Zero Tolerance wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 12:52:12 +0000 (UTC), "NO LOGO"
wrote:

I still think that dual-encryption would solve a lot of problems for
very little cost and would also have the benefit of encouraging Sky
to release a VideoGuard CAM, to the great benefit of all viewers and
manufacturers and broadcasters (except Sky).

...which $ky will never do without coercion and no political party has
either the wit nor will to see this through.

This leaves Free To Air as the only way for the UK's PSB broadcaster to
go IF they even consider FTA worthwhile.

No, because as Jomtien said, there is always the possibility of dual
encryption.

With the snipped text reinserted, your reply makes it appear as though
you didn't read some of Mr. Logo's answer.

Luke


--
The above email address will work until spammed.

Dom Robinson wrote:

This is why I killfiled Jomtien a while back. He's a complete waste of blood
cells.

I am still astounded by the sort of poster who kill-files someone and
then posts purely to insult that person. A very unpleasant insight
into the workings of a warped mind. This is the stuff that Home Office
ministers are made of.

Worse, the kill-filer often has such a poor understanding of all
matters on-topic to the group than he really can't afford to kill-file
anyone at all. In this instance this is certainly the case.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/yvnsy
How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://logofreetv.org/
BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.co.uk/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

Zero Tolerance wrote:

I can think of several benefits of being FTA. Several million pounds
saving per year on encryption costs,

Outweighed by the increased cost of rights for acquired material,
the potential loss of audience when major events (e.g. football)
cannot be broadcast or acquired (as happened to the BBC)..

As I said, it has yet to be demonstrated that there would be any such
problem.


the moral satisfaction and clean
feeling of no longer dealing with Sky (except for the EPG),

BS doesn't pay the bills.

the greater revenue from advertising (there is no doubt that more people
potentially watch FTA channels than watch FTV channels, especially
when FTV cards aren't even available).

Not significant enough to make a difference.

Given that the FTV channels' entire income comes from ads and that ad
income depends entirely on viewer figures this is clearly of the
greatest significance. The numbers could indeed be huge.


That supposes that rights would indeed cost them more. This has yet to
be demonstrated and could be circumvented by legislation anyway.

In much the same way as King Canute's followers felt that a royal
commandment would stop the tide coming in. It just isn't that simple.

It would be simplicity itself for the EU to legislate on this. Given
the amount of money that the rights owners spend on lobbying it is
unlikely, I admit. More's the pity.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/yvnsy
How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://logofreetv.org/
BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.co.uk/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 05:41:09 GMT, Jomtien wrote:

Outweighed by the increased cost of rights for acquired material,
the potential loss of audience when major events (e.g. football)
cannot be broadcast or acquired (as happened to the BBC)..

As I said, it has yet to be demonstrated that there would be any such
problem.

The problems which have already occured speak for themselves.

Given that the FTV channels' entire income comes from ads and that ad
income depends entirely on viewer figures this is clearly of the
greatest significance. The numbers could indeed be huge.

No - the commercial value of a few hundred thousand extra homes is not
enough to make a significant difference to advertising revenue and
certainly not enough to cover the hugely increased costs of rights.
The difference is especially insignificant to channels like ITV, C4,
C5, which are already available in tens of millions of homes already.

Zero Tolerance wrote:

Given that the FTV channels' entire income comes from ads and that ad
income depends entirely on viewer figures this is clearly of the
greatest significance. The numbers could indeed be huge.

No - the commercial value of a few hundred thousand extra homes is not
enough to make a significant difference to advertising revenue and
certainly not enough to cover the hugely increased costs of rights.
The difference is especially insignificant to channels like ITV, C4,
C5, which are already available in tens of millions of homes already.

It isn't just a few hundred thousand. The difference in viewers
between FTV and FTA is more likely to be several million if one only
includes UK viewers or even tens of millions, if you take account the
overspill. And overspill viewers are indeed of interest to many
advertisers, whether the advertisers realise it or not.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/yvnsy
How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://logofreetv.org/
BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.co.uk/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 05:54:40 GMT, Jomtien wrote:

It isn't just a few hundred thousand. The difference in viewers
between FTV and FTA is more likely to be several million if one only
includes UK viewers

I find that hard to believe. Are you saying that in the UK right now
there are MILLIONS of viewers with satellite but no FTV card?

or even tens of millions, if you take account the
overspill. And overspill viewers are indeed of interest to many
advertisers, whether the advertisers realise it or not.

But it's the advertisers who pay the bills, and if they don't want
overspill viewers, they're not going to pay for them. Consider also
that the existing ad sales business of ITV and C4 is geared towards
regional and even micro-regional advertising. ITV has just bought
another two transponders largely to increase the number of
micro-regions that they serve. That kind of local advertising is
simply not designed to feed tens of millions of non-UK overspill
viewers. And any attempt to target non-UK viewers would immediately
bring back the rights issues again - they'd have no way to deny that
they were not intentionally beaming their channel outside the UK.

Even UK-national advertising is a problem for some advertisers who
have to include riders on their commercials saying that the product or
service is not available in some areas of the UK. And if you restrict
yourself just to ads which play well on a pan-European basis then you
suddenly have almost nothing left apart from Cars, Beer, Gillette, and
all the Euro-pudding grade of advertising that you generally only see
on Eurosport.

Zero Tolerance wrote:

It isn't just a few hundred thousand. The difference in viewers
between FTV and FTA is more likely to be several million if one only
includes UK viewers

I find that hard to believe. Are you saying that in the UK right now
there are MILLIONS of viewers with satellite but no FTV card?

No, I'm saying that by all counts there were about 1 million FTV cards
in use when the BBC stopped issuing them. Add the untold numbers of
expired subscription cards that still decode the FTV channels. Add the
untold numbers of people who did not renew their old FTV card early
this year when they still could and who have nothing, or who have had
to subscribe to Sky in order to get a card. Then compare that with the
actual number of people who have a valid FTV card today.


or even tens of millions, if you take account the
overspill. And overspill viewers are indeed of interest to many
advertisers, whether the advertisers realise it or not.

But it's the advertisers who pay the bills, and if they don't want
overspill viewers, they're not going to pay for them. Consider also
that the existing ad sales business of ITV and C4 is geared towards
regional and even micro-regional advertising. ITV has just bought
another two transponders largely to increase the number of
micro-regions that they serve. That kind of local advertising is
simply not designed to feed tens of millions of non-UK overspill
viewers.

Very many ads are indeed highly applicable to people outside the UK: I
know. They may be for goods that are sold outside the UK (almost
everything made by multinationals: from chocolate to bottled water to
newspapers to cars and financial services). They may be for goods that
aren't sold outside the UK but which may well interest viewers of UK
TV who live outside the UK, many of which will have close links to the
UK. I haven't lived in the UK for 30 years but I have a well-used bank
account with a UK bank in the UK. An ad for a competing bank may well
interest me.


And any attempt to target non-UK viewers would immediately
bring back the rights issues again - they'd have no way to deny that
they were not intentionally beaming their channel outside the UK.

There is a simple solution to this, which I mentioned previously.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/yvnsy
How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://logofreetv.org/
BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.co.uk/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 05:45:19 GMT, Jomtien wrote:

No, I'm saying that by all counts there were about 1 million FTV cards
in use when the BBC stopped issuing them. Add the untold numbers of
expired subscription cards that still decode the FTV channels. Add the
untold numbers of people who did not renew their old FTV card early
this year when they still could and who have nothing, or who have had
to subscribe to Sky in order to get a card. Then compare that with the
actual number of people who have a valid FTV card today.

I'm not entirely swayed, to be honest - people who couldn't be
bothered to get a new FTV card when they were available are probably
not THAT interested in viewing.

Very many ads are indeed highly applicable to people outside the UK: I
know. They may be for goods that are sold outside the UK (almost
everything made by multinationals: from chocolate to bottled water to
newspapers to cars and financial services).

Maybe so, but multinationals generally like to use different creative
in different markets. You need only look at the HSBC ads (which are
awfully good) to see why that's important to them and the idea of
pan-European advertising really doesn't excite them greatly.

And any attempt to target non-UK viewers would immediately
bring back the rights issues again - they'd have no way to deny that
they were not intentionally beaming their channel outside the UK.

There is a simple solution to this, which I mentioned previously.

But as I mentioned previously, King Canute didn't really believe he
could stop the tide coming in - he was proving a point to his
followers.

Zero Tolerance wrote:

I'm not entirely swayed, to be honest - people who couldn't be
bothered to get a new FTV card when they were available are probably
not THAT interested in viewing.

Take a look at Ebay to see how interested people are. FTV cards go
daily for £50.
Most people were totally unaware that replacement cards were
available, largely due to the fact that when the on-screen messages
first appeared they directed viewers to a Sky number where they were
told that no FTV cards were available (an outright lie) and that they
could subscribe, if they wanted to get the FTV channels.
Only much later did the right number appear on-screen, by which time
most people had rung the other number and been misinformed, so they
didn't try the new number. Even now, a day doesn't pass without some
cardless person ringing me to see what is happening with FTV cards.
Some would suggest that Sky did this deliberately.


Very many ads are indeed highly applicable to people outside the UK: I
know. They may be for goods that are sold outside the UK (almost
everything made by multinationals: from chocolate to bottled water to
newspapers to cars and financial services).

Maybe so, but multinationals generally like to use different creative
in different markets. You need only look at the HSBC ads (which are
awfully good) to see why that's important to them and the idea of
pan-European advertising really doesn't excite them greatly.

On the contrary. Most multinational brands use the same ads throughout
Europe, with just the voice-overs etc. dubbed. I see dozens of these
daily.


And any attempt to target non-UK viewers would immediately
bring back the rights issues again - they'd have no way to deny that
they were not intentionally beaming their channel outside the UK.

There is a simple solution to this, which I mentioned previously.

But as I mentioned previously, King Canute didn't really believe he
could stop the tide coming in - he was proving a point to his
followers.

What has this to do with a solution?

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/yvnsy
How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://logofreetv.org/
BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.co.uk/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 05:47:34 GMT, Jomtien wrote:

Zero Tolerance wrote:

I'm not entirely swayed, to be honest - people who couldn't be
bothered to get a new FTV card when they were available are probably
not THAT interested in viewing.

Take a look at Ebay to see how interested people are. FTV cards go
daily for £50.

I had a quick look. There are currently 45 Sky viewing cards for sale on
www.ebay.co.uk Hardly an enormous number & the prices are quite low given the
small number for sale so obviously the demand is not high.

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur