±«Óãtv

I wonder how long it will take before there are Freesat TV tuners in PCI card or USB format out there.

I use a freeview TV card in a computer with Windows Media Center as my main TV setup, with recording onto a large hard disc.

Freesat would be attractive to me for the HD content, but only if I can use it in a media center I've built myself ;)

Freesat will fly in our household, Rory - by the end of this year I plan to have at least two TVs hooked up to it.

Your premise - that it may be too little, too late - betrays a certain metropolitan bias, I feel. Have you ever taken your summer hols in a quaint cottage tucked in some faraway corner of these isles, and spent a fortnight cursing at the snowy, ghosty picture on the portable TV in the corner of the lounge? Well, for those of us who actually live in the far-flung corners of the UK, that's what our TV experience is like, 365 days of the year (366 days this year!).

There are ways round it, of course. We have a Freesat-from-Sky hook up. We paid them for their subscription service for a couple of years, before working out how much we were paying, per programme, to watch just an hour or two of the encrypted channels per week, and downgraded pretty quickly after that.

Sadly, Freesat-from-Sky has for years locked you out of a lot of programming that *should* be free ... although I expect that may now change, with competition on the horizon (or is that in orbit?). My family comes to visit and is always surprised and disappointed that we have free digital TV, but with fewer channels than they get on their own Freeview boxes.

We don't have the option of Freeview here at all; our local, small, low-power, fill-in transmitter won't have any digital services until switchover day, and even then, it will only carry the bare minimum of muxes so we still won't get a 'complete' digital line up. So I'm not holding out for Freeview.

The ±«Óãtv and ITV's new Freesat service has two killer selling points for me. The first and biggest is, it's the only way I'll ever get HD telly in my lounge, because I have no intention of lining Mr Murdoch's pockets for the privilege of viewing ±«Óãtv programmes my licence fee has already paid for. The second is, the built-in LAN port that Freesat have very cleverly made a part of the spec for their boxes. This provides the all-important broadband return path that enables a whole world of potential commercial add-ons to the service; things Sky can't offer, and Freeview can't offer, and Virgin Media controls very tightly.

I have been sold on this service ever since it was first mooted and getting the details today, I am a very happy bunny indeed. An integrated Freesat HDTV is at the top of my Christmas prezzy list.

I'm sure there is lots of pent up demand for HD TV that doesn't require signing up to Sky or Virgin.

HD is too far off with Freeview, thanks OFCOM, plus there is the attraction, for those who can't get some of the channels on Freeview, such as ±«Óãtv4, of a more comprehensive channel line up.

Once the the pitfalls have been exposed by early adopters, such as rip-off dish installation scams and unreliable decoders, I will definitely be investing in the equipment.

Well, in an attempt to put freesat's marketing fanfare to the test, I went shopping in Belfast at lunchtime to look for a freesat set-top box.

There aren't any branches of John Lewis or Comet in Northern Ireland, so that just left the two other freesat launch retailers.

Argos had never heard of freesat (they rang up to find out about it - won't have stock until this time next week), and Currys had no stock (and no posters/information).

And the retailers' websites weren't much better.



So on the day of the launch, with the fanfare of publicity still ringing in consumers’ ears, there’s not a huge amount of freesat brand awareness in the four retailers shops or websites. And certainly no chance of actually getting your hands on a set-top box in Belfast.

I’m still amazed that the mighty ±«Óãtv can get away with calling things free while forcing anyone with a TV to give them money via the ±«Óãtv TV licence. Don’t you think it’s about time you learnt to stand up by yourself because you have a few left/liberals who would pay via subscription!

PS: Can someone fix the ±«Óãtv's forum software to either recognise smart apostrophes and quote marks (the "?" characters in the messages 4 and 5 above) ... and the ability to add links as opposed to quoting URLs which don't fit the width would be a nice improvement (step back to the way things were!)

Englands, green and pleasant land is now going to be covered head to foot in satellite dishes :-(

It will fly for sure, especially when the cost of the boxes and DIY dishes comes down. I cannot imagine that this sort of kit should cost significantly more than equivalent terrestrial kit, once it ships in volume.

Anyone that uses an old Sky box without the Sky subscription knows what this is about. "Freesat" has effectively been trialled for many years now, as was "Freeview" after the demise of OnDigital.

There are very many remote locations with challenging landscape around the UK where satellite TV is the better option over terrestrial. Add to that HDTV and you're onto a winner where those who have already invested in HD TV are concerned.

One thing i don't necessarily agree with though: the terms "Freesat" and "Freeview". They should be called "Licensed-Sat" and "Licensed-View". There we go again trying to insult our intelligence with more commercialized tax-payer sponsored branding. Bring it on, though eh?

It will certainly be a success in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Analogue signals don't work very well in a lot of locations in the Highlands.
I currently pay Sky about £17 a month so I can get TV. So I along with lots of other folk in the real far north will be jumping on the Freesat bandwagon. There is an unofficial blog about Freesat here
some interesting advice and screenshots

England's green and pleasant land won't be covered in satellite dishes as it already has better freeview coverage than the rest of the UK. Freesat will be taken up by people who have to use sky to be able to receive TV, like my mother. The analogue signal where she lives is unwatchable, and she won't get freeview until 2010. Cable will never be installed there as the town is too small and the broadband network is barely able to cope as it is. Notwithstanding an attempt by the National Park where she lives to ban satellite dishes, satellite TV is the only option she has. And the other advantage of Satellite is that it carries all channels for the UK so you don't get stuck with S4C instead of Channel 4.

I personally don't watch enough telly to justify paying anything over the licence fee. However, being the owner of an HD telly, I am anxious to be able to watch HD on it, so this will sort me out perfectly.

I may also get a box for my gran, who now has a second telly but can't receive freeview.

Sorted.

I'm excited by freesat because it offers the possibility of accessing all of ±«Óãtv's content from the EU. With the principle of the free-market and free-trade, I see quite a few ex-pats using this as a cheaper and easier alternative to subscribing to Sky, then taking the box abroad.
But no-one has yet given me conclusive evidence that this is entirely legal. If it isn't - why not? I'd even be happy to continue to pay the UK TV licence. Surely it shouldn't be a crime to want to watch your own country's TV from within the EU?

In reply to "Ripoffs" post at 07:57.

For pity's sake; think your argument through.

Can I point out that the independent channels are funded through advertsing.

Each company advertising has to pay for its adverts.

The revenue to pay for the adverts is raised, ultimately, from the price a company charges for it's goods and services.

If it is a company feeding "industrial" clients, then the industrial clients pay the prices. Ultimately, however, the finiance chain will filter down directly or indirectly to the consumer.

Ultimately this price is paid by all its customers, as a proportion of the final "sell prce" of all it's goods.

TV Advertising revenue was £3.9 billion in 2005 (Ofcom). For each of the 25 million households (Statistics.gov.uk) in the UK this represents £140 per year.

This £140 is in addition ot the licence fee. It is paid IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A TV IN THE HOUSEHOLD OR NOT.

It is non-negotiable, unavoidable and utterly unfair.

At least the licence fee is only payable if you actually have a TV.

Mr_Fluffykins, please don’t patronise the British public (75% agains't the ±«Óãtv TV Licence) with your advertising rubbish. That my ±«Óãtv (give me your money or else) friend is a choice while the ±«Óãtv is give us the money or watch nothing. If the mighty ±«Óãtv is so great then it should do just fine undersubscription. In the meantime however they shouldn’t be allowed to call things free while the ±«Óãtv has the TV Licence!

"At 10:54 am on 07 May 2008, Cracovian wrote:
I'm excited by freesat because it offers the possibility of accessing all of ±«Óãtv's content from the EU."


Yes you'll be able to watch it for FREE in the EU while the British public is forced to pay this dinosaur

The thing that will make or break it in our household will be the advertising. I'm totally fed up with Sky showing about eight ad's every ten minutes! I'm paying a large subscription with Sky+ in two rooms, it's not the cost or the fact that programs are repeated every few weeks, it's the shear amount of advertising that will drive me away from Sky. AS SOON AS ANY COMPANY COMES ALONG WITH A TV SYSTEM THAT DOESN'T HAVE EIGHT AD'S EVERY TEN MINUTES, MY SKY BOXES WILL GO IN THE RECYCLING BIN! Sky have in my opinion abused it's paying customers with so much advertising. The toothless watchdog, simply let Sky do exactly what they want!

1. Another nail in the coffin for the concept of HD content on the Freeview platform, even though it was a ludicrous concept to begin with.
2. What was the point of a terrestrial digital service in the first place if satellite was going to be available? Coverage and bandwidth were always going to be problematic on terrestrial, and satellite was the obvious choice to avoid this. What a waste of time!
3. Including the ethernet port is fine, but who pays for the required broadband connection and equipment in those homes that don't have it already? Or any required upgrade to the bandwidth package in those that do?
4. The ±«Óãtv is already arguing with ISPs over the carriage of iPlayer content. Spreading iPlayer/Kangaroo to TVs is only going to make the problem worse. Content delivery over the internet is not going to come for free in future, that's for sure, so who's going to pay?

I love the ±«Óãtv's programming, but they really do need to get their act together on their service strategy, because at the moment they're all at sea.

Satellite PCI cards have been available for some time. I've had one for well over a year, capable of handling the HD services as well. The HVR-4000 DVB-S2 HD can be bought for £100. What's more it's capable of handling analog and Freeview as well.

All you need now is the dish pointing at the right place in the sky.

Ripoffs.

Exactly how would you describe the revenue model that the Independent channels enjoy?

I never attempted to argue that the ±«Óãtv licence was fair or not.

As I observed, the cost to each and every UK household for independent TV is 145 pounds a year, irrespective of whether the household has a TV or not.

Is this correct or not?

If it is correct, then the question arises: is this equitable?

I submit it is not.

I further submit that it is less equitable than the TV licence.

What is the most equitable method of funding TV?

The only answer possible is pay-as-you-view with a minute-by-minute billing, based on the channel being viewed.

Obviously this is currrently not practical.

The next best model would be something along the line of Sky, but how many people would wish to suffer that?

What funding basis would you suggest as both adequate and equitable?

This is excellent news and although Rory correctly states that this is "yet another way of getting hold of digital television" I'd respond by saying that this is a service that appears to solve many of the problems with the existing options. It will even appeal to people like me who have Sky, Freeview and Virgin Media as available alternatives.

As a competitor to the rather confusingly named "Freesat from Sky", the new Freesat from the ±«Óãtv/ITV will (at least initially) cost more to purchase, however where it comes into its own is with High Definition. I find it amazing how many people I know who've splashed out on an HD telly but have no way of actually watching any HD content on it. Freesat doesn't have the bandwidth restrictions of Freeview and personally I see it as a way of ultimately getting subscription free HD content on to an HD telly (along with an excuse to buy one, of course).

The inclusion of iPlayer via the "interweb" into a Freesat decoder box will give this service a very real unique selling point and prevent Sky from dominating (and therefore overpricing) the market they have, until now, totally controlled.

Once a twin-tuner Freesat digital recorder becomes available I'll be dumping my Sky+ box, buying an HD telly and going to Freesat. I feel many people will do the same. Bring it on!

The situation with HD TV delivery options is not quite as bad as the BluRay HDDVD dilemma but is still a bit of a problem for we poor consumers. I receive terrestrial Freeview via a BT vision box (which I think is a Philips Hard Disk PVR) I had to upgrade my aerial, add a masthead amplifier and rewire the cable run from the aerial direct to the TV. Picture quality on all channels is great except in very wet weather when I may lose C4 and/or ITV. I think my BT box is HD compatible so I was looking forward to the eventual switch off of the analogue signal and getting HD and a higher strength signal. All I need to buy now is an HD TV to plug it into.

Recabling the aerial direct to the TV, because I had old coax through the house, means I have lost the TV sockets in the other rooms of the house. I need to invest in some means of delivering HD images to displays (computer or TV) in other rooms. This is a problem which many people in all but the most modern houses may face. Freesat doesn't help with this.

As I see it the freesat will solve, hopefully, the bad weather reception and allow me to get one or two channels of HD before everybody else when the analogue signal goes off. Depends a bit on the price but frankly I don't think a couple of years of this slight advantage is that attractive.

As thousands, millions (?) of people have already bought freeview set top boxes, and the're cheap as chips now, why not accelerate the switch over program.

I think TV over the internet is currently a pipe dream. The existing infrastructure will not support live picture quality even as good as the old analog traditional TV.

The Timesonline today is suggesting that Freesat indicates a failure of Freeview. Maybe, but I think there is a lot of Freeview consumers out there who won't want to throw their tuners and hard disc recorders away.

Mr_Fluffykins (±«Óãtv Employee) I'd describe advertising as something that helps drive the economy and reduces my costs with the help of bulk buying. Why is it the ±«Óãtv fans don’t like the idea of paying for the mighty ±«Óãtv by itself yet go in like it’s the gods gift to the human race!

Again Freesat and Freeeview aren’t free while the ±«Óãtv’s TV Licence exists

Thee sooner I can get the HD content my license is paying for the better. One box, one price, goodbye Sky, the extra channels in SD land are not worth watching.

If the EPG specifications for "freesat" were published early on with no royalties and a wide variety of established equipment manufacturers allowed to participate then it might have been a sucess. But of course the ±«Óãtv and ITV conspired with their commercial friends to ensure that only "licensed" kit makers could make receivers.

Sky will just put out a better package and convince Sheila Sofa and Freedy Football that they are better and freesat will quietly be shelved while Sky eventually mop up those with installed dishes from the failed service. I give is 18 months.

Shame really.

pgalbavy,

I declare my interest first of all as an employee of one of the launch manufacturers. I may be accused of bias but I do at least know the truth of the matter.

I know many people somehow feel wronged that their favourite manufacturer wasn't included in the first round of manufacturers. The specification is not actually secret, it is however restricted to manufacturers who have submitted proposals to make equipment which will be suitable for launch. As you may have noticed, with digital terrestrial television many products are produced very cheaply and this does not always benefit the consumer because they may well receive a substandard experience for the sake of a few pounds. freesat have set out to ensure a high quality box is produced which is fit for the future, if they had openly published the specification thousands of 'grey imports' would dilute the quality and reduce the long term effectiveness of the product. Aspects like iPlayer and other future internet technologies have been designed in from the beginning and because they are future technologies the work on them has been two way between freesat and the manufacturers.

More boxes will be available from more manufacturers after launch, but to get to launch was a great technical challenge for everyone involved and with the smaller base of manufacturers the development and testing has been smoother than it otherwise could have been. There would not have been the resources at freesat to support many more manufacturers and the truth is that some other manufacturers have already dropped out from the process (the difficulty could easily have been a contributing factor).

This is just the beginning, there is no conspiracy, just sensible project and resource management.

Bob

I have Sky+ with the family package at £21 a month. It is excellent, as I can record 2 progs at once or watch one channel whilst taping another or watch a recorded programme whilst recording another. There is also the ability to pause live TV, which I didn't realise I needed until I had it! Consequently, I am reluctant to give it up.

The lack of free HD is a nause though, so I think Freesat may just catch on; Sky wants too much money for HD. I may invest in a Freesat box and try it on one of the upstair TV's.

Despite the doom and gloom merchants' predictions, I reckon there's a future for this.

there are already sat receiver you may use internally or extrenally of a PC and you may use them for freesat and not only for as well as there are sat receiver (even) HD you may use for freesat and also for other satellite and all these solutions could be cheaper than official FREESAT receivers (see online sales), that indeed will be limited only to the "official" FREESAT EPG. Try to use a SKY box to receive a different satellite like Hotbird!! And what if tomorrow on THE SAME dish you have a third provider wanting to code the telecasting? You would need a third receiver while with an open receiver with commun interface you put a new cam module in and you buy an official subscripion and you avoid the extra box. So you have already all you need to receive the free channels by paying less and getting better products that are already on the market...

Open question:
Is the gap between the high monthly fee content provided via satellite and cable actually worth all the extra money - compared with the new Beeb offering and Freeview?

What do you think?


Jim Connolly

Point is, clappy, the overwhelming majority of TV viewers in the UK have no interest whatsoever in how sat tv works and what else you can do with it. Say 'cam module' to next door's granny and she'll probably throw up her hands at you.

Freesat is a marketable, easily understood proposition. You pay for it once, you have it set up once, and after that you switch it on and forget about it.

OK Christownsend, I take your point and I explain to the less technical people. Cam module is a small device ticker than a credit card that enable you to use a card to decode pay tv. EPG is the list of programs I pass to the receiver. Now that list can be chosen by the provider and can leave out some channels while if you buy a recever not linked to a specific platform (that can be cheaper than official FREESAT receivers!!) you receive anything that is available

Future freesat receivers will include a CI slot.

A few marketing tips :)

Everybody, well most men, loves football. ITV has the rights for half the Champions League games, and ±«Óãtv has the FA cup. Show all the games on HD, with the future 2010 World Cup and London Olympics thrown into the mix. That on its own should get a few sports mad customers.

It's a shame England didn't qualify for Euro 2008, that could have been a very good marketing point for the Freesat. Maybe the launch was meant to coincide with the Euro 2008???

As for me, I won't be getting it. I'm satisfied with Freeview, and I do not have HD capable TV set.

I keep hearing people say why freesat when sky do a freesat service? Well for me, I refuse to give rupert murdoch any of my money! On their service they take money at sign up for a viewing card, and then channels that are free on freeview are blocked, so for me this new freesat service is a superb idea and murdoch gets no money from me! I am moving to a new flat that has a satellite dish on the roof, and being new they have geared the tv viewing to satellite, so for me I shall be buying a freesat box as soon as I see them. I will not be in a cable area, and do not wish to pay for their tv, BT are a joke so do not wish to give them anything other than phone line rental, and the area I am moving to has a poor freeview signal! So well done to freesat, cos here I come!
Rob

Can anyone tell me the legality of not using a TV to receive TV signals but watching programmes using online services and whether a TV licence is still required?

Dont worry ±«Óãtv, I have a TV licence so dont send your heavies round. But as on demand services online are so much more useful to me than the daytime drivel i gbet beamed. Where would I stand if I chose to not recieve TV in the traditional way anymore.

Online and on demand services really are the way forward for standard definition at least. The ad breaks are either reduced or not there and thats a MAJOR plus!

The syncronised ad breaks on Sky drive me insane and sometimes watching the ±«Óãtv without ads is a real pleasure, The Apprentice once a week doesn't add up to much tho does it? (and i've watched a couple through iplayer)

I will not put money into Sky's pocket to further destroy sport.

I will not have a satelite dish which are ugly and should be banned (My TV arial is indoors).

I simply want terrestial HD TV on Freeview.

Are we to be the only country in the world which cannot watch the Olympic games in our own country on terrestial TV in HD ?

So much for the so called digital dividend.

What time scale do the ±«Óãtv and ITV envisage before more programmes are HD.
At the moment of course it is very limited.

"3. At 8:13pm on 06 May 2008, clickem wrote:

I'm sure there is lots of pent up demand for HD TV that doesn't require signing up to Sky or Virgin.

HD is too far off with Freeview, thanks OFCOM, plus there is the attraction, for those who can't get some of the channels on Freeview, such as ±«Óãtv4, of a more comprehensive channel line up.

Once the the pitfalls have been exposed by early adopters, such as rip-off dish installation scams and unreliable decoders, I will definitely be investing in the equipment."

Once the price drops to where even the low paid/retired person can afford a box/instalation our family may invest in it, currently the Freesay HD boxes are £100+ (in Argos at least) and that's one year on since your post clickem and my family have only just been able to use the Freeview box they have, after paying £60 for a change of aerial cables to the living room, so HD on any "free" service is a long way off...

@jeffersfrombrum65 (post #36) - the time scale would be something like when the ±«Óãtv and ITV are pay to view only services, much like Sky/Virgin, I would imagine.

Or perhaps at the moment it's very limited because a very limited number of people have actually invested in Freesat0 HD boxes/dishes due to the cost of them.

Around where I live the majority of households have Sky so there is no reason for them to sign up to Freesat.

Can any of you experts help someone who is TV technology inadequate? For 18 months I have had a 42" Panasonic plasma flatscreen together with the full Sky package costing £57 per month. Generally disappointed with a lot of the content and interested in FreeSat as an alternative. BUT - best things for me about Sky is (1) HD and (2) Sky Plus hard drive recorder with series link etc. Can this recorder be used with a FreeSat set up or do I have to start all over with a new dish, recorder etc? Any help gratefully received in simple language!

The dish is the same for Freesat and Sky, as is the cabling.

The Sky HD will only feature as a recorder if you pay sky a monthly fee, £10 per month. You can watch Free HD channels without paying this fee, but will not be able to record them.

Your alternative is to buy a new Humax Freesat HD recorder, which is approximately £300.

For the larger capital outlay you will gain ITV HD, in addition to C4 HD & ±«Óãtv HD.

Does it offer digital TV? Yes

Does it offer HDTV? Yes

Is it subscription free? Yes

Is national coverage better than Analogue and/or Freeview? Yes on both counts

Will it take off and be successful? See above 4 questions

39. At 1:13pm on 24 Feb 2009, techno007 wrote:


.....You can watch Free HD channels without paying this fee, but will not be able to record them.....


-------------------------------

There are TV's that will do direct TV recording no matter what the transmission they recieving. Although the file sizes are huge, I found Panasonic Plasma's with Direct TV Record to be the best for value. It's a shame that the "MASSIVE" 250GB HDD-Recorder is all of a sudden a "TINY" 250GB HDD-Recorder thanks to HDTV quality.

Hopefully there will be yet more options available to us in the near future. the more ways to record digital TV the better because right now it just isn't as simple as VHS was.