!) than the next guy, but it's hard to debate in a grown up way with people whose technique is just to post lies about what their opposition's point of view is. It get no-one anywhere, and others reading this thread can see in balck and white what was actually said. Please stop it.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

I dislike having an argument with somebody who just see their role as playing devil's advocate rather than having a principled position of their own they want to defend.

As to UK History, FTN, UK Bright Ideas, TMF, The Hits what I mean is that they would be taken off air and their bandwidth replaced with prime pay channels like Sky One only able to be received on their new proprietary box.

If you can't see how reducing the number of channels on Freeview that have proper program content and are not shopping channels doesn't devalue its worth to most end users then there has to be something wrong with your capacity for rational analysis of fact or particularly your ability to draw logical implications or deductions from a set of facts that are not explicitly stated in them. But then you have already said you see nothing wrong with it being reduced to just the fine channels that were on analogue tv. If that doesn't say you are an all Pay Tv man ashamed to put your cards fully on the table then I don't know what does.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> As to UK History, FTN, UK Bright Ideas, TMF, The Hits what I mean is that they would be taken off air and their bandwidth replaced with prime pay channels like Sky One only able to be received on their new proprietary box.


And how might that happen exactly? Sky gives UKTV some money to stop broadcasting? C'mon sensible arguments only please



> If you can't see how reducing the number of channels on Freeview that have proper program content and are not shopping channels doesn't devalue its worth to most end users then there has to be something wrong with your capacity for rational analysis of fact or particularly your ability to draw logical implications or deductions from a set of facts that are not explicitly stated in them.


I don't beleve losing those three channels _ significantly_ diminishes the attractiveness of Freeview.



> But then you have already said you see nothing wrong with it being reduced to just the fine channels that were on analogue tv.


There you go again. I've said no such thing. Please provide a link to the post where I said that or stop making it up.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Do the math. Were any of these channels to join Sky DTT, initial subs base = 0 initial revenue to share £0, they would have to be compensated for the complete loss of all the ad revenue that they carry, and would then be totally dependent on Sky's largess for all revenue. Not really very likely is it?.


Actually those channels are all pay channels on Sky in the basic Mixes. None of them are free on that platform. But obviously Murdoch would replace them with more mainstream channels that people want the most like Sky One, Bravo, Discovery, National Geographic, Eurosport and so on.

Its far more likely that 8 million people who had access to a wideish range of programming on Freeview and then gradually had it slowly taken away from them might end up being bludgeoned into paying up for more than with the other 8 million homes still sitting there happily with their old analogue tvs till the day the signal is switched off.

Give them some pay tv channels for free then take them away from them after 4 years. Sounds like sleazy Murdoch all over to me. And his son James is an even more ruthless hardbitten specimen who would like there to be no UK regulator at all as he had admitted at the recent Ofcom conference. Mind you with Ofcom we as good as have no regulator except when it comes to politically correct matters like alleged sexual expolitation of women on pay sex channels or selling junk food to children. If Ofcom followed its usual logic it would say there is a healthy market demand for both such things so no need to restrict it.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Please provide a link to the post where I said that or stop making it up.


It is a logical implication of every word you have written.

But then you are one of those annoying technical bods who always needs the
bunsen burner and the flame to have everything proven point by point. Fortunately some of our best detectives and politicians have been able to work things out from hunches and intuition rather than taking everything at face value.

On your basis of reasoning how does one ever prove that a dictator has had a large number of people executed or sent to the gulag if he has inconveniently destroyed all the hard factual evidence that you must always have in your hand before you believe anything.

Do you vote I wonder as understanding the political implications of a given set of developments does not appear to be your thing.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Actually those channels are all pay channels on Sky in the basic Mixes. None of them are free on that platform. But obviously Murdoch would replace them with more mainstream channels that people want the most like Sky One, Bravo, Discovery, National Geographic, Eurosport and so on.


How would Murdoch do that, as he doesn't own them?


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> It is a logical implication of every word you have written.


So when you said I _said_ it, you'll have been wrong then, yes?



> Fortunately some of our best detectives and politicians have been able to work things out from hunches and intuition rather than taking everything at face value.


Seems you are not one of them, since you reached an entirely inaccurate conclusion.

For what it's worth I'm broadly in agreement with Ofcom's position, that the balance of pay and free should be left to the market, with the previso that any changes should not unacceptably diminish the capacity of the services provided to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests, to quote their policy.



> On your basis of reasoning how does one ever prove that a dictator has had a large number of people executed or sent to the gulag if he has inconveniently destroyed all the hard factual evidence that you must always have in your hand before you believe anything.


I prefer there to be a glimmer of a possibilty that something might be true, rather than just being invented out of thin air to aid a weak argument. Your mindset when you referred to Ofcom as being "corrupt" in an earlier post tells me that you do not regard these things froma rational perspective.



> Do you vote I wonder as understanding the political implications of a given set of developments does not appear to be your thing.


Do you ever actually answer a substantive point except by inventing things, and are you able to finsh a post without a personal dig?

Anyway I'm sure gary will be along in a minute to close or move this thread as it's both off topic and decending into personal abuse.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> For what it's worth I'm broadly in agreement with Ofcom's position, that the balance of pay and free should be left to the market, with the previso that any changes should not unacceptably diminish the capacity of the services provided to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests, to quote their policy.


As if this that hasn't been blatantly obvious all along. 

In my view removing all three Sky channels drives a massive hole into the entire Freeview proposition. One of the reasons people wanted to get it was because they were getting some Sky channels on an FTA basis.

Also Sky Three is not a launch channel but a substantial uprating of the previous Sky Travel but in any event is one of the most worthwhile channels on Freeview for general entertainment outside of BBC, ITV, C4 and Five. Sky Three would be a great deal more appealing to the world at large than Bid Up Tv, Ideal World, Price Drop Tv etc. In my view the complete removal of three channels with program content in favour of black screens for Freeviewers does enormous damage to the Freeview proposition.

You obviously like it because it makes you feel more smug about it being worthwhile to pay a hefty monthly Sky subscription. What should be happening at this point in time is for a channel like Eurosport to want to go FTA on Freeview instead of which we get three dark screens and three encrypted channels that will be watched for a handful of hours each week by a few beer swilling "alright mate" chanting football fans. Ofcom's attitude is unbelievable - but one can expect nothing else from a regulator incapable of serving the public interest. I have every justification for my views based on their previous shameful record in failing to listen to the public over the 084/7 calls scam. And don't tell me your business uses one and you think they are a jolly good thing I suppose. 

Also many of my posts on this forum are helpful to other members. I just can't abide someone trying to make out that the loss of three Sky channels both in terms of the Sky brand name and the three channels themselves isn't extremely bad news for Freeview. However it appears that as it doesn't affect you personally that you just can't be bothered about it or perhaps makes you feel good that the plebs will now be restricted to a far more meagre non subscription tv diet?


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> As if this that hasn't been blatantly obvious all along.


Now you're confusing me. You've said you beleived I only wanted the 5 main channels to be free. I've now explained my postition, which is not that, and you say that it's obvious that's what I thought. So which is it? 



> In my view removing all three Sky channels drives a massive hole into the entire Freeview proposition. One of the reasons people wanted to get it was because they were getting some Sky channels on an FTA basis.


That's your view. I think that access to those three channels was not a prime driver for many (any?) people, and removing them will not make much difference.



> Also Sky Three is not a launch channel but a substantial uprating of the previous Sky Travel but in any event is one of the most worthwhile channels on Freeview for general entertainment outside of BBC, ITV, C4 and Five.


Outside of those 13 or so channels, yes probably. Actually are there any general entertainment channels on Freeview apart from those 13? In effect you're saying that Sky Three is better than FTN. I guess that may be true!

If your saying it's one of the best channels outside the terrestrial five, I'd have to say that's nonsense. Better than BBC 3, More 4, ITV 2, E4, Five US? I had a browse through the schedule it it seems to consist of old repeats of Sky's desperately poor home grown stuff and the second-rate US series which never really caught on.



> Sky Three would be a great deal more appealing to the world at large than Bid Up Tv, Ideal World, Price Drop Tv etc. In my view the complete removal of three channels with program content in favour of black screens for Freeviewers does enormous damage to the Freeview proposition.


You overstate it massively IMHO.



> You obviously like it because it makes you feel more smug about it being worthwhile to pay a hefty monthly Sky subscription.


I wondered how long before the unsubstantiated perssonal dig, and there it is! Do you have issues with people disagreeing with you?



> What should be happening at this point in time is for a channel like Eurosport to want to go FTA on Freeview instead of which we get three dark screens and three encrypted channels that will be watched for a handful of hours each week by a few beer swilling "alright mate" chanting football fans.


Eurosport have had the opportunity to go on Freeview alst time aslot came up, but delined to pay the required price - presumably beleiveing that they could not make the money back in advertising. No regulator on the planet can make them make money.



> Ofcom's attitude is unbelievable - but one can expect nothing else from a regulator incapable of serving the public interest. I have every justification for my views based on their previous shameful record in failing to listen to the public over the 084/7 calls scam. And don't tell me your business uses one and you think they are a jolly good thing I suppose.


I'm not a great Ofcom fan, but I believe they are correct in this instance.



> Also many of my posts on this forum are helpful to other members.


Take a bow.



> I just can't abide someone trying to make out that the loss of three Sky channels both in terms of the Sky brand name and the three channels themselves isn't extremely bad news for Freeview.


It could be good news for Freeview. If people can get their football fix from DTT they may be more likely to buy the STB which gives them Freeview instead of sticking with satellite or cable.



> However it appears that as it doesn't affect you personally that you just can't be bothered about it or perhaps makes you feel good that the plebs will now be restricted to a far more meagre non subscription tv diet?


And an unsubstantiated personal dig to end with. You're getting very predictable Pete.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

So what is your tv source for your Tivo then and what channel lineup do you have if its a Sky, Virgin (Nee NTL/Telwest) or Homechoice subscription based box.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

I have two TiVos connected to Freeview and one to Sky with the full package. And that is relevant how? 

However great you think those channels are, I'm still not clear how their absence damages Freeview. Will people cancel their Freeview subscriptions (er...); will the Government abandon digital switchover as there's no point of the people can't get Sky Sports News?

What material damage to any of the other Freeview channels will happen?

The only negative is that people won't be able to get those particular three channels for free over DTT. While it would obviusly be better for some viewers if they remained free, the loss is not great in the grand scheme of things as they are among the less watched channels. And other people will now be able to get other services which they couldn't previously. Swings, roundabouts.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

So you have access to a much larger range of channels than Freeview and are also prepared to pay an expensive subscription so therefore to you it makes no difference. You are alright Jack just as I expected would be the case.

The point of having DTT in the first place was to provide greater channel choice by aerial and then OnDigital proved in fairly spectacular fashion that this was not an adequate channel choice to compete on a subscription basis with Sky. Also Sky previously went to great lengths to put OnDigital out of business by bidding up football rights to a level that OnDigital could not afford, given the overall weakness of its channel lineup for a subscription service.

You clearly don't seem to have any real belief in DTT as an alternative to having to buy a pricey Sky subscription as you said at one point you thought it only had to contain channels 1 to 5. This is a ridiculous proposition as the only point of rebuilding the entire transmitter network and making everyone's analogue tuner redundant is to provide more viewer choice. The only reason Eurosport see no need to be on DTT is precisely because they are now content that it is going be to reduced back to being just the output of the BBC, ITV, C4 and Five in due course as it always was, so it will not be a true multi channel tv platform they feel they need to be part of.

The removal of these channels drives a huge hole in choice into what was only about 20 channels on Freeview that anyone other than a shopping addict would ever tune into and the precedent sees to it that all of the National Grid Wireless channels can be turned into subscription only too in due course.

And actually I was an OnDigital subscriber on day one in 1998 as there was no other way to get any channel choice other the Channels 1 to 4 here and I did even at the time it later happened think TopUpTv was not a bad idea because at that stage not all the DTT bandwidth was fully in use and there was still no Sky funded system for communal installs in flats (there now is though) But now with DTT established mainly as Freeview and Sky and having been on the platform for over four years I regard the useless Ofcom (who once more are the primary cause here of mass consumer detriment in favour of narrow commercial interest as with 084/7 numbers) proposes to start reducing the number of channels available in an already very limited selection.

This won't matter to you with your Sky fed Tivo box as you won't have any less channels and anyway have access to far more channels than Freeview. via your full Sky sub It will matter to all the people who only have Freeview as it will reduce their viewing choice in both news and entertainment. And it will be the start of the slippery slope for more of the same to happen. But it won't matter to you as you are wedded to keeping Murdoch in business. This seems to leave you blinkered to seeing the bigger picture for all the people who either can't afford to or don't want to pay £400 plus a year to Sky on top of the BBC licence fee.

Unfortunately Ofcom is not about proper regulation of broadcasting, it is about making life more profitable for some of New Labour's best friends. Also Setanta's position is embryonic in providing some pay tv opposition to Sky for football. It needs that fragile position protected until it is established (the normal job of the Competition Commission) and not the Sky football boot in the face to wipe it out before it ever gets going as any form of meaningful competition to Sky. I don't object much to Setanta on DTT as it didn't take away an existing Freeview channel and also because it is only one channel.


----------



## britcub (Jan 19, 2004)

Pete77 said:


> The point of having DTT in the first place was to provide greater channel choice by aerial


Actually, I don't think this was 'the point' at all... I think 'the point' was that the radio spectrum used by analogue TV could be released (and sold off) for other purposes. Greater channel choice was a fortunate by-product.



Pete77 said:


> and then OnDigital proved in fairly spectacular fashion that this was not an adequate channel choice to compete on a subscription basis with Sky.


I rather think all OnDigital proved was that Championship football was not worth the huge amount they paid for it - before it started that contract, it was competing just fine with Sky.



Pete77 said:


> The removal of these channels drives a huge hole in choice into what was only about 20 channels on Freeview that anyone other than a shopping addict would ever tune into


Sorry, but this just isn't the case. Sky Sports News is a minority channel with a VERY small audience, Sky News removes some choice, but we still have a more than adequate 24 hour news channel remaining. Sky Three is a loss, but really was mainly serving as an advertisement for Sky Digital.



Pete77 said:


> and the precedent sees to it that all of the National Grid Wireless channels can be turned into subscription only too in due course.


I don't see this argument, given that several of these channels are owned by the BBC and/or Virgin Media...


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

britcub said:


> Sorry, but this just isn't the case. Sky Sports News is a minority channel with a VERY small audience, Sky News removes some choice, but we still have a more than adequate 24 hour news channel remaining. Sky Three is a loss, but really was mainly serving as an advertisement for Sky Digital.


But had they remained FTA on the channel in due course they could have been replaced by more popular Sky channels.

Sky's total withdrawal from the platform on an FTA basis sets a very alarming precedent.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

I think it probably just means that Sky have realised they won't upsell enough existing Freeview users to Sky by giving them two news channels and a lacklustre "taster" of what used to be on Sky One to make it worth their while continuing to pay for 3 FTA freeview channels.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

blindlemon said:


> I think it probably just means that Sky have realised they won't upsell enough existing Freeview users to Sky by giving them two news channels and a lacklustre "taster" of what used to be on Sky One to make it worth their while continuing to pay for 3 FTA freeview channels.


Then they should have been forced to relinquish the three channels to use by other organisations that wanted to broadcast three FTA channels on Freeview instead and not allowed to put their own pay footie on as a bridge head to then no doubt also acquiring TopUpTv from their two former Sky director chums who run it for a larger Sky pay channels offering on DTT.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> So you have access to a much larger range of channels in Freeview and are also prepared to pay an expensive subscription so therefore to you it makes no difference. You are alright Jack just as I expected would be the case.


You don't beleive anyone who has Sky is allowed to have an opionion, or that any opion they do have is twisted by self interest.

Once again that says more about your mind set (New Labour corrupt, free market bad, Murdoch very bad, everyone apart from you soley motivated by self interest) than mine. Classic old Labour, or maybe Socialist Worker?



> The point of having DTT in the first place was to provide greater channel choice by aerial and then OnDigital proved in fairly spectacular fashion that this was not an adequate channel choice to compete on a subscription basis with Sky.


OnDigital proved that they were incompetent, no more or less.



> Also Sky previously went to great lengths to put OnDigital out of business by bidding up football rights to a level that OnDigital could not afford, given the overall weakness of its channel lineup for a subscription service.


I think you'll find that Sky was bidding silly money for Premiership football long before OnDigital came along.



> You clearly don't seem to have any real belief in DTT as an alternative to having to buy a pricey Sky subscription as you said at one point you thought it only had to contain channels 1 to 5.


You making it up again Pete. I said no such thing. Do you actually read my posts?



> The only reason Eurosport see no need to be on DTT is precisely because they are now content that it is going be to reduced back to being just the output of the BBC, ITV, C4 and Five in due course as it always was, so it will not be a true multi channel tv platform they feel they need to be part of.


Nonsense on both fronts.

Eurosport, and every other channel which has not tried to join Freeview on the several occasions when multiplex space has become available, has made a commercial decison based on the costs of transmission vs. the likely ad revenue they can generate. No need to create conspiracy theories. Eurosport doesn't get many viewers so can't raise enough ad revenue to cover the relatively high costs of being on DTT compared to satellite. That's all there is to it.

As for being reduced back to 5 channels, how could that possibly happen? How will the BBC be forced by Sky removing three channels to drop BBC 3? How will Channel 4 be forced to drop E4? How will *any * broadcaster be forced to drop *any * channel? It's "The sky is falling" rubbish of the first order.



> The removal of these channels drives a huge hole in choice into what was only about 20 channels on Freeview that anyone other than a shopping addict would ever tune into and the precedent sees to it that all of the National Grid Wireless channels can be turned into subscription only too in due course.


The precedent was set by Top Up TV. As I've said, the numbers just don't stack for any other channel to follow suit; they'd have massively reduced audience so ad revenue would be destroyed and there would be hardly any subscription revenue to share to replace it. Why would they do that? Sky are only doing it because of their battle over football.

By the way, my guess is that Sky won't launch a subscription service. They don't have enough bandwidth to make it viable, and they certainly won't want to sell a Sky One/ Sky Sports 1/Sky Movies 1 package at a significant discount to their £42 satellite package or peopele would swicth in droves. I would expect that they will use the bandwidth for a pay-per-view service with key live sport, movies and even Lost/Batllestar etc, priced to make satellite look good value.



> But now with DTT established mainly as Freeview and Sky and having been on the platform for over four years I regard the useless Ofcom (who once more are the primary cause here of mass consumer detriment in favour of narrow commercial interest as with 084/7 numbers) proposes to start reducing the number of channels available in an already very limited selection.


Ofcom have simply said it should be left to the market.



> This won't matter to you with your Sky fed Tivo box as you won't have any less channels and anyway have access to far more channels than Freeview. via your full Sky sub It will matter to all the people who only have Freeview as it will reduce their viewing choice in both news and entertainment.


A debating tip: you're heading down the wrong route suggesting I don't care because I have access to these channels anyway through Sky. You'd have more luck suggesting I don't care because I never watch those channels on any platform. I have that in common with the vast majority of people, according to BARB.



> And it will be the start of the slippery slope for more of the same to happen.


As i've said, it won't, and you have thus far been unable to suggest how it might happen. I look forward to you explaining how it could happen instead of scaremongering.



> But it won't matter to you as you are wedded to keeping Murdoch in business. This seems to leave you blinkered to seeing the bigger picture for all the people who either can't afford to or don't want to pay £400 plus a year to Sky on top of the BBC licence fee.


Yawn.



> Unfortunately Ofcom is not about proper regulation of broadcasting, it is about making life more profitable for some of New Labour's best friends.


Tell the truth, your real name is Dave Spart.



> Also Setanta's position is embryonic in providing some pay tv opposition to Sky for football. It needs that fragile position protected until it is established (the normal job of the Competition Commission) and not the Sky football boot in the face to wipe it out before it ever gets going as any form of meaningful competition to Sky. I don't object much to Setanta on DTT as it didn't take away an existing Freeview channel and also because it is only one channel.


You actually have a point here. [sits down in shock] The Competition Commission should indeed look at this form the point of view of anticompetitive behaviour in the pay TV sports market (nothing to do with Freeview though).


----------



## britcub (Jan 19, 2004)

After some research, it would appear that I was wrong on one thing, of the three channels that are to be removed, Sky Sports News appears to be the most popular.

However, as even when combined, the three channels make up an average of less than 2% of the country's TV viewing in the last week, and less than 5% of people ever watch these channels, I don't think they will be so greatly missed.

Source: BARB


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

britcub said:


> However, as even when combined, the three channels make up an average of less than 2% of the country's TV viewing in the last week, and less than 5% of people ever watch these channels, I don't think they will be so greatly missed.
> 
> Source: BARB


But had they remained as FTA channels eventually more popular channels would have replaced some of them.

Sky News may not have a big total audience but it has a big audience amongst people who actually matter and who want to do more than vegetate in front of their television. It is not healthy for the BBC to have a monopoly on 24 hour News.

Of course Sky know a whole lot of Sky News watchers will be upset so will now have to consider getting Freesat From Sky instead.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> You actually have a point here. [sits down in shock] The Competition Commission should indeed look at this form the point of view of anticompetitive behaviour in the pay TV sports market (nothing to do with Freeview though).


Nice to know you now agree that my original premise, that this was an anticompetitive move by Sky, was after all correct.

I'm not a Socialist Worker but a sort of left wing Conservative on some social and free market issues although very strong on the protection of Civil Liberties of all kinds against the speed cam and congestion charge watching New Labour state.

I actually believe in the free market when it works properly and is highly competitive and there are no barriers to entry but not when large monopolistic corporations have so much influence that they distort it to their own adbvntage. I see Freeview as healthy for the market by making Sky and Virgin (nee NTL/Telewest) work harder to have to provide a good enough channel line up for people to want to pay extra for television.

I didn't mean Freeview would go down to Five channels but it is going back to being only output from BBC, ITV, C4 and Five with more channels than they had before. And much of the secondary channel time is repeats of old programs. But by having no other channel providers on Freeview (as may happen in due course) the total range of program content on Freeview is restricted. And UK History only repeats the old BBC classic output on the whole.

I don't think FTN/UK Bright Ideas is exactly very popular so wouldn't give too much for its chances of surviving in the long run either. I'm sure someone would like to make the two music stations into two pay music stations given half a chance.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> I didn't mean Freeview would go down to Five channels but it is going back to being only output from BBC, ITV, C4 and Five with more channels than they had before. And much of the secondary channel time is repeats of old programs. But by having no other channel providers on Freeview (as may happen in due course) the total range of program content on Freeview is restricted. And UK History only repeats the old BBC classic output on the whole


That's the TV market as a whole though isn't it; the five terrestrial channels, their digital spin offs and the channels which are based on repeats of the terrestrial channels constitute the vast majority of the non-sports/movies market on all platforms.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> That's the TV market as a whole though isn't it; the five terrestrial channels, their digital spin offs and the channels which are based on repeats of the terrestrial channels constitute the vast majority of the non-sports/movies market on all platforms.


Sky News of course has all new live output which is why I consider it a real loss by giving the BBC a monopoly of 24 hour news on the platform. Not watched by that many but watched by the people that count in my admittedly biased opinion. 

Eurosport is all new program output again if at times obscure so a real loss not to have as there is no free sports channel on Freeview.

If BBC, ITV, C4 and Five don't face any threat of other free competition on DTT then in due course they may decide they want to halve the channels they each offer but broadcast it in HD.


----------



## britcub (Jan 19, 2004)

Pete77 said:


> But had they remained as FTA channels eventually more popular channels would have replaced some of them.
> 
> Sky News may not have a big total audience but it has a big audience amongst people who actually matter and who want to do more than vegetate in front of their television. It is not healthy for the BBC to have a monopoly on 24 hour News.
> 
> Of course Sky know a whole lot of Sky News watchers will be upset so will now have to consider getting Freesat From Sky instead.


You really believe that Sky would have replaced these channels with more popular ones*? Cloud cuckoo land!

I think it is possible to watch news on some channel or other for most of the day, so I'd hardly say the BBC had a monopoly on news. If you want a different viewpoint, I doubt you'd have to wait more than an hour to get it.

However, I'd certainly welcome the return of the ITV News Channel if it meant the removal of ITV Play. 

At the end of the day, Sky can do what they like with the bandwidth they are paying for. Since the over-riding reason for people coming to Freeview is (a) because of the digital switchover and (b) to get more BBC channels, I doubt the changes will make any significant impact.

And I resent the idea that those who don't watch Sky News (the TV equivalent of a tabloid newspaper) 'don't matter'! 

[Edit] * on a FTA basis


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

britcub said:


> However, I'd certainly welcome the return of the ITV News Channel if it meant the removal of ITV Play.
> 
> At the end of the day, Sky can do what they like with the bandwidth they are paying for. Since the over-riding reason for people coming to Freeview is (a) because of the digital switchover and (b) to get more BBC channels, I doubt the changes will make any significant impact.
> 
> And I resent the idea that those who don't watch Sky News (the TV equivalent of a tabloid newspaper) 'don't matter'!


Actually we used to have a regulator called the ITC who went to a lot of trouble to set up Freeview who worked quite differently from the overpaid idiots at Ofcom. We do not have a free market in several sectors of the UK economy - we have the NHS distorting most of the health sector for instance and we have the BBC. I think it would have been quite reasonable to take a view that so that ordinary people with not much income had access to a decent range of channels with no subscription (apart from the BBC license fee) no pay tv should have been allowed on Freeview. Greg **** foresaw that various Machiavellian Sky led forces would try to convert everything back to Pay tv which is why the original Freeview box spec did not provide for a Smart card reader.

The less free channels there are on Freeview the more people will be inclined to have to fork out the money for pay tv as well. It stands to reasons as sure as night follows day. The point of a wide range of channels is to allow for some minority tastes as well as for programs that only appeal to the great masses. If there are less channels all channels will only cater mainly for the masses (aka the Eastenders and Coronation St and Football and Reaility Tv program watchers).

As to ITV News I think it was a pretty poor news channel compared to Sky News and the case for three news channels on Freeview is not very strong. If Sky don't want to bother then we would have been better off with CNN or Euronews for some diversity of news content. And I also think most viewers would probably appreciate the return of Men & Motors in place of ITV Play far more than they would ITV having to shell out a vast fortune on producing a rather third rate news channel 24 hours a day again.


----------



## britcub (Jan 19, 2004)

Pete77 said:


> Actually we used to have a regulator called the ITC who went to a lot of trouble to set up Freeview who worked quite differently from the overpaid idiots at Ofcom. We do not have a free market in several sectors of the UK economy - we have the NHS distorting most of the health sector for instance and we have the BBC. I think it would have been quite reasonable to take a view that so that ordinary people with not much income had access to a decent range of channels with no subscription (apart from the BBC license fee) no pay tv should have been allowed on Freeview. Greg **** foresaw that various Machiavellian Sky led forces would try to convert everything back to Pay tv which is why the original Freeview box spec did not provide for a Smart card reader.
> 
> The less free channels there are on Freeview the more people will be inclined to have to fork out the money for pay tv as well. It stands to reasons as sure as night follows day. The point of a wide range of channels is to allow for some minority tastes as well as for programs that only appeal to the great masses. If there are less channels all channels will only cater mainly for the masses (aka the Eastenders and Coronation St and Football and Reaility Tv program watchers).


All nothing to do with my post. But if people CHOOSE to pay more for more TV channels that may or may not meet their 'minority interest', that is up to the individual.



Pete77 said:


> As to ITV News I think it was a pretty poor news channel compared to Sky News and the case for three news channels on Freeview is not very strong. If Sky don't want to bother then we would have been better off with CNN or Euronews for some diversity of news content. And I also think most viewers would probably appreciate the return of Men & Motors in place of ITV Play far more than they would ITV having to shell out a vast fortune on producing a rather third rate news channel 24 hours a day again.


I didn't say it was any good. I said it would be preferable to ITV Play. Nor did I make a case for 3 news channels.

Just accept the inevitable, the 3 Sky channels are going; they won't be hugely missed; change happens.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

britcub said:


> All nothing to do with my post. But if people CHOOSE to pay more for more TV channels that may or may not meet their 'minority interest', that is up to the individual.


Some people don't have that alleged choice due to the quite excessive costs of subscribing to Pay tv on the current Sky model.

Still I don't suppose you are the kind of person who would be interested in minority channels from the sound of it. And if you don't want them why should anyone else have them seems to be your view.

Its not a done deal yet there is still time to try prevent Sky from selling subscription tv on Freeview and trying to wipe out its main football tv competitor.


----------



## britcub (Jan 19, 2004)

Yes, Pete, life is unfair. Some people have more money than others. Get over it.

Wasn't it you who told people they could give up several things in order to fund a TiVo lifetime sub? Couldn't people do the same to afford the TV channels that interest them? Your argument here is very hypocritical considering your previous views on the forum.

I wondered how long it would be before you launched a personal attack on me (someone you know nothing about). Your track record speaks for itself here!

For the record, I watch many minority interest channels. But if they were taken away from me, I would just accept that it wasn't financially viable to continue them.

Sky's new offering of sport and movies on DTT is of no interest to me. But I don't deny people have a right to subscribe to them if they wish.

But the removal of three little-watched channels from FTA DTT is hardly the end-of-the-world scenario you envisage.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

britcub said:


> Sky's new offering of sport and movies on DTT is of no interest to me. But I don't deny people have a right to subscribe to them if they wish.
> 
> But the removal of three little-watched channels from FTA DTT is hardly the end-of-the-world scenario you envisage.


Why don't we just agree to disagree on this issue. Clearly we are never going to come round to the same point of view any more than Tony Benn and Norman Tebbitt would ever be likely to do on many issues.

My concern is I don't think Sky's new offering of sport and movies on DTT is of interest to anyone much but it does at a stroke allow them to weaken the Freeview proposition by taking off air three proper channels with watchable programs (as opposed to shopping channels which really only seem to be watched along with quiz channels by people with some form of severely addictive form of personality who are then badly exploited).

It also allows them at the same time to try to put of business their main rivals at Setanta. I believe in competition but only when it is free and fair. Companies like Sky and Tesco that gain too much of the market and can exercise undue duress on suppliers over pricing need to be controlled and carefully watched or eventually you end up with a near monopoly.

Personally I watch Sky News and Sky Three quite a lot out of my Freesat and Freeview channels lineup (obviously with Sky Three because I don't have access to pay Sky One and Sky Two) and as for all this rubbish about Sky Three being just a shop window for Sky that TCM was spouting it isn't a shop window at all but just programs from Sky One and Sky Two already shown there that those of us not paying between £15 and £60 per month to Sky are happy to watch at a later date. That doesn't make them any less worthwhile to watch. It only seems like a shop window to TCM because he has already seen the programs previously. A shop window would be a promo reel with clips of a few minutes each of all 100+ pay Sky channels. That is not what Sky Three is but I bet it will now disappear off the Sky platform too since it was only really created for the main benefit of Freeview customers.

People should perhaps have to pay something extra for some better programs but not with ball and chain Sky subscription arrangement for loads of programs they don't want. Many low income households spend a huge percentage of their disposable income on such subscriptions which they can ill afford and may even leave the kids without new shoes or clothes in extreme cases.

At the end of the day either you believe in some reasonable wide choice of non subscription tv or you don't. I clearly do believe in that but you and TCM seem quite happy to see it the other way to an extent where people are forced to suscribe to watch Sky or Virgin in many cases.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Sky News of course has all new live output which is why I consider it a real loss by giving the BBC a monopoly of 24 hour news on the platform. Not watched by that many but watched by the people that count in my admittedly biased opinion.
> .


Dip around the forums and you'll find many people outraged that limited DTT bandwidth was being used to have two rolling news channels, something they see as pointless duplication. One man's meat!

Curious that someone so vociferously anti-Murdoch and willing to see corruption everywhere should value Rupert's own news channel so highly.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Curious that someone so vociferously anti-Murdoch and willing to see corruption everywhere should value Rupert's own news channel so highly.


Its his one decent free channel though and as it doesn't have many viewers the one sign that Murdoch at least has some philanthropic ambitions that extend purely beyond profit and making money. If he judged it by his own normally ruthless financial criteria he would have closed it down years ago.

But then of course Murdoch is also keen on a propagandist mouthpiece to express his views to the world as with his newspaper empire. But I find Sky News reasonably objective and quick with any breaking stories. The BBC is often far more politically correct in its approach.

Fox News of course is utter trash and although vaguely amusing for 20 minutes clearly only caters for Americans of a very specific outlook on the world.

I don't know how Freeview gets away without any dedicated sports channel at all if its aim is to provide breadth and depth of coverage. Eurosport would have been perfect to fill the gap.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> I think it would have been quite reasonable to take a view that so that ordinary people with not much income had access to a decent range of channels with no subscription (apart from the BBC license fee) no pay tv should have been allowed on Freeview.


It's a reasonable point of view, but that argument was had and was lost some time ago.



> Greg **** foresaw that various Machiavellian Sky led forces would try to convert everything back to Pay tv which is why the original Freeview box spec did not provide for a Smart card reader.


No, the spec did not have a smart card reader so that there was no rational alternative to the TV license. If Freeview had supported encryption then a subscrition-funded BBC would have been a possibility.



> The less free channels there are on Freeview the more people will be inclined to have to fork out the money for pay tv as well. It stands to reasons as sure as night follows day.


Yes in theory, the question is would the removal of these three channels have any material effect in practice. I can't see it.



> The point of a wide range of channels is to allow for some minority tastes as well as for programs that only appeal to the great masses. If there are less channels all channels will only cater mainly for the masses (aka the Eastenders and Coronation St and Football and Reaility Tv program watchers).


Please explain which minority tastes Sky News, Sky Sports News and Sky Three catered to? SSN is a football channel - exactly what you say you don't want!



> And I also think most viewers would probably appreciate the return of Men & Motors in place of ITV Play far more than they would ITV having to shell out a vast fortune on producing a rather third rate news channel 24 hours a day again.


ITV Play has more viewers than M&M. A very strange fact, that.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Still I don't suppose you are the kind of person who would be interested in minority channels from the sound of it.


I see it's not just me Pete has personal digs at just because they disagree with him.

I belive the NHS will fund having that chip removed from you shoulder.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> My concern is I don't think Sky's new offering of sport and movies on DTT is of interest to anyone much but it does at a stroke allow them to weaken the Freeview proposition by taking off air three proper channels with watchable programs (as opposed to shopping channels which really only seem to be watched along with quiz channels by people with some form of severely addictive form of personality who are then badly exploited).


If that's their motive why did they "upgrade" Sky Travel to Sky Three less than a year ago?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Yes in theory, the question is would the removal of these three channels have any material effect in practice. I can't see it.


The material effect is that it removes three proper program content channels from Freeview not run by BBC, ITV, C4 or Five thus diminishing the whole Freeview proposition as an alternative to Sky. But you only see it as and want it to be just digital BBC, ITV, C4 and Five and nothing else. Pehaps that suits the book of your employer or chosen career. As you know so much about this subject perhaps you can tell us what your day job is. Marketing director at Sky perhaps? 



> Please explain which minority tastes Sky News, Sky Sports News and Sky Three catered to? SSN is a football channel - exactly what you say you don't want!


Those who want a sports channel, a non BBC news channel as an alternative and a choice of entertainments channels outside BBC, ITV, C4 & Five are having this choice removed so are more likely to have to get pay tv. What do you care you already have it and can afford to blow the money on it. I hate football but I acknowledge it is popular so I can understand the case for Sky Sports News (which also covers cricket in the summer at times) but I do think it should live up to its name and have wider coverage of all forms of sports news.

You are clearly one of the world's most argumentative people (even more than me which is certainly saying something) and this discussion is going nowhere and is now pointless to continue so I'm going to take away your fun by ceasing to participate any further in this thread at this point. My energies are better directed to working with those who oppose the change to try to stop it, even though you are smugly convinced that its a done deal and there is no way for me to do so.

End of discussion on this topic.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> If that's their motive why did they "upgrade" Sky Travel to Sky Three less than a year ago?


This was before they realised that Freeview was going to be such a rip roaring success and E4 and More4 went free on Freesat and not on Sky and also Film Four went FTV on all platforms.

Sky are now terrified their pay tv golden goose is going to be killed so have decided to pull the plug on all future Sky FTA participation in Freeview as sour grapes. The last thing Ofcom should do is let them replace it with a subscription service on Freeview. They probably don't have the power to stop them pulling the three channels off air though.

OK this really is the final word on the matter.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> This was before they realised that Freeview was going to be such a rip roaring success.


It was less than 18 months ago! Freeview didn't suddenly get successful since then!

On, and it was AFTER E4 launched, so at least get your facts right...

OK Pete, you take your ball home.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> OK Pete, you take your ball home.


This is a circular and now utterly pointless discussion where no new facts are being revealed.

You just take perverse pleasure in continually baiting me.

Oh and you are still refusing to reveal who you work for in your day job I see.


----------



## britcub (Jan 19, 2004)

TCM's day job is well known to most of the regular contributors to the forum. But it's irrelevant to this discussion, other than to say he's a well respected expert in the field of media.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

britcub said:


> TCM's day job is well known to most of the regular contributors to the forum. But it's irrelevant to this discussion, other than to say he's a well respected expert in the field of media.


Are you a regular contributor to the forum then britclub or just a colleage of TCM? 

I have to say that prior to this thread I hardly remember any posts by you and your total post count is rather modest, although your photo rather distinctive, I suppose mainly because most fairly irregular forum contributors don't seem to use such a personal picture.

As TCM's day job is apparently no secret then perhaps you or he could enlighten us further. He certainly seems to have the thought processes of someone working at senior level at Sky.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> perhaps you or he could enlighten us further.


For enlightenment, see TCM2007's first post 

Blimey, that was hard, NOT!


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

blindlemon said:


> For enlightenment, see TCM2007's first post
> 
> Blimey, that was hard, NOT!


Well easy to find if you know there is something like that to look for in the first place.  

I did vaguely wonder why this TCM fellow seemed to know so much and had so few posts and was vaguely curious where Endpad Stuart had gone to lately but thought perhaps he was busy at work or something.

I can understand that if the former name of TCM 2007 (a rather date related name that is bound to become out of date I have to say) was used for say financially important usernames and passwords why it is now a good idea to change forum IDs to be unrelated to them but sadly that would also mean desisting from the use of the the former name of TCM2007 as a user name on those crucial services too (as they would now be long since known in the world at large) and having one or more usernames in forums that are never used for financially sensitive data.

With that being so and on the assumption that TCM and derivatives is now only used for forum IDs that do not give a clue to financially secure usernames that actually matter then I can't really quite see why Stuart no longer uses his photo on the forum.

On the other hand there are actually plenty of reasons why you might not want all your relatives, employers and other people to know what you are posting in forums and this is why I use an anonymous ID and do not have a photo. No doubt this is also true of many other forum users.

Unfortunately I think if Stuart's new strategy was to be entirely successful then he would have had to avoided making a post telling us his old identity although no doubt we would have been puzzled about a new poster with expert posting knowledge. I suppose removing his photo from the old TCM2007 id would also be wise as well as ideally asking forum management if those old usernames could now be changed to something else using their admin tools to do so?

I must say I did wonder who this highly informed yet self assured and rather argumentative poster was. If I had been asked to guess I would have been more inclined to suspect the relatively notorious pgogborn rather than Stuart.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

P.S. If Stuart had not been deliberately winding me up he could have pointed me to his first post as TCM2007 at any time if he had wanted to.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> You just take perverse pleasure in continually baiting me..


Me baiting you? Pete, it's you who keeps introducing personal jibes. Like may people I find it hard to ignore your snide remarks.


----------



## britcub (Jan 19, 2004)

Pete77 said:


> Are you a regular contributor to the forum then britclub or just a colleage of TCM?


That's brit*cub*. And I only 'know' TCM via this forum.



Pete77 said:


> I have to say that prior to this thread I hardly remember any posts by you and your total post count is rather modest, although your photo rather distinctive, I suppose mainly because most fairly irregular forum contributors don't seem to use such a personal picture.


I've never claimed to be a regular contributor. We don't all feel the need to thrust our opinions at every given opportunity. I prefer to read and learn from posters here, and make my own posts when I have something to *add*. What's my picture got to do with anything?



Pete77 said:


> As TCM's day job is apparently no secret then perhaps you or he could enlighten us further. He certainly seems to have the thought processes of someone working at senior level at Sky.


You were told twice that TCM was one of the most respected members of this community.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> the relatively notorious pgogborn


Ahhh, whatever happened to pgogborn....? 

Now there was a guy who could wind _anybody_ up :up:


----------



## Rob Nespor Bellis (Feb 17, 2001)

And now we are sufficiently off topic 

Anyone else remember the obnoxious Captain Scarlet? Now there was an objectionable chap....

Rgds,

R.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Ah, those were the days. I always rather liked pogborn.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Ah, those were the days. I always rather liked pogborn.


Last post 17th July 2006.

www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=307242

I wonder what became of him.

Of course some may be tempted to ask the same about sanderton.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> Last post 17th July 2006.


I'll see your 17th July and raise you 7th feb 2007


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

blindlemon said:


> I'll see your 17th July and raise you 7th feb 2007


Shows you can't trust Advanced Search by member name to list things in date order. I should just have used the list other posts by this member function.

Strange he has still been posting but we have hardly noticed him. I wonder how that happened?


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> Strange he has still been posting but we have hardly noticed him. I wonder how that happened?


I assume it's because he has not be posting in the UK-specific forums


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> I assume it's because he has not be posting in the UK-specific forums


Yes I realised that when I looked a little more closely. Mainly the US Happy Hour Chit Chat section and so on.

Has he moved to the USA or has he just decided that the Americans are more congenial company than the Brits.

Come to think of it shouldn't those of us who are true Tivo devotees all consider the possibility of relocating ourselves across the pond in order to be able to use the facilities of the Great God the Tivo S3?  

Instead we continue to live here in the land of the false prophet Murdoch keeping our old Tivos running like some stubborn branch of the French resistance during the German occupation in the Second World War. Keeping the faith alive until we hope that one day the promised one will return and the heathen forces will be cast into the outer darkness.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Judging from Ofcom's latest announcement regarding its planned consultation on this issue it seems that the matter of these three Freeview channels ceasing to be FTA and becoming Pay tv instead are not yet done and dusted at all, contrary to what TCM2007 has previously tried to suggest.

www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2007/02/nr_20070216



> When Ofcom receives a request for approval of the necessary variations, the issues that would require consultation are likely to include:
> 
> Firstly, the impact on consumers of Sky's proposal to use MPEG4 compression technology via new set-top boxes, in order to increase the amount of content which can be carried. *Ofcom would need to assess:
> 
> ...


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

So, prepared to take back what you said about Ofcom being corrupt etc now Pete?


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> I must say I did wonder who this highly informed yet self assured and rather argumentative poster was. If I had been asked to guess I would have been more inclined to suspect the relatively notorious pgogborn rather than Stuart.





blindlemon said:


> Ahhh, whatever happened to pgogborn....?
> 
> Now there was a guy who could wind _anybody_ up :up:


I now spend more of my time on a forum created by / frequented by a lot of the TCF 'insiders' in order to allow wider discussions than are permitted on TCF. Heck, I am even a moderator on the political and religious debates section of said forum.

But to put my 2 pennies in about Ofcom, consultation, MPEG-4 and Sky I reckon the more interesting consultation could be "The setting of access-related conditions upon Top Up TV Limited" >
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/tutv/

Perhaps Sky will be denied permission to use MPEG-4 but Top UP TV will be forced to allow Sky to use their secure access system at bargain basement rates.

I am not even sure which option Sky would prefer - although perhaps the news person in Rupert will prefer the MPEG-4 option as it will allow room for Sky News. Heck, he could even be using "give me MPEG-4 or terrestrial will loose Sky News" as a negotiating chip.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> So, prepared to take back what you said about Ofcom being corrupt etc now Pete?


Not when it comes to the matter of its consistently spectacular failure to protect the best interests of UK citizen consumers against still being ripped off from calling covert premium rate numbers which the incompetent regulator still does nothing to stop being widely misdescribed as being local rate, lo-call and national rate calls, including on my latest bill from the Post Office Homephone.


----------



## ColinYounger (Aug 9, 2006)

TCM and Britcub - from a lurker:

DFTT.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

pgogborn said:


> But to put my 2 pennies in about Ofcom, consultation, MPEG-4 and Sky I reckon the more interesting consultation could be "The setting of access-related conditions upon Top Up TV Limited" >
> 
> http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/tutv/
> 
> ...


Surprisingly I am inclined to agree with the majority of your assessment pgogborn and I did also notice the other Ofcom consultation on TopUpTv opening up its conditional access services but hadn't quite fathomed the significance. Originally I had thought if Sky got permission for their MPEG 4 service that they might then try to buy out TopUpTv (run after all by two former Sky directors) and also add that bandwidth to the range of available channels in the new Sky pay tv service.

I do not however agree with you about Sky News and MPEG 4 as even if it was still broadcast on DTT in that format it would still be lost to all of the 8 million Freeview homes already out there. In any event in my book the more significant event is the loss of Sky Three and Sky Sports News in those homes, thereby denying access to quite a range of recent Sky tv programming which often shows there only a few months after Sky One and Sky Two and access to any dedicated Sports channel on Freeview.

Ultimately though I would have thought there will be huge outcry against Sky trying to gain a pay tv foothold on DTT and closing down all its existing FTA Freeview channels at the same time. If Ofcom allows this it will surely become a laughing stock in terms of its so called principal duty under the Communications Act 2003 to protect the best interests of UK citizens and UK consumers. Also if it allowed this it would show itself to be a little more than a poodle of the New Labour apparatus entirely prepared to take biased regulatory decisions in favour of Sky so that the said Mr Murdoch still ensures favourable propaganda about New Labour in UK natonal newspapers.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

ColinYounger said:


> TCM and Britcub - from a lurker:
> 
> DFTT.


Fortunately I have no idea what DFTT means.


----------



## Tony Hoyle (Apr 1, 2002)

pgogborn said:


> Perhaps Sky will be denied permission to use MPEG-4 but Top UP TV will be forced to allow Sky to use their secure access system at bargain basement rates.


Or Sky are allowed to use mpeg4 and also use the TUTV access system (which really only means TUTV supply the cards.. I expect the encryption is done either at the mux or by the broadcaster).

You can get an mpeg4->2 transcoder CAM for not much money already. Just needs sufficient demand.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

So Pete, it seems that because of Sky pulling their channels from Virgin, they've cancelled their plans to take their channels off Freeview to placate advertisers. So Sky being aggressively monopolistic prevents Sky being aggressively monopolistic. I bet you don't know whether to be happy or sad.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> So Pete, it seems that because of Sky pulling their channels from Virgin, they've cancelled their plans to take their channels off Freeview to placate advertisers. So Sky being aggressively monopolistic prevents Sky being aggressively monopolistic. I bet you don't know whether to be happy or sad.


Where did you hear this news TCM? Can't see anything yet at www.bbc.co.uk/news

If Sky have now scrapped their plans to take these three channels off Freeview and replace them with pay tv I'm quite sure its because their connections at Ofcom will have tipped them the wink that under the new get tough era of Ofcom control that Ed Richards seems to be slowly trying to bring in, to replace the anything that business wants goes world of Stephen Carter, that this is just such a blatantly anti competitive step by Sky that even falling over backwards with laissez faireness Ofcom would have had to say no to it.

And despite those of you who claimed that losing these three channels on Sky was not critical I could personally imagine there being a huge Parliamentary hoo hah over it, coming only a few weeks after Sky was allowed to do the same thing to Virgin Media. I can imagine nasty, vicious and ultra capitalist little James Murdoch having imagined this was a clever move before wiser countenances at Sky have prevailed on him that this will actually be a massive own goal for Sky. Also if Virgin Media viewers can at least get Sky Three and Sky News on a Freeview box it means they do at least have some alternative without completely leaving Virgin and moving to paying Sky subs.

I'm sure advertising has damn all to do with it and politics has everything to do with it, since as you have pointed out these are not the best watched Freeview channels.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a43541/report-sky-reconsiders-leaving-freeview.html


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> ... coming only a few weeks after Sky was allowed to do the same thing to NTL.


VIRGIN MEDIA!!!   

I've already complained to the ASA about Sky calling them that AGAIN in a new campaign so I would ask that you also respect the new company name


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

blindlemon said:


> http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a43541/report-sky-reconsiders-leaving-freeview.html


From the digitalspy story:-



> Estimates of the potential cost to Sky in terms of lost ad revenue for having its channels withdrawn from Virgin's cable TV service range from £30m to £50m for 2007.


Surely £50 million is only the size of James Murdoch's total annual salary package, including pension rights and share options. Its hardly going to break the Sky bank, which counts in the billions rather than the millions.

Staying on Freeview only makes sense for Sky in advertising revenue terms if they are going to ramp up Sky Three content to be more like the old Sky One. This would then conveniently let lots of waivering Virgin customers quit Virgin tv altogether in favour of Freeview. Meanwhile Sky comes up with an enhanced Sky One channel with films and premiere sport that Virgin can't hope to match so hangs on to its own subscribers.

A much enhanced Sky Three on Freeview has the potential for a huge viewing audience and advertising revenue if Sky wants to take things in that direction.

Also I honestly believe that Ofcom won't allow Sky's pay proposal for DTT on competition grounds so Sky has to find a way to save face on the matter.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> VIRGIN MEDIA!!!
> 
> I've already complained to the ASA about Sky calling them that AGAIN in a new campaign so I would ask that you also respect the new company name


Sorry Carl, only a Freudian typo on my part and not deliberate.

Error corrected now in my original post.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> Staying on Freeview only makes sense for Sky in advertising revenue terms if they are going to ramp up Sky Three content to be more like the old Sky One. This would then conveniently let lots of waivering Virgin customers quit Virgin tv altogether in favour of Freeview. Meanwhile Sky comes up with an enhanced Sky One channel with films and premiere sport that Virgin can't hope to match so hangs on to its own subscribers.


As I understand it, Sky couldn't do that to Sky One without brining on a whole new set of problems. This stems from the fact that the Sports & Movie channels are 'rate carded' but Sky One is not, for some reason. which I believe would change if they started doing that.

(I do confess to not knowing exactly what I'm talking about but do pick bits up off DS )

Oh, and I was only being semi-serious, Pete. I had actually just come back to add a  to my original post.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

The change of heart came out because Sky were briefing the big ad agencies on why they shouldn't slash their spending on Sky One, so I do believe the context of ads.

I love the idea that Sky wouldn't care about the odd £50m, funniest thing you've posted for ages - how do you think the likes of the Murdochs get rich in the first place? Clue - it's not be being fast and loose with cash!

Films and live sport on Sky One is an interesting one. No-one has an issue with that on BBC 1 or ITV 1, so it seems an avenue worth exploring for them, and if they get the amount right could be a good tater for the Sky World package.


----------



## daveh (Sep 3, 2001)

TCM2007 said:


> Films and live sport on Sky One is an interesting one. No-one has an issue with that on BBC 1 or ITV 1, so it seems an avenue worth exploring for them, and if they get the amount right could be a good tater for the Sky World package.


I would have thought that the dedicated sports viewers would already be well catered for with Sky Sports. Adding live sporting events to Sky 1 might just annoy those of us who think there is far too much sport on TV already.
Films might be a different matter, of course.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

It would come down to ads - if they could pull in more money form the more widely available channel it might make more sense for them. They already show older films on Sky one occasionally.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> I love the idea that Sky wouldn't care about the odd £50m, funniest thing you've posted for ages - how do you think the likes of the Murdochs get rich in the first place? Clue - it's not be being fast and loose with cash!


Sky would not voluntarily waste £50 million on anything of course but they would be prepared to spend £50 million on a strategically important business decision that changes their own market position. When Sky chose to raise prices to Virgin for the basic Sky channels by 100% and then refused to budge on the price at all, they knew full well that the likely answer was that Virgin would cancel the service. However the basic issue for Sky I imagine was probably that they were basically supplying Sky One to Virgin customers far more cheaply and in a cheaper channel package than it is available to any of their own customers (minimum £15 per month to get Sky On on the Sky Digital platform) and they probably decided they would rather have a good chunk of these low budget customers subscribed with them directly, rather than via Virgin, as in the long run they make more money out of direct subscribers.

So anyhow coming back to the £50 million it is an absolutely trivial sum of money in the context of the overall Sky operation and cannot possibly be the reason they are now inclined to keep the Sky channels on Freeview. However what seems far more likely is that as a result of the furore over pulling their channels off Virgin they now realise what would lie ahead with pulling them off Freeview and that this will reposition the company back as a pay tv only operator.

And I'm sure when they look it rationally they are likely to work out that their proposed pay tv platform on DTT is almost bound to be a flop, that they will incur a lot of public image damage by becoming a pay tv only company, and that with Freeview (but not pay DTT boxes) in every home in the land by 2012 it makes far more sense to turn their three Freeview channels into popular channels that can pick up a large amount of advertising revenue. One would see Sky Three becoming something nearer to the current Sky One and then something will happen with Sky Sports News and Sky News as both have tiny viewing figures and one of the two should surely be turned into another popular channel (motoring or sports or documentary genre) with a much bigger audience with more advertising revenue.

If Sky think about things long and hard they will soon realise they don't want to be marginalised as just a pay only tv operator for the next 10 years or more that the existing BBC licence fee environment remains intact, and with that in mind they should want to be offering two or three credible channels on Freeview in 2012 that means Sky is as big a television brand name in every UK home as the BBC, ITV, Ch4 and Five.

I'm sure the pay tv on DTT thing was just a toe in the water idea by Sky. And the toe in the water pretty quickly got badly scalded so they are going to pull it out fast and decide to re-embrace Freeview.


----------



## SilkMan (Feb 13, 2007)

ColinYounger said:


> TCM and Britcub - from a lurker:
> 
> DFTT.


That's a bit like saying don't play with fire - you know you shouldn't but it's so much more interesting when you do


----------



## ColinYounger (Aug 9, 2006)

Re Sky with freeview - my take is that Sky are giving the finger to VM by making the channels available. They're effectively making VM the only platform that hasn't got Sky - thus reducing their attraction to potential subscribers.

Having said that, the same argument could work vis a vis Sky/Freeview.

I also think that the Freeview decision is - as TCM said - advertising related.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

ColinYounger said:


> I also think that the Freeview decision is - as TCM said - advertising related.


I think its also down to the initial regulatory and market reaction they have had to their proposed proprietary non open standard pay DTT service and the simultaneous plan to completely withdraw from Freeview.

I suspect Sky have now begun to realise that the level of negative reaction to both those ideas is such that its better to fight only one major battle at a time (i.e. with Virgin Media) and that staying on Freeviww may actually help them to fight and win that other important battle.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Actually there was scarcely a murmur about the freeview announcement in comparison to this Virgin stuff.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Actually there was scarcely a murmur about the freeview announcement in comparison to this Virgin stuff.


Because it hasn't happened.

Quite a different matter from Sky being cut off on Virgin Media which has happened.


----------



## ColinYounger (Aug 9, 2006)

This argument doesn't work and I hate myself for posting this.

According to Pete:

OFCOM has no influence and is corrupt. That's why Sky get to do what they want.

But the reason Sky 'allowed' freeview to continue is because they're scared of OFCOM.

I'm out. Thanks for listening. DFTT.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

ColinYounger said:


> This argument doesn't work and I hate myself for posting this.
> 
> According to Pete:
> 
> ...


Ofcom is in a state of change.

Historically they have taken the view that more or less whatever business wants goes. But they have had their fingers burned lately over things like the tv quiz prize lines and I think slowly are getting the message that people in business are not all jolly decent chaps who can just be trusted to do the right thing.

Often the regulator needs to wield the big stick to keep companies form overstepping the mark and to break up fights in the commercial school playground


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Because it hasn't happened.
> 
> Quite a different matter from Sky being cut off on Virgin Media which has happened.


The Virgin row was on the TV news way before it happened. So far as I know the Freeview stuff never got mainsteam coverage.


----------



## britcub (Jan 19, 2004)

ColinYounger said:


> DFTT.


Sorry Colin, Pete may be inflammatory; he may not always be polite; he may be robust in defending his views, but I do not believe he is a troll. He genuinely believes what he posts.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

ColinYounger said:


> This argument doesn't work and I hate myself for posting this.
> 
> According to Pete:
> 
> ...


It's hard maintaining a world view of paranoia about big business and corrupt government AND remaining internally consistent.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

britcub said:


> Sorry Colin, Pete may be inflammatory; he may not always be polite; he may be robust in defending his views, but I do not believe he is a troll. He genuinely believes what he posts.


Indeed.


----------

