Is freesat going all betamax on us?

[admin_exported]

Like many others, I bought into freesat on the back of the the excellent kit available and the promise of superior picture quality - not least through the increasing number of HD channels that would be coming our way sometime soon...

Almost one year down the line we are still stuck with the one HD channel (ok call it one and a half if you include the occasional offering from ITV) on which the quality is getting worse - BBC slashes bit rate thread - and the news that we now cannot get C4HD although they are out of contract with Sky because there is no room.

So if freesat is crippled by a lack of satellite space to transmit any more channels in HD unless they reduce the quality of HD to near SD, the point of freesat is?

Yours slightly peeved (although the foxsat hdr is actually quite good)

 

[John Duncan]

The point of freesat is a statutory obligation on the part of the terrestrial broadcasters with a PSR to provide digital television to all of the population by 2011 or whenever the analogue switch-off is. They can't do that with Freeview alone. So the fact that you happen to get some HD out of it is a bonus, not the raison d'ˆtre.

 

[Anonymous]

Indeed John but the main thrust of their pitch was, and still is, free to air HD which we are now told is hamstrung in terms of quality and choice by inherent constraints of the platform which they must have known about from the start. That's not too say i'm not impressed with some of the output on BBC HD - the Proms looks and sounds especially stunning and switching between BBC2 and BBC HD only reaffirms what a step up it is. However, the platform has hit an HD dead end if it cannot physically transmit anymore HD content without reducing quality.

 

[Andy Clough]

John makes a valid point. I've just had to buy a Humax Foxsat HD Freesat set-top box for my parents, as it's the only way they can get digital TV in their village (there's no Freeview coverage there, as I discovered when installing a new TV this weekend).

I got frustrated watching just four fuzzy analogue channels on their old TV, so popped out and bought a new Freeview set - only to discover it too could only pick up four analogue channels via the rooftop aerial. So Freesat does the job of "filling in the gaps" where Freeview coverage doesn't exist.

Yes, more HD content would be an added bonus, so it will be interesting to see how Freesat HD develops. Thanks for the links Bilbo, I'll keep an eye on the C4 situation.

 

[Anonymous]

Cheers Andy

I have a similar sitaution with my parents as they will have to go down the freesat route as although the analogue reception is actually ok they can't get any reception on freeview even if the aerial was upgraded.

 

[daveh75]

The "There's no room" line channel4 keeps taking isn't strictly true.If it was financially viable for 4HD to be broadcast FTA on Astra2d it would/could be there. I think "we dont have/or dont want to spend the cash" would be a fairer statement to make.

 

[Anonymous]

Stop me if I'm wrong here, but freesat is broadcast from the same satellite position as sky? therefore the solution is to

a) move the freakin satellite to give more bandwidth to both services, or

b) unlock channels already broadcast by sky, make them free to air thus channels aren't being double-broadcast hogging unnessecary bandwidth.

 

[chebby]

Get rid of all those non-stations like all the '+1' duplicates.

If you want to watch a programme an hour later then record it.

Dump Dave and Dave Ja Vu and Yesterday and all the rubbish repeat stations that only show the same 5 TG's or QI's over and over and......

Replace them all with a decent history channel that actually does history and not 15 year old Antique Roadshows!

Get rid of stations that only air TV gambling. Plenty enough of that online to satisfy anyone.

Quit QVC. (What the ____ is diamonetique anyway and why would anyone want to buy it let alone watch people buying it?!!)

Make the 24x7 rolling news channels all share one channel. It is all the same news and all comes from the same few agencies.

Dump BBC Parliament. Anyone that obessed with a few old men discussing the... "Use of creosote on a Sunday" bill (second reading) can subscribe to Hansard.

 

[daveh75]

unconditional: Stop me if I'm wrong here, but freesat is broadcast from the same satellite position as sky? Just to be clear, "freesat" isn't a broadcaster as it doesn't broadcast anything. Freesat is merely a EPG/platform provider as is Sky in this instance,although Sky obviously is also a broadcaster as it does broadcast it's own channel's/programming aswell.

Channels for both provider's are transmitted via a cluster of satellite's, namely Astra 2a,2b,2d located at 28.2 degrees east and also Eurobird 1 located at 28.5 degrees east.unconditional: a) move the freakin satellite to give more bandwidth to both services,Not sure what you mean by this! move what satellites where,and how will this increase bandwidth?unconditional: b) unlock channels already broadcast by sky, make them free to air thus channels aren't being double-broadcast hogging unnessecary bandwidth.Not really sure what you mean by this either! Broadcaster's don't double-broadcast.Freesat and Sky are receiving the same signal's/transmission's with a few exceptions,channel five for example broadcasts regional FTV variations only available to Sky and one FTA version for freesat but as i said this the exception rather than the norm.

 

[Anonymous]

daveh75:
Not really sure what you mean by this either! Broadcaster's don't double-broadcast.Freesat and Sky are receiving the same signal's/transmission's with a few exceptions,channel five for example broadcasts regional FTV variations only available to Sky and one FTA version for freesat but as i said this the exception rather than the norm.

then how can C4HD "not have the bandwidth", given it's already on sky so already there?

 

[daveh75]

unconditional:daveh75:
Not really sure what you mean by this either! Broadcaster's don't double-broadcast.Freesat and Sky are receiving the same signal's/transmission's with a few exceptions,channel five for example broadcasts regional FTV variations only available to Sky and one FTA version for freesat but as i said this the exception rather than the norm.

then how can C4HD "not have the bandwidth", given it's already on sky so already there?

The short answer is 4HD is currently being transmitted FTV(encrypted but free) via a transponder on Astra 2a,so requires either a freesat from sky(FSFS) card or even an expired subscription card to view it.

To be available on freesat it has to be transmitted un-encrypted(FTA) and ideally move to astra 2d.because if they were to go fully FTA on their current transponder they would fall fowl of copyright's holders and need hugely expensive pan-european broadcasting right's amongst other things.

 

[Ravey Gravey Davy]

chebby:

Get rid of all those non-stations like all the '+1' duplicates.

If you want to watch a programme an hour later then record it.

Dump Dave and Dave Ja Vu and Yesterday and all the rubbish repeat stations that only show the same 5 TG's or QI's over and over and......

Replace them all with a decent history channel that actually does history and not 15 year old Antique Roadshows!

Get rid of stations that only air TV gambling. Plenty enough of that online to satisfy anyone.

Quit QVC. (What the ____ is diamonetique anyway and why would anyone want to buy it let alone watch people buying it?!!)

Make the 24x7 rolling news channels all share one channel. It is all the same news and all comes from the same few agencies.

Dump BBC Parliament. Anyone that obessed with a few old men discussing the... "Use of creosote on a Sunday" bill (second reading) can subscribe to Hansard.

Merge all right wing papers together under one roof,ditto the middle and left wing,save paper-

Let all news channels broadcast the same political viewpoint -oh and

"Dump BBC Parliament. Anyone that obessed with a few old men discussing the... "Use of creosote on a Sunday" bill (second reading) can subscribe to Hansard".

Mmmm.

 

[laserman16]

JohnDuncan:The point of freesat is a statutory obligation on the part of the terrestrial broadcasters with a PSR to provide digital television to all of the population by 2011 or whenever the analogue switch-off is. They can't do that with Freeview alone. So the fact that you happen to get some HD out of it is a bonus, not the raison d'ˆtre.

Yet if you go to Freesats home page there is great play made of HD broadcasts, in fact more than the SD side of things.

BTW welcome back John, hope you had a good holiday.

 

[Big Aura]

laserman16:

JohnDuncan:The point of freesat is a statutory obligation on the part of the terrestrial broadcasters with a PSR to provide digital television to all of the population by 2011 or whenever the analogue switch-off is. They can't do that with Freeview alone. So the fact that you happen to get some HD out of it is a bonus, not the raison d'ˆtre.

Yet if you go to Freesats home page there is great play made of HD broadcasts, in fact more than the SD side of things.

Couldn't agree more. I bought into Freesat mostly on the basis that it had promise of HD without a monthly contract. BBC has been good, and improved, but a transcient ITV and a lack of C4 since its unshackling by Sky is a bit of a joke.

 

[Alec]

Quite, Mr...er...Davey...

 

[sonycentre]

I think freesat will die a bad death.freeview hd will launch in oct 2010,and if you sum it up sky hd works out cheaper then freesat.freesat £280 for a pvr then £80 install fee for 1 and a half hd channels.sky hd £49 free install £30 min sub.then after a year cancal sub with sky and you still get more free hd content then freesat.bbc hd,itv hd c4 hd,luxe hd.then sky news hd,five hd says it all really.just my thoughts but we invest in all this great tech then skimp on content and cables.

 

[simonlewis]

I certainly hope not & i certainly won't be subscribing to sky however many HD channels they've got, the reason i got freesat is like it's title it's FREE, i'm hoping their will be more HD channels by next year 2010, but we'll have to wait & see.

 

[simonlewis]

Oh by the way i can also get the luxe channel on my panny PZ81 tv.

 

[matthewpiano]

I'm not sure. There will certainly need to be a lot more manufacturer support for Freesat if it is going to survive long term, and with plans for Freeview HD taking root, the Freesat contingent must be getting a little concerned. Ultimately it depends whether Freeview coverage becomes more complete as signals are strengthened during switchover.

One of these free providers is going to have to succeed. The problem with Sky is that it is a big investment to make every month. Even those who subscribe to more basic Sky packages are often reluctant, or unable, to pay the extra for HD. I currently pay £18 per months for the bits of Sky that we actually watch (and quite a lot we don't) and there is no way I'd be prepared to pay for the extra channels AND the £10 a month surcharge to make having Sky HD worthwhile.

 

[daveh75]

slewis:Oh by the way i can also get the luxe channel on my panny PZ81 tv.Yes,in "other sat" mode or whatever it's called.But you wont be able to watch it in freesat mode.

 

[bluenose]

I hope it improves, I got the non-freesat-logo'ed Fortec Star kit from maplins in the hope of more HD content. ITV's efforts are a joke, at least the beeb is always running something. Freeview is no use to me, I live in a disused quarry with lousy reception and I pay more than enough to Sky without shelling out extra for HD. oh, and I dont think the quality difference is as great as they bang on about, better yes but..

 

[6th.replicant]

Phew! Glad I read this thread - thanks for insight, folks.

Was considering a Humax Foxsat-HDR as a swap/return for a Pioneer BDP-320 (which is not compatible with my 18-month-old non-24fps HD Ready TV).

Hell, next I'll get a fax from my Nigerian web-based recruitment agency saying that my new job at Lehman Bros doesn't include a parking slot for my Ssangyong Rodius.

 

[sonycentre]

MMMMMMMMM,just read something scary about freesat,might just be hearsay,lg and panasonic are apparently re-thinking about the postion in the freesat market.Itv have made huge losses due to falling advertizing revenues,and are looking at cutting more costs.2010 we will be paying an extra £5.00 a month on our tv licence to subserdise itv loss.3 other tv mana****taers are including freeview hd in next years models,and this could pose a threat to freesat.looks like theay will just keep the 1 and a half channels they have.And also looks like sky may have upset them with it now commen place that people can recive itv hd through the new epg guide.even though sky have no control over this.so itv hd is not exclusive through just freesat.i cannot say where i read this.but i sat in amazement.looks like there are bigger and better things in the pipeline.

 

[matthewpiano]

Sorry but without providing some sort of source for this information you are simply sharing speculation and, even though Sony don't currently support Freesat, I don't think speculation about the unpredictable nature of TV broadcasting does the industry any favours at all.

 

[laserman16]

Yeah we could do with some meat to the bones by you revealing the source of this rumour, or else it remains an unsubstantiated rumour which as Matthew points out does nobody any favours.