FREESAT LAUNCHES THIS SPRING

[Anonymous]

I don't think fitting the equipment will be a problem. A lot of Sky dishes are put up by independent aerial contractors. I expect they will like the business, seeing as so many people have sky already these days.

 

[Anonymous]

It is my understanding that sadly Freesat have managed to put most independant retailers nose out of joint by only allowing certain specified retailers to sell the Freesat equipment. These retailers will have their own in house or pet installers.

Although the independent aerial contractors will be able to sell and set up the dishes (Which are standard satellite equipment) they will not be able to supply the Freesat boxes for the first 6 months after the launch date. This means that consumers will either have to use the retailers installers, or purchace their boxes from one company and get another company to install the dish. I am not even sure if the independent installer would even be allowed to configure the equipment for the customer once installed. (Perhaps someone could shed some light on this?)

 

[laserman16]

[quote user="Call Me Confused"]It is my understanding that sadly Freesat have managed to put most independant retailers nose out of joint by only allowing certain specified retailers to sell the Freesat equipment. These retailers will have their own in house or pet installers.

Although the independent aerial contractors will be able to sell and set up the dishes (Which are standard satellite equipment) they will not be able to supply the Freesat boxes for the first 6 months after the launch date. This means that consumers will either have to use the retailers installers, or purchace their boxes from one company and get another company to install the dish. I am not even sure if the independent installer would even be allowed to configure the equipment for the customer once installed. (Perhaps someone could shed some light on this?)[/quote]
I see no problem in putting my own dish up and you used to be able to buy an electronic gizmo for lining these things up.

 

[Anonymous]

That seems a stupid decision. When you are trying to grow, why limit the number of suppliers?

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="Very Annoyed"]
That seems a stupid decision. When you are trying to grow, why limit the number of suppliers?
[/quote]

I don't understand Freesats logic either.

 

[laserman16]

[quote user="Call Me Confused"][quote user="Very Annoyed"]
That seems a stupid decision. When you are trying to grow, why limit the number of suppliers?
[/quote]

I don't understand Freesats logic either.[/quote]
Of course, what makes it worse is if consumers play Freesats game for them.Whatever happened to a free market economy.

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="Very Annoyed"]
That seems a stupid decision. When you are trying to grow, why limit the number of suppliers?
[/quote]

Makes perfect sense to me. By limiting the number of box manufacturers and installers you are able to control the quality of the boxes and installations and also the information given to potential customers by outlets.

In the first six months they will be testing both the service and the customer service before letting it be a free-for-all. After a low-key first six months of service using early adopters, tweaking firmware, improving installation etc., it can be unleashed.

Very sensible approach, but poorly communicated to the trade. The communication is not only poor to the trade, it is also poor to the home entertainment industry and the public. It really doesn't take much to keep a website updated, does it.

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="Eddiewood"][quote user="Very Annoyed"]

That seems a stupid decision. When you are trying to grow, why limit the number of suppliers?
[/quote] Makes perfect sense to me. By limiting the number of box manufacturers and installers you are able to control the quality of the boxes and installations and also the information given to potential customers by outlets.

In the first six months they will be testing both the service and the customer service before letting it be a free-for-all. After a low-key first six months of service using early adopters, tweaking firmware, improving installation etc., it can be unleashed.
Very sensible approach, but poorly communicated to the trade. The communication is not only poor to the trade, it is also poor to the home entertainment industry and the public. It really doesn't take much to keep a website updated, does it.[/quote]

Not when Sky has had this market sewn up for the last 15 years. They have a lot of catching up to do, so why piss off many retailers right at the start? It is an open invitation for the retailers who are frozen out to bad mouth the service, simply because they can't supply it.

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="Very Annoyed"][quote user="Eddiewood"][quote user="Very Annoyed"]

That seems a stupid decision. When you are trying to grow, why limit the number of suppliers?
[/quote] Makes perfect sense to me. By limiting the number of box manufacturers and installers you are able to control the quality of the boxes and installations and also the information given to potential customers by outlets.

In the first six months they will be testing both the service and the customer service before letting it be a free-for-all. After a low-key first six months of service using early adopters, tweaking firmware, improving installation etc., it can be unleashed.
Very sensible approach, but poorly communicated to the trade. The communication is not only poor to the trade, it is also poor to the home entertainment industry and the public. It really doesn't take much to keep a website updated, does it.[/quote]

Not when Sky has had this market sewn up for the last 15 years. They have a lot of catching up to do, so why piss off many retailers right at the start? It is an open invitation for the retailers who are frozen out to bad mouth the service, simply because they can't supply it.
[/quote]

I agree with both sentiments, Eddiewood makes some valid points here.

I'm not overly impressed with Freesats marketing department, I think that Freesat are in danger of pissing off many retailers, and judging by the comments in blogs like this, they are already ruffling more than a few of their potential customers feathers.

I just hope that they are listening. Don't get me wrong - I really want to them to succeed, but the silence gives me a sense of impending doom.

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="Very Annoyed"][quote user="Eddiewood"][quote user="Very Annoyed"]

That seems a stupid decision. When you are trying to grow, why limit the number of suppliers?
[/quote] Makes perfect sense to me. By limiting the number of box manufacturers and installers you are able to control the quality of the boxes and installations and also the information given to potential customers by outlets.

In the first six months they will be testing both the service and the customer service before letting it be a free-for-all. After a low-key first six months of service using early adopters, tweaking firmware, improving installation etc., it can be unleashed.
Very sensible approach, but poorly communicated to the trade. The communication is not only poor to the trade, it is also poor to the home entertainment industry and the public. It really doesn't take much to keep a website updated, does it.[/quote]

Not when Sky has had this market sewn up for the last 15 years. They have a lot of catching up to do, so why piss off many retailers right at the start? It is an open invitation for the retailers who are frozen out to bad mouth the service, simply because they can't supply it.
[/quote]

I did say that it has been poorly communicated, you appear to be confusing the technical roll-out issues with the publicity issues. I suspect that the people responsible for deciding on the phased roll-out did so a long time ago and have no involvement in the PR mess.

However, the bad PR doesn't change the fact that it is a very sensible way of controlling a roll-out of this scale and complexity. Bringing together box manufacturers, retailers and broadcasters is a huge task and you would want very strict guidelines on what the deliverables are and who needs to achieve them.

I don't quite understand why people see freesat as competition to Sky. If you don't want to pay to receive satellite, you can buy a receiver now and have been able to do so for as long as I can remember (even a HD one). The only benefit of freesat is the EPG for PVR use, the market for a PVR on satellite will be negligible and if Sky drop the recording charge, it will be practically non-existent. Most of the country will receive Freeview and aren't bothered about paying for a freesat PVR, it's only geeks like us.