I am coming from the point that if it was not for HD on freeview; I would personally not have my box now as it is a pain in the backside that I have to switch between digital and anolgue to get the full range of channels (my wife just uses anolgue because of this as she watches prime and triangle)and don't believe the extra channels added are worth the cost. If I feel like that then how many others do and arn't going to take up freeview in the first place?

When anolgue is turned off then I am betting in the current enviroment that more people would take up an offer of a SKY package of just the FTA channels (which they could offer more of) with a smaller initial cost and a very low monthly cost (if any) than go to Freeview (I know I would if they offered a carrot like including BBC World in there as well which is already FTA), and then they would be truely competing with SKY. Getting as many people on to their platform as they can will only enhance their future propects and as a private company they understand this. Face it offering this package will not cost them anything extra except the install costs and when you have their package they will have the chance to offer extra services like pay per view movies and sport; they would be crazy not to do it! Think of what sort of market share they could control if not regulated.

If you believe that they are not competitors then that is your view; but I would be very interested to hear what Freeview itself had to say if this point of view was put to them? I think they are quietly already worried about it and will be lobbying the government to regulate against it.

I think this situation is playing into SKY's hands very nicely!

As a recent news article stated, Sky can win...but not convincingly otherwise the word monopoly starts to apply and then what happens?

p.s. I will never pay for TV...that is my religion. Aside from Tax subsidies of course and I suspect the current 50+% of people not using Sky have a good reason for not having Sky. Sky will not drop the price of a sub or release a new cheaper service as this will cut their own revenue.

cheers

db

I think in many ways you could already argue that SKY was a monopoly. However the most recent article I read said that the current government has decided not to review this:

http://www.dtvforum.co.nz/forum/showthread.php?t=997

How would my suggestion cut SKY's revenue? Offering a package of the free to air channels on their platform (including Prime) is what everyone already has - but still 50% believe this is not enough and will still opt for the pay channels as they currently do; nothing changes. What it will do as I stated; it will give SKY the chance to offer exta services like pay per veiw sports and movies to those who don't want a bigger package. This would give them a chance to increase their revenue not decrease it.

I agree with you I do not want to pay for my TV; besides I don't watch enough of it to justify it.

benneg: I think in many ways you could already argue that SKY was a monopoly. However the most recent article I read said that the current government has decided not to review this:

http://www.dtvforum.co.nz/forum/showthread.php?t=997

How would my suggestion cut SKY's revenue? Offering a package of the free to air channels on their platform (including Prime) is what everyone already has - but still 50% believe this is not enough and will still opt for the pay channels as they currently do; nothing changes. What it will do as I stated; it will give SKY the chance to offer exta services like pay per veiw sports and movies to those who don't want a bigger package. This would give them a chance to increase their revenue not decrease it.

I agree with you I do not want to pay for my TV; besides I don't watch enough of it to justify it.

browned:

benneg: I think in many ways you could already argue that SKY was a monopoly. However the most recent article I read said that the current government has decided not to review this:

http://www.dtvforum.co.nz/forum/showthread.php?t=997

How would my suggestion cut SKY's revenue? Offering a package of the free to air channels on their platform (including Prime) is what everyone already has - but still 50% believe this is not enough and will still opt for the pay channels as they currently do; nothing changes. What it will do as I stated; it will give SKY the chance to offer exta services like pay per veiw sports and movies to those who don't want a bigger package. This would give them a chance to increase their revenue not decrease it.

I agree with you I do not want to pay for my TV; besides I don't watch enough of it to justify it.

If Sky offered a cheaper or better free service many people I know would go for it as they only get the base satellite package now as they are in UHF free zones. It would come down to reception and from what I understand there are a lot of people with base sky subs with UHF reception issues. If Sky offered a free or cheaper service then I think a whole lot of those people would be cutting back. There would be no downside to them doing it so.

Also remember Sky have stated they will increase sub fees each year by a little at a time so people don't really notice. This is a better way for them to increase revenue rather than a lump sum increase every few years. But at some stage people will notice the price and think hmmm that is getting expensive. My mother inlaw is one of a few people I have heard saying that recently.

The National government may not follow through on a review but "the government" will always be watching what is going on. As you say Sky is a Monopoly now, Fatso anyone?, but if they do too well and FTA services start to close down or fail, then things will get interesting.

cheers
db

I understand your arguement, but surely this is no longer valid now that nearly everyone has access to these channels through Freeview? If a great deal of people only had SKY just because they could not previously access the FTA channels with there local UHF transmissions then surely there would have been a decent size fall in SKY membership reccently when Freeview came on line? I am not too sure of the figures may be someone else could enlighten us?

The fact is; most people have SKY because it is the only place where they can view the content they want to view (ie large sporting events). This content will always be a pay service, so no matter what SKY did with the rest of their packages, a large segment will always pay quite a large premium for this, I don't believe FTA services provided by them will alter this a great deal if any.

It will be interesting to see what happens to overall membership when the inevitable price rises come through. I am hoping with this and the current economy there will be a sizeable move away from SKY so their hand will be forced into providing a more affordable package for all and/or their purchasing power will be reduced so the FTA channels have a better chance of bidding for premium content.

I still believe that before anlogue is switched off and after the RWC; SKY will serious look at providing a FTA package of its own. Just think of the extra revenue from pay per view movies it could generate from the very people you mention in out of the way areas that don't have DVD stores or cinemas close to them?

If this was to happen then Freeview to be successful in the long term will need to counter this by adding more content than it currently has, and to do that it will have to make itself more attractive to potential providers.

benneg:

Is Freeview aware of any planned channels and/or start dates?

TV3 PLUS 1 is the latest launched 30th March.  We are talking to others, lets hope one or two make it across the start line soon.

quattrocchi: The DSE-620 stb information sheet claims that "Component out is restricted to SD (576i), Higher definition (576P, 720P & 1080i) output is only available via HDMI." Does this come from some copyright issue? Are other receivers also limited this way. I'm interested now in the JCMatthew box.

I know this is a bit cheeky, but are there any big brand name DVB-S/DVB-T boxes of any form coming to NZ in the near future?

I know there brand name iDTV’s (DVB-T), but I see overseas there are Blueray/DVD recorders using (DVB-T).  Is there issues supporting MEPG4 or the EPG for the NZ market?

Athlonite: sorry but did he answer the cost of a box question with a conversion rate that is the most rediculas thing ever we all know in the US they are not paying $77us for a plain jane set top box so who's he trying to kid

check out the price grabber costs it a heck of a lot less than his quotes

http://electronics.pricegrabber.com/satellite-receivers-access/p/360/st=category/

As promised, we have now started a third round of questions.

If you have any unanswered questions and want Freeview to answer, please post on that thread.