# HD Freesat Next Year



## Automan

http://www.homecinemachoice.com/cgi-bin/shownews.php?id=9187
and
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/04/27/bbc_gets_freesat_green_light

Another nail in our old Tivo's lid...

Automan.


----------



## TCM2007

This story seems entirely at odds with this one though:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/26_04_2007.html

I think The Register and, sadly, one of my own sites in HCC has got this one wrong.


----------



## Automan

I not sure but at Digital spy land they seem to think its a runner

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a45790/freesat-gets-bbc-trust-approval.html

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a45801/bbc-itv-to-launch-freesat-in-2008.html

also chn4 want to join in

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a45812/channel-4-expresses-freesat-interest.html

Automan.


----------



## TCM2007

If you go back to the source:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/27_04_2007.html

You'll see there's nothing about HD beyond saying that the STB will be "future proofed" by being HD compatible.


----------



## smatson

nail removed


----------



## Pete77

There's no chance of any widespread transmission of HD on Freeview before 2012 when digital switchover is complete and the old frequencies freed up and signal power levels for DTT boosted.

Even then only a handful of flagship channels like BBC1, ITV, C4 and Five could ever be tranmsitted in HD as well as SD on Freeview due to the bandwidth constraints, given the need to still transmit HD Freeview signal versions of all channels for many years to come.

I can't see any chance of BBC3, BBC4, ITV2, ITV3, ITV4, Sky News etc ever being in HD on Freeview


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> There's no chance of any widespread transmission of HD on Freeview before 2012 when digital switchover is complete and the old frequencies freed up and signal power levels for DTT boosted.
> 
> Even then only a handful of flagship channels like BBC1, ITV, C4 and Five could ever be tranmsitted in HD as well as SD on Freeview due to the bandwidth constraints, given the need to still transmit HD Freeview signal versions of all channels for many years to come.
> 
> I can't see any chance of BBC3, BBC4, ITV2, ITV3, ITV4, Sky News etc ever being in HD on Freeview


Fascinating as ever Pete, but what's that got to do with this thread which about Freesat?


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Fascinating as ever Pete, but what's that got to do with this thread which about Freesat?


.

My mistake.

I'm sure the BBC HD box and dish project will get the go ahead after the public value test. With the way Sky has been behaving lately towards Virgin Media etc the case to loosen Sky's HD stranglehold can only get stronger.

Of course ultimately the BBC/ITV project is perhaps only definitely a runner if C4 and Five also extract themselves from their signal encryption deals with Sky though. If that doesn't happen the whole project rather falls flat on its face.

On the other hand almost everybody is getting a Freeview box and a new aerial (where necessary) without the BBC subsidising any of it so why should the BBC prop up the set up costs of Freesatters.

I expect they will justify it on the basis that Freeview will not be able to provide a proper HD service for many years to come and that the install costs of Freesat are far higher than Freeview. Also on the basis that HD still needs a marketing push to become widely accepted and to ensure that the non subscription HD channels are as easily receivable as Sky pay HD channels.


----------



## TCM2007

I don't believe there is any suggestion that the BBC will subsidise equipment?


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> I don't believe there is any suggestion that the BBC will subsidise equipment?


So just the satellite equivalent of Freeview Playback then I would imagine with the extra inconvenience of having to get a dish installed but with only one phone number to call to arrange the whole thing.

I suppose they would work through a network of franchised local satellite dish installers for the actual installations.

I could still imagine Murdoch trying to going to court using EU Competition Act legislation though and suggesting the BBC is using public money to distort the UK marketplace for satellite tv boxes.


----------



## kitschcamp

Pete77 said:


> .
> On the other hand almost everybody is getting a Freeview box and a new aerial (where necessary) without the BBC subsidising any of it so why should the BBC prop up the set up costs of Freesatters.


The point is that there are large pockets in the UK where the terrain or the habitability of the area makes it impractical to install DTT transmitters, so the BBC and ITV plan to broadcast via satellite to try and ensure near universal coverage so that people have the option of DTT and/or Freesat as a way to receive the core services. The new BBC charter actually put the onus (or blame) on the BBC for the digital switchover and ensuring people are left with no TV come 2012.


----------



## Pete77

kitschcamp said:


> The point is that there are large pockets in the UK where the terrain or the habitability of the area makes it impractical to install DTT transmitters, so the BBC and ITV plan to broadcast via satellite to try and ensure near universal coverage so that people have the option of DTT and/or Freesat as a way to receive the core services. The new BBC charter actually put the onus (or blame) on the BBC for the digital switchover and ensuring people are left with no TV come 2012.


But in 2012 less than 1% of the UK land mass should not have any access to at least the three public service Freeview multiplexes. Of course the people who only get three Freeview Muxes will be severly hacked off so I suppose all of them should be regarded as potential Freesatters in addition to the 1% who won't be able to get any Freeview reception at all (these will by and large the same 1% of the population in the Scottish and Welsh and Cumbrian highlands who currently can't reveive any analogue television signal so quite probably already have satellite).


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> But in 2012 less than 1% of the UK land mass should not have any access to at least the three public service Freeview multiplexes.


No, 1.5% of households may not have access because of transmission strength in their area. Not the same thing. Big chucks of Scotland and Wales will have no access, but not may peopel live there.

I think the figure is 375,000 households will not be able to get Freeview after switchover.


----------



## geekspeak

I do find it confusing having bought a free to air HD satellite receiver recently that can receive thousands of free-to-air HD and SD channels (including BBC HD, BBC1/2, ITV/Sky News/Film 4 etc.) that they are going to release something that you have to pay for to receive these channels for "free" and called "freesat". And that sky already have something called "freesat" that costs £20 that lets you watch free channels on satellite. A bit like Virgin Media releasing something remarkable similar to freeview under the Virgin Media brand. Pass me the headache tablets


----------



## cwaring

geekspeak said:


> A bit like Virgin Media releasing something remarkable similar to freeview under the Virgin Media brand. Pass me the headache tablets


You mean this thing  However, it is only available in non-cabled areas to allow VM to offer their quad-play service to more customers.

As regards Freesat, yes it is a little confusing. However, I think it's all to do with the BBC, etc. wanting to get off the Sky platform altogether. Don't forget that, at the moment, even though they're not now paying for encryption, they are still paying thousands of pounds just to be on the Sky EPG.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> No, 1.5% of households may not have access because of transmission strength in their area. Not the same thing. Big chucks of Scotland and Wales will have no access, but not may peopel live there.
> 
> I think the figure is 375,000 households will not be able to get Freeview after switchover.


I meant to say 1% of the population but some how transposed land mass.

Clearly the relevant addresses in Wales and Scotland will all have a satellite or broadband tv option instead.


----------



## Pete77

geekspeak said:


> And that sky already have something called "freesat" that costs £20 that lets you watch free channels on satellite.


No www.freesatfromsky.co.uk costs you £150 to have the box and dish installed.


----------



## frogster

geekspeak said:


> I do find it confusing having bought a free to air HD satellite receiver recently that can receive thousands of free-to-air HD and SD channels (including BBC HD, BBC1/2, ITV/Sky News/Film 4 etc.) that they are going to release something that you have to pay for to receive these channels for "free" and called "freesat".


I think that a lot of people are confused.

Let me say what I think is going to happen:

In Spring 2008 there will be new sat receivers available to buy. They will come from many manufacturers, like Freeview boxes, and like them will have different functions. These will receive a non-Sky EPG and will work on a Sky dish as a direct replacement (or addition to) a Sky box. They will receive all the unencrypted SD channels on the Sky platform (BBC, ITV, shopping, God etc.) and also future channels or existing channels that will encrypt using an as-yet unspecified system. Apparently there will be no card slot but there will be an embedded decoder. This would mean that these boxes would never be suitable for VideoGuard-encrypted Sky channels. (I suspect that is very deliberate on the part of the BBC/ITV, both of which hate Sky with a vengeance, and who can blame them? I suppose that as the Freesat spec is fairly open then manufacturers could start making Freesat boxes with CAM slots, and that would encourage Sky to finally release a VideoGuard CAM.)
The new encryption will notably be for the HD channels. Whether the broadcasters will dual-encrypt the encrypted channels in order to make them receivable on Sky boxes remains to be seen. We know that the broadcasters don't want to pay Sky for this and I suspect that Sky will be obliged to do it for free, or lose subscribers. (This is what just happened in relation to Virgin Cable, only the other way round, and the FTA/FTV channels could really have Sky between a rock and a hard place with this.)

Some of these boxes will contain hard drives that will record from the new Freesat EPG (like GuidePlus+) and will play back without any monthly payment. This will also upset Sky: many people have Sky+ (and pay the Sky+ sub) just because it's the only simple way to record two sat channels at once, or any FTV encrypted channel in good quality. I'm sure they would all rather ditch the Sky+ and its fee if they could. In 12 months time they can.

So that means that current Tivos (with an IR code update) should be able to control the new boxes as they currently do with Sky boxes. Though I would suspect that most Tivo users would buy a receiver with hard drive for the superior picture quality it offers.

I don't think that any current FTA HD sat box such as you have will be suitable for the BBC/ITV HD channels once they launch officially on Freesat (BBC HD is currently only "testing"). It will need a Freesat box, or perhaps a Sky box if Sky see reason.


----------



## Pete77

cwaring said:


> However, I think it's all to do with the BBC, etc. wanting to get off the Sky platform altogether.


No the point of the BBC's new HD satellite initiative is to launch a satellite box on which you can receive HDTV but on which you are not in any way tied to paying Sky subscriptions to do so. Also the new HD Freesat box will, I imagine, also have PVR variants similar in concept to Freeview Playback (including Series Link) with an on board hard drive but not requiring you to be paying any form of sub to get the PVR functionality to work - unlike Sky +.

However the BBC have no intention of rendering it impossible for customers with existing satellite boxes containing a Sky Digital card reader and decryption software from continuing to receive all BBC FTA channels.

They simply want to end the notion that in order to receive television by satellite or receive HD television you have to a commercial relationship with Sky.


----------



## geekspeak

Pete77 said:


> No the point of the BBC's new HD satellite initiative is to launch a satellite box on which you can receive HDTV but on which you are not in any way tied to paying Sky subscriptions to do so.


Even though that is where we are at now!!?!?!? I bought a £90 HD pace box and a cheap dish. No subscription, no cards, get BBC HD (plus a number of other European HD channels) and thousands of SD channels.


----------



## TCM2007

geekspeak said:


> I do find it confusing having bought a free to air HD satellite receiver recently that can receive thousands of free-to-air HD and SD channels (including BBC HD, BBC1/2, ITV/Sky News/Film 4 etc.) that they are going to release something that you have to pay for to receive these channels for "free" and called "freesat". And that sky already have something called "freesat" that costs £20 that lets you watch free channels on satellite. A bit like Virgin Media releasing something remarkable similar to freeview under the Virgin Media brand. Pass me the headache tablets


Free to air air Sky still uses the Sky EPG (which channels have to pay for), and PVR solutions are limited to Sky+ which you have to pay for.

The new FreeSat service will not use Sky in any way and will be an open platform with an open EPG and there will be subscription free PVRs. At least that's my understanding.


----------



## Pete77

geekspeak said:


> Even though that is where we are at now!!?!?!? I bought a £90 HD pace box and a cheap dish. No subscription, no cards, get BBC HD (plus a number of other European HD channels) and thousands of SD channels.


No standardised EPG though and more importantly no BBC and ITV marketing push behind it so as to give most of the public the confidence to buy such a product instead of the Sky subscription alternative.


----------



## kitschcamp

Pete77 said:


> Clearly the relevant addresses in Wales and Scotland will all have a satellite or broadband tv option instead.


Really? I think you'll find that typically the areas considered too remote for a decent DTT transmitter to be installed are far too remote for BT to even begin considering decent broadband connections.


----------



## Pete77

kitschcamp said:


> Really? I think you'll find that typically the areas considered too remote for a decent DTT transmitter to be installed are far too remote for BT to even begin considering decent broadband connections.


I suggest that you check www.samknows.com where you will find that even the most remote UK telephone exchanges have now been enabled for broadband. The UK currently has the highest total ADSL broadband enablement of its ordinary phone lines of any country in the EU with coverage standing at over 99% of the population - it doesn't have the fastest ADSL broadband in the EU but it does have the most widely available broadband.

Of course some of the places you refer to will be on ADSL enabled exchanges but have line lengths over 6km so will either get no broadband service or only a very slow broadband service for that reason.

But anyhow note that I said they would either be able to get digital tv by broadband or satellite. I am confident that nearly all the places in question will have a satellite option instead if they have no broadband or the broadband is too slow for tv, especially now that Sky have launched their Free Shared Dish scheme. This even installs free communal satellite dish systems in flats provided 25% of the flat owners are prepared to take a minimum £180 sky channel package for just one year.


----------



## blindlemon

Pete77 said:


> Sky have launched their Free Shared Dish scheme. This even installs free communal satellite dish systems in flats provided 25% of the flat owners are prepared to take a minimum £180 sky channel package for just one year.


.... .... are you plugging Sky here Pete?


----------



## Pete77

blindlemon said:


> .... .... are you plugging Sky here Pete?


If you live in a building with planning restrictions against individual dishes then Sky's Free Shared Dish scheme is a good way to get a free communal system and Sky box far cheaper than any other way.

I do of course advocate everyone unsubscribing at the end of the first year and then only watching the FTA satellite channels available with a Sky Digibox.

See http://communaltv.sky.com/


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> with coverage standing at over 99% of the population


I think you are confusing 99% of exchanges enabled with 99% of the population able to get broadband. may live too far way from the exchange.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> I think you are confusing 99% of exchanges enabled with 99% of the population able to get broadband. may live too far way from the exchange.


Not very many. Only a small number on mainly the outer limits of the more rural exchanges.


----------



## TCM2007

I believe the figure is 4% for those who live outside of 6km from an enabled exchange.

Of course speeds suitable for IPTV, which is what we were talking about, have a much shorter range than that, and the % who can't get them will be much higher.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> I believe the figure is 4% for those who live outside of 6km from an enabled exchange.
> 
> Of course speeds suitable for IPTV, which is what we were talking about, have a much shorter range than that, and the % who can't get them will be much higher.


Fortunately most of them can get satellite instead.


----------



## kitschcamp

Pete77 said:


> I suggest that you check www.samknows.com where you will find that even the most remote UK telephone exchanges have now been enabled for broadband.


Read what I said; *Decent* broadband. I'm only recently expatriated, I know what the situation is in the UK. However, if a 2MB line needs to be boosted to get digital TV over broadband, and 24Mbps has to be slowed to just over 7 to get digital TV over broadband alongside it, there is little chance bog standard 512Kb-2Mb max is going to cope.


Pete77 said:


> The UK currently has the highest total ADSL broadband enablement of its ordinary phone lines of any country in the EU with coverage standing at over 99% of the population - it doesn't have the fastest ADSL broadband in the EU but it does have the most widely available broadband.


The definition of broadband is changing all the time. 8 years ago a dual ISDN line was enough to be considered broadband. Things change very quick. Here, for example, if you can't get ADSL or cable you can get wireless.


----------



## kitschcamp

Pete77 said:


> Not very many. Only a small number on mainly the outer limits of the more rural exchanges.


And it's these rural exchanges that have the least coverage for DTTV, and so require the freesat scheme. See, joined up thinking. There is a reason for the BBC and ITV doing this and the BBC trust agreeing to it.


----------



## beastman

geekspeak said:


> Even though that is where we are at now!!?!?!? I bought a £90 HD pace box and a cheap dish. No subscription, no cards, get BBC HD (plus a number of other European HD channels) and thousands of SD channels.


Can you advise what kit you have and can you get one with a hard drive in it?
I assume you cant get a hard drive HD sat kit yet?


----------



## geekspeak

beastman said:


> Can you advise what kit you have and can you get one with a hard drive in it?
> I assume you cant get a hard drive HD sat kit yet?


I have the pace DS810XE HD receiver with a "sky" 60cm dish and a motech motor. Not aware of a hard drive one yet.


----------



## Pete77

kitschcamp said:


> However, if a 2MB line needs to be boosted to get digital TV over broadband, and 24Mbps has to be slowed to just over 7 to get digital TV over broadband alongside it, *there is little chance bog standard 512Kb-2Mb max is going to cope*.


BT now has distance dependent ADSL Max broadband on virtually all its 5,500 exchanges offering Sync rate speeds up to 8128kbps and maximum data rate around 7000kbps if you live only 500m from the exchange and use a decent ISP like Zen or IDNet. Be Unlimited is also offering distance dependent ADSL2+ at up to 24Mbps at 500 BT exchanges moving on up to 1,000 exchanges by the end of this year.

See what happens when you leave the UK for a while. Technology also moves on here too................


----------



## kitschcamp

*cough* I left the UK 9 months ago.

ADSL2+ was already out and live when I left. I had it. I lived barely 1 km from the exchange and could _just_ get 6 Mbps. I did training out in the Lincolnshire Fenns quite often, they really struggled to get ADSL at all - that's what we're on about. Some places I went to even struggled to get BT to install ISDN lines, such was the quality of the infrastructure.

Sure, in the cities ADSL2+ can get these magical speeds, but out in the sticks - which is what we were talking about - where decent freeview reception is unlikely, the chances of ADSL2+ achieving adequate speeds to support digital TV over ADSL is quite small. As a result the BBC/ITV freesat scheme is valuable to them.

There is a _huge_ difference between an exchange being _enabled _for speeds _up to_ whatever speed and an individual line _being capable of_ the stated speeds.

Do you ever read what people write, or are forums a write only media for you?


----------



## cleudo

TCM2007 said:


> Free to air air Sky still uses the Sky EPG (which channels have to pay for), and PVR solutions are limited to Sky+ which you have to pay for.
> 
> The new FreeSat service will not use Sky in any way and will be an open platform with an open EPG and there will be subscription free PVRs. At least that's my understanding.


What really needs to happen is that Sky should be broken up such that the EPG service is independant and Sky becomes a customer of it just like everyone else.


----------



## Pete77

cleudo said:


> What really needs to happen is that Sky should be broken up such that the EPG service is independant and Sky becomes a customer of it just like everyone else.


But since that won't happen the only alternative is for a rival EPG for FTA satellite channels to be set up which is what is happening here.

I still can't see how the idea's going to work though unless C4 and Five extricate themselves from their encryption deals with Sky in time for launch of the service. An FTA satellite box that can't do the C4 and Five channels would have no market appeal no matter how much HD it might receive.

I suspect C4 and Five will be ending their Sky encryption deals but are not going to say publicly for fear of making Sky more difficult about it.


----------



## Pete77

kitschcamp said:


> ADSL2+ was already out and live when I left. I had it. I lived barely 1 km from the exchange and could _just_ get 6 Mbps.


Strange as Be Unlimited can connect at 4700kbps at my mother's property 3.5km from the exchange in terms of wiring distance. Their forums suggests most people living within 1km of the exchange connect at about 120000kbps and above.

Perhaps you needed to invest in a filtered master socket from www.adslnation.co.uk?


----------



## kitschcamp

Why? I get a lovely 24 Mbps where I am now 

The quality of the local loop varies massively from area to area, it isn't just a function of distance. Where I used to live there was a lot of aluminium still in place (ADSL is a no go there), and the 1960s/70s experiment with cables filled with a jelly that rats loved to eat (hence lots of crackles). 

I could get 6 Mbps because I previously had ISDN, so had a reasonably decent copper pair still in place from that. Most of my neighbours weren't so lucky.


----------



## aerialplug

The biggest problem with Freeview at the moment is that the EPG data is designed just for that - a human readable guide with little or no enhancement for the PVR market. Sure, a PVR can set up recordings based on this data based on time (and possibly even programme name), but can do little else that we've grown used to on the TiVo platform.

One of the things I worked on was the TV-Anytime standard, a mechanism for providing detailed electronic description of programmes including keywords for searching, unique identifiers for programmes (to prevent recording of repeated programmes) and complex grouping of programmes (not just series links) along with the basic information to provide an EPG.

I'm not saying this is the standard that the Freesat/Freeview market will eventually adopt, but both platforms sorely need something like this for a PVR with TiVo functionality to work without having to have a separate call back to home to get extra information.

Sky already have a marginally enhanced data stream to feed Sky+ - but as with much of their output I suspect this is proprietary so any new platform will have to come up with their own. What better opportunity to adopt a standard that will provide all a PVR needs to equal and indeed surpass TiVo's functionality? It'll then be up to the reciever manufacturers to provide this functionality - and come up with new ideas.

Of course, the data is just the tip of the iceberg. All broadcasters who want to use this kind of rich metadata will have to make major changes in the way they provide their schedules and this would involve huge changes in the current infrastructure, which as I say is currently only designed to get minimal EPG based information to the broadcast chain - but if done correctly, a free platform with TiVo capability and more is entirely possible.

Could this possibly be why manufaturers are now not so interested in signing up with TiVo, knowing that in a year or so's time, they'll be able to come up with their own magic, and not have to tie in with a third party?


----------



## Automan

Over at http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a91749/freesat-confirms-retailers-takes-licence.html it says it will be in our highstreet shops in a couple of months....

I was wondering will it have it's own epg listing only it's channels or use the sky one?

If it's own will it contain extra data?

Automan.


----------



## Pete77

Automan said:


> Over at http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a91749/freesat-confirms-retailers-takes-licence.html it says it will be in our highstreet shops in a couple of months....
> 
> I was wondering will it have it's own epg listing only it's channels or use the sky one?


The whole point of this venture is to have its own EPG and not use the Sky EPG at all. Freesat is in fact only about the new EPG. All the rest of the marketing arrangements regarding the satellite boxes and dishes and who sells and installs them are very loose and fluid like Freeview boxes.

I'm sure Freesat is only being forced to launch early at this time because they fear this is when Sky Picnic may appear on the streets and they then have to be seen to have something to strike back with.

But imagine the scene at the Currys or John Lewis store where the salesman says "well you can have Sky or Sky HD sir but it costs a fair bit in subs every month or you can have one of those new Sky Picnic boxes that gives you Freeview plus Sky One and some Sky Sports of some kind free for the first 4 months and then say £9.99 per month afterwards. And you can desubscribe at any time unlike normal Sky. Or you could have one of those Sky Pay Once Watch Forever packs here for £75 that gives you a regular Sky Digibox fully installed with great signal and loads of extra news and movies channels not on Freeview. And 4 Sky Mixes for 4 months - no obligation after that if you cancel with Sky.

Or you can have one of these new BBC/ITV Freesat setups which gives you some HD channels from the Beeb with no sub but doesn't give you C4, E4, More4, Five, Five US, Five Life or Sky Three at all like you can get on Freeview, Sky Picnic or Sky Pay Once Watch Forever. You can't even have C4's HD channel because its encrypted for now and you can only get it with a Sky HD box.

Now which one do you think most customers are going to choose.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> .... forced ... fear ...strike


It's all drama in your world Pete! They've always said FreeSat would launch Spring 08 - or at least for many months now.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> It's all drama in your world Pete! They've always said FreeSat would launch Spring 08 - or at least for many months now.


Yes but basically it is ludicrous for them to launch before C4 and Five manage to get out of their encryption deals at least for their base terrestrial channel on satellite. And at present there seems to have been no sign of the progress required on that front to justify a launch.

Launching BBC/ITV Freesat without C4 and Five also viewable on the boxes is in my view merely likely to amount to writing a long suicide note for BBC/ITV Freesat. The product will then always be for ever known as the box on which you can't get the normal channels from C4 or Five.

As to it all being drama in my world I don't think I'm any different from the newspapers or most politicians in that respect.


----------



## Automan

Yes, if it does not contain the same "free" channels that you can get on the "freeview" platform as a minimum that would be daft...

Still it would give you HD except for CHN4 HD

Automan.


----------



## Pete77

Automan said:


> Yes, if it does not contain the same "free" channels that you can get on the "freeview" platform as a minimum that would be daft...


Yet incredibly that is what the non commercially aware Beeb seems to think it can launch. Perhaps they would like an EPG where you can only get the BBC channels and nothing else.



> Still it would give you HD except for CHN4 HD


And except for all the pay Sky HD channels. In a word it will only give you BBC HD and then eventually ITV HD as, when and if it is launched - as it surely soon must be if this venture is to make any marketing sense at all.

How about free HD Formula 1 on ITV HD as a killer must have application for the BBC/ITV Freesat box. I can't see anything else than can make it in to a rapid and instant success.


----------



## TCM2007

My understanding is that the encryption deal ends in October, in time for a n Xmas push for Freesat I guess.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> My understanding is that the encryption deal ends in October, in time for a n Xmas push for Freesat I guess.


Only on C4 channels and only if Sky do not offer C4 a large enough bribe to continue it in the interim.

No hope at all of unencryption of Five, Five US or Five Life in the foreseeable future. Of course once Five is left on its own as the only one terrestrial broadcaster not available on Freesat then you can never say never.............................


----------



## TCM2007

I've seen 2008 mentioned for five too, but I don't know if it was a reliable source.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> I've seen 2008 mentioned for five too, but I don't know if it was a reliable source.


Well it seems likely as otherwise the entire project makes no sense. Much though various egos might claim they can make do without the Five channels the reality is that they cannot.

However its been kept a well guarded secret as there is certainly no official admission that anything is afoot to bring this about.


----------



## kitschcamp

Pete77 said:


> Yes but basically it is ludicrous for them to launch before C4 and Five manage to get out of their encryption deals at least for their base terrestrial channel on satellite. And at present there seems to have been no sign of the progress required on that front to justify a launch.


They are doing EPG tests, they've been seen on the Eurobird satellite.

The BBC are shuffling channels and transponders around to make room for "something" on Astra 2D (you can only guess at the moment what, but it isn't the EPG service, that's on Eurobird). Already BBC News 24 has moved onto Astra 2A.


----------



## Automan

I supposed CHN4 & CHN5 could ignore the regulators as was done when the real "BSB" shut down and merged with Sky last century.

Automan.


----------



## AMc

I'm about to do a substantial renovation so it's a good opportunity to add a dish while there's scaffolding up and route cabling while there is no plaster on the walls.
I'm quite happy to buy in if there is a non-subscription HD recorder and I can self install.
I'll be keeping Tivo for the foreseeable on Freeview but a viable HD TV source would tip the balance for a new HD TV set. If I can get BBC HD that's a good start, I can wait for C4 etc. etc.

It also occurs to me that this will help people like John Lewis move forward HD TV set sales, my folks will never pay subs for TV but would probably pay a one off charge to install a dish to get better BBC.

Interesting times...


----------



## rickynumber18

Hello all. Not sure if it's been mentioned here but www.freesat.co.uk/home.php is the official site for the BBC/ITV Freesat HD service starting this spring. It seems to answer all the questions the gossip sites seem to be getting wrong. With the exception of exactly what channels will be broadcasted in any format. I guess only time will tell on that front.


----------



## Pete77

AMc said:


> I'm quite happy to buy in if there is a non-subscription HD recorder and I can self install....


The BBC/ITV Freesat project will have such a beast and there should also be a self install option as you have to pay for a professional install on top of buying the equipment but you do not have to pay for a professional install to be able to buy the equipment.

Its also likely there will be a Topfield HDTV PVR recorder compatible with the Freesat project and EPG service.


----------



## rickynumber18

Pete77 said:


> The BBC/ITV Freesat project will have such a beast and there should also be a self install option as you have to pay for a professional install on top of buying the equipment but you do not have to pay for a professional install to be able to buy the equipment.


The official Freesat website (mentioned in my posting above), states, "...If you already have a satellite dish and use it to watch channels like BBC Three and ITV2, your existing dish is probably fine for receiving freesat as well. In this case you could buy a digital box without an installation package and try it at home - once freesat launches you might like to contact your local installer to see if this will work for you".


----------



## martink0646

Pete77 said:


> How about free HD Formula 1 on ITV HD as a killer must have application for the BBC/ITV Freesat box. I can't see anything else than can make it in to a rapid and instant success.


Rejoice, http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7306123.stm

The BBC has nsecured the rights so F1 HD is (almost) an inevitability.

Martin


----------



## Pete77

martink0646 said:


> Rejoice, http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7306123.stm
> 
> The BBC has nsecured the rights so F1 HD is (almost) an inevitability.


So the killer application that I suggested could make BBC/ITV Freesat a runway success has appeared on the horizon. Its just that surprisingly this has emanated from the BBC (who must have been prepared to commit a huge amount of money presumably justified by the public interest in the likely meteoric ascent of a British racing driver to a multiple F1 world champion) rather than as one would have expected from ITV.

My 4:3 telly is now under sentence of imminent replacement by a widscreen HD widescreen tv (probably Plasma) by the start of the 2009 Formula 1 season. That is to say it only has about a year to go. And by this time next year a 42" very high quality HD set will probably only be about £1,000 or perhaps I will content myself with a cast off 720p set on Ebay from an early HD adopter moving up the food chain. I don't see myself as a Blu-Ray disk buyer so the only case for a Full HD set is if any Full HD downloads that do not charge per download should become available online from any FTA broadcasters. This seems unlikely given that their live HD broadcasts will not be in Full HD quality.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> And by this time next year a 42" very high quality HD set will probably only be about £1,000 or perhaps I will content myself with a cast off 720p set on Ebay from an early HD adopter moving up the food chain. I don't see myself as a Blu-Ray disk buyer so the only case for a Full HD set is if any Full HD downloads that do not charge per download should become available online from any FTA broadcasters. This seems unlikely given that their live HD broadcasts will not be in Full HD quality.


I can sell you a 56-inch 720p set if you like Pete! But 42-inch 1080 sets frm major brands are already well under £1,000.

You seem to have the wrong end of the stick on "full HD" - all broadcast HDTV in this country is 1080.


----------



## Pete77

Heard and watched several news broadcasts on the BBC today about the ITV to BBC F1 switch but they only mentioned lack of advertising breaks and the possible return of the epic Fleetwood Mac "The Chain" theme tune as possible advantages. No mention whatsoever of HD pictures.

In view of imminent launch of BBC Freesat and BBC's HD channel why would this not have been heavily pushed by the BBC as the key advantage in any of their news output. Are we sure the BBC deal to cover F1 from next year does actually also involve HD coverage?

It seems a miracle that F1 remains out of Sky's clutches and I can only presume this is thanks to Bernie who probably thinks F1 would not remain a mass spectator sport in the UK if Sky was the only means to view it. If he had asked the BBC for what FOCA/FIA clearly could have asked for the rights to broadcast F1 in the UK then there is no way the BBC would have been able to afford it.


----------



## kitschcamp

Pete77 said:


> So the killer application that I suggested could make BBC/ITV Freesat a runway success has appeared on the horizon. Its just that surprisingly this has emanated from the BBC (who must have been prepared to commit a huge amount of money presumably justified by the public interest in the likely meteoric ascent of a British racing driver to a multiple F1 world champion) rather than as one would have expected from ITV.


Nothing to do with BBC winning back F1 at all. It hadn't even bothered to bid recently.

ITV had a deal till 2010, they handed it back to Bernie and said they don't want it anymore. Bernie then offered it to the Beeb to check they would take it before releasing ITV from their deal.

ITV were unhappy at more and more non-afternoon races, meaning unfavourable low-cost advertising slots early in the morning, plus having to have a double showing committing too large a proportion of the weekends a year to F1 with the audience diluted over two showings, so in the end they got less money. Then for the evening races they were upsetting the Coronation Street crowd...

For ITV it was a commercial no-brainer.



Pete77 said:


> In view of imminent launch of BBC Freesat and BBC's HD channel why would this not have been heavily pushed by the BBC as the key advantage in any of their news output. Are we sure the BBC deal to cover F1 from next year does actually also involve HD coverage?


I have seen nothing to confirm it at all. I think it's all assumptions so far.



> It seems a miracle that F1 remains out of Sky's clutches and I can only presume this is thanks to Bernie who probably thinks F1 would not remain a mass spectator sport in the UK if Sky was the only means to view it.


It's all to do with the Concorde Agreement. The _race_ has to be show on FTV television unless all broadcasters refuse to take it. Here in Sweden, for example, Viasat (a pay tv concern) have the F1 rights. In theory it's therefore on a pay channel, but Viasat also own TV3 (a FTV/FTA channel), so they have to show the race on TV3 not Sport 1. Qualifying and practice, though, are shown on Sport 1.


----------



## ericd121

According to the *Home Cinema link* in Automan's original post, 
*"Consumers...will have a choice of equipment, including...an HD personal video recorder"*.

It would be nice to see the spec on that.


----------



## Automan

ericd121 said:


> According to the *Home Cinema link* in Automan's original post,
> *"Consumers...will have a choice of equipment, including...an HD personal video recorder"*.
> 
> It would be nice to see the spec on that.


At the freesat website faq's it says



> A one-off payment will get you the lot. You'll pay for the digital box, the satellite dish and installation. There will be a *selection of equipment *available with a range of functionality to deliver additional benefits, such as digital TV recorders and TVs with freesat receivers built in. NB: You will still need a satellite dish with a TV with freesat receiver.
> 
> Prices and products available will be announced closer to launch.


http://www.freesat.co.uk/help.php

Built in to your TV, less junk around 

Automan.


----------



## Pete77

ericd121 said:


> It would be nice to see the spec on that.


There will probably be more than one supplier since Freesat box manufacturing will be like Freeview box manufacturing. That is anyone can make them as long as they comply with the minimum technical standard required to receive the pictures.

So expect Topfield and Humax HD Freesat PVRs as a minimum I would have thought. Since Sky does not use either of these manufacturers to make its Sky HD boxes they surely must be champing at the bit to expand their UK PVR range to also include an HD Freesat box.


----------



## Pete77

Automan said:


> http://www.freesat.co.uk/help.php
> 
> Built in to your TV, less junk around


But I presume a quad LNB will ne needed to support dual or triple tuner PVR boxes. If they could find a way to support multiple tuners off a current single LNB Sky dish it would hugely increase the uptake if all people needed to do is pick a new Freesat box and plug their existing Sky satellite dish cable in to it.

Needing a new Freesat specific dish and Quad LNB and installer time has to add over £100 to the likely total package cost plus also delay and complication..........


----------



## Pete77

kitschcamp said:


> ITV had a deal till 2010, they handed it back to Bernie and said they don't want it anymore. Bernie then offered it to the Beeb to check they would take it before releasing ITV from their deal.
> 
> ITV were unhappy at more and more non-afternoon races, meaning unfavourable low-cost advertising slots early in the morning, plus having to have a double showing committing too large a proportion of the weekends a year to F1 with the audience diluted over two showings, so in the end they got less money. Then for the evening races they were upsetting the Coronation Street crowd...
> 
> For ITV it was a commercial no-brainer.
> 
> I have seen nothing to confirm it at all. I think it's all assumptions so far.
> 
> It's all to do with the Concorde Agreement. The _race_ has to be show on FTV television unless all broadcasters refuse to take it. Here in Sweden, for example, Viasat (a pay tv concern) have the F1 rights. In theory it's therefore on a pay channel, but Viasat also own TV3 (a FTV/FTA channel), so they have to show the race on TV3 not Sport 1. Qualifying and practice, though, are shown on Sport 1.


Thanks for the very informed post kitschcamp. Do you have any professional involvement in broadcasting that leads you to be aware of all of the above.

So it appears that F1 knows tht it does not have the guaranteed addicted zombie like level of supporter following that football has and thus relies for its worldwide popularity on being an FTA sport. It appears the revenue for the sport from advertisers on the panels on the cars etc must presumably be more profitable than any subscription revenue that it believes the likes of Sky could pay it?


----------



## Sneals2000

Believe Humax are expected to have an HD freesat PVR available at, or close to, launch.

As for the ability to PVR on a single standard Sky LNB, sadly not an option if you want dual tuner support, as the LNB itself is switched, by the tuner, between H&V polarisation and Hi and Lo frequencies, so unless all of the freesat services were in one of the 4 combinations (Hi H, Hi V, Lo H, Lo V) you potentially have to switch the LNB between bands and polarisations on a tuner-by-tuner basis.

There ARE solutions that use a single cable to carry all 4 combinations (or it may just be 2?), with a switch at the receiver (I believe they are called stackers). However they need specialised kit at the other end of the cable - not a standard LNB.


----------



## Sneals2000

Pete77 said:


> In view of imminent launch of BBC Freesat and BBC's HD channel why would this not have been heavily pushed by the BBC as the key advantage in any of their news output. Are we sure the BBC deal to cover F1 from next year does actually also involve HD coverage?


I guess because as ITV are also partners in freesat with the BBC, and expected to launch an ITV HD service when the platform launches, there is no real reason to suggest that there is more or less chance of F1 being HD on the BBC than there would be if it were on ITV. Both will have HD services in 2009. ITV Sport showed their World Cup matches in 2006 in HD on the HD DVB-T trial (though ITV only showed the matches in HD, the BBC did presentation in HD as well)

There is no guarantee the BBC will do F1 in HD. It is a distinct possibility I'm sure - but I've heard nothing one way or the other.

To be honest - as far as I know - BBC Sport have yet to announced (maybe even decide) whether F1 coverage will be a BBC Sport in-house production or an independent production (as snooker, horse racing - even The Grand National, darts are).

Reasonably recent BBC Motor Sport coverage (Moto GP, and before that Superbikes) has been in-house, but this is an order of magnitude greater.

Ironically - BBC Outside Broadcasts (soon to be sold to SIS) have continued to provide ITV's F1 production facilities in Europe since BBC Sport lost the rights in 1996.

However BBC Sport DON'T use BBC OB facilities for MotoGP coverage in Europe - they use the European company Alfacam (who are HD experts - though MotoGP is still SD - 16:9 this year)


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> But I presume a quad LNB will ne needed to support dual or triple tuner PVR boxes. If they could find a way to support multiple tuners off a current single LNB Sky dish it would hugely increase the uptake if all people needed to do is pick a new Freesat box and plug their existing Sky satellite dish cable in to it.


It's physically impossible to run multiple tuners from a single LNB. LNBs are not passive "aerials" they are an active part of the tuner, controlled electronically from the STB.


----------



## Automan

Some people in my area have spent over &#163;150.00 with aerial installers trying to get freeview. A dish install with a quad LNB should cost no more and offer so much more choice.

Automan.


----------



## martink0646

Pete77 said:


> So it appears that F1 knows tht it does not have the guaranteed addicted zombie like level of supporter following that football has and thus relies for its worldwide popularity on being an FTA sport. It appears the revenue for the sport from advertisers on the panels on the cars etc must presumably be more profitable than any subscription revenue that it believes the likes of Sky could pay it?


The way it works is that there is a general 'rate card' for sponsorship. e.g. Sidepods cost $x, wing endplates $x-1 etc. The 'rate cards' are worked out on TV viewing figures which is why F1 is keen to trumpet increasing tv audiences each year, hence increased TV audience, higher sponsorship rate cards, worked out using common (in the advertising world) equations of the value of airtime at certain times of day & on certain channels in certain markets. Hence the numerous changes to qualifying over the years, all of which have one major goal in mind, as much airtime for all the teams as possible so they can sell carspace to their sponsors. The zenith of this was the ridiculous one shot qualifying where they all took it in turns, Noah's Ark style to qualify!!

This is why TV deals go to terrestrial FTA generally. Formula One Management (FOM) make their money from two principal sources, the largest is sanctioning fees from the GP promoters which is why before every race Bernie threatens that unless they change this or that they might lose the GP. The second is from circuit advertising which is run by Paddy McNally's Allsports Management.

TV deals whilst not insignificant have less impact in the strategy than football which doesn't give a stuff about viewing figures but wants the money as it is their main revenue stream.

The teams are compensated not only through their commercial dealings but also through the Concorde Agreement which sets out prize money, start money (of which Ferrari is historically paid more than anyone else & one more reason why everyone 'hates' them) travel expenses etc.

F1 will always.have a core following, but it is not a welcoming sport in the way football is. i.e. all you need is a ball & a relatively flat piece of land. The interest in F1 is becoming more the technical side for me & I have long since given up defending it in the pub.

Martin


----------



## ColinYounger

Sneals2000 said:


> To be honest - as far as I know - BBC Sport have yet to announced (maybe even decide) whether F1 coverage will be a BBC Sport in-house production or an independent production (as snooker, horse racing - even The Grand National, darts are).


F1 TV coverage for at least a year has now been done by an Ecclestone company and sold to the TV channels.


----------



## Pete77

ColinYounger said:


> F1 TV coverage for at least a year has now been done by an Ecclestone company and sold to the TV channels.


Sure but those are the actual pictures of the cars and not the value added part of the proposition from your own national broadcaster. That part is studio coverage before and after the race (either back in your own country or at the track depending how rich your national broadcaster is) and commentators on the race in your own language who are usually at the track. Also some interviews at the track before, during (with retirees) and after the race by your own presenters using your own camera crew. Logically simply hiring the current third party operation that works for ITV and perhaps making a few changes would be the most pain free option but various corporate egos or other business considerations may not allow this to happen.

I actually have an old university house mate who is a cameraman for Bernie's F1 company when he is not also doing other freelance work for the likes of BBC Sport. I usually meet up with him at Wimbledon by chance every two or three years when I spot him operating one of the cameras at the side of the No2 or No3 court and grab a word or a beer with him after the match is over.

It sounds like BBC F1 coverage for 2009 is a done deal but HD may not happen till later than that. As I understand it Bernie's operation does not do the F1 camera coverage for every race and in some countries it is still done by the national broadcaster instead. As a result it may be that some races will still not be in HD when the main switchover is made (and perhaps that will be 2010 or 2011 and not 2009) and those races will only move to HD when the relevant national broadcasters upgrade their equipment.


----------



## TCM2007

Even then we may not see HD for all races - the costs of streaming a live HD signal from the other side of the planet is considerably higher.

Autosport reckons Bernie has confirmed HD this year:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/58776


----------



## Sneals2000

ColinYounger said:


> F1 TV coverage for at least a year has now been done by an Ecclestone company and sold to the TV channels.


That's the host broadcast multilateral feed of the race itself. I'm talking about the TV production of the actual programme - the unilateral BBC-only stuff such as presentation, commentators, bespoke replays, roving reporters, unilateral cameras etc.

(Multi=Host Broadcast provided to all, Uni=Specific to a single broadcaster)


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Autosport reckons Bernie has confirmed HD this year:
> 
> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/58776


From Autosport



> But although the move will be welcome by a number of fans, *Ecclestone has admitted he is in a quandary about the matter because of the limited number of channels that broadcast in high definition*.
> 
> That is why he felt it more important for F1 to be available in a widescreen format to allow for bigger pictures on more people's television sets.
> 
> *"The trouble with High Definition is that there are not many people who have got the equipment to receive it, so there is not much point*," he said.
> 
> "We are really broadcasting for the big screen now, rather than worrying about HD."


A classic case of the chicken or the egg.

In reality there are plenty of people like me who have not yet bothered to get HD sets because there has not been a good reason to do so. Once F1 is available in HD a lot more people in Western Europe at least are going to move themselves across to HD viewing.

Once the races are in HD people will go and get HD receivers.

I can see more and more reasons to consider going either the BBC Freesat route or getting a secodnhand Sky HD box (the second makes more sense because I also need to watch the South American Dakar rally that will be on Eurosport). However for recording I am stymied by my communal satellite aerial only having a single satellite feed and there being no easy way to record that. This is going to be a very big issue with many already installed communal Sky satellite dish systems.

The only option I can see that works is to get a secondhand Sky HD box and use my Tivo to record that to do all non HD recordings but I will have to watch anything I want to see in HD live (unless I stump up at least £16 per month to Sky on a permanent basis). To be honest I can put up with that as recording F1 races I have always found to be a mistake as if one doesn't watch them live somehow the energy to watch a 3 hour program is never there at 10pm in the evening and many is the F1 race my Tivo has recorded that has not then been properly viewed in full. Of course with Hamilton back in the frame I should be re-motivated but I really need lots of overtaking to start happening again for F1 to be as exciting as it was in Prost/Senna/Mansell days. If they could change the car rules enough then with Alonso/Raikkonen and Hamilton all at the top of their game at once there could be some very exciting racing, although having said that I think it will soon be clear that Hamilton is simply far, far better than either of the other two. Although possibly with Raikkonen now at Ferrari and more confident with the world championship win under his belt he may be able to give Hamilton a run for his money.


----------



## Pete77

Thinking on again if I can record on a secondhand Sky HD box without having to pay a monthly sub I have no reason to want to get a BBC Freesat box. Surely Sky must be able to find a way to exploit that to BBC/ITV Freesat's detriment.


----------



## martink0646

The problem as I see it is that Bernie got bitten once a few years ago by jumping on the Digital Bandwagon early. He set up 'Bernie's Village' in the Paddock & controlled all the race coverage & offered the package to PPV broadcasters. It was taken up in Germany & Britain (I can't remember where else) & as I'm sure some people remember the package included multiple choices for the viewer from in-car to timing screens etc. It was cutting edge stuff at the time but people just didn't pay for it & come renewal time the broadcasters couldn't justify the fee for a 'minority' sport without the subscription costs to back it up. The whole enterprise was dropped.

He is not the sort of man to throw money around (more's the pity now he owns my football club) if he doesn't get a guaranteed return. I'm sure FOM already control all our pictures as opposed to the host broadcasters (please correct me if I'm wrong) which is why coverage has improved immensely & we don't get to just watch only Ferrari's at Monza for 90 mins, the local hero toiling away all race or the leader solely. If you watched last Sunday, LH was hardly shown & what they did show was where the action was. This is because of continuity from race to race.

Martin

N.B. Pete, you said that F1 in HD would be the catalyst for you to change TV. Again, I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall you saying the same thing about changing to a widescreen TV from your venerable 4:3 set when F1 changed? Or did I make that up


----------



## martink0646

For all those questioning F1 in HD click on this link below;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7308514.stm

Then go to 1 min 09 to hear it from the horses mouth!!!!!

Bernie has never sounded sweeter.

Martin


----------



## Automan

At present a Sky HD box will not record anything unless you pay Sky the £10.00 a month for the feature or have a £30.00 a month sky sub deal.

Automan.


Pete77 said:


> Thinking on again if I can record on a secondhand Sky HD box without having to pay a monthly sub I have no reason to want to get a BBC Freesat box. Surely Sky must be able to find a way to exploit that to BBC/ITV Freesat's detriment.


----------



## Pete77

Automan said:


> At present a Sky HD box will not record anything unless you pay Sky the £10.00 a month for the feature or have a £30.00 a month sky sub deal.


That is correct. But if the £10 fee was dropped for FTA recording I would have no reason to get a BBC Freesat box.


----------



## Sneals2000

Pete77 said:


> That is correct. But if the £10 fee was dropped for FTA recording I would have no reason to get a BBC Freesat box.


Indeed - but if non-subbed Sky+ boxes still offered recording I can imagine quite a few people ditching their low-end Sky subscriptions which they only really have to keep the Sky+ working.

I guess it depends how much Sky want to combat the threat of freesat.


----------



## Pete77

Sneals2000 said:


> I guess it depends how much Sky want to combat the threat of freesat.


But the Sky Freesatters can always be brought temporarily on to the Sky subscriber books (when needed during a difficult patch to keep subscriber numbers going upwards) by ludicrously cheap £5 per month for 6 months type deals. But a BBC/ITV Freesat home is lost to Sky forever.

So if Sky continue to withhold the recording feature free of charge they risk homes with a current Sky+ box going and getting a BBC box instead. On the other hand as you say some people may desubscribe altogether if they can have recording without paying a sub.

However I would subscribe permanently to Sky if I could have say the Variety and Knowldge Mix for £7.99 per month. It is the fact that it costs £17 per month that makes me feel it does not offer value for money.


----------



## kitschcamp

Pete77 said:


> Thanks for the very informed post kitschcamp. Do you have any professional involvement in broadcasting that leads you to be aware of all of the above.


No. I used to have press accreditation for FIA organised events.


> So it appears that F1 knows tht it does not have the guaranteed addicted zombie like level of supporter following that football has and thus relies for its worldwide popularity on being an FTA sport. It appears the revenue for the sport from advertisers on the panels on the cars etc must presumably be more profitable than any subscription revenue that it believes the likes of Sky could pay it?


Yup, as was proved by Bernievision a couple of years ago.


----------



## Automan

Ready I expect for Freesat CHN4, +1 & Film4 are running FTA duplicate tests.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a93750/channel-4-starts-free-to-air-broadcasts.html

Automan.


----------



## Automan

Over a digitalspy land http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a94111/specs-images-of-freesat-box-epg-leaked.html are supposed to be images of the first Humax HD box and shots of the EPG (dated last June).

If that is the EPG it is as "featureless" as Sky's but a lot more pleasing to the eye.

Still anyone could make an EPG which looks better than Sky's making use of HD 16:9 screen.

Automan.

Automan.


----------



## Pete77

Looks nice kit but I really can't see anyone getting one until and unless C4 and Five channels are also unencrypted.

Personally I'm inclined to wait and see if Sky drop the Sky+ charge and/or Sky HD charge before making up my mind which new HD satellite PVR makes sense (non subbed Sky HD or BBC Freesat).

Also I have to sought out a second cable feed from the splitter boxes near the satellite dish up on the roof (I'm on the ground). This can be done but will cost another £150 or so as Sky aren't interested in helping those of us who got expensive communal systems before their Free Shared Dish (also with Sky+ support support) scheme came out for private (non council) small blocks of flats a couple of years ago.


----------



## TCM2007

C4 is FTA now, unfortunately the HD channel won't be, at least for a while.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> C4 is FTA now, unfortunately the HD channel won't be, at least for a while.


What about E4 and More4 then. Gets up and walks across to tv set and Sky box to check.

Nope "Insert Your Sky Viewing Card" is received on C4, C4+1, E4, E4+1, More4and More4+1 on the Sky box when viewing card is not in the box. Sky box then gets upset when I put Sky viewing card back in with it on so have to power cycle it to rectify.

Cheers TCM for your totally unverified and completely inaccurate information. I know of course that you always seem to believe that you have a special editor's immunity from ever being criticised for those deficiencies for which you are always so quick to criticise others. I can only assume you must have believed what you read on some website or other rather than actually bothering to collect any empirical evidence on the matter. I do hope you instruct your journalists to check the accuracy of the content of those T3 reviews rather more carefully:down:

Also doesn't it further destroy the Freesat marketing proposition if C4 HD is withheld for some time when the only real selling point of Freesat is getting FTA HD now without having to wait for Freeview HD to arrive.


----------



## Pete77

The FTA C4 channel currently on Astra 2D is only some kind of test feed (I could get it using Add Channels apparently if I could be bothered). Hence why the C4 in the Sky EPG is still encrypted. You seem to be right about the complications with C4 HD. Really none of it holds water though until Five also goes FTA too. Also recent news of HD coming along on Freeview next year hardly improves the Freesat HD marketing proposition either.

See www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=777975

For the long and complicated ongoing saga.


----------



## martink0646

Pete77 said:


> The FTA C4 channel currently on Astra 2D is only some kind of test feed (I could get it using Add Channels apparently if I could be bothered). Hence why the C4 in the Sky EPG is still encrypted. You seem to be right about the complications with C4 HD. Really none of it holds water though until Five also goes FTA too. Also recent news of HD coming along on Freeview next year hardly improves the Freesat HD marketing proposition either.
> 
> See www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=777975
> 
> For the long and complicated ongoing saga.


Careful Pete, that was ALMOST an apology/admitting you were wrong.

Dont disappoint us & go all soft now.

Martin


----------



## Pete77

martink0646 said:


> Careful Pete, that was ALMOST an apology/admitting you were wrong.


Don't be silly. Why would I admit to being wrong on something when he never does.

In any case he just said C4 was now unencrypted but he was wrong as the normal regionalised C4 that is available to Sky box owners is still as encrypted as ever. Only a new test channel that is apparently going to change frequency again and cannot be accessed in the Sky EPG is unencrypted. TCM failed to make any of those points clear and as a result also made me unnecessarily have to power cycle my Sky box


----------



## Automan

I see the Grundig box is now on offer at Comet for £150.00 (HD Version).

However it occurred to me if these boxes EPG tidy up the order of the available channels to a logical numeric sequence our Tivo boxes will not have a channel line-up that matches.

Automan.


----------



## Pete77

Automan said:


> I see the Grundig box is now on offer at Comet for £150.00 (HD Version).


Surely Freesat hasn't launched yet though . Can't find anything for Freesat on the Comet website other than a load of Freeview boxes that their search engine bizarrely brings up.



> However it occurred to me if these boxes EPG tidy up the order of the available channels to a logical numeric sequence our Tivo boxes will not have a channel line-up that matches.


BBC/ITV Freesat will obviously potentially be fine with Tivo so long as Tivo is willing to create a new Platform with the channel numbers used by Freesat's EPG (inevitably different from the Sky numbers once you go past 105 or perhaps they will even start at 1). The EPG data should be no problem as the channels are merely a subset of the channels offered on the Sky platform. There is therefore no ongoing extra cost to Tivo in supporting this additional platform (other than knowing about channel number changes) and initial additional support calls it may generate.

Based on Tivo still being willing to add new sets of IR codes and them even supporting Home Choice there is surely every reason to hope that the Freesat EPG/platform will be supported by Tivo once it is launched?


----------



## Automan

Pete77 said:


> Surely Freesat hasn't launched yet though . Can't find anything for Freesat on the Comet website other than a load of Freeview boxes that their search engine bizarrely brings up.


http://www.comet.co.uk/shopcomet/product/444332/GRUNDIG-GUFSATHD if not a Comet screw up.

Info makes no mention of HDMI or component video output.

Automan.


----------



## Pete77

It seems the Comet website people have jumped the gun and listed them before they actually become available.

See www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=782357

for more discussion.

The information presented is wholly inaccurate as they have used a web page template for a Freeview box.

Basic box is only going to appeal to people who have moved in to a place with a Sky dish sitting there and no box of their own or who have had an existing out of contract Sky box break down.

Tivo will only be able to support Freesat if/when they create a new platform for Freesat or alternatively if you can use one of the Tivoweb modules to hack the channel numbers and change the channels to ones that match the Freesat lineup.


----------



## TCM2007

I'm fully aware of the status of that C4 feed. I worded it that way to see if Pete would scurry off and try to catch me out. Sure enough....


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> I'm fully aware of the status of that C4 feed. I worded it that way to see if Pete would scurry off and try to catch me out. Sure enough....


Why did you not just word it in a way that was not misleading.

Perhaps you should take a job in Sky's marketing department!


----------



## kitschcamp

Pete77 said:


> Tivo will only be able to support Freesat if/when they create a new platform for Freesat or alternatively if you can use one of the Tivoweb modules to hack the channel numbers and change the channels to ones that match the Freesat lineup.


Actually, that doesn't work too well. Any time there is an official channel change, your changes get re-set.


----------



## Pete77

kitschcamp said:


> Actually, that doesn't work too well. Any time there is an official channel change, your changes get re-set.


All the more reason for Tivo/Tribune to support BBC/ITV Freesat when properly launched then? The only extra data they will have to gather and maintain is surely the channel numbers and channel identities that comprise the BBC/ITV Freesat lineup. This sounds a lot less work than say Homechoice, which they also chose to support. No new actual EPG data needs gathering.


----------



## Automan

I expect Tribune & DigiGuide will but will Tivo want to pay to add an alternate option to the guided setup?

Still they did for the Sky 4 digit radio channels rf/scart lineup so there must be a chance.

Automan.


----------



## kitschcamp

I can't see any real reason why they won't - the data is already there for Sky, it's just packaged in a different channel numbers.


----------



## Pete77

kitschcamp said:


> I can't see any real reason why they won't - the data is already there for Sky, it's just packaged in a different channel numbers.


I suppose it depends if Tribune are able to ask Tivo for much or any extra money to provide the extra data set under the terms of the contract. The software can presumably handle it without an issue as just another platform choice.

Don't forget that Tivo refused to shell out to renew www.tivo.co.uk despite the trivial cost because someone did not seem to have a budget for the expenditure.


----------



## iankb

Pete77 said:


> The software can presumably handle it without an issue as just another platform choice.


That is a rather large presumption, since the current platform list, and the different settings and menus options that they use, may well be hardcoded in the current release. The settings required for setting the bitrates are different for each platform, and these have names that are fixed by platform.

I don't see any real incentive for TiVo to produce a new release, given that they couldn't attract any new customers with it.

In fact, they might well have difficulty find any programmers who still know the Series 1 code, let alone the UK version of it.


----------



## TCM2007

iankb said:


> That is a rather large presumption, since the current platform list, and the different settings and menus options that they use, may well be hardcoded in the current release. The settings required for setting the bitrates are different for each platform, and these have names that are fixed by platform.


Fortunately TiVo's software is a bit better written than that - line-ups are stored in MFS. If TiVo didn't support it, and there was anyone out ther who wanted it, it would be possible to write our own.


----------



## Pete77

iankb said:


> That is a rather large presumption, since the current platform list, and the different settings and menus options that they use, may well be hardcoded in the current release. The settings required for setting the bitrates are different for each platform, and these have names that are fixed by platform.


Then how was the split between the Sky television and the Sky radio channels so straightforwardly accoomplished without a major programming effort? Had that effort been required then I am quite sure the radio channels would simply have fallen by the wayside.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Fortunately TiVo's software is a bit better written than that - line-ups are stored in MFS. If TiVo didn't support it, and there was anyone out ther who wanted it, it would be possible to write our own.


An immediate vision of a combined effort by mikerr and blindlemon immediately springs to mind.


----------



## Automan

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a94961/freesat-confirms-launch-date-as-may-6.html

Seems they are using the same channel numbers as Sky so no issue with Tivo once the IR codes have been sorted (if different from sky boxes).

Edit: Could a friendly forum admin person correct the title of this thread as it is now this year 

Many Thanks.

Automan.


----------



## Pete77

Automan said:


> http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a94961/freesat-confirms-launch-date-as-may-6.html
> 
> Seems they are using the same channel numbers as Sky so no issue with Tivo once the IR codes have been sorted (if different from sky boxes


That seems pretty surprising in view of how many huge breaks in the channel numbering they will have and BBC News 24 being on 503 and CBeebies on 612 for instance.

Surely the point of having their own EPG with a smaller number of channels is to make it simpler to use?

Of course if true its good news for any Tivo users thinking of buying a BBC/ITV Freesat box.


----------



## Pete77

All I can see from the Freesat website content listed on this page is:-



> *Freesat's electronic programme guide*, programme metadata and interactive services *will operate entirely independently of those provided to Sky digiboxes*, and pre-launch marketing materials from the service indicate that approximately 80 television and radio channels have obtained a Freesat EPG slot for launch - a relatively small proportion of the total number of free satellite TV channels.


I don't see how they can operate completely independently of Sky and use its channel number sequence. How on earth do they then explain all those missing channel numbers?


----------



## martink0646

Hi,

Does anyone know what satelleite Freesat is broadcast on so I can try & pick it up on my HD STB. I already get BBC HD & I want to find out if that is staying the same. Also, is ITV HD & C4 HD starting on may the 6th & do you need a viewing card for these channels. Are they being turned on on the 6th & will magically appear or are they already broadcasting. Info please if anyone has it. Thanks.

Martin


----------



## Pete77

martink0646 said:


> Does anyone know what satelleite Freesat is broadcast on so I can try & pick it up on my HD STB.


Freesat is not a new set of channels it is merely a new EPG. I imagine the EPG will be transmitted in a proprietary format only able to be decoded by official BBC/ITV approved Freesat boxes. See the earlier posts in this thread starting at the first post.

If you have a non Sky and non BBC/ITV Euro HD satellite box then you will only be able to go on getting whatever EPG and channel numbers it uses. You won't be able to get the BBC Freesat EPG as far as I know.



> I already get BBC HD & I want to find out if that is staying the same. Also, is ITV HD & C4 HD starting on may the 6th & do you need a viewing card for these channels. Are they being turned on on the 6th & will magically appear or are they already broadcasting. Info please if anyone has it. Thanks.


Nothing is changing for BBC HD or C4 HD. You still won't need a viewing card to get BBC HD and you will need one for C4 HD as they have not yet managed to extricate themselves from their encryption deal with Sky on their C4 HD channel, even though they have managed to do so on their SD channel. ITV HD is not expected to launch at the same time as Freesat boxes are first marketed.

You are hopefully aware thet Freesat is only a new EPG and not a new range of channels.

BBC/ITV Freesat boxes will not have a viewing card slot and so cannot receive any encrypted channels. However their EPG will probably be transmitted in such a way that only BBC/ITV Freesat boxes can capture and use it.


----------



## Automan

Freesat boxes seem now to be listed on the Argos website.

None in stock YET!

http://www.argos.co.uk/webapp/wcs/s...ogId=1500001001&langId=-1&searchTerms=freesat

EDIT: Against all it says


> Fully interactive with LAN port for connection to broadband, for faster return path when accessing Freesat digital interactive services - may not be available for launch.


Also LNB in / LNB out. Out?

Automan.


----------



## Pete77

Automan said:


> Also LNB in / LNB out. Out?


LNB loop through to another satellite box you may still need to receive some other satellite channels I would imagine.

For instance a Sky Digibox to receive Five, Five US, Five Life, Sky One etc


----------



## Automan

Pete77 said:


> LNB loop through to another satellite box you may still need to receive some other satellite channels I would imagine.
> 
> For instance a Sky Digibox to receive Five, Five US, Five Life, Sky One etc


Isn't there an issue with polarator control voltage and dual frequency band LNB's that make that tricky?

Automan.


----------



## Pete77

Automan said:


> Isn't there an issue with polarator control voltage and dual frequency band LNB's that make that tricky?


Probably.

Why not tell us as you clearly know.


----------



## Automan

Well it seems Sky are working on a Home system with four tuners and I would have thought it would work with just two LNB feeds.

One for Horizontal channels and the other for Vertical ones.

These could then be used by any of the four tuners as required.

However it seems due to the vast number of channels now the LNB has to switch bands making the use of just two LNB's a non runner 

Thus I assume this would be an issue with these new freesat boxes should they really have an LNB out....

Automan.


----------



## bignoise

Automan said:


> Seems they are using the same channel numbers as Sky


They aren't - the channel numbers are completely different.


----------



## TCM2007

Looks like they are going for Sky's numbering:

http://i27.tinypic.com/29n7yae.jpg


----------



## Automan

TCM2007 said:


> Looks like they are going for Sky's numbering:
> 
> http://i27.tinypic.com/29n7yae.jpg


That screen image shows different numbers to Sky's EPG

143 is Sky BBC HD and that has 108

Others are also different which means Tivo will have to offer an alternate lineup unless the new boxes let you shuffle the channel numbers

Automan.


----------



## Pete77

106 and 107 are Sky One and Sky Two on a Sky box and not BBC Three and BBC Four as shown in this picture for Freesat.

They were obviously never going to follow Sky's numbering scheme given how many fewer channels they have in their EPG.

Can I supply a free piece of humble pie for you to eat TCM?


----------



## Automan

104 & 105 have however been left free I assume for the obvious channels 

Automan.


----------



## Pete77

Automan said:


> 104 & 105 have however been left free I assume for the obvious channels


What isn't obvious is why they would go ahead with a product launch without C4 and Five becoming available FTA though. All they will then do is get terrible write ups from journalists that its an inferior and more expensive alternative to Sky Freesat.

By the way I have just received the following email from Sky with regards to the Sky Pay Once Watch Forever system I gave to my mother as a birthday present in November.

This proves you can get Freesat From Sky for only £75 if you know how to correctly deal with this organisation.



> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Sky Enq Ref -
> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:23:38 +0100
> From: CR Support <[email protected]>
> 
> Dear Mr _________
> 
> Thank you for your email addressed to Jeremy Darroch, which has been passed to me to investigate and respond on his behalf.
> 
> I note your comments regarding the Pay Once Watch Forever offer and take this opportunity to confirm the following.
> 
> The date that the offer ends on your mother's account is 7 May 2008. I can advise that I have arranged for the cancellation to be actioned without your mother having to contact us, to save any inconvenience. There will no billings applied or letters sent as the balance will be clear and the account cancelled.
> 
> I am unable to comment on any other account that may be set up on the same offer.
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to email us.
> 
> Kind regards
> Jacqueline McCue
> Customer Liaison Consultant


----------



## Automan

Perhaps by launch date CHN4 will occupy that slot at 104 

As for CHN5, they will wait maybe till later this year when the first freesat PVR/DVR come out.

That way you will be able to skip the VAST number of adverts on CHN5 

Re the &#163;75.00, If you are a paying Sky Subscriber who maybe would be happy with less channels but want Sky+ PVR/DVR features, the one off payment would I imagine pay for itself in under one year.

Automan.


----------



## Pete77

Automan said:


> Re the £75.00, If you are a paying Sky Subscriber who maybe would be happy with less channels but want Sky+ PVR/DVR features, the one off payment would I imagine pay for itself in under one year.


But if you only have a standard Sky box and want to get a Freeview PVR to replace it you need both a new Quad LNB on the dish and a new double cable from the dish to the back of the box in your living room (in some cases these may be a long way apart and tacked to the eaves of the house at first floor level). For most people this will mean significant further installer cost.

Sky Three is already FTV and so not receivable by cardslotless BBC/ITV Freesat boxes and Sky are likely to make Sky News FTV as well on 28.2 degree East if they get the go ahead for Picnic and remove Sky News off Freeview. There will then be 7 English speaking news channels on Sky Freesat but only one on BBC/ITV Freesat.

It is likely Sky might make Sky one or Sky Two FTV on Sky Freesat, at least for a while, to further undermine the BBC/ITV proposition. They could also remove their Sky+ or Sky HD additional £10 charges for non Sky subscribers to further damage the BBC/ITV Freesat proposition................

Mind you no Five, Five US or Five Life on BBC/ITV Freesat and possibly also E4and More4 and C4 for a while on BBC/ITV Freesat is doing a pretty good job of sinking it on its own. BBC/ITV Freesat strikes me as like Worldspace satellite radio where they are pressing on utterly regardless of all good advice that their marketing model is doomed.


----------



## 6022tivo

I am a little confused to this.... Sorry for not reading all the thread and the digisky threads.

So looking at argos, these sat freesat HD receivers are coming.. But (and its one hell of a big but), they can not decode ITV, CH4 and the Free to view channels as it does not have a card slot, sky Cam????



Am I being a little silly, but is it not easier to get a SKY HD box from ebay and watch the HD channels (not sky chargable ones) and use the Sky+ functions on a minimum subscription? (&#163;16)


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> Can I supply a free piece of humble pie for you to eat TCM?


I'm sure you have plenty to give Pete, as you never eat it yourself!

I was fooled by the big gap below 108?


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> It is likely Sky might make Sky one or Sky Two FTV on Sky Freesat, at least for a while, to further undermine the BBC/ITV proposition. They could also remove their Sky+ or Sky HD additional £10 charges for non Sky subscribers to further damage the BBC/ITV Freesat proposition................
> 
> Mind you no Five, Five US or Five Life on BBC/ITV Freesat and possibly also E4and More4 and C4 for a while on BBC/ITV Freesat is doing a pretty good job of sinking it on its own. BBC/ITV Freesat strikes me as like Worldspace satellite radio where they are pressing on utterly regardless of all good advice that their marketing model is doomed.


Pure speculation on your part.

Oh, in the interests of Pete-like pickiness, Five US no longer exists. I have some humble pie left over if you want it.


----------



## TCM2007

6022tivo said:


> Am I being a little silly, but is it not easier to get a SKY HD box from ebay and watch the HD channels (not sky chargable ones) and use the Sky+ functions on a minimum subscription? (£16)


Yes, for HD viewers that's a much better deal, so long as the £16 a month isn't a big issue.


----------



## Automan

I thought you all hated Sky and would not like to pay then anything a month 

Perhaps also the Humax PVR/DVR models will have recording edit options along with USB or Ethernet options to transfer your recordings to other platforms for backup?

Automan.


----------



## 6022tivo

Automan said:


> I thought you all hated Sky and would not like to pay then anything a month


Yep, Don't like sky really.

Moved away from a NTL area.

So, needed broadband. With Sky offering £135 quidco, I went with them, for £17 (Grabbed a extra mix), over the 12 months with the quidco it was cheap TV, sky box, wireless router and internet for the year.


----------



## poissony

Pete77 said:


> What isn't obvious is why they would go ahead with a product launch without C4 and Five becoming available FTA though.


C4 is broadcasting FTA as well as FTV at the moment and has been for a few weeks. No sign of Five though.


----------



## Sneals2000

6022tivo said:


> I am a little confused to this.... Sorry for not reading all the thread and the digisky threads.
> 
> So looking at argos, these sat freesat HD receivers are coming.. But (and its one hell of a big but), they can not decode ITV, CH4 and the Free to view channels as it does not have a card slot, sky Cam????


Err - ITV is FTA on DSat and has been for a couple of years. Freesat and even generic FTA boxes are fine with ITV services on satellite.

Given that ITV are partners with the BBC in freesat - you can be certain that ITV will be fine!

C4 have started uplinking a single FTA stream on a narrow UK beam on Astra 2D (though their FTV streams of all the C4 regional variants - for ad purposes - on the wider European beams on 2A continue) so that is likely to be there on freesat boxes.

Film4 is also FTA currently AIUI - but E4/More4 may take a bit longer. C4HD is also still FTV - and again may take longer to appear on freesat.

five have always been much closer to Sky than the other broadcasters - so may be waiting and seeing...



> Am I being a little silly, but is it not easier to get a SKY HD box from ebay and watch the HD channels (not sky chargable ones) and use the Sky+ functions on a minimum subscription? (£16)


If you want to pay £16/month then that is fine - and you will get some pay-TV channels for that. However that is nearly £200/year - which is a lot more than a licence fee - and if you just want the freesat line-up you'll be able to get an HD PVR later in the year for zero subscription cost once the freesat HD PVRs appear, and you will be able to buy a non-PVR HD box for around £120.

I have no interest in paying to receive and record channels I already pay for through my licence fee or through buying advertised products... Also - the freesat EPG may well be better than the Sky+ one in PVR terms (alternate instance for intelligent use of the +1 channels is a bonus)


----------



## Sneals2000

poissony said:


> C4 is broadcasting FTA as well as FTV at the moment and has been for a few weeks. No sign of Five though.


Yep - and I think Sky encode and uplink five for them, onto a Sky leased transponder, whilst BBC, ITV and C4 have separate uplink and transponder deals independent of Sky. Of course there is nothing stopping five going to a 3rd party for uplink of their service FTA - unless they have a tie-in contract with Sky?


----------



## Pete77

Sneals2000 said:


> If you want to pay £16/month then that is fine - and you will get some pay-TV channels for that. However that is nearly £200/year - which is a lot more than a licence fee - and if you just want the freesat line-up you'll be able to get an HD PVR later in the year for zero subscription cost once the freesat HD PVRs appear, and you will be able to buy a non-PVR HD box for around £120.


But for a Freesat PVR you will also need to pay £100 or quite possibly a lot more on top to replace your LNB with a Quad LNB and a double cable from the Quad LNB to your new box. Only basic Freesat boxes and non HD Freesat boxes will be plug and play with an existing Sky dish and cable. If you have a communal systems without a double cable then you are stuffed for using the Freesat PVR.



> Also - the freesat EPG may well be better than the Sky+ one in PVR terms (alternate instance for intelligent use of the +1 channels is a bonus)


Will they have 14 days future EPG data instead of only 7 on Sky to match Freeview?

If C4 can come up with this emergency non regionalised unencrypted feed until they distenangle themselves form their existing encryption arrangements for the other C4 channels with Sky you would have thought Five could have done the same for it own flagship channel?


----------



## Sneals2000

Pete77 said:


> But for a Freesat PVR you will also need to pay £100 or quite possibly a lot more on top to replace your LNB with a Quad LNB and a double cable from the Quad LNB to your new box.


Yep - for an existing single-receiver owner then there is extra cost.

However for new adopters who would like a Freeview PVR but can't get Freeview the freesat option is at least worth considering.

I think how many people adopt freesat PVRs will entirely depend on the cost of the boxes and the install deals.

freesat single receiver boxes are obviously going to appeal to those who move into a house with a dish and no receiver, or who want freeview but can't get it.



> Only basic Freesat boxes and non HD Freesat boxes will be plug and play with an existing Sky dish and cable. If you have a communal systems without a double cable then you are stuffed for using the Freesat PVR.


Yep - unless freesat boxes end up being Unicable or similar compatible, and CA systems add Unicable support?



> Will they have 14 days future EPG data instead of only 7 on Sky to match Freeview?


Don't know - would expect only 7 days - but with much better navigation. (A-Z is unusable on Sky - though the new Sky+HD EPG may improve this, as it will be caching listings to the hard drive and apparently allows multi-character searching, not just a single initial letter and UP/DOWN)



> If C4 can come up with this emergency non regionalised unencrypted feed until they distenangle themselves form their existing encryption arrangements for the other C4 channels with Sky you would have thought Five could have done the same for it own flagship channel?


Five run to a very tight budget - they only introduced aspect ratio switching on their DSat feed relatively late in the day because they didn't want to spend money upgrading their playout area...

I suspect they are always going to be a bit more of a "wait and see" channel - particularly as they have far less of a PSB remit than C4.


----------



## AMc

The Argos link shows an &#163;80 installation charge option with some clauses and options for extra charges. I would expect a quad LNB and double co-ax cable constrained by the same health and safety restrictions Sky use (not above 20 feet IIRC etc.). 

I can't see how you can be tied down by the subsidised installation catches in a previous Sky install so if your dish isn't up to it you pay your &#163;80 and get a new LNB, cable and dish - if you wish. If you're on a shared system you'll have more difficulties, obviously take it up with your Landlord/Freeholder and expect to see the actual costs double by the time it arrives on your service charge/rent.


----------



## OzSat

Pete77 said:


> Will they have 14 days future EPG data instead of only 7 on Sky to match Freeview?


BBC/ITV only release confirmed schedules once a week and that is on the Thursday for following week's Saturday start.

So for most of the time there is less than 14 days actually available anyway.

The Freeview specs I've seen say 7-days.


----------



## Pete77

ozsat said:


> BBC/ITV only release confirmed schedules once a week and that is on the Thursday for following week's Saturday start.
> 
> So for most of the time there is less than 14 days actually available anyway.
> 
> The Freeview specs I've seen say 7-days.


Surely on Tivo we get 14 days data when it is renewed each weekend that dwindles to a minimum of 7 days.

Al the main non BBC, ITV channels like National Geographic, Dicovery, Sky One etc seems to provide 21 days advance listings to Tivo without any issues.

So 14 days declining to 7 days for the main channels and 21 days for non BBC, ITV, C4 and Five channels on Freesat would be a bigh improvement over Sky's Strict next 7 days only EPG.

For instance when just deciding when to cancel my Sky sub I was able to look at the episodes of Air Crash Investigation due to be shown over the next 21 days.


----------



## Automan

Over at Digitalspy land they think ITV HD may only become available with a FreeSat HD Box!

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a95131/itv-hd-to-be-freesat-exclusive.html

Crazy or what?

EDIT:
Also 1st Humax box at Argos http://www.argos.co.uk/webapp/wcs/s...logId=1500001001&langId=-1&searchTerms=FOXSAT but not available 

Automan.


----------



## Automan

At http://www.itv.com/Help/hdtvhelp/default.html it says



> Freesat
> 
> A new digital satellite TV service from the BBC and ITV. Scheduled for launch in 2008, freesat has no monthly subscription, just a one-off payment for the digital box, satellite dish and installation. For more information visit the official freesat website. ITV HD content will be available via freesat.


Automan.


----------



## OzSat

The BBC are not allowed to push Freesat over Sky - so say it has to say it is on both (and cable).

ITV can push Freesat and ignore Sky/VM - they say on Freesat - but do not say "not on Sky".


----------



## OzSat

Pete77 said:


> Surely on Tivo we get 14 days data when it is renewed each weekend that dwindles to a minimum of 7 days.
> 
> Al the main non BBC, ITV channels like National Geographic, Dicovery, Sky One etc seems to provide 21 days advance listings to Tivo without any issues.
> 
> So 14 days declining to 7 days for the main channels and 21 days for non BBC, ITV, C4 and Five channels on Freesat would be a bigh improvement over Sky's Strict next 7 days only EPG.
> 
> For instance when just deciding when to cancel my Sky sub I was able to look at the episodes of Air Crash Investigation due to be shown over the next 21 days.


I think they would prefer people to get a full EPG rather than having gaps at the end. We get complaints about missing listings on TiVo when it is because they are not released yet.

Also, once you remove the channels who publish their schedules weekly - rather than a month ahead - you remove over half the channels on Freesat. So at almost any time over half would be missing listings at the end of the 14 days.


----------



## kitschcamp

ozsat said:


> The BBC are not allowed to push Freesat over Sky - so say it has to say it is on both (and cable).
> 
> ITV can push Freesat and ignore Sky/VM - they say on Freesat - but do not say "not on Sky".


Could this be in any way connected to the story in The Guardian / Observer last week about how ITV are planning to give back their regional licences, take the financial hit, and become a pure digital service a lot quicker than switchover to free themselves of all the Public Service Obligations they currently have?


----------



## Pete77

ozsat said:


> ITV can push Freesat and ignore Sky/VM - they say on Freesat - but do not say "not on Sky".


Hmmm interesting. There are 9 million UK homes with Sky but presumably less than 1 million of them with Sky HD.

Much though ITV may hate Sky I still can't see how they can afford to get very low viewer numbers and therefore advertising revenue for ITV HD by launching it only on a platform on which almost no one can yet watch it (i.e. BBC/ITV Freesat).

If they say they are initially launching only on Freesat this has to be purely a PR stunt to market the platform and it will surely also be available via Sky HD boxes as well? They may say "ITV HD content will be available via Freesat." but note that Freesat is also a marketing name used by Sky. I think what they really mean is that ITV HD will not be available on Freeview/DTT until at least some point well in to 2009 when the new Freeview HD service and boxes become available.

Surely the BBC and ITV channels you can watch on a Sky Digibox without any viewing card in place are also actually "Freesat" channels, as the Freesat brand name is also used by Sky? Of coursing paying Sky subscribers get the BBC/ITV channels on their boxes too but they don't need their Sky viewing card in place to be able to do so. Therefore they are clearly Freesat channels...........


----------



## TCM2007

Ozsat was not saying that ITV HD won't be on Sky, just that they aren't obliged to go on about it in marketing materials; the BBC on the other hand must be neutral and not favour promoting one mechanism over another.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Ozsat was not saying that ITV HD won't be on Sky, just that they aren't obliged to go on about it in marketing materials; the BBC on the other hand must be neutral and not favour promoting one mechanism over another.


I would have thought that ITV may be in danger of breaching ASA guidelines and/or trading standards law if they give the impression that ITV HD can only be received on a Freesat HD box when a Sky HD box can also receive it.

I could imagine Sky lodging complaints in these quarters rather rapidly if ITV try to give the impression that only a BBC/ITV HD Freesat branded box can receive their new HD channel. It also doesn't seem to be in ITV's interest to do this since the only significant quantity of UK homes that will have HD televisions properly connected to an HD receiver in any quantity and able to receive ITV HD will be Sky HD homes. Or alternatively ITV should wait until they can also launch their HD channel over on Freeview at the same time.

The big question is surely whether Sky will come up with versions of FreesatFromSky and Sky Pay Once Watch Forever (the latter only being true provided you clobber Sky over the head to honour its side of the deal) that also include installation of a Sky HD box. Then if they do that will they also allow you to record the BBC, ITV and C4 HD channels without you having to pay either a Sky+ subscription fee.

If they did all of the above there is then no point in getting a BBC/ITV Freesat HD box but loads of their own customers might also unsubscribe and downgrade their Sky+ and Sky HD boxes to a non pay FTV channel only service. So a major dilemma for Sky in marketing terms.


----------



## OzSat

ITV FAQs now indicate it that ITVHD will be Freesat exclusive.

I wonder if it will be available manually on SkyHD boxes?


----------



## Automan

Yes,
It is a crazy world!
http://www.itv.com/Help/ITVHDQuestions/default.html

Still no more "A Touch Of Frost" or "Foyle's War" so nothing worth watching anyway.

Automan.


----------



## Pete77

ozsat said:


> ITV FAQs now indicate it that ITVHD will be Freesat exclusive.?


I still think that means it will only be on the Astra satellite and does not require you to have any Sky subscription to get it.

Even if it isn't in the Sky EPG how would they broadcast it so a Sky HD box could not get it via Add Channels? Obviously that would probably still mess up any ability to use Sky+ functionality on a Sky HD box to record ITV HD though.

More likely its just normal Astra FTA and also in the Sky EPG. These marketing people get so confused about what Freesat actually means (not least due to Sky also using the term Freesat . Think of all the people who believe when they desubscribe from Sky they need to immediately put their Sky box in the loft as they think it won't receive any programs. I expect you will find the ITV website person or marketing person who wrote this suffers from the same sad misconceptions.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> I would have thought that ITV may be in danger of breaching ASA guidelines


Which guideline exactly?


----------



## Pete77

DigitalSpy seems to think it really will only be receivable on a new BBC/ITV Freesat box.

See www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a95131/itv-hd-to-be-freesat-exclusive.html



> Test transmissions for ITV HD are now being broadcast on Eurobird 1 at 11.428 GHz with horizontal polarisation, a symbol rate of 27500, and a service ID of 10510. However, the stream may not be viewed on Sky boxes, nor traditional free to air receivers, as the video stream is being broadcast as H.222 data rather than using the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC codec supported by such receivers and used by existing high definition services such as BBC HD.
> 
> Digital Spy forum members who receive digital satellite TV on their home computer have been able to view the stream after installing appropriate codecs. They report that the service information table for the 11.428H transponder is carrying, in addition to the ITV HD stream, data services named "FreesatHome", "FreesatCommonC", "FreesatSSU", and "FreesatOAD".


But is there any reason why Sky cannot update the firmware on their Sky HD boxes to support H.222 or is there some kind of other restrictive marketing agreement over who can provide H.222 support?

I bet Sky will definitely try to go to court over this if they can find an angle for doing so and if it really is true that a Sky HD box cannot get the station. Also manufacturers of vanilla FTA HD satellite boxes are likely to be equally concerned.

If Freesat can find a way to have dual tuner support on their PVR from only a single LNB and can get the Five and C4 FTA issues sorted out then they would probably get my business.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> More likely its just normal Astra FTA and also in the Sky EPG. .


Maybe, but that FAQ is pretty unambiguous.

Remember the charging scheme for the EPG means that channels like ITV pay a fortune - they may not be keen to do that. A negotiating position perhaps?

They also may not want to have a national ITV confusing matters next to the regional ones on Sky.

Or maybe it's "retaliation" for Sky not releasing Five from their FTV contract?


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Which guideline exactly?


If they imply the service can only be received on a BBC/ITV Freesat box but a Sky HD box can also receive it they would then fall foul of normal honesty and trutfulness rules for advertising.

If however they have found a way to stop any of the large number of Sky HD box owners being able to watch their channel (thus also losing advertising revenue and viewers for themselves - well done ITV) then of course they would not be falling foul of any ASA rules.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> But is there any reason why Sky cannot update the firmware on their Sky HD boxes to support H.222 or is there some kind of other restrictive marketing agreement over who can provide H.222 support?


The H.264 support in the sky box is in hardware; the decoder chipset. So quite possible not.

I don't know much about H.222, but I think it's a "wrapper" like AVI rather than being an actual codec. I _think_ it's a means of mixing MPEG2 and H.264 in a single data stream, but don't quote me on that.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> If they imply the service can only be received on a BBC/ITV Freesat box but a Sky HD box can also receive it they would then fall foul of normal honesty and trutfulness rules for advertising.


Not if they just don't mention it. It would depend on the wording, ie "Available on Freesat" is fine even its also on Sky. The BBC on the other hand is not allowed to just not mention it.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Remember the charging scheme for the EPG means that channels like ITV pay a fortune - they may not be keen to do that. A negotiating position perhaps?
> 
> They also may not want to have a national ITV confusing matters next to the regional ones on Sky.?


You seem to be overlooking how much extra broadcasters may have to pay for the rights to broadcast the HD version of a program.

To then pay those expensive rights and have almost no one viewing the program or generating advertising revenue to recoup those costs would appear to be near suicidal.

Perhaps it will be on Freesat only for the three months as a launch marketing ploy and then become available by the time the Sky legal action has gone in or will become available by default on Sky when they work out how to upgrade their Sky HD box firmware to support the new transmission format. Or is this format outside the hardware capabilities of all Sky HD boxes bearing in mind that the transmission will not actually be encrypted.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Not if they just don't mention it. It would depend on the wording, ie "Available on Freesat" is fine even its also on Sky. The BBC on the other hand is not allowed to just not mention it.


And it depends on what Freesat means given that there is also FreesatFromSky.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> To then pay those expensive rights and have almost no one viewing the program or generating advertising revenue to recoup those costs would appear to be near suicidal.


Possibly, but the extra payments (if any) may be linked to viewer numbers.


----------



## Pete77

Opinions seem to be divided over in the thread discussing this at:-

www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=789474

The majority opinion seems to be that it will be on Freesat only to start with (as a marketing tool for Freesat) but only in the short term.

I suspect that this is a negotiating ploy by ITV to cut down their expensive EPG costs in the Sky EPG with all their regionalised version and to point out to Sky they can play hardball if they don't get a better deal.

In the longer run I would have thought ITV will be besieged with complaints from Sky HD box owners and that Sky will try to find techncial solutions and/or take legal action that mean their boxes can soon show the station. What if Sky does not charge for an ITV HD EPG entry and simply copies the EPG listings off the BBC/ITV Freesat EPG guide and their engineers then find a way to support the transmission format. Is there legal action ITV can take against Sky against for using such an approach without their permission? Surely as the ITV HD broadcast will be FTA then Sky won't have actually done anything illegal?


----------



## Automan

It's all on the ITV website...



> Can I use my existing set-top box?
> No, to get ITV HD you'll need a freesat digital box or TV with freesat HD built in - look for the freesat logo on the product. You'll also need a satellite dish installed, which you can arrange with your freesat-approved retailer when you buy your freesat product.
> 
> If I already have a satellite dish, can I use that to receive freesat?
> If there's already a satellite dish on your home you may be able to use it to receive freesat but we recommend you check with your freesat retailer for details. If your existing satellite dish is still under warranty (typically 12 months) connecting a freesat digital box to your existing equipment may void the warranty on your satellite dish. You must also ensure that you fulfil any remaining contractual obligations you have with any other service providers.
> 
> Once I own a freesat dish and box, will it cost me extra to receive HD broadcasts?
> No! That's the beauty of freesat: no contract, no subscription, just a one-off payment. Once you have freesat, you'll receive all the channels and services, including HD if you have a freesat HD digital box or TV with freesat HD built in.


http://www.itv.com/Help/ITVHDQuestions/default.html

Automan.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> What if Sky does not charge for an ITV HD EPG entry and simply copies the EPG listings off the BBC/ITV Freesat EPG guide and their engineers then find a way to support the transmission format. Is there legal action ITV can take against Sky against for using such an approach without their permission? Surely as the ITV HD broadcast will be FTA then Sky won't have actually done anything illegal?


I think you're veering down a very strange train of thought, but a channel owns the copyright in its listings, and the text they contain you can't just copy them!


----------



## Pete77

Automan said:


> It's all on the ITV website...
> 
> http://www.itv.com/Help/ITVHDQuestions/default.html
> 
> Automan.


It still depends what they mean by Freesat.

Also they will be overwhelmed with complaints from Sky HD customers in the end....


----------



## Automan

Pete77 said:


> It still depends what they mean by Freesat.
> 
> Also they will be overwhelmed with complaints from Sky HD customers in the end....


Can I use my existing set-top box?
*No*, to get ITV HD *youll need a freesat digital box or TV with freesat HD built in* - look for the freesat logo on the product. Youll also need a satellite dish installed, which you can arrange with your freesat-approved retailer when you buy your freesat product.


----------



## OzSat

&#163;100+ just for ITVHD - that is Freesat for you.

Typical - screw the public for as much as you can.


Anyway - who needs premium rate 'phone quizes in HD? ITV doesn't offer much else.


----------



## Pete77

Automan said:


> Can I use my existing set-top box?
> *No*, to get ITV HD *youll need a freesat digital box or TV with freesat HD built in* - look for the freesat logo on the product. Youll also need a satellite dish installed, which you can arrange with your freesat-approved retailer when you buy your freesat product.


But the general belief in the more extensive digitalspy discussion is that the non receivability of ITV HD on Sky boxes is only a short term marketing move to create an initial rush of Freesat installations. Then when HD viewing widens and more Sky homes have Sky HD boxes it is unlikely ITV will be able to pass up 6 or 7 millions Sky HD homes rather than the present less 1 million such Sky equipped residences.

ITV is currently annoyed with how much it is being charged by Sky for the cost of meeting its public sector regional transmisison obligations and this is to make some kind of point to Sky that it is charging too much and to the government that it wants more funding to maintain its regionalised programming streams.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> I think you're veering down a very strange train of thought, but a channel owns the copyright in its listings, and the text they contain you can't just copy them!


Even though you can just receive its broadcast so long as it is unencrypted and the firmware of the box you are using can understand the transmission method it is using?

I expect it would be enough for most Sky HD box owners that they could select it via a regular channel number in the EPG. It wouldn't matter too much if ITV was cumudgeonly enough to withhold the actual listings data as there are plenty of other sources where customers can view those (eg ITV's own website).

As I say I'm sure Sky will fight a court battle over this if necessary and it can find an angle for doing so.


----------



## Pete77

ozsat said:


> £100+ just for ITVHD - that is Freesat for you.
> 
> Typical - screw the public for as much as you can.
> 
> Anyway - who needs premium rate 'phone quizes in HD? ITV doesn't offer much else.


I can't see me and mrs normal and cautious who do not like paying any Sky subs going for any set top box that cannot get the five main existing terrestrial channels that they are already used to. So this ITV HD only available on non Sky Freesat move smacks to me of desperation by the Freesat consortium.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> Even though you can just receive its broadcast so long as it is unencrypted and the firmware of the box you are using can understand the transmission method it is using?


Yes, the EPG is copyrighted entirely independently of the video content. Just like any text someone has written!

There are some legal rights which newspapers have to be awarded an automatic license to reproduce times, but they wouldn't extend to duplicating content into a rival EPG.


----------



## Sneals2000

My understanding is that ITV HD may be freesat only because the Sky HD boxes can't currently cope with the planned ITV HD system.

AIUI freesat actually has a slightly more HD-friendly interactive system than Sky HD boxes - and ITV HD are using this functionality to implement ITV HD.

This is all slightly informed guesswork - but the suggestion is that ITV HD will be accessed via a Press Red function, that will re-tune to the ITV HD stream - BUT only for the programme - with the box re-tuning to the correct regional SD stream for the adverts during the breaks - and then switching back for the next bit of the programme.

Obviously this will punch huge holes in the junctions - but it does mean ITV keep their regional adverts without having to uplink 15+ HD streams.

AIUI Sky boxes can't cope with this currently - and also have issues with interactive HD services.

Whether Sky upgrade their boxes to match what freesat boxes can do and thus ITV HD becomes possible on them - who knows...

As I say - the above is pure guesswork - but if ITVHD is ITV1 HD - the advert switching is an important issue for them.


----------



## Sneals2000

Pete77 said:


> I still think that means it will only be on the Astra satellite and does not require you to have any Sky subscription to get it.


AIUI the ITVHD stream, like the freesat EPG, is actually on Eurobird at 28.5 not the Astra 2s at 28.2 - though the 0.3 degree difference means most small dishes have no problem receiving both.


----------



## Pete77

Sneals2000 said:


> As I say - the above is pure guesswork - but if ITVHD is ITV1 HD - the advert switching is an important issue for them.


How can it be ITV1 HD rather than just ITV HD when far from all of ITV1's programming content will have HD versions available?

That would mean an HD channel that is HD for only some of the time? Also why is regionalised advertising even necesary for the first year or two on ITV HD given that this channel will have an utterly tiny viewing audience if Sky HD boxes will not support it.

Surely ITV's decision to use a method Sky cannot cope with must be deliberate and not accidental. They could have always worked with Sky from the outset to overcome the technical issues if they had wanted this channel to also appear on Sky HD boxes from Day 1.

I would have thought the "its like Sky+ but with no monthly sub" and the "you can watch HD but with no monthly sub" and the "you can bring back to life an old redundant Sky dish but with no monthly sub" in the place you have just moved in to was the correct marketing angle for the BBC/ITV Freesat product.

This all sounds to me like ITV senior management is still as out of touch as it was back in OnDigital days. Surely people need to see ITV HD at their friend's house with a Sky HD box and television and then hear down at Currys or Comet that there is a new box that will give them the same thing but without any monthly sub or involvement with Sky.


----------



## poissony

Pete77 said:


> How can it be ITV1 HD rather than just ITV HD when far from all of ITV1's programming content will have HD versions available?
> 
> That would mean an HD channel that is HD for only some of the time?


You've just described C4 HD and Sky One HD which both upscale programs, it's nothing new.


----------



## Pete77

poissony said:


> You've just described C4 HD and Sky One HD which both upscale programs, it's nothing new.


Surely the BBC approach of a channel with its own schedule dedicated to actual HD programs appeals a lot more to those who want to view real HD quality programming.

Still I suppose most real HD programming on ITV will only relate to programs on ITV1 and ITV2 since ITV3 and ITV4 are essentially dedicated only to reshowing all of ITV's old classic programs.


----------



## OzSat

Pete77 said:


> I still think that means it will only be on the Astra satellite and does not require you to have any Sky subscription to get it.
> 
> Even if it isn't in the Sky EPG how would they broadcast it so a Sky HD box could not get it via Add Channels? Obviously that would probably still mess up any ability to use Sky+ functionality on a Sky HD box to record ITV HD though.


ITV HD is currently on Astra - but can not be added to Sky HD boxes using 'Add Channels'.

It remains to be seen if it will stay like this and if FreesatHD boxes can currently see it.


----------



## poissony

Pete77 said:


> Surely the BBC approach of a channel with its own schedule dedicated to actual HD programs appeals a lot more to those who want to view real HD quality programming.


Yes, indeed. However, who can guess what ITV's plans are? It may well be easier for them to simulcast ITV 1 as they may not have enough HD content to show. BBC HD is only on for approx 6 hours a day and their schedule is filled with repeats.


----------



## TCM2007

Sneals2000 said:


> This is all slightly informed guesswork - but the suggestion is that ITV HD will be accessed via a Press Red function, that will re-tune to the ITV HD stream - BUT only for the programme - with the box re-tuning to the correct regional SD stream for the adverts during the breaks - and then switching back for the next bit of the programme.


That makes a lot of sense.


----------



## TCM2007

poissony said:


> You've just described C4 HD and Sky One HD which both upscale programs, it's nothing new.


Don't forget Pete's "knowledge" of HD is entirely second (or more) hand.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> Still I suppose most real HD programming on ITV will only relate to programs on ITV1 and ITV2 since ITV3 and ITV4 are essentially dedicated only to reshowing all of ITV's old classic programs.


Actually the really old stuff may well be available in HD, if they can be bothered to re-digitise it. It's mainly late 80s and 90s material which is irrevocably SD.


----------



## OzSat

Space1999 was shown on ITVHD. Don't forget ITV4 has live sport.

It seems the ITVHD channel will carry programming for whichever ITV1-4 channel has the output - you select it from an interactive prompt.


I can see ITV running a 'phone poll for this one at a &#163;1 call.

Select 1 if you want Sky HD access - 2 for Virgin - 3 for Freesat.

Calls close at midnight on 5th May - when we will announce the winner (which we actually decided on yesterday).

Calls after midnight will still be charged.


----------



## Pete77

ozsat said:


> I can see ITV running a 'phone poll for this one at a £1 call.
> 
> Select 1 if you want Sky HD access - 2 for Virgin - 3 for Freesat.
> 
> Calls close at midnight on 5th May - when we will announce the winner (which we actually decided on yesterday).
> 
> Calls after midnight will still be charged.


----------



## Automan

I missed Space 1999 in HD 

I understood a lot of Gerry Anderson programs had be re-done in HD and of course have already be shown in the USA.

Automan.


----------



## Sneals2000

TCM2007 said:


> Actually the really old stuff may well be available in HD, if they can be bothered to re-digitise it. It's mainly late 80s and 90s material which is irrevocably SD.


Yep different production techniques have been used since colour production began - and the most recent are not always the most HD-friendly.

Stuff shot in colour in the 60s and 70s (particularly by some ITV companies) was often shot AND edited on 35mm colour film, which if in good quality can be re-telecined and cleans up nicely for HD. It doesn't cost the earth to do this either - as the edited master exists in a film format.

Stuff shot in the 70s and 80s as a mix of studio video and location 16mm film, or location video, is really stuck as being SD. The stuff shot on video certainly can't deliver HD quality content.

Stuff shot on 35mm or 16mm/Super16 in the late 80s, 90s and 00s BUT edited on SD videotape MAY be candidates for remastering, but may well require re-conforming to HD video from the original film rushes or A/B rolls. This will cost more to do - and in the case of 16/Super 16 - very much depends on the quality of the source material - many fast 16mm stocks are very grainy and may not deliver a great HD result. Other, slower stocks (and thus used in more "lit" situations) can deliver cleaner results.

Ironically this means that stuff shot in the 60s can be remastered to HD - but stuff shot in the 80s can't...


----------



## TCM2007

Automan said:


> I missed Space 1999 in HD


It didn't make any more sense, but it looked good!

They are all on Bittorrent I'm sure if you're curious.


----------



## Automan

I imagine the interactive is more advanced with Freesat but is it compatible with exisiting Interactive e.g. BBC News multi screens?

If not, more consumer confusion with the BBC News have to say press Red button for Sky, Freeview but not Freesat 

Automan.


----------



## chimaera

Sneals2000 said:


> Whether Sky upgrade their boxes to match what freesat boxes can do and thus ITV HD becomes possible on them - who knows...


There's a new EPG for Sky HD boxes in beta and expected in June, and the changes might go deeper than just the EPG.


----------



## Automan

I was in Eastbourne today and went in Comet.
Asked for Freesat?
a only got Grundig one, no Humax
q SD or HD
a HD
q Can I have one
a Yes 
a You are the first one today

Get to till, box only about 12" square, must be apple TV size

Guy taps in bar code, price comes up £999.99 NO TO BE SOLD
He uncrunched the note he had saying they could go on sale today but suspected it must have been pushed back to a later date...

It was the only one they had but were expecting 5 more this Wednesday but no Humax

Then tried Argos,
System showed zero stock so checked at till.
Told, pro install £80.00
Not all channels at launch including ch5 but more would follow later.
No Stock 
Other branches, No Stock,

Warehouse, No stock
Based on that she did not expect any till the 11th at the earliest

I have ordered a Humax HD one from Comet for delivery this Thursday...

http://www.comet.co.uk/shopcomet/product/444855/HUMAX-FOXSAT-HD

Automan.


----------



## Pete77

Automan said:


> Warehouse, No stock
> Based on that she did not expect any till the 11th at the earliest
> 
> I have ordered a Humax HD one from Comet for delivery this Thursday...
> 
> http://www.comet.co.uk/shopcomet/product/444855/HUMAX-FOXSAT-HD


Uterly laughable - a pathetic effort by Freesat. Even OnDigital did better than this at launch as there were boxes available to be had on launch day if you pre-ordered. And at least their service was a whole real new technology rather than simply a paired down version of something that already exists in a new wrapper.

Out of interest why are you so desperate to get one of these boxes? Do you currently have Sky Freesat and want to go to Freesat HD without being tied in to a Sky box?

I appreciate you are perhaps this forum's biggest gadget fan but what attractions exactly does a box with no C5, no C4 HD and with ITV HD some way off down the road offer at this point in time?

If you had moved in to a new home and did not have any satellite dish at all then the case for going the Freesat way would obviously be a little better.

Sky Pay Once Watch Forever fully installed at £75 still looks a good budget option so long as you have the correct email address - [email protected] - to bludgeon them in to letting you cancel without further charge at the end of the free Mix period.


----------



## TCM2007

The guys only just left the office to go the the launch.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> The guys only just left the office to go the the launch.


Which guys? Guys working for one of your magazines?

I hope they will be asking why there are no boxes available for sale in the shops on launch day!


----------



## Automan

Granted, I could live without it and a hard drive model is what I really would need.

BTW, If I was making them, I would try and market the hard drive versions first.

A DVR/PVR would be a LOT more useful but of course 2 x LNB feeds would be needed assuming they will have dual record as a feature?

Still at least I should be able to watch Space 1999 in HD 

EDIT:
Humax Manual http://www.humaxdigital.com/freesat/FOXSATHD_100GB_040308_onlyref1.pdf

Automan.


----------



## mikerr

humax manual 6.4 said:


> Find enables you to find the programme you want by entering the keyword, genre, time and day


Which is a good start, now I wonder if the hard disk versions will let you automatically record on that basis (wishlists)?


----------



## Automan

More channels E4 & More 4 have gone FTA today and CHN5 Soon...
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a95318/e4-and-more4-go-free-to-air-on-satellite.html

http://www.freesat.co.uk/index.php?page=help.Question&id=38

Automan.


----------



## AMc

www.freesat.co.uk seems to have been updated 
Retailers link pointing to the Argos page seen before (no stock at the moment)
The Comet links page has more details about standard installation - £80 for one room with a wall mount on upto 2 storey house taking no more than 1hour - sound familiar?
No products that I can see.
John Lewis and Currys don't seem to have Freesat pages yet.

http://www.freesat.co.uk/index.php?page=products.Products
The products page has some Panasonic Plasma (?) TVs with built in receivers and a Humax recorder HDR-9300FS + SD and HD boxes from Goodmans, Bush & Grundig

EDIT
http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/729692/index.html#anker_729694



> The PZ81 series are the first TVs in the UK to feature a freesat built-in HD tuner enabling subscription free HD channels. It also features Intelligent Frame Creation, a superb wide colour gamut thanks to x.v.Colour* and 24p real Cinema for enhanced judder-free playback. In addition the AVCHD facility enables viewing of high definition camcorder footage.
> 
> Features Include:
> - *freesat HD* and Freeview Integrated Digital Tuners *(freesat requires connection to suitable satellite dish)
> - *Full HD Plasma G11 Panel (1920 x 1080 pixels)*
> - 100Hz Double Scan
> - Intelligent Frame Creation
> - 24p Real Cinema
> - V-real PRO 3 Technology
> - 5,120 Equivalent Steps of Gradation
> - 1,000,000:1 Dynamic Contrast (*30,000:1 Native*)
> - x.v. Colour**
> - *Dolby Digital Optical Audio Out*
> - *24p Playback*
> - 3 x HDMI
> 
> Other special features include
> 
> SD Card Slot
> The PZ81 Series can playback JPEG photos and the latest High Definition Camcorder Movies in AVCHD format in 1080 x 1920 resolution from either SD or SDHC memory cards.


Sounds tasty, I wonder how much


----------



## OzSat

I got a BushHD from Argos - anyone else here got a box?


----------



## Gavin

we only got round to putting a freeview aerial up last weekend....


----------



## iankb

So, do you think that Sky are going to come up with some interesting deals yet, or will they wait to see what the takeup of Freesat is like.


----------



## grilley

I know I'm fairly new to this forum and haven't posted many questions, and I know I can be a bear with a very small brain at times and could've missed the answer to this question already in this thread, but is there anyway that Tivo can record anykind of HD broadcast via satelite, whether freesat of one of the HD offerings via Sky?


----------



## RichardJH

Unfortunately with the UK series 1 Tivo (the only one available) the answe is no.


----------



## TCM2007

http://www.techradar.com/news/television/four-hd-ready-freesat-boxes-unveiled-358774

http://www.techradar.com/news/television/confusion-over-itv-hd-on-freesat-358778


----------



## bugmenever

TCM2007 said:


> http://www.techradar.com/news/television/four-hd-ready-freesat-boxes-unveiled-358774
> 
> http://www.techradar.com/news/television/confusion-over-itv-hd-on-freesat-358778


My understanding is that ITV HD launches in a week or so...


----------



## Automan

ozsat said:


> I got a BushHD from Argos - anyone else here got a box?


How is your Bush?
Do you have contacts in Argos, still zero stock indicated?

Does your Bush auto aspect ratio switch okay between SD 4:3/16:9 and HD 1080i?

Some say the Humax does not 

BTW, Humax seems to have vanished again from Comet website...

Automan.


----------



## Pete77

Automan said:


> How is your Bush?
> Do you have contacts in Argos, still zero stock indicated?
> 
> Does your Bush auto aspect ratio switch okay between SD 4:3/16:9 and HD 1080i?
> 
> Some say the Humax does not
> 
> BTW, Humax seems to have vanished again from Comet website...
> 
> Automan.


There are bound to be horrendous firmware problems etc with these boxes at this early stage. Surely it makes more sense to wait for these to be ironed out and to see how Sky responds. Its entirely possible they will launch Freesat From Sky HD and Sky Pay Once Watch Forever HD.

I bet it won't be very long before Sky News is FTV on 28 degrees East. I also bet that at least Sky Two becomes FTV very shortly. Not to mention TCM and a few other cheapies they can easily afford to take out of the pay Sky mixes.

The next question is obviously when will Tivo support this platform on our UK Series 1 machines. As Tribune also supply the Windows MCE EPG and MCE will presumably offer this platform shortly then it seems a fair bet we may get official Tivo S1 UK support.


----------



## Pete77

Automan said:


> How is your Bush?


Isn't that like asking how is your Crown/Alba/Goodmans.

Surely this can only be a rhetorical question.

I find it hard to believe the price of the other fairly crappy HD box makes is mainly the same as the Humax.


----------



## Pete77

Automan said:


> More channels E4 & More 4 have gone FTA today and CHN5 Soon...
> http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a95318/e4-and-more4-go-free-to-air-on-satellite.html
> 
> http://www.freesat.co.uk/index.php?page=help.Question&id=38


On my Panasonic Sky Digibox with Sky Viewing card removed the following channel are now FTA:-

E4
E4+1
More4
More4+1

The following are still FTV:-

*C4
C4+1
Five
Five US
Fiver*
Dave
Dave+1
Sky Sports News
Virgin
Virgin+1
The Hits
TMF
UK History

So does this mean Five will also have to supply a separate version of their channel FTA on another transponder like Sky or are rumours of Five going FTA on Freesat at this stage premature?

How come C4 can just have the normal versions of E4 and More4 made FTA on Astra but not C4 itself? I suspect this has something to do with regionalised versions of C4 appearing on Sky compared to just a single national C4 channel being made available on Freesat. E4 and More4 on the other hand only have a single version, even in the Sky EPG.

How much longer before Dave, Virgin1, The Hits, TMF etc go FTA on Astra so they can also be available on Freesat as well as on Freeview? I suppose the position here is more complicated as they are not merely FTV on Astra but also part of Sky pay Mix channel packages.


----------



## Pete77

When someone gets one of these Freesat boxes working I would be very interested to hear which of the more obscure FTA channels from Sky are in their EPG and which are not.

Presumably channels such as Zone Horror, Truemovies 1 and 2 and Movies4Men are part of the lineup? But what of Wine Tv, Wedding Tv, Baby Tv and so on. Not to mention Russia Today or France 24. And what about the numerous FTA Asian language channels available in the Sky EPG.

I imagine TravelChannel would be another one definitely in the lineup?


----------



## OzSat

The Freesat line-up is now available on TiVo as a part of the Digital Satellite options.

I don't know how many stbs will work though.


----------



## AMc

http://www.freesat.co.uk/index.php?page=whatson.Main
Overseas PropertyTV, ZoneRomantica, ZoneThriller, Movies4Men,TrueMovies, TeachersTV, JML, QVC and Wedding TV all represent...

I note the Humax site says
"Simultaneous playing of transmissions over HDMI, YPbPr or Scart"
Which would make it a reasonable source for Tivo and you could still fall back to Live TV over HDMI for anything in HD (and let Tivo deal with the schedules).


----------



## Automan

> The Freesat line-up is now available on TiVo as a part of the Digital Satellite options.


Cool,
If my Humax turns up this Thursday I will power up my remaining Tivo and give it a try.

Of course IR control may well be an issue at first plus of course on screen banners etc.

Time will tell....

Re sky and their channels becoming free to air.
I'm not sure they would want to do this for fear of loosing paying customers...
Perhaps they will go the other way and remove/lock them on freeview?

Automan.


----------



## Automan

I see at Comet their Humax page has been updated..
http://www.comet.co.uk/shopcomet/product/444855/HUMAX-FOXSAT-HD

Offers for dish installs have been added plus store pickup option.

Says my local one Eastbourne has them but I already have one on order 

Automan.


----------



## Pete77

Automan said:


> Re sky and their channels becoming free to air.
> I'm not sure they would want to do this for fear of loosing paying customers...
> Perhaps they will go the other way and remove/lock them on freeview?


Its more down to UK History, TMF, The Hits and the like as to whether they can get their signal made FTA or not. I suppose they will also have current contracts with Sky that are difficult to get out of.

They may also wait to see if Freesat is a success or not.

I'm amazed that some of you are rushing to get these satellite boxes when they do not actually provide any new content not available on a Sky satellite box apart from ITV HD. And that is only likely to be in the short term................

I suppose Virgin 1 may not want to be FTA on Freesat for marketing reasons but then again it is FTA on Freeview so surely it does want as many viewers as possible, rather than being exclusive to only Virgin.


----------



## AMc

They get you BBC HD now without a contract or a subscription - why wouldn't you want that if you actually have an HD TV and a dish?


----------



## Pete77

ozsat said:


> The Freesat line-up is now available on TiVo as a part of the Digital Satellite options.


I thought this was likely as new platforms (rather than new EPG content) are very easy to provide for Tribune and Tivo.

I am still impressed though that this has happened effectively on Day One of the new service. It seems there is still life left in our old Tivo boxes as this is likely to be another popular way for them to be redeployed.


----------



## Pete77

AMc said:


> They get you BBC HD now without a contract or a subscription - why wouldn't you want that if you actually have an HD TV and a dish?


Because if I already had an HDTV and a satellite dish and was a member of this forum too (I am the latter but do not have the former) I would surely already have got myself a secondhand Sky HD box some time ago to utlitise the HDTV.

I got OnDigital on day one because it was a new service with 30 channels instead of the four that were all I could then have in a residence banned by covenant from having its own satellite dish.

This service only provides a new EPG so where is the big attraction to rush out and get it?

The only attractive product will be the Freesat PVR (not yet launched) due to no £10 per month sub (unlike Sky HD) but Sky could announce new Freesat services of its own before that comes along to scupper it. They could make Sky News FTV and change Sky Sports News from pay to FTV just for starters.

However if the Freesat PVR could work for dual tuner support without needing a quad LNB and double cable to the box it could be a big seller. However I fear this is rather unlikely for good technical reasons.


----------



## AMc

You originally asked "Why would anyone want one of these boxes when they offer no new content." Then you edited your post after I replied to include an answer to your own question "ITV HD"  ... and as I said BBC HD and soon Channel 4 HD and Five - in fact all the major channels and their HD variants with no subscription and nothing to do with Sky.
You might as well ask why anyone would buy a Freeview box without a Sentana card slot. Except you'd tell them to wait until an HD compatible Freeview box was available...

I note that ebay completed listing for Sky HD boxes show them going for £140 (slight fault) upwards so a massive £10 saving for some second hand goods that won't work properly without a subscription from a stranger vs. a new item from a shop with a guarantee.

I'm interested because in a couple of months I'll be doing major building work which means I can install a hidden dish and sockets in several rooms and I'll be adding an HD TV in at least 2 rooms. You seem very interested for someone who doesn't want Freesat. How sour are those grapes?


----------



## Pete77

AMc said:


> You seem very interested for someone who doesn't want Freesat. How sour are those grapes?


I am always interested in any new platforms for broadcasting radio or television. I even have a Worldspace satellite radio that I bet not many of you have.

It just seems to me there is going to be a war of some kind with Sky and Sky may respond by making available a lot of FTV channels not available on Freesat boxes with no viewing card slot.

I already have a working satellite box off a communal dish. I'm in no big rush for HD as its just the same old programs in slightly better quality. I badly wanted OnDigital and I wanted Tivo ASAP because they were all about far more programming choice.

I am likely to get an HD television by next year but true 24p compatible Full HD 46" or 50" Plasma sets still have a way to go in terms of big price falls in the next 12 months and we will know by then if Freesat will have any content not then available with an FTA Sky HD box with an FTV card (unlikely) and whether Sky will drop its Sky+ fee for any Sky HD Freesatters to make life tough for the BBC.

Also whether Freesat can come up with a dual tuner PVR supported from a single LNB communal feed will again be critical to my decision.

I am not shy of adopting new technology as a Philips Digital Compact Cassette unit in a now retired car in my garage will testify but I have a smaller budget than I used to and at this age I am also more aware of how all shiny new things soon become junk very rapidly and how only some shiny new things turn out to be useful on a long term basis. Tivo has been one of those.

There is no point in me getting a Freesat box unless it is also a PVR and HD Freesat box and I would also need a new HD television. Therefore I am hardly going to rush out and get one this morning.

Those of you with an HD television but only a Freeview program source at the moment and an old redundant Sky dish and cable already sitting there are obviously potentially going to have quite different feelings about the matter.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> Its more down to UK History, TMF, The Hits and the like as to whether they can get their signal made FTA or not. I suppose they will also have current contracts with Sky that are difficult to get out of.


Are those channels FTV or part of a Mix?

Remember channels in a Mix get paid a proportion of the subscriber fee, so they would need a really good reason to go free.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Are those channels FTV or part of a Mix?
> 
> Remember channels in a Mix get paid a proportion of the subscriber fee, so they would need a really good reason to go free.


They are currently part of various different pay Mixes on Sky but then so were E4 and More4 until yesterday but now they are available to both Freesat From Sky boxes and Freesat from the BBC/ITV boxes on an FTA basis from the same transponder on the same frequency.

These other channels I mentioned that are still pay on Sky are FTA on Freeview so if Freesat takes off they are sure to want to be FTA on that too. That is because advertising revenue is on the whole more important to them than subscription revenue once viewer numbers exceed a certain amount on a platform.

The only channels where that is not the case are Sky's own channels and channels that are Sky's in all but name (eg National Geographic) as the latter are an inherent part of the Sky marketing proposition and have big contractual tie ins with Sky.


----------



## OzSat

Automan said:


> Cool,
> If my Humax turns up this Thursday I will power up my remaining Tivo and give it a try.
> 
> Of course IR control may well be an issue at first plus of course on screen banners etc.
> 
> Time will tell....
> 
> Re sky and their channels becoming free to air.
> I'm not sure they would want to do this for fear of loosing paying customers...
> Perhaps they will go the other way and remove/lock them on freeview?
> 
> Automan.


If anybody can capture the codes - we should be able to get them into TiVo.

Follow the instructions here - but PM me once you have the file as I'm not sure Gary is available at present on the e-mail address shown.


----------



## OzSat

Pete77 said:


> I am always interested in any new platforms for broadcasting radio or television. I even have a Worldspace satellite radio that I bet not many of you have.


I do


----------



## Pete77

ozsat said:


> I do


Did you ever participate in the Yahoo discussion group about that service?

I have had my Hitachi since 2002 but Worldspace looks on its last legs now, unless Noah Samara can get hold of more money from various unconventional sources who do not follow normal business rules for making loans.


----------



## Pete77

ozsat said:


> The Freesat line-up is now available on TiVo as a part of the Digital Satellite options.


Did you or Gary have to do any lobbying work at all to persuade Tivo and/or Tribune to add the Freesat platform to the list of supported options for the UK Thomson Tivo service or was it just an automatic decision because they are supporting the platform with various other clients (eg Microsoft) that they also supply UK EPG data on behalf of?

Presumably all the hard work has in effect been done by Tribune and the Tivo S1 UK software can already handle the insertion of another digital satellite channel lineup with less channels and different channel numbers?


----------



## TCM2007

Shamless plug of article on my site about Freesat vs Freeview vs Sky


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> URL="http://www.techradar.com/news/television/set-top-boxes/freesat-vs-freeview-vs-sky-digital-358782"]Shamless plug of article on my site about Freesat vs Freeview vs Sky[/URL]


I thought it was a rubbish article since it gives the impression everyone can easily get Freeview on all the Muxes and does not make any mention at all of the likelihood of requiring up to £200+ aerial upgrades that are as costly as a Freesat HD box plus install to get a decent Freeview signal. No mention of this not being put right till digital switchover in your area etc.

Whereas for 20% of the population in a non cable area and with no Freeview reception FreesatFromSky and FreesatFromTheTerrestrialBroadcasters or a pay Sky box are your only options for multi channel television.

However your articles about various the new individual Freesat boxes were excellent. But then perhaps you wrote those?


----------



## Automan

Yes and when my local UHF transmitter Newhaven goes live in 2012 with Freeview because it is a relay it will have less channels than they get in Brighton.

I think they are calling it Half-Freeview mentioned at http://www.hdtv.odyssey.ltd.uk/index.htm

Automan.


----------



## OzSat

No - needs some decent services to make it worthwhile.


Pete77 said:


> Did you ever participate in the Yahoo discussion group about that service?
> 
> I have had my Hitachi since 2002 but Worldspace looks on its last legs now, unless Noah Samara can get hold of more money from various unconventional sources who do not follow normal business rules for making loans.


----------



## OzSat

Pete77 said:


> Did you or Gary have to do any lobbying work at all to persuade Tivo and/or Tribune to add the Freesat platform to the list of supported options for the UK Thomson Tivo service or was it just an automatic decision because they are supporting the platform with various other clients (eg Microsoft) that they also supply UK EPG data on behalf of?
> 
> Presumably all the hard work has in effect been done by Tribune and the Tivo S1 UK software can already handle the insertion of another digital satellite channel lineup with less channels and different channel numbers?


TiVo were happy to add Freesat - didn't need much discussion.

The UK TiVo stuff is standalone I beleive - technically - but maybe not contractually.


----------



## Pete77

ozsat said:


> TiVo were happy to add Freesat - didn't need much discussion.


Its certainly good news though and suggests someone at Tivo Inc still cares about supporting the existing UK customer base.:up:


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> I thought it was a rubbish article since it gives the impression everyone can easily get Freeview on all the Muxes and does not make any mention at all of the likelihood of requiring up to £200+ aerial upgrades that are as costly as a Freesat HD box plus install to get a decent Freeview signal. No mention of this not being put right till digital switchover in your area etc)


While there is a possibility you might have to upgrade your aerial, for most people they just plug the box in and it works. That's always been my experience.


----------



## Sneals2000

TCM2007 said:


> While there is a possibility you might have to upgrade your aerial, for most people they just plug the box in and it works. That's always been my experience.


You have been lucky then.

There are large chunks of the UK (both geographically and to a lesser amount in population terms) that get acceptable/tolerable/just about watchable analogue reception but don't have a cat in hells chance of getting Freeview currently - and even after analogue switch-off they will only get the two PSB SD and (I think) PSB HD muxes, as the commercial muxes are not paying to be relayed (and are only radiating from their current sites).


----------



## Pete77

Sneals2000 said:


> There are large chunks of the UK (both geographically and to a lesser amount in population terms) that get acceptable/tolerable/just about watchable analogue reception but don't have a cat in hells chance of getting Freeview currently - and even after analogue switch-off they will only get the two PSB SD and (I think) PSB HD muxes, as the commercial muxes are not paying to be relayed (and are only radiating from their current sites).


Indeed.

Only 75% of the UK population can get a full Freeview signal with no breakup on at least some of the Muxes and a lot more of the UK landmass is not covered than the 25% of the population with no adequate signal.

There is no adequate Freeview signal at my house even with the best possible aerial and my mother could only have got an adequate Freeview signal by spending around £200 for the best analogue aerial on a long pole.

I would be alarmed to hear the techradar bases its editorial content purely on the anecdotal personal experiences of the website's editor.

Surely its editor is aware of digital switchover and why many UK homes outside city centres will not have and adequate DTT signal before that takes place.


----------



## TheBear

TCM2007 said:


> Shamless plug of article on my site about Freesat vs Freeview vs Sky


A flawed and biassed piece, imho..

So Freeview is easier to set up than an engineer-installed Sky system?? I don't think so..

Freesat currently offers a better selection of channels than Freesat from Sky?? I don't think so..

Set up cost of freeview less than satellite?? I don't think so, not if the cost of the antenna is taken into account..


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Only 75% of the UK population can get a full Freeview signal with no breakup on at least some of the Muxes


I'm not sure 75% is "only" - I'd say it was the vast majority!

Oh, and I'm not the editor...


----------



## TCM2007

TheBear said:


> A flawed and biassed piece, imho..
> 
> So Freeview is easier to set up than an engineer-installed Sky system?? I don't think so..


Buy box, plug in, wait while autosetup runs... Pretty easy.

While someone sets up satellite for you, you have to arrange for them to come at some point in the future and probably take a day of work as well. Not so easy, even if you never actually touch the box!



> Set up cost of freeview less than satellite?? I don't think so, not if the cost of the antenna is taken into account..


Often hear that argument, but as 99% of houses already have an aerial system, it's not an additional cost when people are considering going digital.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Often hear that argument, but as 99% of houses already have an aerial system, it's not an additional cost when people are considering going digital.


And about one in 3 households find their Freeview aerial is not up to the job and have to pay out for a new one, even if they are in the 75% of the population where the signal is adequate if you have an adequate aerial.

It is a large additional cost for many people who want to watch Freeview, even if not the majority (presumably you would cheerfully see those of us not in the majority thrown a few crumbs of cake to shut us up judging from your attitude). Ask any store selling the boxes. Many customers who cannot get an adequate signal return them for a refund. Whereas Sky now works nearly everywhere apart from your house given that they also now do free communal dish installs for small private blocks of flats.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> I'm not sure 75% is "only" - I'd say it was the vast majority!


It would only be a vast majority for an election result.

One in four of the population not being able to get a Freeview signal is rather a lot of people. It seems you take the view that one in four people don't count?

Or I suspect its a case of "I'm alright Jack" as you appear to have always lived at houses with an adequate Freeview signal.

If you aren't the editor (but merely the owner and/or main financial backer) of techradar I should have him fired then for allowing such a thoroughly inadequate article on to your shiny new website.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Buy box, plug in, wait while autosetup runs... Pretty easy..


Alternatively don't get all Muxes or picture regulalry breaks up.

Helplessly roam the yellow pages for an aerial fitter who is not a dodgy geezer.

Ring around and end up amazed that the price of an aerial that gets you only 30 channels or less is around £200.

Give up on Freeview and then return to analogue only or consider Freesat From Sky or Freesat From The Beeb as a better alternative at less cost with three times more channels.

It seems you only want to hear one side of the argument. Not to mention that many cheaper Freeview boxes are rubbish and so you may have to needlessly replace your aerial at £200 because you saved yourself £20 by buying the cheapest and nastiest Freeview box you could find.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> And about one in 3 households find their Freeview aerial is not up to the job and have to pay out for a new one.


Source for that statistic? But even if true that still means that 50% of people can just plug in and go.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> It would only be a vast majority for an election result.
> 
> One in four of the population not being able to get a Freeview signal is rather a lot of people. It seems you take the view that one in four people don't count?
> 
> Or I suspect its a case of "I'm alright Jack" as you appear to have always lived at houses with an adequate Freeview signal.


I don't have any axe to grind for or against either Freeview or Freesat; I leave pointless opinion holding to you....

But 75% is the vast majority, whatever spin you try to put on it. Three quarters of people can get a good Freeview signal.

That doesn't mean the other 25% don't count, it's just the maths!

If you and your mother both fell in that group - well that's just very bad luck, but I don't follow that it's therefore bad advice to tell the majority of people who _can _get Freeview that they can, and for them it will be easier than getting someone to come to your house and install a disk!


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Source for that statistic?


www.davistv.co.uk/freeviewbrochure.pdf - See P.6 - "one in three"

Or a more authoritative source on Freeview who transmit some of its channels - National Grid Wireless (formerly Crown Castle) say its one in four of households that can get it who need a new aerial to properly receive Freeview

See www.uk.nationalgridwireless.com/aboutus_faq.shtml - search for "around one in four".

I have just put a piece of the humble pie in the oven for you TCM.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> Ring around and end up amazed that the price of an aerial that gets you only 30 channels or less is around £200.


You keep repeating £200. A few minutes research reveled plenty of reputable looking firms who will do it for half that for a normal house.

I certainly paid a lot less when I had mine done a couple of years ago (Freeview was fine, before you ask, but I wanted to distribute the signal to four outlets and that meant putting in a head end amp, and I had the aerial changed at the same time as it was quite old).


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> Just put the humble pie in the oven for you TCM.


Well as it seems the figure is not one in three, you better have first helping!

If it is one in four, then we are back to a majority of people just being able to plug in a box with no additional expense.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> a majority of people just being able to plug in a box with no additional expense.


Only 75% of the 75% don't' need an aerial upgrade. So that's only 56.25% But I would be more inclined to trust Davis Tv who fit aerials and are not a large faceless multinational inclined to manipulate figures to their advantage. They have the figure at 49.99% of the population who can both get Freeview and don't need an aerial upgrade.

The 2g and 2.5g mobile phone networks cover 99% of the UK population (although not 99% of the land mass sadly). Now that's much more like I would call "the vast majority". You are confusing a so called vast majority in electoral terms (75% is vast for an election percentage) with a vast majority in statistical terms. You would need to be at 90% or above to be justified in talking in those terms for something like DAB or Freeview. And it would need to be 90% who needed no new aerial. Admit it TCM you just can't bear to be wrong on something. That is why you are no doubt a press on successful but also highly egotistical senior management type.


----------



## Automan

And of course a Dish install can be under &#163;100.00 fitted with a quad LNB (ready for expansion).

A lot lower figure than anyone I know in my area has wasted trying to get the illusive freeview signal from nine miles away...

Automan.


----------



## Automan

http://www.bushdigital.co.uk/ProductSupport.htm

Seems the Goodmans ones are exactly the same according to Digitalspy forum members...

Automan.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> Only 75% of the 75% don't' need an aerial upgrade. So that's only 56.25%


Which is *most people*. Are you having trouble with numbers today or something?



> But I would be more inclined to trust Davis Tv who fit aerials and are not a large faceless multinational inclined to manipulate figures to their advantage.


Eh? It's to Davis TV's advantage to sell more upgraded aerials, if you're going to be like that!



> They have the figure at 49.99% of the population who can both get Freeview and don't need an aerial upgrade.


So now a throwaway "one in three" is a statistic to four significant figures of accuracy? Do you work in New Labour's statistics dept by any chance, you'd do well.



> You are confusing a so called vast majority in electoral terms (75% is vast for an election percentage) with a vast majority in statistical terms.


I never mentioned elections, you did. I've never heard the term "vast majority" used in an electoral context that I can remember, it's certainly not a standard part of the lexicon like "landslide" or "marginal".



> You would need to be at 90% or above to be justified in talking in those terms for something like DAB or Freeview.


Your opinion only. There is no agreed precise numerical definition of the term.


----------



## terryeden

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Mark Twain

Or, put another way, "Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."


----------



## Pete77

terryeden said:


> "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Mark Twain
> 
> Or, put another way, "Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."


But who are you calling the idiot here.

It is clear that TCM just won't accept the sad realities of how expensive getting decent Freeview reception is for very many people just because he personally has not had this experience


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Which is *most people*. Are you having trouble with numbers today or something?


No "most people" for the purposes of television and radio reception is definitely not 75% or more, let alone just over 50%.

It is totally unacceptable for any so called national or radio television network to achieve less than around 90% population coverage and 98% or 99% are the usual kind of expected figures. That is how many are covered by the analogue tv transmitter network. And again that is population and not land mass. Don't expect to your your portable tv anywhere near Ben Nevis.


----------



## cwaring

Pete77 said:


> But who are you calling the idiot here.


Erm... to be blunt, you 


Pete77 said:


> No "most people" for the purposes of television and radio reception is definitely not 75% or more, let alone just over 50%


Anything over 50% is, by defenition, a majority; isn't it? And if not, then 75% _definately_ is


----------



## Pete77

cwaring said:


> Anything over 50% is, by defenition, a majority; isn't it? And if not, then 75% _definately_ is


TCM originally referred to a "vast majority" which is not the same thing.


----------



## AMc

Pete77 said:


> But who are you calling the idiot here.


A question should have a ? on the end, even a rhetorical one.
I can't speak for terreden, but if you think the cap fits...

And back to the actual topic...
Argos are showing stock of the Humax in stores (not mine though) and if you click through you can order for delivery even though it doesn't show it on the main Freesat listing...
http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/5321595/Trail/searchtext>FREESAT.htm

John Lewis have a Freesat FAQ up but appear to want you to buy instore only at the moment.
http://www.johnlewis.com/168_Find+out+more+about+Freesat/Content.aspx#14690

Comet want you to collect in store and only seem to have the Humax at the moment.

Hurry up and give us details for the DVR version...


----------



## Pete77

And the PVR will probably be about £200 to £250 when it appears so surely it is better to hang on for one of those?

Not to mention if you have a new install for the non PVR version they will only give you a single LNB and a single cable and that won't then be adequate for the PVR that will need a double cable and a quad LNB.

Also by then the position regarding C4 HD and ITV HD and their respective availability on BBC/ITV Freesat and Sky Freesat will have become much clearer.


----------



## cwaring

Pete77 said:


> TCM originally referred to a "vast majority" which is not the same thing.


I'd say that 75% is most _definately_ a "vast majority".


----------



## Pete77

cwaring said:


> I'd say that 75% is most _definately_ a "vast majority".


You confuse an election, where 75% would be a vast majority, with national provision of broadcast radio and television services across the United Kingdom. In this case it is definitely not a vast majority since the expectation is of close to 100% coverage. Also as we have seen only around 50% of UK homes can install and use a Freeview box without having to do expensibe upgrade work to their aerial system. Thus only for around 50% of homes is it plug and play. Definitely not a vast majority. Even in electoral terms.

Its something called context. Perhaps those of you without training in English to the appropriate level find such complex concepts difficult to grapples with and prefer to stick to a simple yes/no approach for everything.

There would be outrage if the mobile phone companies had claimed the vast majority of the UK was covered at the pointwhen they served only 75% of the UK population (equating to about 10 or 15% of the UK land mass).

Have you never heard of lies, damned lies and statistics?


----------



## cwaring

I'm confusing nothing. Regardless of the situation, 75% _is_ a _vast majority_. Not quite as vast as 80-100%, but still within the defenition of the word.


----------



## Pete77

cwaring said:


> I'm confusing nothing. Regardless of the situation, 75% _is_ a _vast majority_. Not quite as vast as 80-100%, but still vast.


No it is not in the context of broadcasting, especially when 75% of the population is considerably less than 50% of the UK land mass with an adequate Freeview signal.

DAB radio coverage is not being increased beyond 90% of the population but as this is little more than 50% of the UK land mass DAB is nearly useless for in car radio reception. This is because it does not work the vast majority of the time in a car once you are out of a town or off the motorway.

Obviously this is now just being turned in to a ridiculous opportunity for the Pete bashers in this forum (such as yourself) to engage in a spot of Pete bashing and therefore I shall not be responding to any further posts on this in any case off topic discussion in this thread. I will still discuss matters related to the launch of Freesat.


----------



## RichardJH

> therefore I shall not be responding to any further posts on this in any case off topic discussion in this thread.


Pete will you use this statement in other threads that go wildly off topic that you participate in.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> No "most people" for the purposes of television and radio reception is definitely not 75% or more, let alone just over 50%.


Now while we can argue about the numerical meaning of "vast majority", "most" is much simpler - any number above 50% + 1 is "most". This is simply not open to debate.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> It is totally unacceptable for any so called national or radio television network to achieve less than around 90% population coverage and 98% or 99% are the usual kind of expected figures. That is how many are covered by the analogue tv transmitter network.


99% is a working approximation of "all", not "most"


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Now while we can argue about the numerical meaning of "vast majority", "most" is much simpler - any number above 50% + 1 is "most". This is simply not open to debate.


OK I'm going to have to break my own rule here.

More than 50% is clearly not "most". It is a majority. "Most" would mean something much closer to 100% as in "most of the time". "most of the time" does not mean 50.01%. It means very regularly.

At the end of the day this remains a discussion of the "lies, damned lies and statistics" variety. Therefore everyone will manipulate the numbers to their own end and the discussion will simply go round and round in circles.

Its pefectly clear from your opening gambit that you were actually under the impression that something like at least 9 in 10 or so UK households could get Freeview and without any aerial modification as well. You were wrong in that regard but as usual you never admit to making any error on this forum because of your need to always appear as a forum expert.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> 99% is a working approximation of "all", not "most"


No "all" is 100%.

It seems you prefer using language favoured by creative marketing men.

Also you will find 99% of the UK population (the population bit is usually omitted by your marketing department chums) is anything but 99% of the UK land mass when it comes to either mobile phones or analogue tv signal reception.

This remains a circular argument where people are merely scoring points off one another to no ultimate productive outcome.


----------



## ColinYounger

Prediction:

Three hundred and twenty seven posts later, Pete and TCM agree that their user names are unique from each other.


----------



## ColinYounger

Pete77 said:


> DAB is nearly useless for in car radio reception.


That's for technical reasons, not coverage reasons.


----------



## cwaring

TCM2007 said:


> Now while we can argue about the numerical meaning of "vast majority", "most" is much simpler - any number above 50% + 1 is "most". This is simply not open to debate.


That was my, badly expressed I suppose, point.

If 50%+1 of N is a majority, then surely 75% of N is a large (or, in other words, vast) majority.



Pete77 said:


> OK I'm going to have to break my own rule here.


Don't worry, Pete. I doubt anyone actually believed you anyway 



Pete77 said:


> More than 50% is clearly not "most". It is a majority. "Most" would mean something much closer to 100% as in "most of the time".


Indeed. Say, 75%? 

Anyway, yes. A pointless debate. I'm done.


----------



## Automan

How could they not get the aspect ratio correct via HDMI?

Seems as it stands no way to show a 4:3 channel via HDMI other than stretched to 16:9

Even my Thomson Sky HD can manage that okay and it's over a year old.

Granted it has DD over HDMI but most odd the Blue lamp does not light on my Sony Amp?

Unit is a lot smaller than I imagined so it will make a good doorstop.

Also not all regional BBC's & ITV's work so with my post code I get

BBC1 London
ITV1 Central

This it seems is a Freesat issue.

Also no Chn4HD or ITV HD in lineup 

Automan.


----------



## Pete77

ColinYounger said:


> That's for technical reasons, not coverage reasons.


It is also technically flakey and unsuited to reception in the car environment at the kind of signal levels where FM would stilll work but the fact that around 30 to 50% of the UK land mass has no DAB signal at all is kind of a major issue when you are out driving rather than sitting at home.

Especially if you like to get out of town and off the motorway. Even on motorways in more remote areas (eg M74 and M6) there is far from universal coverage along the motorway corridor.


----------



## Pete77

Automan said:


> How could they not get the aspect ratio correct via HDMI?
> 
> Seems as it stands no way to show a 4:3 channel via HDMI other than stretched to 16:9
> 
> Even my Thomson Sky HD can manage that okay and it's over a year old.
> 
> Granted it has DD over HDMI but most odd the Blue lamp does not light on my Sony Amp?
> 
> Unit is a lot smaller than I imagined so it will make a good doorstop.
> 
> Also not all regional BBC's & ITV's work so with my post code I get
> 
> BBC1 London
> ITV1 Central
> 
> This it seems is a Freesat issue.
> 
> Also no Chn4HD or ITV HD in lineup


There is bound to be an awful lot of pain with Freesat at this stage for very little gain. Nothing wrong with the hardware. That Philips box is still working even now, albeit rather slowly on channel changes due to mixed mode transmissions (16QAM and 64QAM) on different Muxes.

With OnDigital I was prepared to endure the pain at launch (terminally bug ridden firmware that constantly froze up) in return for the gain of another 20 or so channels I couldn't watch before.

On this occasion there seems no similar compelling reason to become an engineering testbed for almost no extra program content. Especially when the product that is worth having (Freesat HD PVR) is not even yet available.

I suspect they might have the basic Freesat boxes vaguely beginning to work properly by about July.


----------



## TCM2007

Automan said:


> How could they not get the aspect ratio correct via HDMI?
> 
> Seems as it stands no way to show a 4:3 channel via HDMI other than stretched to 16:9


This is surprisingly common, source set to upscale to 1080i over HDMI; receiving device assumes all 1080i is 16:9, neither provide an override.

My TV lets me ignore the aspect ratio in the HDMI and force it to what I like, but many do not. If the box is similarly inflexible you can get stuck.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> More than 50% is clearly not "most". It is a majority.


In the context it was used, most=majority. There are other meanings/uses of the word in the dictionary, but the context here was crystal clear.

I say that most cars are red, that means that more cars are red than are not red, not that 75% of cars are red, or 99% of cars are red.

Since it seems you aren't prepared to use the English language in a standard way it's impossible to continue the debate, much to everyone else's relief I'm sure.


----------



## iankb

ColinYounger said:


> Three hundred and twenty seven posts later, Pete and TCM agree that their user names are unique from each other.


I always assumed that Pete and TCM were the same person, who happened to be a schizophrenic masochist. You just ruined my illusions.


----------



## OzSat

Automan said:


> How could they not get the aspect ratio correct via HDMI?
> 
> Seems as it stands no way to show a 4:3 channel via HDMI other than stretched to 16:9
> 
> Even my Thomson Sky HD can manage that okay and it's over a year old.
> 
> Granted it has DD over HDMI but most odd the Blue lamp does not light on my Sony Amp?
> 
> Unit is a lot smaller than I imagined so it will make a good doorstop.
> 
> Also not all regional BBC's & ITV's work so with my post code I get
> 
> BBC1 London
> ITV1 Central
> 
> This it seems is a Freesat issue.
> 
> Also no Chn4HD or ITV HD in lineup
> 
> Automan.


But the SkyHD does NOT do the switching if it is set to 1080i mode.

It used to, but Sky removed it so you have to use 'auto' mode.

VirginMedia add the borders to the picture for 4:3 programmes in 1080i mode.

Shame that manufacturers think that is is fine to distort the picture.


----------



## OzSat

Just got the following reply from Humax: _We are currently looking into the possibility of adding a function to display the screen ratio via HDMI/Component correctly; I am unable to confirm at this time if/when this can be implemented in the software but we will state the release notes of each software release on our website._


----------



## Automan

It's also now rumoured all but the Humax have been pulled from being on sale as they don't comply with the Freesat spec.

Humax unit has another odd feature. When in standby the LED display shows UTC rather than summertime 

EDIT:
Some plus points.
1. EPG Now & Next also permits info panel for more program details.
2. Interactive dog on BBC times out after about 30 seconds e.g. on BBC News, CHN200

EPG Info BTW gives you no more information than the old Sky one 

Automan.


----------



## TCM2007

Hate to agree with Pete, but these boxes don't sound as if they are ready for prime time yet.

Having said that, I've owned Humaxes, and their UI was terrible and incomprehensible.


----------



## Automan

At Digital spy land Humax seem to be answering user questions etc.
An upgrade is due this weekend and another one soon after to fix the clock.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=793191

Yes I'm with Pete too.

Pre launch testing must have been poor plus the fact you cannot get the correct BBC & ITV is BAD!

At least with Freeview I could get BBC1 South, now London with the bonus of ITV Central 

Also
No CHN4HD 
No ITV HD yet 

Also when you press guide which overlays your program, you have to wait 30 seconds or so for the audio & picture to return (under the guide) as it has to retune to the home transponder to update the EPG.

With luck, a dual tuner PVR should not have this issue.

Automan.


----------



## Pete77

Automan,

Can you get C4 or Five yet on your Humax Freesat box?

If so I believe C4 is a separate FTA non regionalised version (the regionalisation only being for advertising on Freeview and terrestrial) on its own transponder and not the regionalised FTV version used by Sky boxes.

Also is Five available FTA on your Humax Freesat now? If so what is the source as when I last checked my Sky box with no viewing card in it 2 days ago E4 and More4 were now FTA but Five was still FTV.


----------



## Pete77

Automan said:


> When in standby the LED display shows UTC rather than summertime


Surely you mean it shows GMT and not BST old chap. We're British and not American here don't you know.

As they haven't sorted out the no C4HD yet problems etc and there is no ITV HD yet I don't know why they couldn't have waited until they could actually have had a credible launch.

Unlike BAA's T5 they don't have a monopoly on satellite FTA customers and so any serious damage they do to the brand now could turn out to be irreparable.

Surely early October 2008 would have been a much better time for a marketing launch in terms of the peak time of the year for tv viewing and buying people xmas presents (a Freesat box with installation being a pefect no strings gift, unlike Sky).


----------



## Automan

Pete77 said:


> Automan,
> 
> Can you get C4 or Five yet on your Humax Freesat box?
> 
> If so I believe C4 is a separate FTA non regionalised version (the regionalisation only being for advertising on Freeview and terrestrial) on its own transponder and not the regionalised FTV version used by Sky boxes.
> 
> Also is Five available FTA on your Humax Freesat now? If so what is the source as when I last checked my Sky box with no viewing card in it 2 days ago E4 and More4 were now FTA but Five was still FTV.


Channel 4 yes 
Five no 

Automan.


----------



## Automan

Pete77 said:


> Surely you mean it shows GMT and not BST old chap. We're British and not American here don't you know.
> 
> As they haven't sorted out the no C4HD yet problems etc and there is no ITV HD yet I don't know why they couldn't have waited until they could actually have had a credible launch.
> 
> Unlike BAA's T5 they don't have a monopoly on satellite FTA customers and so any serious damage they do to the brand now could turn out to be irreparable.
> 
> Surely early October 2008 would have been a much better time for a marketing launch in terms of the peak time of the year for tv viewing and buying people xmas presents (a Freesat box with installation being a pefect no strings gift, unlike Sky).


Seems CHN4 HD is caused by the deal they have with Sky as per the issues with normal CHN4's

ITV HD would seem to be the fault of ITV who have failed to produce the goods on time.

Perhaps they will set up a premium rate phone line so we can guess when it will work 

Re their launch date, perhaps they wanted to go live before many more areas get full power freeview and no old fashion UHF.

UTC is more techy 

Automan.


----------



## RichardJH

> UTC is more techy


and for the techie ones

Since radio signals can cross multiple time zones and the international date line, some worldwide standard for time and date is needed. This standard is coordinated universal time, abbreviated UTC. This was formerly known as Greenwich mean time (GMT). Other terms used to refer to it include "Zulu time" (after the "Z" often used after UTC times), "universal time," and "world time."

UTC is used by international shortwave broadcasters in their broadcast and program schedules. Ham radio operators, shortwave listeners, the military, and utility radio services are also big users of UTC. All of the times and dates found here at DXing.com at UTC unless otherwise indicated.

Greenwich mean time was based upon the time at the zero degree meridian that crossed through Greenwich, England. GMT became a world time and date standard because it was used by Britain's Royal Navy and merchant fleet during the nineteenth century. Today, UTC uses precise atomic clocks, shortwave time signals, and satellites to ensure that UTC remains a reliable, accurate standard for scientific and navigational purposes. Despite the improvements in accuracy, however, the same principles used in GMT have been carried over into UTC.

UTC uses a 24-hour system of time notation. "1:00 a.m." in UTC is expressed as 0100, pronounced "zero one hundred." Fifteen minutes after 0100 is expressed as 0115; thirty-eight minutes after 0100 is 0138 (usually pronounced "zero one thirty-eight"). The time one minute after 0159 is 0200. The time one minute after 1259 is 1300 (pronounced "thirteen hundred"). This continues until 2359. One minute later is 0000 ("zero hundred"), and the start of a new UTC day.

To convert UTC to local time, you have to add or subtract hours from it. For persons west of the zero meridian to the international date line (which includes all of North America), hours are subtracted from UTC to convert to local time. Below is a table showing the number of hours to subtract from local time zones in North America in order to convert UTC to local time:


----------



## Pete77

Wikipedia also has a long entry for GMT so depending on your political correctness or otherwise it would still appear to exist. Unless they have changed recently the BBC World Service still refers to Greenwich Mean Time and not to UTC in its hourly news bulletins.

Realistically GMT and UTC are the same thing and UTC is just a more palatable version for those countries for whom the word Britain and mention of the Greenwich Meridian sticks in the throat, such as Zimbabwe.

I note that Microsoft's Windows XP clock still refers to Greenwich Mean Time as being a time zone, although they are clearly wrong since they allowed it to have summer time and be advanced by one hour for 7 months of the year. Whereas real Greenwich Mean Time does not alter throughout the year.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_mean_time



> Greenwich Mean Time(GMT) is a term originally referring to mean solar time at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich in London. It is now often used to refer to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) when this is viewed as a time zone, although strictly UTC is an atomic time scale which only approximates GMT in the old sense. It is also used to refer to Universal Time (UT), which is the astronomical concept that directly replaced the original GMT. In the community of Greenwich, GMT (in the form of UTC) is the official time only during winter (during summer the time in Greenwich is British Summer Time rather than GMT).
> 
> Noon Greenwich Mean Time is not necessarily the moment when the sun crosses the Greenwich meridian (and reaches its highest point in the sky in Greenwich) because of Earth's uneven speed in its elliptic orbit and its axial tilt. This event may be up to 16 minutes away from noon GMT (this discrepancy is known as the equation of time). The fictitious mean sun is the annual average of this nonuniform motion of the true Sun, necessitating the inclusion of mean in Greenwich Mean Time.
> 
> Historically the term GMT has been used with two different conventions for numbering hours. The old astronomical convention (before 1925) was to refer to noon as zero hours, whereas the civil convention during the same period was to refer to midnight as zero hours. The latter is modern astronomical and civil convention. The more specific terms UT and UTC do not share this ambiguity, always referring to midnight as zero hours.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> I note that Microsoft's Windows XP clock still refers to Greenwich Mean Time as being a time zone, although they are clearly wrong since they allowed it to have summer time and be advanced by one hour for 7 months of the year. Whereas real Greenwich Mean Time does not alter throughout the year.


You're right, but what else would you call our time zone?


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> You're right, but what else would you call our time zone?


Tricky. I might have to think about that for some time. I don't suppose calling our time zone 42 would be much use.

The main thing is that the world dominating Microsoft corporation still considers GMT as the defining standard against which all World Time Zones are referenced. Therefore rumours of the death of GMT and its replacement by UTC would appear to be premature and greatly exaggerated.

I see my Casio Protrek watch just refers to -02 -01 and so on for those world time zones for which it cannot find any city to use as a shorthand for the timezone.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> You're right?


Surely not. At this rate we may one day be hearing you say "I was wrong" about something or other.


----------



## TCM2007

Only if I am!


----------



## Pete77

I have just realised that Casio have the World Time business right while Microsoft does not.

Whizzing through the cities on my watch just now I ended up iandvertently going back to GMT as my home city. But then when I looked at my watch just now I realised it was showing one hour behind BST. I then remembered that the watch also offers a LON option as well as GMT and selecting that gives me the correct BST time.

So the answer is that Microsoft should give a list of home cities to select from and give a secondary reference to their time position relative to GMT when they are not on daylight saving time. Then in addition they should also offer a GMT time option for those who wish to keep international time rather than the time of their own specific locale.

I'm sure I seem to remember having a debate with you before where you maintained that GMT was itself a time zone? Or was that one of the other forum members or another internet forum?


----------



## ericd121

This may be too much of a shock for Pete to have two of his 'enemies'  say this but, Pete, 
"You're right."

Using less strident terms than Pete has I, too, think that aerial upgrade is a significant factor for many people in receiving FreeView.

When I moved to Milton Keynes, I bought three houses in quick succession
(not knowing the town, I had moved into the 'wrong' parts of town - twice!); 
each time I had to upgrade the aerial to receive FreeView, and each time it cost at least £200. 

I later realised it would have been cheaper to have had Sky installed each time, something I hadn't considered.

In this, my last move (i.e. my present house), I spent £400 on a new aerial, mast and amplifier, and I still can't get all the Muxes.


----------



## Pete77

ericd121 said:


> This may be too much of a shock for Pete to have two of his 'enemies'  say this but, Pete, "You're right."


But interestingly you say I am right on a different matter from the one TCM says I am right on and your indication I am right along with the comments of another forum member about aerial upgrades earlier in the thread would tend to suggest that TCM is wrong on this matter.

TCM claims he can find people who will put up an aerial that can get you Freeview for only £100 but what I think he failed to realise was that those aerial contractors were giving minimum quotes and were assuming a house in an area with perfect Freeview reception that just needed an aerial where there was none at all. Now that is quite different from being in the unlucky 25% of households that can get Freeview but only if they splash out for the latest top gain aerial, a very long pole to rise above any obstructions and probably a masthead amplifier too.

So back in the real world in the South of England at least (which last time I checked included Somerset) where house prices are high and hence labour rates high aerial contractors are only willing to risk their necks on slippery rooves with dangerous tiles for money that will make them as well or better paid than a headmaster of a large secondary school. No doubt they will point to professional indemnity insurance and fuel etc going up but the bottom line is that this is a bloody dangerous, moderately technically skilled but repetitive job that you are out in all weathers to do so why would anyone do it unless it was well paid. A Sky dish on the other hand can usually be fitted without having to walk on a tiled roof (very dangerous) and only requires scaling a ladder to first floor roof height at most (moderately dangerous and less time consuming).

Clearly TCM has been told a "from" price but you and I Eric know that when we give an aerial contractor a postcode in a duff area with a poor signal and the installer knows it means a big pole, expensive aerial and a lot of fiddling around he then charges accordingly. A Sky dish on the other hand is usually fittable or not in roughly the same manner in most places and so the cost is around the same in most places. However there are a few places where a Sky signal can only be got by putting a dish high up on the chimney and I have no idea offhand whether a Sky installer will cover that under a "standard install".



> I later realised it would have been cheaper to have had Sky installed each time, something I hadn't considered.
> 
> In this, my last move (i.e. my present house), I spent £400 on a new aerial, mast and amplifier, and I still can't get all the Muxes.


Sky Pay Once Watch Forever - fully installed for £75. And it is only £75 as long as you don't mind writing a carefully crafted email to Mr Jeremy Darroch, Mr Roger Anderson and other senior colleagues at Sky a month or so before the free Mix period ends to remind them of UK Trading Standards Law and the evils of involuntary inertia selling that they are clearly trying to perpetrate contrary to the terms of the Sales of Goods Act.

I don't like paying subscription money to Sky but every now and then I need to see Le Mans or the Dakar rally or a few episodes of Air Crash Investigations (you can usually catch all the new ones from the last year in a month or so's viewing of National Geographic) so to my mind as long as Freesat can only get you the free channels it is only going to be of limited appeal and mainly to those who do not understand how to get cheaper free to air Sky equipment installed without becoming a lifelong subscriber.

Having said that BBC/ITV Freesat does have more attractions on the combined HD PVR front but I am sure Sky will retaliate by offering a Freesat version of Sky HD which is no more expensive, although which then no doubt tries to hook you in to a long term contract unless you try very hard to resist.


----------



## chimaera

ozsat said:


> But the SkyHD does NOT do the switching if it is set to 1080i mode.
> 
> It used to, but Sky removed it so you have to use 'auto' mode.
> 
> VirginMedia add the borders to the picture for 4:3 programmes in 1080i mode.
> 
> Shame that manufacturers think that is is fine to distort the picture.


Upscaling DVD players generally have an option to add borders for 4:3 material at 1080i via HDMI, and I don't understand why this isn't a fundamental requirement for all HDMI source devices including Sky HD, Freesat etc. It shouldn't be the responsibility of the broadcaster because then it's out of the control of the user.

TV manufacturers vary on whether or not they allow users to manually select the aspect ratio on 1080i input (e.g. JVC does not, Panasonic does). Technically 1080i is supposed to be 16:9 only, so they are at liberty to prohibit it.

Given that 1080i is supposed to be 16:9 it should really be the responsibility of the source device to send 16:9 at all times even if that means adding borders IMO.

Having said that, TVs which do allow aspect ratio selection on HD resolutions usually have an Auto setting which works fine for all aspect ratios (my current Panasonic plasma for example, which works fine no matter what shape the source picture is).


----------



## chimaera

ericd121 said:


> Using less strident terms than Pete has I, too, think that aerial upgrade is a significant factor for many people in receiving FreeView.


It will be a lot less problematic when the power is increased post digital switchover though presumably.

I get perfect Freeview reception and the wideband high gain aerial including installation cost £40 as that was a deal offered by On Digital back in the day 

I'm really not sure why some of the aerial figures being quoted are so high. Last year I had a new antenna mast put on the highest point of the eaves with the TV aerial moved to it and a new high gain FM aerial added, and it cost £110 all in


----------



## mikerr

Pete77 said:


> I'm sure I seem to remember having a debate with you before where you maintained that GMT was itself a time zone? Or was that one of the other forum members or another internet forum?


It was in the TivowebPlus 2.0 thread.


TCM2007 said:


> but what else would you call our time zone?


Observing daylight saving time doesn't make a different timezone in itself though does it?
Our timezone is still UTC/Z just with the addition of daylight saving "rules" AIUI


----------



## cwaring

chimaera said:


> It will be a lot less problematic when the power is increased post digital switchover though presumably.


Indeed.

Go to this web site and put your postcode in the top-right box and you'll find out just how good. As an example, the Freeview signal on the Emley Moor transmitter is due to be increased in strength 21x post-DSO!


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> But interestingly you say I am right on a different matter from the one TCM says I am right on and your indication I am right along with the comments of another forum member about aerial upgrades earlier in the thread would tend to suggest that TCM is wrong on this matter.


There is no contradiction whatsoever between *many* people needing to upgrade their aerials, and *most* people not having to. I'm struggling understand why you can't see that. Your numbers completely support that statement.



> TCM claims he can find people who will put up an aerial that can get you Freeview for only £100


http://www.aerial-satellites.co.uk/get-digital.htm



> but what I think he failed to realise was that those aerial contractors were giving minimum quotes and were assuming a house in an area with perfect Freeview reception that just needed an aerial where there was none at all. Now that is quite different from being in the unlucky 25% of households that can get Freeview but only if they splash out for the latest top gain aerial, a very long pole to rise above any obstructions and probably a masthead amplifier too.


Sure, some people will need expensive installs because they are in marginal areas. Never suggested otherwise. I only got into this argument because of your statement that a new £200 aerial was _likely _to be required, ie an over 50% chance of needing it. Your own figures show that to be false.


----------



## ColinYounger

Carl - interesting site there. I have four transmitters close by. <smug>


----------



## verses

Automan said:


> Humax unit has another odd feature. When in standby the LED display shows UTC rather than summertime


For a brief moment, by UTC, I thought you meant Unix Time and your STB was displaying the number of seconds since midnight on the 1st of Jan 1970. Now that would be cool, if ultimately useless 

Ian


----------



## Pete77

chimaera said:


> I'm really not sure why some of the aerial figures being quoted are so high. Last year I had a new antenna mast put on the highest point of the eaves with the TV aerial moved to it and a new high gain FM aerial added, and it cost £110 all in


The aerial at my mum's house is on a chimney poking out of the tiled roof below. That is because the area is low lying and surrounded by lots of high trees. The only way to get to the chimey is to traverse the tiled roof.

Any talk to an aerial contractor of trees and an aerial on a chimney only accessible via a tiled roof and the quote is at least £200.

If they can attach it to the eaves as the local Freeview signal is presumably reasonably good then the quote is a lot lower as this is both quicker and less dangerous to do.

All I know is I could buy my mum Sky Pay Once Watch Forever for £75 as a birthday present and it happened. Whereas I would have balked at a £200+ birthday present for a lot less channels, especially when she is a very news oriented person and Freesat has far more news available than Freeview.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> http://www.aerial-satellites.co.uk/get-digital.htm.


"New Freeview/Digital aerials *start at only £99.00* inc vat and standard installation.*"

I bet they don't finish there though and I bet £99.99 is not the price if you live in the 25% of households that can get Freeview but that need a new heavily upgraded aerial to get it.

I'm sure £99 is effectively the price when you live in a good Freeview reception area but you just have a very old 1970s twig ariel that is no longer working properly due to old age and cabling decay.

Whereas with Sky the price is £75, even when it was a very long and complicated job that took nearly two hours.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> Whereas with Sky the price is £75, even when it was a very long and complicated job that took nearly two hours.


Actually, Sky's price is a for a "standard" install too. And it doesn't take much for them to have to get the special (and expensive) team in. Anything much above head hight these days and they're calling for the special heights team for H&S reasons.

At one house I lived in they wouldn't go on the roof, so passed the cable run from the back of the house to the front by tying the end of the cable to a brick and throwing it over the house. I kid you not...


----------



## AMc

TCM2007 said:


> At one house I lived in they wouldn't go on the roof, so passed the cable run from the back of the house to the front by tying the end of the cable to a brick and throwing it over the house. I kid you not...


Teleworst did that installing cable into my brother's basement flat - chucking the cable over a 4 storey house in preference to tacking it to the skirting from the front to the back . I think it's just fun for them and by the time you knew there was a hole in the roof they'd be down the road


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Actually, Sky's price is a for a "standard" install too. And it doesn't take much for them to have to get the special (and expensive) team in. Anything much above head hight these days and they're calling for the special heights team for H&S reasons.
> 
> At one house I lived in they wouldn't go on the roof, so passed the cable run from the back of the house to the front by tying the end of the cable to a brick and throwing it over the house. I kid you not...


My Mum's Sky dish didn't have to go up high but only just above an easy to work on flat roof at first floor level. However the cable run to that point all the way along the eaves and round the side of the house from the living room was around 25 metres or so.

Basically the guy who came was a nice guy (official Sky installer in a Sky van not Jo Cowboy third party) who took a pride in his work and regarded less easy installations as a more interesting challenge. A grumpy so and so might have suggested the long cable run allowed them to charge extra and was beyond the standard install distance. He had only been at it for 8 months after changing from driving long distance delivery lorries (got sick of new rules rigidly enforcing his motoway speed to 50mph) and was still quite keen rather than bored with the whole thing.

You will be amazed to hear that I clearly got on with him as he even gave me another free new style grey Sky remote to use with my old Panasonic TU-DSB20 box back at home. He arrived at 3pm and it was his last job of the day (although November so light a problem at the end) so I think was not feeling too much under pressure time wise.


----------



## cwaring

I think the thing to remember in all these situations is "Your Mileage May Vary"


----------



## chimaera

cwaring said:


> I think the thing to remember in all these situations is "Your Mileage May Vary"


Or perhaps "Pete's Mileage Always Varies"


----------



## cwaring

I couldn't possibly comment


----------



## Automan

Back on the subject of Freesat the following article may be of interest.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a95547/tight-spec-makes-freesat-future-proof.html

I have also sent a query to freesat re no subtitles on BBC HD.

Humax say teletext subtitles not supported but freesat website says "full subtitle support"!

Automan.


----------



## ericd121

Speaking of Humax, I noticed with a wry smile that their box is called *Foxsat*.

It's a conspiracy, eh Pete?


----------



## rickynumber18

Does anyone know which satellite is relaying Freesat? I've checked Astra and Hotbird/Eurobird but no luck. I was just after a list of the channels and their settings to plug into an FTA satellite box I have.

Also, don't know if anyone has checked out "a certain auction site", but there's a few Freesat boxes for sale/auction already. I can see people trying to make their fortune! I wonder how these 'bayers get the boxes so quickly? Perhaps they work for the stores selling them. As if?!


----------



## OzSat

Freesat and BSkyB co-exist on Astra and Eurobird.


----------



## devo1977

See this excellent link on how to switch from Sky to Freesat yourself.

Freesat isn't on Astra, it's exclusively on Eurobird managed by Arqiva.


----------



## cwaring

Huh? . Okay, I'm probably going to sound _really_ thick here, but satellites, orbits and stuff is not something I know much (okay, _anything_) about, but here goes anyway....

If one uses Astra (FfS) and the other uses Eurobird (FS) how come - according to that article - you don't need to re-align your dish? The two different satellites cannot be in _exactly_ the same place. Can they?

When you've done laughing, an explanation would be appreciated


----------



## TCM2007

devo1977 said:


> Freesat isn't on Astra, it's exclusively on Eurobird managed by Arqiva.


Freesat's EPG is on Eurobird, the actual channels are largely on Astra.


----------



## Automan

I think several satellites make up Eurobird / Astra 2x at 28.2

They are spread over an area so they don't bump into each other  and ones dish has to sort of point to the centre of the area for optimum performance.

Thus why a DIY install may not work well if it is aligned well only on one satellite.

http://www.lyngsat.com/28east.html

Automan.


----------



## TCM2007

cwaring said:


> Huh? . Okay, I'm probably going to sound _really_ thick here, but satellites, orbits and stuff is not something I know much (okay, _anything_) about, but here goes anyway....
> 
> If one uses Astra (FfS) and the other uses Eurobird (FS) how come - according to that article - you don't need to re-align your dish? The two different satellites cannot be in _exactly_ the same place. Can they?
> 
> When you've done laughing, an explanation would be appreciated


A dish focuses signals from an area of the sky; that area is usually big enough to have whole bunch of satellites in it. Astra isn't one satellite, it's whole bunch of 'em, and some of the Eurobird ones are in roughly the same place.

Remember the satellites are over 35,000 kilometres away, and each one is not very big, so they can be close together in angular terms but many miles apart up in space. Astra's are at 28.2 degrees and Eurobird at 28.5. 0.3 of a drgree is well withing the "patch" of sky a dish focusses.


----------



## kitschcamp

Yup, and also remember with the rather small dishes used in the UK for Astra they have a somewhat wider area of focus than a much larger dish, such as the one I need here in Sweden. In the UK you can almost throw up a dish and vaguely aim it in the right direction and get a signal, whereas here the tiniest error (such as the metal expanding in the heat...) results in no signal on Astra 2D.


----------



## rickynumber18

Automan said:


> Thus why a DIY install may not work well if it is aligned well only on one satellite.
> 
> http://www.lyngsat.com/28east.html
> 
> Automan.


Thanks Automan, just what I wanted. I wonder why we can't enter the Freesat details into our Sky boxes manually to capture the channels, especially since Sky and Freesat are at 28east. I guess Sky have limited their boxes.


----------



## TCM2007

rickynumber18 said:


> Thanks Automan, just what I wanted. I wonder why we can't enter the Freesat details into our Sky boxes manually to capture the channels, especially since Sky and Freesat are at 28east. I guess Sky have limited their boxes.


There are no extra channels yet; the EPG points to the same ones which are on the Sky EPG. (C4 is different but Sky has it's oen version, and ITV HD will be exclusive to Freesat). The EPG is separate to the actual broadcasts.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> There are no extra channels yet





> C4 is different


Seem to contradict yourself there TCM. Of course the FTA version of C4 (does not need a viewing card unlike Sky EPG versions) can also be received on a Sky box via add channels but is not on Sky's EPG or in its normal channel number sequence.



> and ITV HD will be exclusive to Freesat}.


For how long. One month, two months, three months or as long as it takes Sky's lawyers to force ITV to play ball? General opinion seems to be that ITV HD cannot afford to not be available on Sky in the longer run and that this is only a short term marketing move during Freesat's launch period to con the more naive punters in to going for Freesat. Also Sky may update their firmware to be able to receive it, even if ITV don't change its broadcast format to be compatible. Don't forget Sky is still a shareholder in ITV.

For those who still seem to believe Freesat is a whole bunch of extra new channels let me clarify that this is not its point. Its point is to sell satellite boxes in the UK that are not connected with Sky and do not use its EPG to receive the same FTA channels on Astra and Eurobird at 28 degrees East. As to Carl claiming he does not understand about any of it there do seem to be rather a lot of websites that explain it all one can read. Perhaps being a cable expert he feels no need to understand how satellite works though.


----------



## Pete77

devo1977 said:


> See this excellent link on how to switch from Sky to Freesat yourself.


I can't see how this is an upgrade if you have a working Sky Freesat box with a viewing card getting FTV channels as a Sky box can get Five, Five US and Fiver plus Sky Three and a Freesat box cannot. OK there is an HD Freesat box but you can also run a Sky HD box on a Freesat basis too if you buy one secondhand off Ebay.

As I understand it due to sour grapes Sky News is also not even in Freesat's EPG, even though the channel is currently FTA. A Freesat box can get it but only by taking it out of Freesat mode and using a normal Euro sat box EPG and tuning methods. This is a lot of hassle to watch a news channel you are very likely to want to watch (even if the BBC don't think you are).

Also Sky News is likely to go FTV shortly on Astra 28 degrees East and so not be available on Freesat but only on Sky boxes.

Finally out of interest what are the reasons non Freesat boxes (such as a Sky Digibox) cannot tune in to and use the Freesat EPG? Presumably some sort of proprietary encryption of the Freesat EPG's content must be involved?


----------



## cwaring

Pete77 said:


> I can't see how this is an upgrade ...


I don't remember _anyone_ mentioning the word 'upgrade'. That link simply shows you how to change from one to the other. You really do like putting words in people's (virtual) mouths, don't you?


----------



## chimaera

The page linked to is titled "Upgrading from Sky to Freesat" though


----------



## Pete77

cwaring said:


> I don't remember _anyone_ mentioning the word 'upgrade'. That link simply shows you how to change from one to the other. You really do like *putting words in people's (virtual) mouths*, don't you?


From the page linked to:-



> you have an existing Sky or fSfS (Freesat from Sky) installation and want to go to *upgrade to Freesat,* it is a simple process.
> 
> *old fashioned *Sky digibox


You really do like just having a go at me for the sake of it don't you, perhaps just because I once seem to have said something that you perhaps didn't agree with?


----------



## chimaera

Kind of ironic describing the Sky box as "old fashioned" when the page tells you how to use SCART connectors, a clunky analogue technology from 20 years ago...


----------



## rickynumber18

I really don't understand all this Sky / Freesat stuff. If the channels are one and the same then the link posted by Automan doesn't make any sense. It shows channels allocated to Freesat and Sky - not shared. Or maybe I'm just not understanding the page, it is hot, maybe it's gone to my head!


----------



## britcub

Pete77 said:


> Sky News ... a news channel you are very likely to want to watch (even if the BBC don't think you are).


 The TV equivalent of The Sun newspaper is of no interest to me whatsoever. BBC News and EuroNews would be sufficient for most people.

Don't even think of starting up the 'most' debate again!


----------



## Pete77

britcub said:


> The TV equivalent of The Sun newspaper is of no interest to me whatsoever. BBC News and EuroNews would be sufficient for most people.


If you think Sky News is tabloid you should try Fox News. But then Sky make you pay to receive that particular form of American news indoctrination.

But just because you don't like Sky News doesn't mean others don't want it.



> Don't even think of starting up the 'most' debate again!


Its up to me and not you what subjects I debate.


----------



## rickynumber18

QUOTE: Pete77...but you can also run a Sky HD box on a Freesat basis too if you buy one secondhand off Ebay.

If I bought a Sky HD box from a "certain auction site", how do I go about watching HD channels (I have an HD TV), surely I'd have to pay Sky a fee, even if a one off. Any ideas?

I see there are loads of Freesat boxes listed on that site but the prices are crazy, I'd rather by a Sky HD box if could actually watch the HD content.


----------



## OzSat

no charge for BBCHD or LuxeHD


----------



## Pete77

rickynumber18 said:


> I really don't understand all this Sky / Freesat stuff. If the channels are one and the same then the link posted by Automan doesn't make any sense. It shows channels allocated to Freesat and Sky - not shared. Or maybe I'm just not understanding the page, it is hot, maybe it's gone to my head!


With a Freesat box you principally watch the same channels as you can also see on a Sky Digibox with no viewing card in the slot. However you use Freesat's EPG rather than Sky's. A Freesat box cannot let you watch any of Sky's channels that you need a subscription for or any channels that you don't need a subscription for but that are still encrypted (FTV) and require you to have a Sky viewing card (but there is no need to be paying a subscription to Sky to get those FTV channels you just need a valid FreesatFromSky or ex Sky subscription viewing card).

Also the channel numbers vary for many channels on a Freesat box as they are chosen by Freesat and not Sky and come from their EPG and not Sky's.

The main exceptions are ITV HD as this may be broadcast in a way that Sky boxes cannot understand, at least temporarily short term, and Sky News. Freesat have not included Sky News in their EPG, I assume because Sky will not let them have the rights to republish EPG data for the channel. Either that or Freesat refuse to list a Sky channel in their EPG on principle.

This is all to do with BBC, ITV etc being unhappy that people were having to get a Sky box and have a relationship with Sky to watch their channels on satellite. So this project is all about buying a satellite box where you cannot later watch Sky pay channels even if you want to (an idea the BBC, ITV, C4 and Five obviously love) and on the other hand being able to get Sky+ like PVR features and record off satellite without having to be subscribed to Sky. Also being able to watch HD channels on satellite without getting a Sky HD box.

Its principally all about marketing positioning and not about any new channels being on air. The FTA channel content watched on a Freesat box comes from the same transponders on Astra and Eurobord as on a Sky box with no viewing card in it.

Think of it as being like the difference between an Ondigital DTT box with a card slot and a Freeview DTT box with no card slot and then you may get the idea.


----------



## Pete77

rickynumber18 said:


> If I bought a Sky HD box from a "certain auction site", how do I go about watching HD channels (I have an HD TV), surely I'd have to pay Sky a fee, even if a one off. Any ideas?.


No because as ozsat indicates BBC HD and Luxe HD are not encrypted and don't need a Sky viewing card in the slot to watch them on a Sky HD box. Also C4 HD can be viewed on a Sky HD box without a subscription to Sky HD as far as I know. But you do need a Sky viewing card (which a Freesat HD box cannot support) as it is encrypted as FTV (free to watch with no sub but you need a Sky viewing card to decode it). There is some kind of commercial dispute or old contract still running between Sky and C4 that means they cannot yet unencrypt their HD broadcast and make it available on Freesat HD boxes.

ITV seems as though they are initially going to transmit ITV HD using transmission codecs not yet understood by the firmware on Sky HD boxes but it will not be encrypted as such so Sky are probably working on updating their firmware on Sky HD boxes to overcome this. ITV also probably won't mind this when it happens. ITV probably genuinely need to use a new transmission method because of how ITV HD will work and it suits them that for 2 or 3 months the channel will indeed only be viewable with a Freesat HD box to help promote the new Freesat service. But equally they won't mind when Sky catches up so the channel can be viewed on a Sky HD box in good time for the winter television viewing season.

The main snag with a Sky HD box vs a Freesat PVR (when they become available) is that you cannot record use Sky+ on any channels (even the free ones like BBC HD) to record programs unless you pay the £10 per month separate Sky+ fee or subscribe to at least a £16 per month Sky pay tv subscription (in which case Sky+ is now free of charge and not charge extra at £10 per month anymore). There is obviously no monthly fee to record on a Freesat PVR.

It is precisely because those of you who do not readily absorb complex and machiavellian marketing arrangements are still wrongly under the impression that you have to pay Sky a sub to use their digiboxes to get any channel at all that the BBC and ITV are launching Freesat. They also like the idea that these Freesat boxes will never be able to receive any pay Sky subscription channels so people will have to watch the FTA channels if they only have these boxes.


----------



## rickynumber18

On the basis of the information I've read here, I don't understand the point of Freesat or getting a Freesat box. It's seems to me it's just for ITV HD, for now. Especially since Sky have converted E4 / E4+1 and More 4 / More 4+1 to FTA (at last).


----------



## cwaring

chimaera said:


> The page linked to is titled "Upgrading from Sky to Freesat" though


<annoyed grunt>  Sorry. Didn't read that page enough, obviously


----------



## Pete77

rickynumber18 said:


> On the basis of the information I've read here, I don't understand the point of Freesat or getting a Freesat box. It's seems to me it's just for ITV HD, for now. Especially since Sky have converted E4 / E4+1 and More 4 / More 4+1 to FTA (at last).


Its there precisely for people like you (or rather like you until 5 minutes ago) who don't understand that there is a free way to use Sky a box to get a satellite signal and HD programs etc without having to deal with Sky. And that's no disrespect to you as the majority of the population, including many people who have Sky boxes, wrongly believe they will stop working altogether if they ever cancel their Sky subscription.

Also while Sky have www.freesatfromsky.co.uk and Sky Pay Once Watch Forever for half that cost (see the blue A5 boxes in any branch of Currys and available from Argos) they do not yet offer a Sky HD Freesat box. To get that you will have to buy a box secondhand Sky HD box off Ebay and you cannot make it work as a recorder unless you sign at least a one year contract with Sky to pay them the Sky+ recording fee to record on a Sky HD box. Freesat is there so you can have a PVR that will record HD programs without having to pay a Sky+ fee or deal with Sky at all. Dealing with Sky to subscribe or especially unsubscribe is always tortuous and like having teeth pulled. They prevent you downgrading or desubscribing using their online account management facilities and instead force you to phone their call centre.

Don't forget how Freeview boxes that had no card slot for pay subscription programs like TopUpTv were a runaway success compared to OnDigital. This was because the overt proposition was that there was no further sub. But while you can use a Sky box without paying a sub (but not so far while recording on it) Sky don't want you to do that and try to hide it. Why do you think www.freesatfromsky.co.uk is a little known website with no link to it from the main www.sky.com website. They only offer Freesat at all as obligations to the government they agreed to means that they have to.

In a better regulated world (rather than the corporate muscleman favouring one run by Ofcom) there ought to now be Freesat boxes to which you can add a Sky viewing card module (a so called CAM) later on if you ever want to view Sky programs but Sky does not allow this and will only provide card decryption slots in their own Sky boxes that you can only obtain through Sky distribution channels........................

Freesat is all about marketing and the BBC and ITV marketing to you that you can now watch HD satellite programs without dealing with Sky or having to have a Sky contract or pay Sky any money.


----------



## rickynumber18

Thanks Pete77. I stopped paying Sky many years ago (a load of money for channels free elsewhere). I have Sky Freesat and Freeview, which is what TiVo is so good for. Prior to ER / More 4 going FTA this week I used my Freeview allot but aside from the occasional programme on Dave and Virgin it'll probably just collect dust now.

I used to have Sky+ so I understand about the recording side, however as I see it, it's cheaper right now to buy a Sky HD box from eBay and not use the recording side. I realise that Freesat is the only way to record HD for free.

My experience of unsubscribing with Sky was very painless. I just phoned them up after nearly 12 years of local service and said I'm off. Their response, "okay, bye". Not even so much as a "we'll do this or reduce that". They didn't even contact me again when Sky+ went free.

I'm hoping that Sky will see Freesat as some sort of competition and beef up their FTA offering. Even the website is naff and poorly maintained.


----------



## Pete77

In response to a post that mikerr now seems to have removed from this thread (but which I got the post update email for) saying that you can watch the BBC without paying anything at all may I remind him of that small matter known as the BBC licence fee.

However it is true that you can watch BBC HD on satellite without having to pay any more than the BBC licence fee as long as you shell out for some form of satellite STB that can receive HD programs.


----------



## mikerr

Pete77 said:


> In response to a post that mikerr now seems to have removed from this thread (but which I got the post update email for) saying that you can watch the BBC without paying anything at all may I remind him of that small matter known as the BBC licence fee.


Well acually my (deleted !) post said 
you can now receive BBC HD without paying *sky* any money at all (even for the box), 
as your post seemed to imply otherwise.


----------



## Pete77

rickynumber18 said:


> I'm hoping that Sky will see Freesat as some sort of competion and beef up their FTA offering. Even the website is naff and poorly maintained.


Its quite likely that Sky News and Sky Three will only be FTV (need a Sky viewing card to decrypt them) on a Sky Freesat box in due course if Ofcom allow Sky to take their free channels off Freeview and replace them with the pay Sky Picnic service on DTT. There is also speculation that Sky One or Sky Two might be FTV on Sky Freesat in due course. Or may be TCM or British Eurosport or stuff like that might be FTA on Sky Freesat but not BBC/ITV Freesat at some point.

I didn't realise you were already a Sky Freesatter as well as a Freviewer so apologies if any of my previous comments sounded like teaching one's grandmother how to suck eggs etc, etc.


----------



## Pete77

mikerr said:


> Well acually my (deleted !) post said
> you can now receive BBC HD without paying *sky* any money at all (even for the box), as your post seemed to imply otherwise.


It seemed obvious to me that I was saying you didn't have to pay any money to the BBC or ITV to watch their HD programs but perhaps you read it another way for some reason.

Of course if you don't pay Sky for an HD box you are still going to have pay Humax, Bush or whoever for one down at Argos or Currys instead though.


----------



## Automan

freesat will offer PVR versions which at present sky's freesat offer does not include.

Also some HD and Dolby Digital 5.1 sound.

EPG looks a little better but gives no more information than Sky's

Automan.


----------



## britcub

Pete77 said:


> But just because you don't like Sky News doesn't mean others don't want it.


Just because you like Sky News doesn't mean others want it. Which was my point.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> Seem to contradict yourself there TCM.


Sigh. If those statements were in different posts then maybe, but when they are in the same paragraph one is clearly a clarification of the other. Normal English...


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> Finally out of interest what are the reasons non Freesat boxes (such as a Sky Digibox) cannot tune in to and use the Freesat EPG? Presumably some sort of proprietary encryption of the Freesat EPG's content must be involved?


It's a proprietary system, just like Sky's.


----------



## martink0646

rickynumber18 said:


> I see there are loads of Freesat boxes listed on that site but the prices are crazy, I'd rather by a Sky HD box if could actually watch the HD content.


Hi Ricky,

Before you go down the route of a 2nd hand Sky HD box there is another, cheaper, option.

Like yourself I was a SKY+ user when I stopped my Sky sub. I wanted to taste HD but wasn't prepared to give Sky any money so I bought a Pace DS810XE from fleabay (also search for Pace DS810). Installation was as simple as unscrewing one of the two leads from the dish (one of which is unused if you are not paying a sub as you cannot utilise the second tuner) feeding the SKY+ box & plugging it into the new STB.

Follow the new STB's install proceedures & voila, BBC HD in glorious 1080i via HDMI & still exactly the same compliment of Sky channels to feed TiVo. The box cost me under £70 delivered, new. I think prices are a bit higher now due to the shortage of units but they are still cheaper than a SKY HD box & they open up other options via CAM's, bigger dishes etc. for a whole range of channels HD & SD from all over Europe.

Martin


----------



## rickynumber18

Pete77 said:


> I didn't realise you were already a Sky Freesatter as well as a Freviewer so apologies if any of my previous comments sounded like teaching one's grandmother how to suck eggs etc, etc.


No problem Pete. It took me years before I realised I was paying Sky for channels I could get for free. I guess I was just hooked on Sky+. I still miss the dual tuner for recording two channels but you can't have everything, can you?


----------



## rickynumber18

martink0646 said:


> Like yourself I was a SKY+ user when I stopped my Sky sub. I wanted to taste HD but wasn't prepared to give Sky any money so I bought a Pace DS810XE from fleabay (also search for Pace DS810). Installation was as simple as unscrewing one of the two leads from the dish (one of which is unused if you are not paying a sub as you cannot utilise the second tuner) feeding the SKY+ box & plugging it into the new STB.Martin


Hi Martin. Thanks for that. I presume you're still running your existing Sky+ box for TiVo recording and using the Pace box for HD content. Is that correct?


----------



## TCM2007

To my mind any HD box MUST have PVR functionality; there's no way to record HD otherwise, and being restricted to watching all HD live is a major step backwards.


----------



## chimaera

TCM2007 said:


> To my mind any HD box MUST have PVR functionality; there's no way to record HD otherwise, and being restricted to watching all HD live is a major step backwards.


Since you will have to use the red button to view ITV HD content on Freesat it remains to be seen if it will even be possible to record ITV HD, even with a Freesat PVR. Perhaps they expect you to watch it live, adverts and all. If so, they can forget it.


----------



## martink0646

rickynumber18 said:


> Hi Martin. Thanks for that. I presume you're still running your existing Sky+ box for TiVo recording and using the Pace box for HD content. Is that correct?


Hi Ricky,

Yes, or that is I was until the SKY+ box packed up!!! I swapped it with another digibox, again from fleabay, which I got for £7.50.

TCM, I agree wholeheartedly, but, last year when I bought the Pace box, the only way to record HD (without paying an obscene amount that SWMBO would have baulked on) was to subscribe to Sky which for various reasons I don't want to do. When a Freesat HD PVR is available I probably will get one & run it alongside TiVo.

Martin


----------



## TCM2007

chimaera said:


> Since you will have to use the red button to view ITV HD content on Freesat it remains to be seen if it will even be possible to record ITV HD, even with a Freesat PVR. Perhaps they expect you to watch it live, adverts and all. If so, they can forget it.


Sky has the option to record red button stuff, so hopefully they will provide this feature on Freesat.


----------



## 6022tivo

Apparently all freesat boxes other than the Humax have been recalled?????

http://www.joinfreesat.co.uk/index.php/alba-group-receivers-recalled

Confirmed by currys when I was in earlier, and they have all vanished from the web site??

Anyone have more info on this??

Also if buying a humax from currys website enter FREESAT as a promotional code at the checkout to get 10% off


----------



## Pete77

6022tivo said:


> Also if buying a humax from currys website enter FREESAT as a promotional code at the checkout to get 10% off


But other than the thrill of having a new technology (in this case its only a new EPG and nothing more) on its first day I really can't see why most people on this webiste are actually interested in buying anything other than a Freesat HD PVR (and these are not yet available). The only exception I can think of would be a Tivo owner living in a poor Freeview area with an old redundant Sky dish and cable sitting there unused, perhaps from some previous owners of the property who had Sky. Even then an out of contract Sky box with a working viewing card is a better option until Five's channels go FTA.

An HD PVR is the only real main point of Freesat for current Tivo owners as all things being equally Sky probably won't allow the Sky+ functionality on a Sky+ or SkyHD box to operate on a completely unsubscribed unit.


----------



## mikerr

Freesat boxes are the only way to get BBC-HD with an EPG and without a sub.

If you can cope without an EPG (just now/next) then you can also get an HD box (DS810) from ebay
to receive BBC HD...


----------



## Pete77

mikerr said:


> Freesat boxes are the only way to get BBC-HD with an EPG and without a sub...


Not true. You can get BBC HD on an out of contract Sky HD box with a working ex contract or FreesatFromSky viewing card in it as I understand it.

You will have an EPG available for BBC HD on such a box.


----------



## mikerr

Ok, seems you're correct there 

Sky HD boxes are a fair bit more expensive though.


----------



## Sneals2000

mikerr said:


> Freesat boxes are the only way to get BBC-HD with an EPG and without a sub.
> 
> If you can cope without an EPG (just now/next) then you can also get an HD box (DS810) from ebay
> to receive BBC HD...


AIUI Sky HD boxes will receive BBC HD/Luxe HD with no card, and will get C4 HD with a FTV card.

You won't get PVR functionality without a card and a £10/month PVR sub, if you don't have a Sky Mix (which includes PVR functionality).

The Sky HD £10/month subscription provides access to Sky One HD, Sky Sports HD, Sky Movies HD etc. services if you already subscribe to a package that includes the SD versions.

FTA/FTV HD channels are treated separately.

You WON'T get ITV HD on a Sky HD box currently though. Some FTA boxes and PC solutions will get it along with freesat boxes.


----------



## Sneals2000

Pete77 said:


> Not true. You can get BBC HD on an out of contract Sky HD box with a working ex contract or FreesatFromSky viewing card in it as I understand it.


Don't need the card for BBC HD AIUI - as BBC HD is FTA not FTV.

C4HD is FTV and thus needs a card.



> You will have an EPG available for BBC HD on such a box.


Yep - though the Sky EPG is very annoying for FTA/FTV viewers as you have to wade through subscription channels when you surf up/down - on freesat the EPG only shows the channels you can watch.


----------



## TCM2007

Sneals2000 said:


> The Sky HD £10/month subscription provides access to Sky One HD, Sky Sports HD, Sky Movies HD etc. services if you already subscribe to a package that includes the SD versions.


It's slightly better than that; as if you pay the £10 you get access to channels which are part of a mix (not premium) even if you don't have that mix in your package.


----------



## chimaera

Sneals2000 said:


> Yep - though the Sky EPG is very annoying for FTA/FTV viewers as you have to wade through subscription channels when you surf up/down - on freesat the EPG only shows the channels you can watch.


You can tag channels as favourites in the Sky EPG and then just view favourites to avoid this problem. It's very annoying for a lot of other reasons though


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> It's slightly better than that; as if you pay the £10 you get access to channels which are part of a mix (not premium) even if you don't have that mix in your package.


Interesting. I hadn't realised that. So access to National Geographic HD is possible for only £10 per month then? No HD version of British Eurosport so far though.

I am something of an addict of Air Crash Investigation and this now never comes on to terrestrial tv. On that basis its quite tempting to consider getting a secondhand Sky HD box and paying the £10 per month. However I still have to resolve the no second satellite feed issue and of course acquring an HD television....

They did pay for a second LNB off the communal dish but I would have to pay for a second cable from the splitter boxes in the stairway ducts to my flat.


----------



## Pete77

Sneals2000 said:


> Don't need the card for BBC HD AIUI - as BBC HD is FTA not FTV.
> 
> C4HD is FTV and thus needs a card.
> 
> Yep - though the Sky EPG is very annoying for FTA/FTV viewers as you have to wade through subscription channels when you surf up/down - on freesat the EPG only shows the channels you can watch.


On the other hand the Freesat EPG is annoying by leaving out channels from its EPG that are currently FTA and that it can get such as Sky News. Presumably Sky refuses to pay for a Freesat EPG listing.

This can only be remedied by flicking in to regular Euro sat box mode as I understand it. You then have endless channels you don't want to watch in the listings.

Not to mention Freesat's EPG being a dead duck until it includes at the very least Five and preferably also Five US and FIVER too. Don't forget many homes in the UK who go for a satellite dish have no satisfactory signal for Five on analogue terrestrial as well as no receivable Freeview signal as well.


----------



## 6022tivo

TCM2007 said:


> It's slightly better than that; as if you pay the £10 you get access to channels which are part of a mix (not premium) even if you don't have that mix in your package.


Are you sure, so with no mixes and you pay the £10PCM for the HD, you get Sky One HD and all the HD channels apart from the premium Movies and Sports?????????????


----------



## Pete77

6022tivo said:


> Are you sure, so with no mixes and you pay the £10PCM for the HD, you get Sky One HD and all the HD channels apart from the premium Movies and Sports?????????????


But if so its almost certainly a technical limitation of how they restrict access to the Mix HD channels (effectively treating them as a hidden 7th Mix) that they will no doubt address in due course if they see a lot of people taking the only £10 per month subscription.


----------



## OzSat

Pete77 said:


> On the other hand the Freesat EPG is annoying by leaving out channels from its EPG that are currently FTA and that it can get such as Sky News. Presumably Sky refuses to pay for a Freesat EPG listing.
> 
> This can only be remedied by flicking in to regular Euro sat box mode as I understand it. You then have endless channels you don't want to watch in the listings.


No - the channels are those you wish to have in your list.

I just have the ITV and BBC regions.


----------



## Sneals2000

ozsat said:


> No - the channels are those you wish to have in your list.
> 
> I just have the ITV and BBC regions.


I think the poster is pointing out that many FTA channels are not (yet?) in the freesat EPG. There are hundreds of FTA channels - but only 80 in the EPG.

Some freesat boxes, like the Humax, allow the non-freesat FTA services to be added to a second channel list (albeit with no EPG information - apart possibly from Now and Next), whilst the Alba boxes (temporarily withdrawn?) are apparently limited to freesat EPG channels only - so no Sky News or CNN (which aren't in the freesat EPG)

HOWEVER - there is a suggestion that not allowing manual addition of FTA services may breach European law (which is why Sky boxes allow it)


----------



## Pete77

ozsat said:


> No - the channels are those you wish to have in your list.
> 
> I just have the ITV and BBC regions.


Then why for news at www.freesat.co.uk/index.php?page=whatson.Genre&genre_id=3 do they only show BBC News, BBC Parliament, Euronews, AlJazeerah and S4CTwo. Also they list Zone Romantica and Zone Thriller but no Zone Horror in their main channel listings.

So why if you can have any channels you want in your EPG list do they not list news channels as popular as CNN or Bloomberg? And why no mention of Zone Horror?

My understanding was that the Freesat EPG is a dumbed down KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) list of about 80 channels who are specifically focused on UK distribution and who are thus willing, at this early stage, to pay to be in the Freesat EPG. That is why at present so many relatively mainstream FTV channels are not listed in the Freesat EPG (eg CNN and Bloomberg) while channels absolutely desperate for viewers like Wedding Tv and Overseas Property (who have almost no viewers) have already paid for a Freesat listing.

From descriptions others like Automan have given there is a Freesat only box operating mode and an all possible channels standard FTA satellite box mode that the box can be operated in. For the latter the only EPG info is probably now and next rather than a full 7 days worth of EPG listings.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> Interesting. I hadn't realised that. So access to National Geographic HD is possible for only £10 per month then? No HD version of British Eurosport so far though.
> 
> I am something of an addict of Air Crash Investigation and this now never comes on to terrestrial tv. On that basis its quite tempting to consider getting a secondhand Sky HD box and paying the £10 per month. However I still have to resolve the no second satellite feed issue and of course acquring an HD television....
> 
> They did pay for a second LNB off the communal dish but I would have to pay for a second cable from the splitter boxes in the stairway ducts to my flat.


I don't know if you get them if you don't pay for _ any _mix; I just know that I couldn't access Sky Arts SD because that mix wasn't in my package, but I could access Sky Arts HD.


----------



## OzSat

I think you need a basic Sky sub + HD sub to get the non-premium channels.


----------



## OzSat

Pete77 said:


> Then why for news at www.freesat.co.uk/index.php?page=whatson.Genre&genre_id=3 do they only show BBC News, BBC Parliament, Euronews, AlJazeerah and S4CTwo. Also they list Zone Romantica and Zone Thriller but no Zone Horror in their main channel listings.
> 
> So why if you can have any channels you want in your EPG list do they not list news channels as popular as CNN or Bloomberg? And why no mention of Zone Horror?
> 
> My understanding was that the Freesat EPG is a dumbed down KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) list of about 80 channels who are specifically focused on UK distribution and who are thus willing, at this early stage, to pay to be in the Freesat EPG. That is why at present so many relatively mainstream FTV channels are not listed in the Freesat EPG (eg CNN and Bloomberg) while channels absolutely desperate for viewers like Wedding Tv and Overseas Property (who have almost no viewers) have already paid for a Freesat listing.
> 
> From descriptions others like Automan have given there is a Freesat only box operating mode and an all possible channels standard FTA satellite box mode that the box can be operated in. For the latter the only EPG info is probably now and next rather than a full 7 days worth of EPG listings.


You have two lists on the Humax. The Freesat list and the 'my own' list.

Both can only be FTA channels - but the non-Freesat liat can be whatever you want (including Freesat channels) - and only and N&N info.


----------



## Pete77

ozsat said:


> Both can only be FTA channels - but the non-Freesat liat can be whatever you want (including Freesat channels) - and only and N&N info.


But can you get the full Freesat EPG info for the channels in "My Own List" that are also in the Freesat EPG. Or do you have to revert to the Freesat only EPG to be able to see EPG data for those particular channels.

I did try test driving one at a Currys superstore on Monday but they said all the Humax's were in their warehouse upstairs and there was no unit out on display to look at or demo in conjunction with a tv and satellite signal.


----------



## OzSat

Only N&N in non-Freesat mode.


----------



## Pete77

ozsat said:


> Only N&N in non-Freesat mode.


A bit of a pain then with channels like Sky News, CNN and Bloomberg not being in the Freesat EPG.......................


----------



## TCM2007

I guess, but do you really need more than that with 24hr news channels?


----------



## wonderboy

Interesting discussion. One further question.
I currently have Sky digibox/Dish and do *not* want to unsubscribe to sky, I watch SkyOne a lot (or rather Tivo does). I have not ever had Sky+ or HD installed.

Now is there a way to use my existing satelite dish to use the above *and* feed a Freesat HD box?

thanks!


----------



## Ashley

Replace the LNB with a quad LNB. then connect the HD box to one of the spare O/Ps.


----------



## Pete77

Ashley said:


> Replace the LNB with a quad LNB. then connect the HD box to one of the spare O/Ps.


Easier said than done if you are on a communal satellite aerial system or there is a long cable run between your satellite dish and your living room point. You not only have to install a Quad LNB but also run a second cable from the LNB to wherever you will plug it in to the second box.

Are there any solutions where you can feed a Quad LNB to two boxes through only a single satellite cable and then split it again just before the two boxes.


----------



## TCM2007

Yes:

http://www.videsignline.com/howto/203101277


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Yes:
> 
> http://www.videsignline.com/howto/203101277


I think these things are quite expensive in practice though but far less robust or reliable than a second physical cable run?


----------



## TCM2007

I'm not even sure they are commercially available as a consumer product yet. No reason to think they are less robust or reliable though.


----------



## mikerr

They have been sold for quite a while, and have come down in price, now around £100 stacker destacker.

I actually do know someone who installed one last year, 
and its been working without issue even since (without a line amp).


----------



## Pete77

mikerr said:


> I actually do know someone who installed one last year, and its been working without issue even since.


Despite the long cable run I'm pretty sure that at my mother's house someone would fit one for around about £100 from the existing Sky dish with the existing Quad LNB (which I stupidly failed to then ask the guy to run a double cable from to the living room as I didn't know about that side of things at the time).

At my flat it could be of interest as the management company will only let me use their official satellite installer company, who are a bunch of cowboys who violently overcharge for everything. Also these cowboys used the existing final television coaxial run in to my flat anyway from the ducts and as it is already marginal for a satellite signal and 17 years old I doubt it would cope with one of these devices.


----------



## afrokiwi

Just picked one up off ebay for £60  .... hope it does the trick and saves me having to run that second cable ....



Pete77 said:


> I think these things are quite expensive in practice though but far less robust or reliable than a second physical cable run?


----------



## Pete77

afrokiwi said:


> Just picked one up off ebay for £60  .... hope it does the trick and saves me having to run that second cable ....


I presume your cable run is long or inconvenient to double up then?

From what I could see on their website you also needed some form of co-operative device at the LNB end of things?


----------



## afrokiwi

There is a unit at each end ... all i need now is a dual LNB (and the FreeSat PVR to be released) ... here is the spec of the unit i got

http://www.sateuropa.co.uk/product_overview.asp?id=982&catid=16&subcat=61

Cable runs through the house .... will never get away with running a second ....



Pete77 said:


> I presume your cable run is long or inconvenient to double up then?
> 
> From what I could see on their website you also needed some form of co-operative device at the LNB end of things?


----------

