FilmFour free on Sky?
 

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 09:32:44 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

No, the FTV channels are paying for a simple method to ensure that
they are not easily viewable outside their allotted area. They don't
give a toss about security. Only pay channels care about this.

If there is no security then they become 'easily viewable outside
their allotted area' and they're not getting what they pay for. It
would be totally wrong of Sky to discriminate against FTV channels in
favour of pay channels when they pay the same rates for the same
services. FTV channels should get a service every bit as good and as
secure as pay ones. Anything else would be unfair discrimination, and
you'd be the first to moan about it. Wouldn't you?

--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Jomtien wrote:
Zero Tolerance wrote:

The most obvious example of this is Freeview. Up until 2001, all
digital TV equipment (satellite, cable or terrestrial) came with
encryption facilities which could easily have been used to ensure that
only people who wanted to watch the BBC had to pay for it.

Then the BBC piles into Freeview, encouraging manufacturers to flood
the market with cheap set top boxes with no encryption system at all.
A couple of years, and ten million set top boxes later, and once again
there is no possible way that the Government could decide to replace
the forced licence fee with a voluntary subscription. BBC wins again.

And rememember, the BBC admitted that this was their strategy.

Having seen the appalling anti-competitive disaster for viewers that
encrypted TV in the UK has always been, it comes as no surprise at all
that the non-pay channels would want as little as possible to do with
it. Me too.

Pay TV is a catastrophe that leads to the sort of programming that one
sees on Sky channels. You may think that this has some merit. (You may
also be brain damaged.) I certainly do not. There is nothing worth
watching on the Sky channels. The little that is worth watching on pay
TV is mostly made up of repeats of old BBC and independent programmes
previously shown for free on the terrestrial channels.

Forgetting, for the sake of argument, that the TV licence means that
all TV is pay TV, the fact is that many people do not share your view
that the BBC has higher quality programming than pay TV. IMO, there are
more decent programmes on ITV, C4 and C5 than on BBC (which just
possibly has fewer totally awful ones). I do not subscribe to Sky or
other pay TV channels so could not comment on those.


Pay TV also leads to the gross overcharging of non-Sky channels for
encryption services that they don't need or want, which was in fact
the main reason why the BBC "piled into Freeview" and also why they
instigated Freesat. It is also the reason why ITV have stopped
encrypting and why the C4 channels are looking also to change.


In other words, the BBC knew that they would run into trouble as soon
as they had to compete.

It also leads to the sort of shenanigans that caused ITVDigital to
collapse (reverse engineering of the ITVDigital encryption system by
an Israeli company controlled by Sky and the subsequent release to the
public domain of the hacked algorithms).

It also leads to the monopolistic manipulation by Sky of all satellite
reception equipment in the UK, the absence of competing equipment, the
lack of desired functionality and the requirement to pay several times
for functions that should be free anyway.

You don't like monopolies, but you are in favour of the licence fee??


It also leads to the total disaster that is UK sport today.

More foorball and cricket is broadcast live than used to be the case on
BBC.


Without the BBC and the licence fee all UK TV would be like Sky One
and you would have to pay even more for the Sky channels than you do
know.

I can't think of anything worse, except perhaps French or American TV,
from which may God preserve us all.


Have you watched any British or American TV over the past 20 years?
British TV is currently utter drivel.

Regards,
Arfur

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

In article .com,
Arfur Million wrote:


In other words, the BBC knew that they would run into trouble as soon
as they had to compete.

Interestingly, though, at the last Licence review, it was the ITV companies
who wanted it kept, on the basis if the BBC took advertising, there
wouldn't be enough left to support ITV.

--
From KT24 - in drought-ridden Surrey

Using a RISC OS5 computer

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

charles wrote:
In article .com,
Arfur Million wrote:


In other words, the BBC knew that they would run into trouble as soon
as they had to compete.

Interestingly, though, at the last Licence review, it was the ITV companies
who wanted it kept, on the basis if the BBC took advertising, there
wouldn't be enough left to support ITV.


That must have been on the assumption that if the BBC didn't have the
licence fee, then it would have to raise money by advertising, rather
than subscription.

Regards,
Arfur

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Arfur Million wrote:

Forgetting, for the sake of argument, that the TV licence means that
all TV is pay TV, the fact is that many people do not share your view
that the BBC has higher quality programming than pay TV. IMO, there are
more decent programmes on ITV, C4 and C5 than on BBC (which just
possibly has fewer totally awful ones).

The last time I looked ITV, C4 and C5 required no subscription. My
comments were relating to pay (Sky) and non-pay (FTA/FTV) channels. I
also think that the 3 channels mentioned are always better value and
often better quality than subscription channels.


Pay TV also leads to the gross overcharging of non-Sky channels for
encryption services that they don't need or want, which was in fact
the main reason why the BBC "piled into Freeview" and also why they
instigated Freesat. It is also the reason why ITV have stopped
encrypting and why the C4 channels are looking also to change.


In other words, the BBC knew that they would run into trouble as soon
as they had to compete.

That is your interpretation, not mine. The BBC were fed up with giving
tens of millions of pounds of licence-payers to Sky every year for a
"service" that was costing Sky nothing to provide. So they decided to
promote services that anyone can receive and that require no special
payments or proprietary equipment in order to do so, rather than to
continue broadcasting in a way that only serves to fill Sky's coffers.
It makes perfect sense to me.


You don't like monopolies, but you are in favour of the licence fee??

The BBC is not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination.
I am in favour of the licence fee simply because there is no other way
of ensuring that at least one broadcaster gets enough money to make
programmes that may not only appeal to the lowest common denominator
viewer.


It also leads to the total disaster that is UK sport today.

More foorball and cricket is broadcast live than used to be the case on
BBC.

But at what cost and what price?

Sport today is a fractured and totally money-driven enterprise.
No one can see more than a small proportion of events without paying a
huge amount for various subscriptions. And this money goes towards
paying absurdly high salaries to morons.

Mind you, as someone who detests all sport, I'm not personally
concerned about this at all except when the FTA/FTV channels bid for
expensive sporting rights and so waste money that could be spent on
something worthwhile. Luckily for me they mostly no longer bid for
these rights.


I can't think of anything worse, except perhaps French or American TV,
from which may God preserve us all.

Have you watched any British or American TV over the past 20 years?
British TV is currently utter drivel.

You must be watching the wrong channels.

--
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. ;-)

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

No, the FTV channels are paying for a simple method to ensure that
they are not easily viewable outside their allotted area. They don't
give a toss about security. Only pay channels care about this.

If there is no security then they become 'easily viewable outside
their allotted area' and they're not getting what they pay for.

Anyone with £1 in his pocket can walk into any car boot sale anywhere
in Britain and pick up an FTV viewing card.

Anyone with any credit card and the temporary use of a UK address can
get a brand new FTV viewing card issued to him for £20.

Anyone with £20 (or currency equivalent) and no UK address at all can
just buy one on Ebay without ever setting foot in the UK.

All FTV cards will work in any box and never need reactivating.

There is NO security involved in this anywhere, nor do the FTV
broadcasters care at all. It is a sop.

If anything the move to FTA transmission on 2D is a more effective
means of preventing reception outside the UK than viewing cards ever
were as now there are huge areas of Europe in which it is simply no
longer possible to receive those transmissions at all, with or without
a card.


It
would be totally wrong of Sky to discriminate against FTV channels in
favour of pay channels when they pay the same rates for the same
services. FTV channels should get a service every bit as good and as
secure as pay ones.

But a service that they neither want nor need, hence their move away
to a free FTA arrangement.

--
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. ;-)

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 09:53:20 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

But a service that they neither want nor need, hence their move away
to a free FTA arrangement.

If you really believe that then you're not seeing the wider picture.
Basically both the BBC and ITV are having to pay increased costs in
programme rights now, so they've really just substituted one cost for
another. Doing it this way enables them to try to start some kind of
non-Sky "Freesat" system whereby they will - just like Freeview - be
the only entertainment channels in a small pond, safe from competition
from any subscription services.

That said, their heart really isn't in it - ITV has apparently gone
very cold on the idea indeed, and doesn't want to contribute to the
installation of ONE more satellite dish, because Freeview is still
such a licence to print money for them.

--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Jomtien wrote:
Arfur Million wrote:

Forgetting, for the sake of argument, that the TV licence means that
all TV is pay TV, the fact is that many people do not share your view
that the BBC has higher quality programming than pay TV. IMO, there are
more decent programmes on ITV, C4 and C5 than on BBC (which just
possibly has fewer totally awful ones).

The last time I looked ITV, C4 and C5 required no subscription. My
comments were relating to pay (Sky) and non-pay (FTA/FTV) channels. I
also think that the 3 channels mentioned are always better value and
often better quality than subscription channels.

Fair enough, but the fact remains that many millions of people think it
worth paying for Sky channels, on top of the TV Licence, whatever you
or I may think about their output.



Pay TV also leads to the gross overcharging of non-Sky channels for
encryption services that they don't need or want, which was in fact
the main reason why the BBC "piled into Freeview" and also why they
instigated Freesat. It is also the reason why ITV have stopped
encrypting and why the C4 channels are looking also to change.


In other words, the BBC knew that they would run into trouble as soon
as they had to compete.

That is your interpretation, not mine. The BBC were fed up with giving
tens of millions of pounds of licence-payers to Sky every year for a
"service" that was costing Sky nothing to provide. So they decided to
promote services that anyone can receive and that require no special
payments or proprietary equipment in order to do so, rather than to
continue broadcasting in a way that only serves to fill Sky's coffers.
It makes perfect sense to me.


In the context of the BBC remaining publically funded, maybe. My
interpretation is that the BBC fears competition for revenue, and that
is the main reason that they did not go with encryption (via Sky or
otherwise).


You don't like monopolies, but you are in favour of the licence fee??

The BBC is not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination.

They do not monopolise the market, but they do monopolise the licence
fee.

I am in favour of the licence fee simply because there is no other way
of ensuring that at least one broadcaster gets enough money to make
programmes that may not only appeal to the lowest common denominator
viewer.



But that is exactly the sort of programmes the BBC makes nowadays.
Everything they broadcast is dumbed down to the nth degree. Their
science documentaries are abysmal (slight exception for the nicely
photographed wildlife progs, but they are not the only ones doing that
and they never really analyse the topic in much detail); their news
service is very poor (and inferior to what little I have seen of Sky
news); their arts programmes are a little better but still not much
cop, and the rest is lame comedies or weak dramas, or makeovers, or
Eastenders, or cooking programmes (rant continues on p94)

It also leads to the total disaster that is UK sport today.

More foorball and cricket is broadcast live than used to be the case on
BBC.

But at what cost and what price?

Sport today is a fractured and totally money-driven enterprise.
No one can see more than a small proportion of events without paying a
huge amount for various subscriptions. And this money goes towards
paying absurdly high salaries to morons.

Unlike the entirely reasonable salaries that morons like Clarkson,
Wogan and Anne Robinson get (well, they can't be that moronic to earn
what they do)?

Nowadays live sport is available on TV - like it or loathe it - much
more than used to be the case with good old Grandstand.


Mind you, as someone who detests all sport, I'm not personally
concerned about this at all except when the FTA/FTV channels bid for
expensive sporting rights and so waste money that could be spent on
something worthwhile. Luckily for me they mostly no longer bid for
these rights.


I like sport, but I agree with much of what you say. For those who like
it, sport should be played, not just watched on telly.


I can't think of anything worse, except perhaps French or American TV,
from which may God preserve us all.

Have you watched any British or American TV over the past 20 years?
British TV is currently utter drivel.

You must be watching the wrong channels.


I haven't watched much at all in recent years - I get my TV Licence and
started watching again last month and am already regretting it
(admittedly the summer months are always worse). I guess it comes down
to taste in the end, and I don't suppose that I will convince a regular
contributor to this group like yourself (hence almost by definition a
TV enthusiast) that the quality of TV is as utterly terrible as I see
it. However, perhaps you can understand that for someone like myself
whose meagre telly needs would easily be satisfied by what's on ITV, C4
and C5 that it really rankles at having to pay the same as everyone
else for a service that I view as dreadful.

British TV *is* awful, and travel to the US regularly enough to make
the comparison with that country's output - and I would say that what
they have is currently better (comparing basic service for basic
service). I would not have dreamt of saying that 20 years ago.

Regards,
Arfur

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Arfur Million wrote:

Fair enough, but the fact remains that many millions of people think it
worth paying for Sky channels, on top of the TV Licence, whatever you
or I may think about their output.

Millions of people eat Pot Noodles. That doesn't make them taste nice.


The BBC is not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination.

They do not monopolise the market, but they do monopolise the licence
fee.

If you use that definition then everything purchased anywhere at any
time is a monopoly. Which clearly isn't the case.


I am in favour of the licence fee simply because there is no other way
of ensuring that at least one broadcaster gets enough money to make
programmes that may not only appeal to the lowest common denominator
viewer.



But that is exactly the sort of programmes the BBC makes nowadays.
Everything they broadcast is dumbed down to the nth degree. Their
science documentaries are abysmal (slight exception for the nicely
photographed wildlife progs, but they are not the only ones doing that
and they never really analyse the topic in much detail); their news
service is very poor (and inferior to what little I have seen of Sky
news); their arts programmes are a little better but still not much
cop, and the rest is lame comedies or weak dramas, or makeovers, or
Eastenders, or cooking programmes (rant continues on p94)

Along with all the dross there are still many worthwhile programmes
made by or for the BBC.

--
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. ;-)

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

But a service that they neither want nor need, hence their move away
to a free FTA arrangement.

If you really believe that then you're not seeing the wider picture.
Basically both the BBC and ITV are having to pay increased costs in
programme rights now, so they've really just substituted one cost for
another.

So you say. I've seen no figures to back this up. On the contrary, the
only solid information that I ever saw released came from Disney who
stated quite clearly that they wouldn't be looking for more money from
the BBC now that it is FTA on 2D.


Doing it this way enables them to try to start some kind of
non-Sky "Freesat" system whereby they will - just like Freeview - be
the only entertainment channels in a small pond, safe from competition
from any subscription services.

The last time I looked (yesterday) there were many FTA channels on the
Sky platform. The BBC and ITV are not alone.


That said, their heart really isn't in it - ITV has apparently gone
very cold on the idea indeed, and doesn't want to contribute to the
installation of ONE more satellite dish,

And why should they contribute to this any more than they should
contribute to the purchase of Freeview receivers? I see no reason why
viewers shouldn't buy their own equipment and, if there are some
pensioners somewhere who really can't afford it, then the government
can subsidise it for them via social security.


because Freeview is still
such a licence to print money for them.

Which presumably supposes that Freeview is in fact very popular.
Probably because it requires no subscription.

I'm not the only person who won't pay a subscription to watch TV. More
than 1 in 2 Britons think as I do.

--
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. ;-)