Are SKY 'Freeloading' Freeview?

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Are SKY 'Freeloading' Freeview?

1 | 2 | 3

9075 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2499

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#518911 9-Sep-2011 10:10

The fact that Sky have been pointing their boxs at FreeView muxs for relavent channels has been the case for quite sometime. I think you will find there was a bit of horse trading between Sky and TVNZ over the matter for Sky putting the HD feeds of TV1/2 up etc.

Cyril

tangerz

662 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 199

#519421 10-Sep-2011 23:42

cyril7: The fact that Sky have been pointing their boxs at FreeView muxs for relavent channels has been the case for quite sometime. I think you will find there was a bit of horse trading between Sky and TVNZ over the matter for Sky putting the HD feeds of TV1/2 up etc.

Cyril

Ahh... so it was just me not noticing. Thanks Cyril. Guess if TVNZ has had to haggle with Sky just to get the HD feeds up then we're probably s#@t out of luck to ever get them FTA....

graemeh: I don't see how Freeview could stop Sky using "their" signal though as it's free to air. It would be interesting to know if Sky pay TVNZ etc for their program listing info.

I'm pretty sure Sky could be stopped from using the signal if they didn't have the appropriate permissions. Yes it is free to air, for Joe Public, but not for a commercial entity like Sky to incorporate into their own package. If they were free to do as they pleased with it then why no C4 or TV3+1 on Sky? And why would Sky continue with it's own transmissions of TV2, TV3, Four or even Prime for that matter?

Anyways, no big deal. I only started this thread to see if there was much hope of getting the HD feeds for TV One, TV2 and TV3 via satellite.... short answer it seems.... NO!

speedywiz

42 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#519495 11-Sep-2011 10:56

Sky can freeload the Freeview channels in my opinion.

Am I correct in just realising that TV ONE, TV2, etc are broadcast in HD over DVB-T, but only broadcast in SD over satellite DVB-S!? Can't freeview afford to buy some DVB-S2 HD transponders and broadcast TV ONE, TV2 etc it in HD too? What if I was out in the country and couldn't get DVB-T, everyone here I'm sure knows at least a few friends and family that don't live within range of DVB-T.

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#519497 11-Sep-2011 11:18

speedywiz: Can't freeview afford to buy some DVB-S2 HD transponders and broadcast TV ONE, TV2 etc it in HD too??? What if I was out in the country and couldn't get DVB-T, everyone here I'm sure knows at least a few friends and family that don't live within range of DVB-T.

Comes down to cost/benefit. The cost of DVB-S2 bandwidth for the lower number of users on the Satellite platform isn't worth it. Not to mention the higher cost of DVB-S2 decoders etc etc.

Twitter: ajobbins

richms

29104 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10219

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#519581 11-Sep-2011 15:36

IMO suggesting that sky should be stopped from using the free signals is insane. They are free signals! There must be some payment happening to sky to allow the boxes to get the channels or something, otherwise we would have a C42 and 3+1 on sky as well.

To suggest that they should not be allowed to tune into them is as nuts as saying that car dealers etc should not be allowed to preset the radios in their cars they lease.

Richard rich.ms

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#519586 11-Sep-2011 15:44

speedywiz: Sky can freeload the Freeview channels in my opinion.

Am I correct in just realising that TV ONE, TV2, etc are broadcast in HD over DVB-T, but only broadcast in SD over satellite DVB-S!? Can't freeview afford to buy some DVB-S2 HD transponders and broadcast TV ONE, TV2 etc it in HD too? What if I was out in the country and couldn't get DVB-T, everyone here I'm sure knows at least a few friends and family that don't live within range of DVB-T.

87% of the country is within a DVB-T coverage area, with DVB-T being the primary broadcast platform, and DVB-S being infill and coverage for the other 13%. There was never any plans for HD over DVB-S, primararily due to the fact there is no cost benefit. There are also other issues such as a lack of capacity on Optus D1 for DVB-S2 MUX's, and the requirement for STB's that support this. If Freeview had gone for DVB-S2 from launch the cost of boxes would have been too high.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

tangerz

662 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 199

#519679 11-Sep-2011 20:21

sbiddle: 87% of the country is within a DVB-T coverage area, with DVB-T being the primary broadcast platform, and DVB-S being infill and coverage for the other 13%. There was never any plans for HD over DVB-S, primararily due to the fact there is no cost benefit. There are also other issues such as a lack of capacity on Optus D1 for DVB-S2 MUX's, and the requirement for STB's that support this. If Freeview had gone for DVB-S2 from launch the cost of boxes would have been too high.

Agree with you that cost was what gave us the situation as we have it and that's fine. The whole country can get decent reception no matter where you live, (albeit SD only for some). For me it's just that for a while now we HAVE had HD satellite feeds of TV One, TV2 and TV3 being beamed down over us... only we can't access them as Sky encrypt them. There need be no more cost to anyone or problems of capacity etc. All it would take is for Sky to flick the encryption to OFF! Then, everyone and anyone who wants HD can get it.

speedywiz: What if I was out in the country and couldn't get DVB-T, everyone here I'm sure knows at least a few friends and family that don't live within range of DVB-T.

My situation exactly. I live JUST out of range of DVB-T.

richms: IMO suggesting that sky should be stopped from using the free signals is insane. They are free signals! There must be some payment happening to sky to allow the boxes to get the channels or something, otherwise we would have a C42 and 3+1 on sky as well.

To suggest that they should not be allowed to tune into them is as nuts as saying that car dealers etc should not be allowed to preset the radios in their cars they lease.

I was never suggesting that Sky SHOULD be stopped from using the signals, (it only makes sense that they do!) only that Freeview should get something out of it... like unencrypted HD satellite feeds

richms

29104 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10219

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#519690 11-Sep-2011 21:00

IMO its best to leave it exactly as it is now since they had the decision to launch freeview with the outdated MPEG2 SD service.

If they were to now launch a new service in addition to the low res SD stuff, it would just lead to more confusion among the already confused and mislead general public.

After ASO and another year or 3 then perhaps it would be time to start thinking of a HD sat service, if there isnt already no need for it with hopefully other distribution being viable.

Richard rich.ms

DjShadow

4222 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1322

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#519698 11-Sep-2011 21:27

I think it makes perfect sense to keep channel duplication on Optus D1 to a minimum. I believe all Transponders on Optus D1 are now allocated? Also perfect sense from sky to piggy back off freeview as mentioned earlier they provide better pic qual and frees up room for Sky to introduce some more channels

speedywiz

42 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#519740 12-Sep-2011 01:13

ajobbins: Not to mention the higher cost of DVB-S2 decoders etc etc.

DVB-S2 set-top box is $63, you are shopping at the wrong places :)

speedywiz

42 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#519741 12-Sep-2011 01:21

ajobbins: The cost of DVB-S2 bandwidth for the lower number of users on the Satellite platform isn't worth it. .

But TV ONE HD, TV2 HD, TV3 HD are already beamed down on us already via DVB-S2, just en-encrypt them, geez. I guess that gives people out in the country a major reason to buy and subscribe to sky, well done sky, one step ahead of TVNZ as usual.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

speedywiz

42 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#519742 12-Sep-2011 01:30

FOUR and Prime are also beamed down to us twice.. once in Freeview and once Encrypted.

richms

29104 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10219

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#519743 12-Sep-2011 01:58

speedywiz:
ajobbins: The cost of DVB-S2 bandwidth for the lower number of users on the Satellite platform isn't worth it. .

But TV ONE HD, TV2 HD, TV3 HD are already beamed down on us already via DVB-S2, just en-encrypt them, geez. I guess that gives people out in the country a major reason to buy and subscribe to sky, well done sky, one step ahead of TVNZ as usual.

Perhaps TVNZ and mediaworks dont want to compensate sky for their investment in the HD uplink gear?

I am sure that TVNZ and mediaworks have done the sums, and the added costs of paying for a second uplink in HD is not worth it for their customers, as people are just as likly to buy advertising SD or HD for the minority of the population outside the main centres.

Hell, if viewers gave a crap about quality then there wouldnt be the need for all this damn advertising of digital.

Richard rich.ms