Are SKY 'Freeloading' Freeview?

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

tangerz

662 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 199

#89816 8-Sep-2011 15:30

Just re-scanned my satellite decoder today after a firmware update and noticed something very interesting.... SKY appear to be using the Freeview TPs to deliver certain channels in their package!

I only noticed when looking for SKY's TV One SD feed on 12671 Mhz... wait a moment, it's no longer there! So, I scanned all the SKY TPs and guess what! It ain't on any of them!!! On further investigation, I noticed other channels not carried on any SKY TPs... Maori TV, U, TVNZ 7... Te Reo, CUE, Stratos... Parliament TV, Shine and I'm assuming all the TV One regional feeds.

Now where do you suppose SKY manages to get those channels if it ain't carrying them on their own TPs? That's right! Looks like they're 'Freeloading' them from Freeview.... THEIVING BAS#A&DS!

Checked the signal test page of MySky HDi: Stratos, Parliament TV, CUE, Te Reo and Shine appear to be coming on the same TP, (I'm assuming 12456MHz), indicated as 'TS 21' by MySky decoder. Maori, U and TVNZ 7 appear to be coming on the same TP, (assuming 12483MHz), indicated as 'TS 22' by MySky decoder. Couldn't test TV One as the HDi gets the HD signal from 12358MHz, but with no SD TV One feed of their own I can only assume their SD boxes grab that as well....

If they can do that, then they should have to broadcast their TV One, TV2 and TV3 HD feeds FTA!!

Is this really what's going on??

Am I missing something??

Did anyone know this was happening?

Or am I just the last to realize it?

Thoughts???

1 | 2 | 3

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#518627 8-Sep-2011 15:41

What about heartland TV, which is broadcasting old NZ programs that were paid for by NZ taxpayers through the broadcasting fee, but you have to be a sky subscriber to watch them. I guess sky are paying tvnz something for broadcasting them, but they should be available to all NZers to watch at least ondemand. I just wish that the pay tv market was deregulated to bring in more competition and lower the very high pricing. Maybe there will be a netflix service soon when the ultrafast broadband is rolled out more.

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#518632 8-Sep-2011 15:45

Not sure I would call it freeloading by Sky. It's quite a good idea. Why run two feeds of the same thing, at additional cost. The signal is there, it's free and the end user benefits, so why not?

The freeview feeds have a higher bitrate that what Sky did, so the picture is better. It also means more space on the TS which can be used for other content, rather that broadcasting the same stuff twice.

Twitter: ajobbins

davidcole

6099 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1465

Trusted

#518639 8-Sep-2011 15:49

ajobbins: Not sure I would call it freeloading by Sky. It's quite a good idea. Why run two feeds of the same thing, at additional cost. The signal is there, it's free and the end user benefits, so why not?

The freeview feeds have a higher bitrate that what Sky did, so the picture is better. It also means more space on the TS which can be used for other content, rather that broadcasting the same stuff twice.

Because sky are then exclusively running some TVNZ channels as encrypted, where if they're sharing the transponder they should be transmitting in the clear.

Previously known as psycik

Home Assistant: Gigabyte AMD A8 Brix, Home Assistant with Aeotech ZWave Controller, Raspberry PI, Wemos D1 Mini, Zwave, Shelly Humidity and Temperature sensors
Media:Chromecast v2, ATV4 4k, ATV4, HDHomeRun Dual
Server Host Plex Server 3x3TB, 4x4TB using MergerFS, Samsung 850 evo 512 GB SSD, Proxmox Server with 1xW10, 2xUbuntu 22.04 LTS, Backblaze Backups, usenetprime.com fastmail.com Sharesies Trakt.TV Sharesight

tangerz

662 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 199

#518644 8-Sep-2011 15:51

ajobbins: Not sure I would call it freeloading by Sky. It's quite a good idea. Why run two feeds of the same thing, at additional cost. The signal is there, it's free and the end user benefits, so why not?

The freeview feeds have a higher bitrate that what Sky did, so the picture is better. It also means more space on the TS which can be used for other content, rather that broadcasting the same stuff twice.

Yeah I hear what you're saying. It does make sense. But who pays for the TPs Freeview is on?? And then SKY has the audacity to sell it back to you as part of their basic package??

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#518650 8-Sep-2011 15:57

tangerz:
ajobbins: Not sure I would call it freeloading by Sky. It's quite a good idea. Why run two feeds of the same thing, at additional cost. The signal is there, it's free and the end user benefits, so why not?

The freeview feeds have a higher bitrate that what Sky did, so the picture is better. It also means more space on the TS which can be used for other content, rather that broadcasting the same stuff twice.

Yeah I hear what you're saying. It does make sense. But who pays for the TPs Freeview is on?? And then SKY has the audacity to sell it back to you as part of their basic package??

Arguably, you aren't paying for it in the basic package anyway, more you are paying for all the other channels in the package.

The cost of the Freeview TP is a sunk cost, if there was a marginal cost per user than this would be a different story. Regardless, I am quite sure that Sky have the OK to do this from the FTA provider and is probably part of the agreement to also transmit Prime on the Freeview platform.

Psycik, do you mean the HD feeds?

Twitter: ajobbins

davidcole

6099 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1465

Trusted

#518651 8-Sep-2011 15:59

ajobbins:
tangerz:
ajobbins: Not sure I would call it freeloading by Sky. It's quite a good idea. Why run two feeds of the same thing, at additional cost. The signal is there, it's free and the end user benefits, so why not?

The freeview feeds have a higher bitrate that what Sky did, so the picture is better. It also means more space on the TS which can be used for other content, rather that broadcasting the same stuff twice.

Yeah I hear what you're saying. It does make sense. But who pays for the TPs Freeview is on?? And then SKY has the audacity to sell it back to you as part of their basic package??

Arguably, you aren't paying for it in the basic package anyway, more you are paying for all the other channels in the package.

The cost of the Freeview TP is a sunk cost, if there was a marginal cost per user than this would be a different story. Regardless, I am quite sure that Sky have the OK to do this from the FTA provider and is probably part of the agreement to also transmit Prime on the Freeview platform.

Psycik, do you mean the HD feeds?

No, was more thinking of things like kidzone.

But also agree with tangerz, that you're effectively paying for free content. How many people didn't drop sky when freeview came out and only watch "regular" tv?

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#518655 8-Sep-2011 16:06

davidcole:
No, was more thinking of things like kidzone.

But also agree with tangerz, that you're effectively paying for free content. How many people didn't drop sky when freeview came out and only watch "regular" tv?

So Kidzone is a TVNZ channel, but only available to Sky subscribers? /confused

If people don't drop Sky in favour of Freeview when they only watch the FTA channels, then that is their own fault (Stupidity?). Freeview could address this as part of their marketing.

Regardless, which transponder Sky use for FTA feeds doesn't change the fact some people may be paying Sky for FTA content only. It just means Sky's costs are lower

Twitter: ajobbins

davidcole

6099 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1465

Trusted

#518659 8-Sep-2011 16:13

Yeah I agree about then their own stupid fault if they stay on sky just for fta.

Yes kidsone is a tvnz channel that is exclusively broadcast on the sky platform. You could argue this is at tvnz's bidding. But considering most if it was funded by taxpayers ( in the form of NZ on air) I thinking should be broadcast in the clear

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#518660 8-Sep-2011 16:17

Assumably Sky pay TVNZ broadcasting rights, who would probably argue that that money is reinvested back into FTA content

Twitter: ajobbins

graemeh

2080 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 226

#518670 8-Sep-2011 16:34

How are they "freeloading"? They are just tuning into a free to air signal, just like they did when they had a UHF network.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#518707 8-Sep-2011 17:57

mattwnz: I just wish that the pay tv market was deregulated to bring in more competition and lower the very high pricing.

Do you mean regulated or deregulated? There is no regulation of the Pay TV market now so I'm not quite sure what could be changed. Anybody who wants to can start up a Pat YV network.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

tangerz

662 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 199

#518752 8-Sep-2011 20:08

graemeh: How are they "freeloading"? They are just tuning into a free to air signal, just like they did when they had a UHF network.

Not quite sure what you mean here... SKY didn't re-broadcast other channels via UHF?!? They did tune their decoders to other channels that were available FTA but it was clear to everyone you were only ever paying for the SKY part, (sport, movies etc.), not the FTA channels..... actually sounds kinda like what I'm talking about here, just on satellite... hang on... theres a point here somewhere.... I think...

Basically I see it like this:

1 - Freeview consortium has to BUY satellite bandwidth (TPs) to transmit Freeview channels... Cost for Freeview.
2 - Sky previously was using it's own bandwidth to transmit these channels. Now, (and I'm assuming they must have Freeview's OK), they make a few setting changes in their decoders and voila! No more need to pay for bandwidth to transmit those channels... Cost saving for Sky, (but granted, no more cost for Freeview).
3 - Sky continue to charge the same for their basic package... More profit for Sky, nothing for Freeview!

Now, I keep hearing from Freeview that the biggest reason they can't give us Freeview Satellite in HD is because it would cost too much. It seems to me Freeview could at least get TV One, TV2 and TV3 in HD if part of allowing Sky to use their signal was to unencrypt their HD feeds for those channels, just like what they made Trackside do to get on Freeview HD, (unencrypt the satellite feed).

Surely Freeview could at least get that out of them?!?

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#518768 8-Sep-2011 20:40

sbiddle:
mattwnz:?I just wish that the pay tv market was deregulated to bring in more competition and lower the very high pricing.

Do you mean regulated or deregulated? There is no regulation of the Pay TV market now so I'm not quite sure what could be changed. Anybody who wants to can start up a Pat YV network.

Yes I meant regulated.

Byrned

455 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 27

#518904 9-Sep-2011 09:58

Storm meet teacup, teacup meet storm

graemeh

2080 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 226

#518906 9-Sep-2011 09:58

tangerz:
graemeh: How are they "freeloading"? They are just tuning into a free to air signal, just like they did when they had a UHF network.

Not quite sure what you mean here... SKY didn't re-broadcast other channels via UHF?!? They did tune their decoders to other channels that were available FTA but it was clear to everyone you were only ever paying for the SKY part, (sport, movies etc.), not the FTA channels..... actually sounds kinda like what I'm talking about here, just on satellite... hang on... theres a point here somewhere.... I think...

Basically I see it like this:

1 - Freeview consortium has to BUY satellite bandwidth (TPs) to transmit Freeview channels... Cost for Freeview.
2 - Sky previously was using it's own bandwidth to transmit these channels. Now, (and I'm assuming they must have Freeview's OK), they make a few setting changes in their decoders and voila! No more need to pay for bandwidth to transmit those channels... Cost saving for Sky, (but granted, no more cost for Freeview).
3 - Sky continue to charge the same for their basic package... More profit for Sky, nothing for Freeview!

Now, I keep hearing from Freeview that the biggest reason they can't give us Freeview Satellite in HD is because it would cost too much. It seems to me Freeview could at least get TV One, TV2 and TV3 in HD if part of allowing Sky to use their signal was to unencrypt their HD feeds for those channels, just like what they made Trackside do to get on Freeview HD, (unencrypt the satellite feed).

Surely Freeview could at least get that out of them?!?

Exactly, Sky did not rebroadcast FTA via UHF, their box tuned in to the existing signals in exactly the same way their satellite box seems to tune in to the FTA Freeview signal.

I agree it would be good if Freeview and Sky had an agreement to share the HD signal too but I doubt that Sky would ever agree to that.

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.

1 | 2 | 3