Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

I recently cancelled my Sky package and have now reverted to the freebie channels only.

I have discovered that Ftn, UKTV History, More4 (3 that I have found so far) are available
for nothing on Freeview but they are subscription channels on Sky!

Why can Freeview customers enjoy them for nothing but make them subscription on Sky? Are
Sky being greedy again?

I spoke to 3 uninformed Sky representatives yesterday. None of them could explain why.

While ever I have a Sky box, there is a chance that I could return as a paying customer
again but I am now thinking about ditching the box and getting a Freeview one instead.

Any info much appreciated :-)

Paul.

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

Banana wrote:
I recently cancelled my Sky package and have now reverted to the freebie channels only.

I have discovered that Ftn, UKTV History, More4 (3 that I have found so far) are available
for nothing on Freeview but they are subscription channels on Sky!

Why can Freeview customers enjoy them for nothing but make them subscription on Sky? Are
Sky being greedy again?

I spoke to 3 uninformed Sky representatives yesterday. None of them could explain why.

While ever I have a Sky box, there is a chance that I could return as a paying customer
again but I am now thinking about ditching the box and getting a Freeview one instead.

Any info much appreciated :-)

Paul.


The deal with E4/E4+1/More4/More+1 is that Channel 4 is locked into a
carriage deal with $ky until 2008, AIR. The deal is that Channel 4 won't
get any subscription revenue but $ky will preserve their EPG numbers if
they remain part of a package. At least, that's what I recall.

As for the others (FTN, UKTV History, UKTV Bright Ideas and ABC1) who
knows? In real terms, FTN & ABC1 are half-channels - for example, ABC1
stops at 18:00 on Freeview but remains available on $ky.

Assuming that you can get Freeview OK (all channels) then this is
possibly a better way to go. You're not at the mercy of the Murdoch
monopoly and you can still use your $ky box to view the FTV channels
that are still available via your smartcard - C4, C5 & $ky Three, along
with the FTA stuff from the BBC and ITV, not forgetting the other FTA
channels which are, IMHO, of little real value.

Remember too that for £7.99/month you can subscribe to the TopUp TV
channels on DTV, providing that you buy a box with a smartcard reader.
There's no contract AIUT, so you can subscribe pretty much how you like.
Whether the TopUp TV stuff will do it for you is of course another thing.

I junked my $ky subscription a couple of years ago now, and apart from
some stuff on $ky One that I wouldn't mind seeing, I haven't really
missed it and my bank balance is +£20/month better off!

The really irritating thing about $ky is the way that they have their
packages set-up. If I could subscribe to a dozen or so channels for
£7.99/month (say) then I'd re-join right away. Unfortunately, the powers
at $ky haven't worked that idea through yet. I think that it will come
in time though. Anyway, it's up to you. For a relatively small outlay
you could try Freeview/TopUp TV. If it doesn't work for you, $ky will be
happy to have you back .....


Clem

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

"Clem Dye" wrote in message
...
| Banana wrote:
| I recently cancelled my Sky package and have now reverted to the freebie channels
only.
|
| I have discovered that Ftn, UKTV History, More4 (3 that I have found so far) are
available
| for nothing on Freeview but they are subscription channels on Sky!
|
| Why can Freeview customers enjoy them for nothing but make them subscription on Sky?
Are
| Sky being greedy again?
|
| I spoke to 3 uninformed Sky representatives yesterday. None of them could explain why.
|
| While ever I have a Sky box, there is a chance that I could return as a paying
customer
| again but I am now thinking about ditching the box and getting a Freeview one instead.
|
| Any info much appreciated :-)
|
| Paul.
|
|
| The deal with E4/E4+1/More4/More+1 is that Channel 4 is locked into a
| carriage deal with $ky until 2008, AIR. The deal is that Channel 4 won't
| get any subscription revenue but $ky will preserve their EPG numbers if
| they remain part of a package. At least, that's what I recall.
|
| As for the others (FTN, UKTV History, UKTV Bright Ideas and ABC1) who
| knows? In real terms, FTN & ABC1 are half-channels - for example, ABC1
| stops at 18:00 on Freeview but remains available on $ky.
|
| Assuming that you can get Freeview OK (all channels) then this is
| possibly a better way to go. You're not at the mercy of the Murdoch
| monopoly and you can still use your $ky box to view the FTV channels
| that are still available via your smartcard - C4, C5 & $ky Three, along
| with the FTA stuff from the BBC and ITV, not forgetting the other FTA
| channels which are, IMHO, of little real value.
|
| Remember too that for £7.99/month you can subscribe to the TopUp TV
| channels on DTV, providing that you buy a box with a smartcard reader.
| There's no contract AIUT, so you can subscribe pretty much how you like.
| Whether the TopUp TV stuff will do it for you is of course another thing.
|
| I junked my $ky subscription a couple of years ago now, and apart from
| some stuff on $ky One that I wouldn't mind seeing, I haven't really
| missed it and my bank balance is +£20/month better off!
|
| The really irritating thing about $ky is the way that they have their
| packages set-up. If I could subscribe to a dozen or so channels for
| £7.99/month (say) then I'd re-join right away. Unfortunately, the powers
| at $ky haven't worked that idea through yet. I think that it will come
| in time though. Anyway, it's up to you. For a relatively small outlay
| you could try Freeview/TopUp TV. If it doesn't work for you, $ky will be
| happy to have you back .....
|
|
| Clem

Very helpful reply. Many Thanks for your time, Clem.

When I was cancelling my package over the phone, I did mention a similar solution to keep
me as a customer i.e., give me 5 channels that I chose and I'll pay a tenner a month.

Some may see that as a cheek and maybe it is but because Sky are so inflexible, they now
have a total of £0.00 per month from me.

I could go on forever but many thanks for the reply, Clem.

Paul.

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 10:52:32 +0000 (UTC), "Banana"
wrote:

Why can Freeview customers enjoy them for nothing but make them subscription on Sky?

Because the owners of those channels have chosen to make them
subscription channels on Sky. (Doubtless to offset the losses from the
ridiculous and extortionate costs of obtaining Freeview carriage.)

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

Why can Freeview customers enjoy them for nothing but make them subscription on Sky?

Because the owners of those channels have chosen to make them
subscription channels on Sky. (Doubtless to offset the losses from the
ridiculous and extortionate costs of obtaining Freeview carriage.)

Well, there's an odd way of viewing the world.

In fact the owners of those channels were railroaded into making them
subscription on Sky in order to avoid the prohibitive costs of
carriage on Sky Digital.

The argument must have gone this way:
Sky to C4: you've got to be scrambled because of spillover into
unauthorised regions. So here's the offer you can't refuse. Either you
go FTV and pay us a large fortune for EPG placement and encryption
services, or you make your extra channels (but not C4 as we all know
that has to be FTV) part of the pay package, in which case we'll give
you a big discount on the cost of it all.

This procedure is well documented, has been applied to other channels
and is the main reason why the BBC and ITV went FTA.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 08:12:13 +0100, Jomtien wrote:

In fact the owners of those channels were railroaded into making them
subscription on Sky in order to avoid the prohibitive costs of
carriage on Sky Digital.

Your suggestion is that Sky are able to somehow "railroad" all of the
largest media companies in the world into making their channels
subscription, even if those companies do not wish to have them
broadcast like that? I don't think so.

Any channel is going to look at the options and make the decision that
works best for them. And if being subscription makes good sense
financially then that is what they'll do. Doubtless the fact that most
homes with satellite do already pay for Sky will be a deciding factor.
Only channels that are desperate for every last possible viewer (e.g.
shopping and gaming channels) have any compelling case to be FTA.

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 08:12:13 +0100, Jomtien wrote:

In fact the owners of those channels were railroaded into making them
subscription on Sky in order to avoid the prohibitive costs of
carriage on Sky Digital.

Your suggestion is that Sky are able to somehow "railroad" all of the
largest media companies in the world into making their channels
subscription, even if those companies do not wish to have them
broadcast like that? I don't think so.

C4 are on record as saying that it is Sky's choice that channels like more 4
are part of a subscription package, not C4's (though C4 clearly signed the
contract allowing that decision). And that as soon as the contract is ended,
they will all be FTV

Loz

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

loz wrote:

: C4 are on record as saying that it is Sky's choice that channels like
: more 4 are part of a subscription package, not C4's (though C4 clearly
: signed the contract allowing that decision).

This is true. However I believe this *was* a commercial decision by C4 as
they get services from Sky for free in return - which otherside would cost
them.

: And that as soon as the contract is ended, they will all be FTV

I think this is wishful thinking! AFAIK C4 have committed themselves to
NO such promise.

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

Brian McIlwrath wrote:
loz wrote:

: C4 are on record as saying that it is Sky's choice that channels like
: more 4 are part of a subscription package, not C4's (though C4 clearly
: signed the contract allowing that decision).

This is true. However I believe this *was* a commercial decision by C4 as
they get services from Sky for free in return - which otherside would cost
them.

: And that as soon as the contract is ended, they will all be FTV

I think this is wishful thinking! AFAIK C4 have committed themselves to
NO such promise.

I believe that they have. The current deal with $ky AIR ends in 2008, at
which time C4 is expected to go FTA, along with E4 & More4. C4 wanted to
go FTV earlier but are contractually bound until 2008 to the existing
$ky deal, which is why they can't join FreeSat - it would cost them too
much to leave the contract early.


Clem

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:13:40 +0000 (UTC), "loz"
wrote:

C4 are on record as saying that it is Sky's choice that channels like more 4
are part of a subscription package, not C4's (though C4 clearly signed the
contract allowing that decision). And that as soon as the contract is ended,
they will all be FTV

Just because C4 signed a long-term subscription contract (in the
assumption that E4 and More4 would always be subscription channels),
then changed their mind, doesn't mean that any other broadcaster is in
the same position.

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

Brian McIlwrath wrote:

However I believe this *was* a commercial decision by C4 as
they get services from Sky for free in return - which otherside would cost
them.

Some call that a "commercial decision". I call it an "offer they can't
refuse".

Semantics.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

In fact the owners of those channels were railroaded into making them
subscription on Sky in order to avoid the prohibitive costs of
carriage on Sky Digital.

Your suggestion is that Sky are able to somehow "railroad" all of the
largest media companies in the world into making their channels
subscription, even if those companies do not wish to have them
broadcast like that? I don't think so.

Look at the options again and you will see precisely why this is
indeed the case.


Any channel is going to look at the options and make the decision that
works best for them. And if being subscription makes good sense
financially then that is what they'll do.

See above for the reason why you are wrong. As I said, it was an offer
that they couldn't refuse: either pay way over the odds to be FTV or
allow the extra channels to be pay ones in return for a huge discount.
The same thing has happened to other channels. There were only two
choices at best.
Since that time a new option has surfaced: go FTA. The BBC and ITV
have followed this with much glee. I'm certain that other channels
would like to do the same as soon as their contracts allow.


Doubtless the fact that most
homes with satellite do already pay for Sky will be a deciding factor.

The big five channels (and the numerous subsidiaries) aren't pay
channels so I don't see why.


Only channels that are desperate for every last possible viewer (e.g.
shopping and gaming channels) have any compelling case to be FTA.

Tell that to the BBC and ITV.
And how do you explain that all these channels are FTA on Freeview?
Surely by your argument they should be part of TopUpTV?

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:52:32 +0100, Jomtien wrote:

Some call that a "commercial decision". I call it an "offer they can't
refuse".

Well that illustrates your tendency to distort things, then, doesn't
it. :-)

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:52:32 +0100, Jomtien wrote:

See above for the reason why you are wrong. As I said, it was an offer
that they couldn't refuse: either pay way over the odds to be FTV or
allow the extra channels to be pay ones in return for a huge discount.
The same thing has happened to other channels. There were only two
choices at best.

Since that time a new option has surfaced: go FTA. The BBC and ITV
have followed this with much glee. I'm certain that other channels
would like to do the same as soon as their contracts allow.

And yet today, when Channel 4 makes the decision to make FilmFour
available to a wider audience, do they choose to go FTA? Well.. no.
They choose to go FTV. A choice made of their own free will, and FTV
is what they want. Pretty much shoots a hole in your predictions,
there.

Doubtless the fact that most
homes with satellite do already pay for Sky will be a deciding factor.

The big five channels (and the numerous subsidiaries) aren't pay
channels so I don't see why.

Because people don't get Sky to watch the big five channels. They get
Sky to watch something else. That's why most people with satellite
subscribe to Sky.

Only channels that are desperate for every last possible viewer (e.g.
shopping and gaming channels) have any compelling case to be FTA.

Tell that to the BBC and ITV.
And how do you explain that all these channels are FTA on Freeview?
Surely by your argument they should be part of TopUpTV?

Freeview clearly has a much larger potential audience than Top Up TV,
so being FTA is the logical choice.

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
And yet today, when Channel 4 makes the decision to make FilmFour
available to a wider audience, do they choose to go FTA? Well.. no.
They choose to go FTV. A choice made of their own free will, and FTV
is what they want. Pretty much shoots a hole in your predictions,
there.

Unlike More4 on Sky it will be FTV though, with no Sky subscription package
required.
Presumably FTV because they use the transponder with the wider european
footprint, and would need to renogiate rights if they went FTA

Loz

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

"loz" wrote in message
...

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
And yet today, when Channel 4 makes the decision to make FilmFour
available to a wider audience, do they choose to go FTA? Well.. no.
They choose to go FTV. A choice made of their own free will, and FTV
is what they want. Pretty much shoots a hole in your predictions,
there.

Unlike More4 on Sky it will be FTV though, with no Sky subscription
package required.
Presumably FTV because they use the transponder with the wider european
footprint, and would need to renogiate rights if they went FTA

Actually I understand it is on Asta 2D so shouldn't have right's issues.

However, I note several comments on other forums that it isn't quite clear
whether C4 mean FilmFour will be FTV or FTA on satellite

Loz

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

loz wrote:
"loz" wrote in message
...

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
And yet today, when Channel 4 makes the decision to make FilmFour
available to a wider audience, do they choose to go FTA? Well.. no.
They choose to go FTV. A choice made of their own free will, and FTV
is what they want. Pretty much shoots a hole in your predictions,
there.

Unlike More4 on Sky it will be FTV though, with no Sky subscription
package required.
Presumably FTV because they use the transponder with the wider
european footprint, and would need to renogiate rights if they went
FTA

Actually I understand it is on Asta 2D so shouldn't have right's
issues.

However, I note several comments on other forums that it isn't quite
clear whether C4 mean FilmFour will be FTV or FTA on satellite


When is it due to happen?


--

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

Since that time a new option has surfaced: go FTA. The BBC and ITV
have followed this with much glee. I'm certain that other channels
would like to do the same as soon as their contracts allow.

And yet today, when Channel 4 makes the decision to make FilmFour
available to a wider audience, do they choose to go FTA? Well.. no.
They choose to go FTV. A choice made of their own free will, and FTV
is what they want. Pretty much shoots a hole in your predictions,
there.

The announcement I saw said FTA not FTV. I think that we will need to
wait for the launch to be certain as journalists and PR people rarely
seem to know the difference.

Either way, it has already been mentioned that C4's contract with Sky
apparently obliges them to use encryption for their channels. So
possibly FTA is not currently an option for them. They might have to
wait for contract renewal time for that. At that time they would also
need to find available space on 2D.


Doubtless the fact that most
homes with satellite do already pay for Sky will be a deciding factor.

The big five channels (and the numerous subsidiaries) aren't pay
channels so I don't see why.

Because people don't get Sky to watch the big five channels. They get
Sky to watch something else. That's why most people with satellite
subscribe to Sky.

You are clearly unaware of just how many people do indeed get
satellite yet pay no sub. And, of course, you have just given evidence
yourself that there clearly is a big demand for non-pay channels,
otherwise what are C4 doing? You need to make your mind up.


Only channels that are desperate for every last possible viewer (e.g.
shopping and gaming channels) have any compelling case to be FTA.

Tell that to the BBC and ITV.
And how do you explain that all these channels are FTA on Freeview?
Surely by your argument they should be part of TopUpTV?

Freeview clearly has a much larger potential audience than Top Up TV,
so being FTA is the logical choice.

And yet the identical situation isn't logical with satellite? As I
said, you need to make your mind up.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:
Because people don't get Sky to watch the big five channels. They get
Sky to watch something else. That's why most people with satellite
subscribe to Sky.

And yet, even in 'digital' homes, the BBC channels remain the 'most-watched'
so there's your theory out the window ;-)


--
Carl Waring
http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 08:33:56 +0100, Jomtien wrote:

The announcement I saw said FTA not FTV. I think that we will need to
wait for the launch to be certain as journalists and PR people rarely
seem to know the difference.

I agree.

Either way, it has already been mentioned that C4's contract with Sky
apparently obliges them to use encryption for their channels.

I suspect that any such contract would only have been drawn up for
specific channels, though. Since FilmFour is effectively leaving its
premium encryption contract, I'd imagine that it's more of a free
agent. But as you say, I think we'll need to wait for the launch.

You are clearly unaware of just how many people do indeed get
satellite yet pay no sub.

About 554,000 according to the last Ofcom report. Compared to 8
million or more subscription homes.

And, of course, you have just given evidence
yourself that there clearly is a big demand for non-pay channels,
otherwise what are C4 doing? You need to make your mind up.

What evidence was that? Sure, some non-pay channels are popular, (ones
that people have been used to watching for 20 or 30 years, for
example) but most aren't.

Freeview clearly has a much larger potential audience than Top Up TV,
so being FTA is the logical choice.

And yet the identical situation isn't logical with satellite? As I
said, you need to make your mind up.

You're not thinking this through. TopUp is currently estimated to have
around, what, 200,000 subscribers? Whereas Freeview as a whole is
suppoed to be in something like 7 million homes. The difference is
enormous.

The difference on satellite is between 8 million pay homes, or 8.5
million satellite homes. A much smaller difference.

If being subscription as opposed to FTA saves you, what, let's say
£75,000 at a guess, then for being FTA to be worthwhile, you'd have to
earn that £75,000 back from an additional potential audience of just
500,000 (of which even a half-decent channel would only ever expect to
get a 2.5% share, tops - so 12,000 actual viewers). That's over £6 per
viewer, which is totally unrealistic.

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:09:16 GMT, "Carl Waring"
wrote:

Zero Tolerance wrote:
Because people don't get Sky to watch the big five channels. They get
Sky to watch something else. That's why most people with satellite
subscribe to Sky.

And yet, even in 'digital' homes, the BBC channels remain the 'most-watched'
so there's your theory out the window ;-)

Perhaps in FREEVIEW homes where there is less choice available.
(Something like 85% of viewing in 'digital' Freeview homes is to the 5
main channels, compared to under 50% in 'digital' cable or satellite
homes.)

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

"Carl Waring" wrote in message
. uk...
Zero Tolerance wrote:
Because people don't get Sky to watch the big five channels. They get
Sky to watch something else. That's why most people with satellite
subscribe to Sky.

And yet, even in 'digital' homes, the BBC channels remain the
'most-watched' so there's your theory out the window ;-)



Not at all. For example, I have Sky for two main reasons, football, and
Sky+, but I still watch 'the big 5' for the majority of the time. I suspect
the same would apply to many households that got Sky because they wanted
sports, or MTV, or Movies, they still might end up watching a majority of
other channels. It doesnt negate the point that their primary reason for
getting Sky was sports, or MTV, or Movies or whatever.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

You are clearly unaware of just how many people do indeed get
satellite yet pay no sub.

About 554,000 according to the last Ofcom report. Compared to 8
million or more subscription homes.

With churn alone at nearly 1 million this figure seems unlikely to say
the least. Personally I doubt that Ofcom have a clue what they are
talking about.


And, of course, you have just given evidence
yourself that there clearly is a big demand for non-pay channels,
otherwise what are C4 doing? You need to make your mind up.

What evidence was that? Sure, some non-pay channels are popular, (ones
that people have been used to watching for 20 or 30 years, for
example) but most aren't.

You informed us that FilmFour was ceasing to be a premium channel and
becoming totally free, rather than just being part of the basic
package. So you make a mockery of your own argument that there is no
interest in being FTA or FTV outside of the main terrestrial channels.


Freeview clearly has a much larger potential audience than Top Up TV,
so being FTA is the logical choice.

And yet the identical situation isn't logical with satellite? As I
said, you need to make your mind up.

You're not thinking this through. TopUp is currently estimated to have
around, what, 200,000 subscribers? Whereas Freeview as a whole is
suppoed to be in something like 7 million homes. The difference is
enormous.

FTV and FTA channels on sat can be viewed by subscribers and
non-subscribers. Clearly for many channels there is another reason for
being part of a pay package, and it is the one I gave.



If being subscription as opposed to FTA saves you, what, let's say
£75,000 at a guess, then for being FTA to be worthwhile, you'd have to
earn that £75,000 back from an additional potential audience of just
500,000 (of which even a half-decent channel would only ever expect to
get a 2.5% share, tops - so 12,000 actual viewers). That's over £6 per
viewer, which is totally unrealistic.

No, for the reason I gave above. FTA and FTV can be viewed by all, not
just non-subscribers.

Presumably FilmFour have carefully thought this through and have
rejected your argument.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

"loz" wrote in message
...

"loz" wrote in message
...

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
And yet today, when Channel 4 makes the decision to make FilmFour
available to a wider audience, do they choose to go FTA? Well.. no.
They choose to go FTV. A choice made of their own free will, and FTV
is what they want. Pretty much shoots a hole in your predictions,
there.

Unlike More4 on Sky it will be FTV though, with no Sky subscription
package required.
Presumably FTV because they use the transponder with the wider european
footprint, and would need to renogiate rights if they went FTA

Actually I understand it is on Asta 2D so shouldn't have right's issues.

However, I note several comments on other forums that it isn't quite clear
whether C4 mean FilmFour will be FTV or FTA on satellite

Loz



Channel 4 / Channel 4's Public Relations muppets do not know what FTV or FTA
means.

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:21:45 +0100, Jomtien wrote:

With churn alone at nearly 1 million this figure seems unlikely to say
the least. Personally I doubt that Ofcom have a clue what they are
talking about.

Oh, OK. Obviously you're more likely to know than they are.

You're also assuming that everyone who churns out never ever comes
back. Yet when the advice you give here to people who want a new dish
and box is to cancel and then take out a new subscription, you must
realise that not everyone who cancels remains a non-subscriber.

What evidence was that? Sure, some non-pay channels are popular, (ones
that people have been used to watching for 20 or 30 years, for
example) but most aren't.

You informed us that FilmFour was ceasing to be a premium channel and
becoming totally free, rather than just being part of the basic
package. So you make a mockery of your own argument that there is no
interest in being FTA or FTV outside of the main terrestrial channels.

In case you hadn't noticed, FilmFour is owned by Channel 4, one of the
main terrestrial channels.

You're not thinking this through. TopUp is currently estimated to have
around, what, 200,000 subscribers? Whereas Freeview as a whole is
suppoed to be in something like 7 million homes. The difference is
enormous.

FTV and FTA channels on sat can be viewed by subscribers and
non-subscribers.

What has that got to do with why a channel would choose Freeview over
Top-Up?

No, for the reason I gave above. FTA and FTV can be viewed by all, not
just non-subscribers.

Yes, but the point I was making is that if you can't recoup the extra
costs of not being subscription from those 500,000 non-subscription
viewers, then you may as well be subscription.

Presumably FilmFour have carefully thought this through and have
rejected your argument.

Channel 4 are making a commitment to non-subscription television
because they're a large, well-funded commercial organisation available
in nearly twice as many homes as less advantaged digital-only channels
are. They can afford it.

Other channels are not necessarily in the same position - they will
make their own choices according to their needs. If providing a
service to those extra 500,000 viewers has an unreasonable and
commercially unjustifiable cost, then they're going to stick with the
8 million homes that already have a subscription. That's quite enough
to be going on with.

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...

Yes, but the point I was making is that if you can't recoup the extra
costs of not being subscription from those 500,000 non-subscription
viewers, then you may as well be subscription.

I am getting a bit lost as to who is argueing what in this thread now :-)

As I understand it, C4's simple arguement is they believe they can make much
more from advertising by making FilmFour available as a FTV/FTA channel that
is accessible by several million people, than they can by running it as a
subscription only channel.
I don't see where the 500k difference between sky subscribers and
non-subscribers comes in to it.
For C4 it is the difference between 300k paying subscribers, and a potential
advertising audience of something like 15m on Sky and Freeview.

Loz

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:50:16 +0000 (UTC), "loz"
wrote:

As I understand it, C4's simple arguement is they believe they can make much
more from advertising by making FilmFour available as a FTV/FTA channel that
is accessible by several million people, than they can by running it as a
subscription only channel.

Yeah, pretty much, although it's more "We can make more money by
shutting down this subscription-funded world cinema channel and
replacing it with a commercial-laden free product showing Hollywood
blockbusters. And we might show some world cinema really really late
at night, and even then only if it's vaguely porny."

I don't see where the 500k difference between sky subscribers and
non-subscribers comes in to it.

That's a side argument about why some channels are free on Freeview
but subscription on satellite.

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

With churn alone at nearly 1 million this figure seems unlikely to say
the least. Personally I doubt that Ofcom have a clue what they are
talking about.

Oh, OK. Obviously you're more likely to know than they are.

You're also assuming that everyone who churns out never ever comes
back. Yet when the advice you give here to people who want a new dish
and box is to cancel and then take out a new subscription, you must
realise that not everyone who cancels remains a non-subscriber.

I'm aware of that but the figures still add up to far more than just
half a million. I will bet a small sum that the figure given by Ofcom
is only for FTV card users and does not include expired sub card users
or indeed those who have no card at all. Simply because these figures
cannot be verified except by a house to house search.


What evidence was that? Sure, some non-pay channels are popular, (ones
that people have been used to watching for 20 or 30 years, for
example) but most aren't.

You informed us that FilmFour was ceasing to be a premium channel and
becoming totally free, rather than just being part of the basic
package. So you make a mockery of your own argument that there is no
interest in being FTA or FTV outside of the main terrestrial channels.

In case you hadn't noticed, FilmFour is owned by Channel 4, one of the
main terrestrial channels.

So? Most channels are owned by someone else. FilmFour is certainly not
a mainstream terrestrial channel.



Presumably FilmFour have carefully thought this through and have
rejected your argument.

Channel 4 are making a commitment to non-subscription television
because they're a large, well-funded commercial organisation available
in nearly twice as many homes as less advantaged digital-only channels
are. They can afford it.

As can the Horror channel and the various other similar channels, we
must suppose. Even though they are small and digital-only.

No, the numbers and the facts are against you.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 08:22:08 +0100, Jomtien wrote:

I'm aware of that but the figures still add up to far more than just
half a million. I will bet a small sum that the figure given by Ofcom
is only for FTV card users and does not include expired sub card users
or indeed those who have no card at all. Simply because these figures
cannot be verified except by a house to house search.

Ofcom say that ex-sub users are included. Quote: "This figure includes
viewers who are no longer Sky subscribers but still receive the public
service channels through their set-top box. Also included in this
figure are viewers who are able to receive the public service channels
through using a ‘Solus’ card. "

In case you hadn't noticed, FilmFour is owned by Channel 4, one of the
main terrestrial channels.

So? Most channels are owned by someone else. FilmFour is certainly not
a mainstream terrestrial channel.

Not yet, no. Once it goes free it should be very mainstream indeed.

As can the Horror channel and the various other similar channels, we
must suppose. Even though they are small and digital-only.

The Horror Channel might not have had the choice. Ultimately no
channel can demand carriage and subscription income (or discounts) -
there will always necessarily be some element of "I'm sorry, we think
your channel is too low grade / too niche / too awful to retail".

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

I'm aware of that but the figures still add up to far more than just
half a million. I will bet a small sum that the figure given by Ofcom
is only for FTV card users and does not include expired sub card users
or indeed those who have no card at all. Simply because these figures
cannot be verified except by a house to house search.

Ofcom say that ex-sub users are included. Quote: "This figure includes
viewers who are no longer Sky subscribers but still receive the public
service channels through their set-top box. Also included in this
figure are viewers who are able to receive the public service channels
through using a ‘Solus’ card. "

The figures just don't add up.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)