# TiVo and BBC Freesat



## Pessable (Mar 6, 2006)

I don't suppose that there's any chance that TiVo will return to the UK with an offering to support the new BBC/ITV Freesat service, is there? It seems like an opportunity to me for TiVo to re-open the UK market with a dual satellite HD tuner model with all the other bells and whistles (income opportunities) that exist in the USA.

People I know think Sky+ is good until I show them TiVo, but even I have both because of the HD and dual tuner capability (and the picture quality is just inherently better when you can record the signals in their original compressed digital form).

So come on TiVo, get your heads together with BBC and ITV and really give Murdoch something to worry about.


----------



## mikerr (Jun 2, 2005)

Without a direct deal with Sky or VM, tivo can't produce a UK tivo supporting HD on either.

Best solution we can hope for is that the australian tivo needs no modification for use in the UK (DVB / Freeeview in the UK and AUS are similar), then its a "simple" matter of persuading tivo UK to allow AUS originated Tivos to download UK EPG data.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

mikerr said:


> Without a direct deal with Sky or VM, tivo can't produce a UK tivo supporting HD on either.


I think the OP's point is that Sky and VM co-operation is not needed for a PVR that merely receives the BBC Freesat lineup (or for that matter the Freeview lineup).

However in the short to medium term BBC Freesat definitely won't be able to receive Five, Five US and Five Life and may or may not be able to receive C4, E4 and More4 when first launched. With that being so I can't see any chance of major Freesat takeoff short term. The point of launching it now is to pressurise C4 and Five to definitely move to FTA on satellite (initial launch costs of Freesat are not very big as all the equipment exists anyhow and its only a re-branding exercise for cheap FTA satellite boxes with no possibility of decrypting Sky or any other encoded channels) and only as and when C4 and Five finally make their channels FTA will there be any point in making a big fuss about Freesat. Up to that point Mr and Mrs Average will remain unconvinced it is a viable solution.

As to Tivo coming back to the UK if Freesat was a good enough reason to do so then they would already be here with an S3 Freeview box.

Unfortunately Tivo is reliant on subscription income for its EPG and Freeview has decided that people who want a cheap product without a sub like Freeview or Freesat are hardly going to be prepared to pay Tivo £120 a year or whatever for an EPG subscription.

Tivo have now focused their efforts elsewhere on Australia and China so for the time being there is no hope at all of them coming back to the UK. Also like it or not as time goes by the difference between Tivo and other PVRs and web based watch again tv will get smaller so the chances of Tivo diminishing become ever less. Sad but true..............

And don't forget that Windows MCE that is basically almost as good as a Freeview or Freesat Tivo but does not charge a monthly subscription for its EPG.


----------



## Pessable (Mar 6, 2006)

mikerr said:


> Without a direct deal with Sky or VM, tivo can't produce a UK tivo supporting HD on either.
> 
> Best solution we can hope for is that the australian tivo needs no modification for use in the UK (DVB / Freeeview in the UK and AUS are similar), then its a "simple" matter of persuading tivo UK to allow AUS originated Tivos to download UK EPG data.


The new BBC/ITV Freesat service http://www.freesat.co.uk/home.php(due for launch in Spring 2008, although I appreciate that the date has been put back previously) will use their own or an "open" EPG won't it? In which case it would be perfectly reasonable for TiVo to produce a compatible box - they're doing most of the work to produce the listings anyway.

I wasn't aware of the AUS TiVo so I'm off to have a Google.


----------



## Pessable (Mar 6, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> And don't forget that Windows MCE that is basically almost as good as a Freeview or Freesat Tivo does not charge a monthly subscription for its EPG.


I've never really played with MCE - is it really that close to TiVo? I kind of assumed that anything based on Windows wouldn't be reliable.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Pessable said:


> The new BBC/ITV Freesat service http://www.freesat.co.uk/home.php(due for launch in Spring 2008, although I appreciate that the date has been put back previously) will use their own or an "open" EPG won't it? In which case it would be perfectly reasonable for TiVo to produce a compatible box - they're doing most of the work to produce the listings anyway.


Then why haven't they already done so for the much stronger and better established Freeview marketplace with Freeview boxes now in over 8 million UK homes and with the benefits of timeshifting on the smaller Freeview channel range being even more obvious.

Answer because Tivo's EPG service is subscription revenue funded and Freeview box owners are in general tightwads who don't want to pay a monthly subscription.


----------



## 6022tivo (Oct 29, 2002)

Even with freesat you need a sky cam to decode CH4 CH5 and the other offerings, sky won't let anyone use the cam (Anticompetative IMO). Sky will not let another company use the cam, so no hardware with tivo sw will come our way.

We all know that we now have software cam's for sky that will run on linux in a dreambox (Valid sky card required) but updates to the card may not happen, and it is unsupported by sky.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Pessable said:


> I've never really played with MCE - is it really that close to TiVo? I kind of assumed that anything based on Windows wouldn't be reliable.


Longstanding forum members iankb and TCM2007 both use it and generally seem to prefer it to Tivo. Its only main issue is it can't handle encrypted Sky channels (at least not legally and without cumbersome regular manual intervention) and can't handle recording from Freeview and Freesat on a single box even though you can have 2 or more Freeview or Freesat tuners on a single Windows MCE box.

Season Pass and Wishlist handling seems to be as good as Tivo so the only other major deficiency compared to Tivo is no Suggestions feature.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

6022tivo said:


> Even with freesat you need a sky cam to decode CH4 CH5


Although that will be solved if and when C4 and Five go FTA as they probably will in due course. Obviously C4 appear to be actively planning in that direction given that more recently re-launched Film4 changed from subscription to fully FTA instead of just to FTV as C4 is.

On the other hand at least all Five channels are FTV and so free to watch for Sky Freesat box owners on Sky Freesat whereas you have to pay a subscription to watch E4 and More4 on satellite but not on Freeview.


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

Pete77 said:


> Longstanding forum members iankb and TCM2007 both use [MCE] and generally seem to prefer it to Tivo. Its only main issue is it can't handle encrypted Sky channels (at least not legally and without cumbersome regular manual intervention)


Although I've never tried it, I believe that MCE can control Sky digiboxes with IR wands, in the same way as TiVo does. However, you would need a video-capture card, and video-capture has a much-higher CPU-loading than using built-in Freeview tuners.

As you state, what MCE can't do is mix two different sources, since it can only use one EPG at a time.


----------



## 6022tivo (Oct 29, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> Its only main issue is it can't handle encrypted Sky channels


Sorry????

My current MCE machine handles any sky channel???

Uses the svideo input on the PC input card, that goes off to the sky box, the USB remote uses wands (like tivo) to control the sky box.

Full EPG and "season passes" that remembers (rather than sky+) works just fine, best of all its functions, upgrades, and guide data including all season passes are free. The graphical interface is much better (even better with vista mce than xp), and imo is clever when it comes to conflicts as it tells you either on the planner, or via the taskbar if you are using the PC.

You could also use two sky boxes and two of the same input cards to work a dual tuner recorder with sky.

With reference to reliability, it is fine for me, no problems at all. People who have not tried it, have a go, it does not require a intensive pc at all, my MCE freeview unit was on a old single p4 with 500mb of ram. It does not require starting up, and all runs in the background, even the recording.


----------



## mdolan (Jun 4, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> Season Pass and Wishlist handling seems to be as good as Tivo so the only other major deficiency compared to Tivo is no Suggestions feature.


Suggestions *feature*? <clears throat>Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha <*cough*> <*boink*>.

I'm sorry, I appear to have coughed up my lungs.

Suggestions have been borken for months and Tivo have done nothing about it (e.g. offering and recording shedloads of Radio Channels, "Sign Off", "To Be Announced"). I'm hard pressed to think of the last time I was offered a relevant suggestion.

Cheers,
Mike


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

mdolan said:


> Suggestions have been borken for months and Tivo have done nothing about it (e.g. offering and recording shedloads of Radio Channels, "Sign Off", "To Be Announced"). I'm hard pressed to think of the last time I was offered a relevant suggestion.


Working ok here and not recording any of the types of program you mention.

May be you have lately left Suggestions turned off assuming it is still broken or may be you have a corrupted database and need to do a Clear and Delete everything.


----------



## OzSat (Feb 15, 2001)

No problems here either - although when I purchased TiVo I set 'SIGN OFF' and 'To be announced' to :down: :down: :down: - although it shouldn't make any difference


----------



## JudyB (Jan 25, 2006)

mdolan said:


> Suggestions have been borken for months and Tivo have done nothing about it (e.g. offering and recording shedloads of Radio Channels, "Sign Off", "To Be Announced"). I'm hard pressed to think of the last time I was offered a relevant suggestion.


Suggestions work for us too. The only recent error we have had was in messing up correcting the listings for the channels we receive - it recorded an hour of "This channel is not included in your subscription..." for us yesterday. However, that was clearly user error (mine).


----------



## mesaka (Sep 27, 2002)

There is even a nascent suggestions program for MCE - MyTV Genie. I have been using it with freeview from SKy but it is not as reliable as my TiVo suggestions (which work well).

Using both I am still more impressed with TiVo. However, it is getting closer. i still am hopeful (= sitting with fingers crossed) that the Nero deal will allow us to mix both - i.e use MCE infrastructure with several types of inputs and use the TiVo interface.....


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

mesaka said:


> I have been using it with freeview from SKy but it is not as reliable as my TiVo suggestions (which work well)


I think that would be Freesat From Sky.



> i still am hopeful (= sitting with fingers crossed) that the Nero deal will allow us to mix both - i.e use MCE infrastructure with several types of inputs and use the TiVo interface.....


And which Nero deal would that be exactly? More information on this would be very interesting.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Keep up at the back. Nero have licensed TiVo's software to use on a PC.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Keep up at the back. Nero have licensed TiVo's software to use on a PC.


But only in countries where they plan on future marketing efforts no doubt. So no hope here then.............:down:


----------



## Raisltin Majere (Mar 13, 2004)

Pete77 said:


> But only in countries where they plan on future marketing efforts no doubt. So no hope here then.............:down:


I do recall mention of it on here, but only a brief one.

First result on a google news search gives http://www.tmcnet.com/ce/articles/17220-nero-signs-agreement-with-tivo.htm

Haven't read it but did notice This agreement provides TiVo with an opportunity to deliver its interface and differentiated feature set *globally* via the PC, enabling TiVo to use all avenues of mass distribution, from consumer electronics, to cable and satellite boxes and soon, the PC. (emphasis mine)

Of course "globally" could mean as in across the globe or as in across all technologies -shrug-


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Raisltin Majere said:


> Of course "globally" could mean as in across the globe or as in across all technologies -shrug-


But to do so they need an EPG in each country they provide service in, although of course Microsoft seems to achieve this with Windows MCE on the whole.

So perhaps it will be possible?.............


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

As I understand it, the problem with TiVo coming back to the UK has primarily been the reluctance of the manufacturers to produce and market a UK model rather than TiVo supporting the EPG. A PC-based version would bypass most of the problems, and the EPG can be produced quite cheaply.


----------



## 6022tivo (Oct 29, 2002)

I can imagine the meetings between hardware manufacturers and tivo all looking great until tivo say they are to charge the consumer &#163;10 a month for something they get free with Sky and now free with other Freeview recorders (inc series links). At this point I imagine the hardware manufactures just walk away having a giggle.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

6022tivo said:


> I can imagine the meetings between hardware manufacturers and tivo all looking great until tivo say they are to charge the consumer £10 a month for something they get free with Sky


Sorry but its currently a service Sky still charge at least £16 per month for.

I can have a Freesat Sky+ box with no recording for nothing per month but to use the Sky+ recording fetaure I must pay Sky at least £16 per month, even if I don't want to watch any of the channels on the one Mix I get for that.

You are correct in saying that Freeview Playback boxes and BBC Fressat PVRs will be very interesting as and when they fully support Series Link on all channels from the major broadcasters but thus far that is not the case and Freeview Playback only works experimentally for Series Link with the BBC channels as I understand it.


----------



## Raisltin Majere (Mar 13, 2004)

Pete77 said:


> Sorry but its currently a service Sky still charge at least £16 per month for.
> 
> I can have a Freesat Sky+ box with no recording for nothing per month but to use the Sky+ recording fetaure I must pay Sky at least £16 per month, even if I don't want to watch any of the channels on the one Mix I get for that.
> 
> You are correct in saying that Freeview Playback boxes and BBC Fressat PVRs will be very interesting as and when they fully support Series Link on all channels from the major broadcasters but thus far that is not the case and Freeview Playback only works experimentally for Series Link with the BBC channels as I understand it.


I thought those with freesat could pay £10 pm for sky+?


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Sorry but its currently a service Sky still charge at least £16 per month for.
> .


He said "you get it free with Sky". ie, it is included at no additional cost with Sky. If you don't pay that £16+ you haven't got Sky!


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Raisltin Majere said:


> I thought those with freesat could pay £10 pm for sky+?


The situation is more complicated than that as if you have www.freesatfromsky.co.uk or Sky Pay Once Watch Forever and want to ever become a Sky subscriber (including Sky+ recording) they will only let you do so if you sign a 12 month minimum subscription contract with Sky. This is even if you had your Freesat box and card for 4 or 5 years.

So you would be hit with whatever the upgrade fee is for a Sky+ box + install fee of £30 (new LNB and cabling) and a 1 year contract which would have to include at least one Sky Mix at £16 x 12 = £192 (otherwise they won't give you the Sky+ box etc). Only after doing 12 months on at least one Mix could then in theory desubscribe from the channel packages and say you only want to keep the Sky+ recording at £10 per month.

In essence the problem is at the moment there is no Freesat From Sky or Sky Pay Once Watch Forever product that bundles a Sky+ box Quad LNB and double cable to the box.

This may change if and when Freeview Playback and/or BBC Freesat PVRs are seen to be making serious inroads in to potential Sky+ users........


----------



## 6022tivo (Oct 29, 2002)

it is a free service with Sky if you subscribe to any package (Currently &#163;16 PCM) or &#163;10 PCM if you don't.

You also have to remember that the basic receivers sky provide are free, and sky+ receivers can be had for free with offers they run.

If tivo provided a HDD recorder for free with a subscription, I would consider it, but the current business model tivo run would not work in the UK, especially with the way freeview boxes are going.

I find it had to understand why anyone can justify the &#163;10 PCM tivo charge at the moment, what with Sky options, Freeview HDD boxes, and the OzTivo methods..

It is a charge that can not be jusitifed now, or with new hardware in the UK.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> He said "you get it free with Sky". ie, it is included at no additional cost with Sky. If you don't pay that £16+ you haven't got Sky!


But my point is that unlike Freeview Playback a Sky subscription that entitles you to use Sky+ is not free and costs at least £192 per annum for a very limited pay tv channel lineup (although with plenty of FTA channels) on that bottom package.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

6022tivo said:


> If tivo provided a HDD recorder for free with a subscription, I would consider it, but the current business model tivo run would not work in the UK, especially with the way freeview boxes are going.


No argument with you there.



> It is a charge that can not be jusitifed now, or with new hardware in the UK.


Fortunately many of us are not paying it although its obviously a shame for those who are. The value of a Tivo Lifetime Sub purchased on Day 1 in monthly sub terms is now around £880 and counting............


----------



## 6022tivo (Oct 29, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> The value of a Tivo Lifetime Sub purchased on Day 1 in monthly sub terms is now around £880 and counting............


I use it because I have a lifetime, well 3 lifetimes..

I would never now consider seeing my bank statement with £10 PCM coming out of it for the service provided, or lack of. People must be mad.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

6022tivo said:


> People must be mad.


Sits back and waits for Carl and Raisltin to hove in to view to defend their position.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Well yeah. Not disagreeing  I have considered paying the money now, but is there still 20 months left in the service and/or my unit? I sincerely hope there is but it would of course be a waste if not.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

cwaring said:


> but is there still 20 months left in the service and/or my unit?


Of course there is!

Have you noticed how quickly the _last_ 20 months went by? 

If you buy the lifetime sub now, and use a credit card then in the (IMHO very unlikely) event that TiVo discontinues the service within 20 months you have a pretty good chance of getting the difference back from a) TiVo or b) your credit card company.

Seriously, would TiVo even still be selling lifetime subs if they were thinking of discontinuing the service within the next 20 months?

Come on Carl - join the smug club


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

blindlemon said:


> If you buy the lifetime sub now, and use a credit card then in the (IMHO very unlikely) event that TiVo discontinues the service within 20 months you have a pretty good chance of getting the difference back from a) TiVo or b) your credit card company.


Although it is now generally cheaper to buy one with a Lifetime Sub on Ebay but it is very important to get the seller to confirm in writing by Ebay PM that they are the original owner and are willing to contact Tivo to transfer the sub in to your name if you are the winning bidder as the sub is still in their name. If they won't do this then don't bid.

You then have a spare Tivo as you can move the hard drives and Cachecard from your current Tivo across to this one and keep the other one as an unsubbed spare.



> Seriously, would TiVo even still be selling lifetime subs if they were thinking of discontinuing the service within the next 20 months?


I suspect the decision hasn't been properly reviewed given a company that didn't even renew the www.tivo.co.uk domain. However I do feel that unless there is a change of ownership at Tivo that given the sentiment involved with the UK launch and the UK Tivo service amongst some with sway on the Tivo board that they would probably want to provide service for at least 10 years after the last years Tivos were sold commercially in any quantity - that is 2002. So I would say all being well (no takeover of Tivo Inc by an unfriendly rival in this period or no insolvency of Tivo Inc) we probably have at least four and a bit years left.

By then the HD recording alternatives on offer may be sufficiently good that you no longer want to use your Tivo anyway........

Also BT's 21 Century Network and widespread BT competition from WiMax will begin to be in place at that stage, giving more possibilities for broadband based HD IPTV.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

I would think that Nero would be keen to be able to sell their PC version of TiVo in the UK, which the service being available will allow.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

I see that Nuts Tv, that was only previously on Freeview for four hours every evening from 7pm to 11pm, has now appeared FTA on Sky/Astra on Channel 207 (no Sky viewing card required to receive it).

I am sure this move is linked with the impending launch of BBC Freesat. How much longer before UK History, TMF, The Hits, Virgin 1, E4 and More4 are also FTA on Sky instead of in one of their basic pay channel mixes?


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

You have a great deal of faith in Freesat, or "BBC Freesat" as you for some reason call it.

I don't share it; I can see strong reasons to buy a Freeview HDD recorder or a Sky box on a special offer, but a satellite box that can't be upgraded to pay TV seems the worst of all worlds and of quite limited appeal.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Well as far as I know, Channel 4's encryption contract with NDS expires this year and they are not expected to re-new it, so all their channels will be FTA. Not sure about the VMTV channels -Virgin1, Bravo, Living, etc. I don't expect them to go FTA anytime soon.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> I don't share it; I can see strong reasons to buy a Freeview HDD recorder or a Sky box on a special offer, but a satellite box that can't be upgraded to pay TV seems the worst of all worlds and of quite limited appeal.


You seem unaware of the marketing success of the DTT product now marketed as Freeview compared to the dismal failure of the same DTT technology when only receivable on boxes with dedicated smartcard slots and full pay tv capability by OnDigital.

The former proposition failed to ever take off both because there was an insufficient range of pay tv channels on offer and due to unreliable signal quality (compared to Sky) but also because the majority of the price sensitive viewing public associated it with paying more than the BBC licence fee to watch DTT channels.

At present satellite tv is associated with pay tv and thus those who don't want to pay more than the licence fee do not even enquire further about getting satellite tv because they associate it with large subscriptions to Sky. But if FTA Freesat is marketed by the BBC and others and it is made clear that you can watch FTA on satellite, including HD broadcasts which are unlikely to be available either at all or in the same variety or as soon on DTT, for no extra money and there are a lot more FTA channels than on Freeview then it is likely to make the FTA satellite market takeoff. The FTA satellite market has not taken off thus far due to Ofcom's outrageous incompetence historically in allowing Sky to control the proprietary FTV encryption of output from the main terrestrial broadcasters thus associating satellite tv with pay tv.

I'm sure you personally don't want Freesat to succeed in order to ensure that most HD content and channels are kept as the exclusive property of those of you who are well off enough to afford a £35 per month+ subscription to Sky. No doubt the Murdoch's next commission cheque as one of their undercover sales agents will be in the post to you tomorrow morning.


----------



## Pessable (Mar 6, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> You have a great deal of faith in Freesat, or "BBC Freesat" as you for some reason call it.
> QUOTE]
> 
> I guess to distinguish between "Freesat from Sky" and the BBC/ITV Freesat service. I don't know who decided to use the same name but its awfully confusing.
> ...


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Pessable said:


> I've been asked by my technically unsavvy neighbours to recommend a digital platform ahead of the switchover. DTT is just too limited, but Freesat from Sky means that they have to plough through hundreds of channels in which they have no interest, when they'll probably only watch 8-10 channels. I look forward to BBC Freesat offering a PVR box that I can customise for them so that they only see the channels they want.


A few points on the above:-

1) Sky could modify their software in a jiffy to provide an option where only the channels a customer's smart card setup allows them to receive are actually displayed. To be honest I find it shocking that Ofcom have not mandated this given Sky's continued FTV control over C4 and Five and Sky blatantly using it as a way to try and punish anyone not signed up to at least all 6 basic Sky Mixes. There is even currently a ruddy great banner on each Sky Mix channel you don't subscribe to saying you can watch it for another £1 per month extra. Chances are Sky may enable the function to turn off displaying channels you aren't covered to watch if BBC Freesat (BBC being the main protagonist in this setup even if ITV is reluctantly following along so as not to be left out) looks like it is a threat.

2) I still think Sky can kill BBC Freesat by bribing Five in some way to remain encrypted FTV (how do you then explain as a salesman a BBC Freesat box with no five channels to the technically unwashed) and by making more Sky channels like Sky News (currently FTV) and Sky Sports News (currently in a basic pay mix on Sky bit free on Freeview) FTV on satellite. They may also do this (go FTV) with Sky One or Sky Two on a short term basis for a year two in order to try and kill off BBC Freesat, even though I'm sure in the long run Sky One would not remain FTV.

3) On the other hand if the BBC box has a better tuner and a bigger dish and can receive a load of worthwhile FTA channels not available on a Sky box then perhaps they have a chance of differentiating themselves. However having recently used a new Euro sat box out in Spain with a 90cm dish that could pick up Euro wide oriented broadcasts on 19 degrees and 28 degrees East (but not UK focused broadcasts as the communal dish installed by the German owners was too small to get these) I can honestly say that out of about 900 FTA channels on the two satellites there was nothing additional in English that a Sky Digibox does not also manage to get that was worth having.

The only thing which can really make the BBC Freesat work is the angle of it being the way to get FTA HD broadcasts from the Beeb, C4 and ITV without paying Sky a penny piece. FTA HD broadcasts are a killer app that would make many customers consider getting BBC/ITV, Freesat even though they have a Freeview box already.


----------



## Pessable (Mar 6, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> A few points on the above:-
> 
> ...Sky Sports News (currently in a basic pay mix on Sky but free on Freeview)


This is a weird anomaly isn't it. My Dad even has SkySports but doesn't get Sky Sports News, unless he switches to the Freeview tuner built into his new telly!

The other thing that may have an impact on Sky is the fact that their Sports "Battering Ram" (Rupert's words) is being softened by the introduction of competition into sports rights. About 10 years too late but better late than never. You never know, a FTA outfit might even pick up a few live Premiership games in the future.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Pessable said:


> This is a weird anomaly isn't it. My Dad even has SkySports but doesn't get Sky Sports News, unless he switches to the Freeview tuner built into his new telly!


But no more than UK History, TMF, The Hits, Virgin 1, E4 and More4 all being FTA on Freeview but requiring subscription to one of the basic pay mixes on Sky to view them. Also no more than C4, Five, Five US, Five Life and Sky Three all being totally FTA on Freeview but being FTV (and so requiring both a Sky Digibox rather than any other non Sky approved satellite box and an active Sky viewing card) in order to watch them on Freesat.

So you are saying your dad pays out for Sky Sports but saves himself £1 per month on the News Mix that includes both Sky Sports News and British Eurosport? Doesn't seem altogether rational behaviour by your dad if he likes sport and/or football that much?


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> You seem unaware of the marketing success of the DTT product now marketed as Freeview...


I had noticed Freveiew strangeley enough. However I don't think its a a valaid comaparison as it wasn't a matter of Freeview competeing with On Digital and winning; On Digital went bust then after a few months, Freeview was launched.

Free is quite powerful obviously, but for most folks Freeview was/is a no brainer - plug in a cheap box and get loads more channels for nothing, great.

Freesat is much less clear cut. For one thing you need a full dish installation, which not only expensive but a major hassle. And at the end of it you get a set of channels which is not obviously superior, HD aside, from what you get with a £30 Freeview box.

If you are going to the hassle of getting dishes installed, cable runs laid etc, why would you spoil the ship for a ha'por'th of tar and not get a box which can provide PPV movies and be upgraded with a phone call to get other channels should you decide you want them? Doesn't seem a rational decision.

The only plus I can see is getting some HD content via FreeSat, but should that look like gaining traction, some tweaks to the Sky HD minimum package could sort that out.



> I'm sure you personally don't want Freesat to succeed in order to ensure that most HD content and channels are kept as the exclusive property of those of you who are well off enough to afford a £35 per month+ subscription to Sky.


Couldn't give a toss if it succeeds or not; just don't think it will.


----------



## ericd121 (Dec 12, 2002)

TCM2007 said:


> I can see strong reasons to buy a Freeview HDD recorder or a Sky box on a special offer, but a satellite box that can't be upgraded to pay TV seems the worst of all worlds and of quite limited appeal.


Unless you have absolutely no intention of paying for television.

Many of us don't see why we should pay for something that has been free (license fee not withstanding) for decades.

Many of us are also skinflints. 


Pessable said:


> Freesat from Sky means that they have to plough through hundreds of channels in which they have no interest, when they'll probably only watch 8-10 channels. I look forward to BBC Freesat offering a PVR box that I can customise for them so that they only see the channels they want. It seems like a small point, but the sheer volume of channels puts most casual TV watchers off Sky.


I am also in the "less is more" camp.

The modern mantra of "choice" to me means more crap I have to wade through to find what I want.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

ericd121 said:


> Unless you have absolutely no intention of paying for television.
> 
> Many of us don't see why we should pay for something that has been free (license fee not withstanding) for decades.
> 
> Many of us are also skinflints.


Indeed, but are said skinflints going to go for the expense of a satellite system when a £30 Freeview box is just as good?


----------



## kitschcamp (May 18, 2001)

Our inlaws live just a few miles from Emley Moor. Unfortunately, on the wrong side of a hill. They are really looking forward to freesat.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

The point of the matter, but which TCM so pedictably is completely unable to see because of his consistent position that there is nothing wrong with access to the digital satellite platform in the UK being almost totally an utterly controlled by Sky, is that in the minds of the British public satellite means Sky so also means pay tv. Also this is then further compounded by the fact that until a year or so ago you could not get access to any digital channel from BBC, ITV, C4 or Five on satellite without having a Sky Digibox with NDS decryption capability and an acommpanying valid Sky viewing card. A Eurosat digibox was no use to you due to FTV encryption on satellite of the main digital channels from the conventional UK originally terrestrially baseds broadcasters.

The net result of that situation is that Sky is able to command ransom prices for an FTA channel appearing in Sky's EPG and without a Sky EPG listing then under the current uk market conditions for satellite in effect that channel may just as well not exist from a customer takeup point of view.

The reason that Sky charges exorbitant prices for an FTA EPG listing is precisely so that most budget satellite tv channels are then forced to acquiesce in agreeing to become part of one of Sky's pay Mixes so as to derive just about enough subscription related income from Sky in order to be able to pay back most or all of the said exorbitant Sky EPG charges.

The net result of this deplorable situation is that generally the only people who get satellite in the UK, amongst the great unwashed and technologically unaware masses, are those who accept the pay tv proposition. And although Freesat From Sky exists at &#163;150 it is overpriced by at least &#163;50 in relation to what you get and the contract terms are also abusive in that even after paying &#163;150 Sky then makes you sign a 12 month contract for at least &#163;12 x 16 if you ever want to watch just one Sky pay channel. This rather defeats the object of having the NDS decryption card slot on your box that TCM seems to see as being such a bonus.

On top of all this the latest "flow" design Sky boxes also have a bright blue Sky lit up logo in the middle of the front of the box that you cannot turn off and that is subliminally constantly burning the msesage "digital satellite is from Sky" in to your brain for as long as you own it.

As to the price of Freesat Sky is now offering Sky Pay Once Watch Forever for only &#163;75, although obviously in the hope that many of the customers will leave their direct debit in place when 6 months are up (Sky will not now activate the viewing card without a direct debit being put in place on the revised Pay Once Watch Forever deal they recently relaunched) even though you can canel at the end of the 6 months if you keep a careful note in your diary. But to manage to cancel you have to have Herculean strength of will as Sky will try to do everything to stop you cancelling.

Unfortunately it appears that life long died in the wool Sky subscriber TCM is totally unable to comprehend that digital satellite need not be like this and that access to FTA digital satellite need have nothing whatsoever to do with Sky.

TCM also ignores the OnDigital example, which was that in OnDigital's day there were far less FTA channels on DTT than there are now and only the sudden launch of cheap mass market FTA only Freeview boxes without a card slot (and with therefore an effective prohibition on being able to view pay tv) then caused the blossoming and subsequent fast growth of the now highly successful Freeview DTT concept. Whereas if ITV/OnDigital had stayed in business they would have no more than 2 million customers (rather than the current 8 million+) as most people going for pay tv would go for Sky where there is a lot more channel choice. OnDigital would always have remained restricted to just those who could not get a satellite signal and IPTV would slowly have ensured that the inability to erect a personal satellite dish problem largely disappeared in the end. Not to mention the launch of Sky's Free Shared Dish communal dish scheme for small blocks of flats in late 2005.

The point which TCM so conveniently and yet I am sure also quite deliberately ignores is that if Freesat boxes are fitted in UK homes in large volumes and the fitter does not also have to travel far between each address the cost can be driven way down to a price that is much cheaper than upgrading a non compatible analogue tv aerial in a weak reception area to be able to receive all Freeview channels (the correct comparison to make rather than just the cost of a Freeview box).

If Freesat takes off and has its own EPG and the main terrestrial broadcasters are all available on it there are loads of other minority FTA channels that cannot currently afford a Sky EPG listing but that will be keen to start services on Astra and get a near free listing in the Freesat marketing coalition's new EPG. In combination with the lure of a wide range of FTA HD channels on the medium Freesat therefore has every prospect of taking off, especially if it develops a reputation for a much wider range of conventional FTA channels than Freeview plus a wide and increasing range of FTA HD channels (many not available on Freeview).

Unfortunately TCM's mindset does not seem even vaguely open to any possibility other than that the current UK pay tv digital satellite model he already knows and I must say I do find it a little odd and inexplicable that someone in this forum who is normally so open minded and so prepared to see the likely technological future only seems to see the uk satellite tv world through the special Sky provided rose tinted spectacles that were no doubt thrown in for free with his last copy of the Sky monthly magazine.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

I'm sure could make your points without personal attacks on other Forum members, Pete.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> I'm sure could make your points without personal attacks on other Forum members, Pete.


I see it as being more of a robust form of discussion that both he and I usually seem to enjoy.

If I thought that TCM was more of a shrinking violet type or in any way likely to be offended I would not have commented in precisely that way. However in my experience TCM will be more than prepared to and indeed will enjoy defending his position regarding the reasons why he thinks digital satellite in the UK should be allowed to remain almost wholly dominated by Newscorp/Sky.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

You are completely misunderstanding me, as ever, Pete.

I am in no way saying that Freesat is _bad_ or _should_ fail. I'm saying that in my judgement take up will be extremely low.

In my view the benefits offered by Freesat over the alternatives (Freeview or Freesat from Sky) are marginal if they exist at all, outside of HD programming. And the whole project is running so late that the one market they could exploit (those who can't get Freeview) will be gone by the time they get their act together.

I've nothing against it, it just isn't going to work on anything but a tiny "fulfilling the BBCs free access legal obligation" scale.

The EPG stuff is just nonsense; no minority channel could possibly afford to try to exist on ad revenue from Freesat alone and to ignore the 8m+ people who access satellite via the Sky EPG, so they would still have to pay the Sky EPG fee, and possibly pay twice unless the Freesat EPG is to be free to broadcasters. As for the EPG fees being extortionate, that are I believe around £6,000 a month, which doesn't sound unreasonable for access to said 8m potential viewers.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM,

In your previous post you said you could not understand the point of a satellite box that could not also access the full range of pay satellite services in case you wanted them. Yet the point of it is clearly to exert marketing pressure on more channels who are only marginal about being in a basic Sky pay Mix to instead make the decision to go FTA (because there are now more FTA box vieweres who can only view FTA channels and thus are more likely to view their channel)

I agree that due to earlier regulatory incompetence in allowing Sky to control the whole business of encrypting the signals of FTA channels as FTV to stop them being received outside this country in countries which they do not have the rights to broadcast the programs in (a problem now solved at least in legal terms by the more tightly focused Astra 2D beam) that Sky now has a very dominant position in digital satellite that it will be difficult to break in to.

I think the BBC's thinking (and it is the BBC who have led this project even if ITV are jumping on the passing FTA bandwagon) is that HDTV means that most people with satellite receivers will need to replace them and that many people with those satellite receivers have had them so long that they have by now often begun to be annoyed about having to pay so much to Sky in subs and in many cases realise that they hardly ever watch many of the channels in the Sky Mixes for which they are paying.

Thus with many satellite box owners in the process of considering replacing their satellite box anyway due to HD and with them also having heard about Sky+ but not yet got round to doing anything about it now is the perfect time to spring out with Freesat with free access to a wide range of HD channels and PVR facilities too for no monthly sub.

Now I agree with you that Sky has such a stranglehold in the UK that it may be very difficult for this marketing dream to work in practice as Sky may respond by making Sky One available FTA for a period and cutting the price of its Freesat below the BBC/ITV product to try to scupper it. Also Sky may be prepared to so something very bold like a free Sky HD box and install with access to a load of HD channels including premium etc free for the first 6 months but then with a contractual requirement to also take the same Sky HD package at £39 per month or whatever for another 6 months after that. £234 is still just about enough to pay for the Sky HD box and install and also well and truly scuppers the BBC by leaving a Sky HD box with card slot in people's homes.

So I agree the BBC/ITV project faces an uphill struggle here but if its marketing pitch is getting access to HD services that are not available on Freeview and to upgrade Sky customers to HD who don't like paying monthly for Sky any more then its potential customer base is far larger than merely those Uk homes who cannot currently get a Freeview signal.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> TCM,
> 
> In your previous post you said you could not understand the point of a satellite box that could not also access the full range of pay satellite services in case you wanted them.


No, I said I didn't think many people would buy one in preference to an upgradable one.



> If its marketing pitch is getting access to HD services that are not available on Freeview and to upgrade Sky customers to HD who don't like paying monthly for Sky any more then its potential customer base is far larger than merely those Uk homes who cannot currently get a Freeview signal.


I was very careful to say "except for HD"!

In fact it's clear that HD is going to be the main focus of Freesat's marketing. Again I'm not sure I'd go for the HD box which offered me the smaller selection of HD channels with no possibility to upgrade, provided of course that Sky set their basic HD package price at a competitive level.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> No, I said I didn't think many people would buy one in preference to an upgradable one.


Can I hand you an electron microscope and scalpel TCM so that you may better split that hair.



> Again I'm not sure I'd go for the HD box which offered me the smaller selection of HD channels with no possibility to upgrade, provided of course that Sky set their basic HD package price at a competitive level.


But that's what's right for you TCM isn't it because you always have been and always probably will be a paying Sky subscriber because (a) it shows sports you can't get on terrestrial and (b) you are in the happy position of being perfectly well able to afford the £540+ per annum you need to pay in subs to Sky for the privilege of seeing the Rugby in HD.

Others less fortunate than you with a lower disposable income than you and not hooked on test cricket, Premiership football or Rugby may find a £0 per month HD option for the FTA HD channels far more appealing.

And like it or not most people wrongly believe that if they have a Sky box in their house it means paying £500 a year or so to Sky in subs. This is precisely why the BBC believes it can capture a large number of people who want extra channel choice and also HD versions of those channels but who are allergic to taking a long term commitment to paying Sky £500 or more per annum to watch in HD.

It is the very lack of subscription enabling card slots in these boxes that is in fact an absolutely critical part of the marketing proposition to technically less sophisticated mortals than you or I. Also it is cheaper to make satellite boxes that do not support NDS encryption or indeed any form of external CAM.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

I'm not disputing that many will want the &#163;0 option. However is the options are &#163;0/month with freesat, or &#163;0/month with a box which can at later date be upgraded to get pay channels, the latter is the better option as it's more futureproof. 

Where I can see Freesat, or technically "freesat", working is as a second box for a second TV.

Some ple will clearly buy it, but i can't see it being a runaway success like Freeview is.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> However is the options are £0/month with freesat, or £0/month with a box which can at later date be upgraded to get pay channels, the latter is the better option as it's more futureproof.


But I doubt that is how it will be marketed, which is really the point. Do you think Sky can really afford to take the risk of alerting all their existing customers to how easy it would be to downgrade to the £0 per month option? That is why FreesatFromSky is hived off to its own website and not mentioned on the main Sky Digital website. It is also why Sky try to punish FreesatFromSky customers by making then sign another 12 month contract if they ever do want to subscribe, even though they have already paid £150 for the box and dish.

[quoteSome people will clearly buy it, but i can't see it being a runaway success like Freeview is.[/QUOTE]

I think the jury is out on that. It largely depends on whether Sky continue to charge a subscription if you want to record any channels with their Sky+ system. If you could have FTA HD with recording on a Sky HD box with no subscription then I'm sure that would be a quite popular product if it was actively marketed (which unlike BBC/ITV freesat it will not be).


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

It remains to be seen how much active marketing Freesat will get. I would guess "not a lot" as there is no obvious win for the BBC or ITV in promoting the satellite route over DTT.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> It remains to be seen how much active marketing Freesat will get. I would guess "not a lot" as there is no obvious win for the BBC or ITV in promoting the satellite route over DTT.


Then why did they go through so much angst and controversy to get the BBC Trust to approve plans for it.

There is a big win for the BBC in disassociating transmission of its services on Astra from having anything to do with being controlled by Sky. Why else would have they bothered with the project in the first place.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

I guess in order to have an outlet to justify their expenditure on HD, although I must have dozed off during the "angst and controversy".

Freesat will not reduce the BBC's dependency on Sky to nay significant extent. They will still need to pay for the EPG listing to reach the 8m households who get their TV that way.

They could have done this any time in the last 10 years; the fact they are only just sort of getting round to it shows how low a priority it is.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> I guess in order to have an outlet to justify their expenditure on HD, although I must have dozed off during the "angst and controversy".


You must indeed have been asleep, especially over the last 24 hours or so given the strong interest in the project just shown by the House of Commons Culture Committee.

See http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5j1NLZuu00X53wPRmUKOM4RyY-Rgg

You also ignore the fact that loads of owners of several year old model Sky digiboxes (such as my sister) who are currently paying subs could just ditch their Sky box and plug in a new BBC Freesat one to the Sky dish, whilst also, at the same time, acquiring a PVR that does not require any monthly sub to be paid in order to use it.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Hardly fueling frenzied talk around the water cooler is it!

I'm not for a minute saying Freesat will sell zero units, just that you've built it up into this enormous Sky-killer and I doubt they are devoting many hours to it in their boardrooms by the M4.


----------

