|
|
Five's new channels testing?
"allan tracy" wrote in message oups.com... Twas good to start with but once you'd seen all the Professionals repeats then all the car buying guides repeats that was that. I rather liked Roy Chubby Brown. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Good evening ladies how's the old clitoris. Any trouble you come and see Chubby. I might not be an expert but I'll have a f**king good look. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ I think it was: 'I might not be an experienced gynecologist but I'll have a f**king good look it for yer' I bet theres a few soggy saddlebags in the audience...... Rock On Chubs!! |
Five's new channels testing?
What I find so curious about 5 is that when it first began and satellite was still in good old analogue, it was a FTA channel, to enable it access across the UK, and of course into Europe (on the 19.2E Astra sat.). Now that 5 is on a UK only Astra sat, it is encrypted. It remains a public commercial channel and it along with Channel 4 and any 5 offshoots should be broadcasting FTA again; that means no Videoguard encryption. Alot of UK sat. enthusiasts are able to access other satellites apart from 28.2/5 and so we buy our satellite boxes from Humax, or Topfield or Echostar etc... All the BBC TV and radio digital channels are FTA, as are the ITV ones, Film 4 is FTA and so are all the commercial radio stations you'd get from a Skybox. 5 deliberately "courted" the satellite audience when it began and even today the analogue aerial transmissions lack the detail of satellite, so why not join the BBC and most of your commercial rivals and broadcast to all UK satellite viewers, unencrypted? I wrote to Five about this. Here is the correspondence. Your Reference: VA/167105/IK (Please quote this reference in all further correspondence) Date: 13th September 2006 Dear John Thank you for your recent further e-mail and please allow us to apologise for the delay in responding. We were sorry to read that you were unhappy with our previous response. We can not comment on ITV's licence to broadcast, as that may very well be different from ours, as indeed Channel 4's may be too. We would also remind you that as we do not make any programmes ourselves, we only receive broadcast rights. When we purchase broadcast rights for programmes and films, we only buy rights for UK broadcast, as even if a rights holder would sell us their programming for further broadcasting, the cost would be prohibitive. Obviously it is in our interest, as a commercial broadcaster, to maximise our audience, but not at any cost. It is also worth bearing in mind that, as ITV makes many of its own programmes, these restrictions may not apply to their satellite output. Thank you for your interest in Five. Yours sincerely Ian VIEWER ADVISOR Please note that the contact details for Five Customer Services are as follows: Telephone: 0845 7 05 05 05 / 020 7421 7270 Text telephone for use by deaf people: 0845 7 41 37 87 E-mail: Fax: 020 7836 1286 -----Original Message----- From: John Porcella ] Sent: 10 September 2006 21:22 To: Customer Services Subject: Fw: Five's New Digital Channels Please forward this to your supervisor/manager for immediate comment. In the second paragraph from one of your staff, it is stated that Five is licensed by OfCom and your licence prohibits "broadcasting outside the United Kingdom". But surely ITV is licensed under the same agreement, and it has decided to broadcast FTA. Your response does not satisfactorily explain why Five does not do the same. I await your clarification. John Porcella Thank you for your most recent enquiry. We apologise for the delay in responding. We were sorry to read that you are disappointed that Five Life and Five US, our two new digital channels, will be encrypted for digital satellite transmissions. The recent decision by the BBC and ITV to broadcast in the clear from a different satellite is not something that Five can copy. The satellite coverage now used by these channels can still reach parts of mainland Europe, and the Republic of Ireland. Five is licensed by OfCom (The Office of Communications). The terms of our licence prohibit broadcasting outside the United Kingdom. Also, when we acquire the broadcast rights for programmes and films, these are specifically for the UK territory. This is why we pay BSkyB to encrypt and broadcast our channel via digital satellite. The new channels remain free-to-air, meaning you do not pay a subscription in order to watch them. Anyone with the right equipment will be able to receive Five Life and Five US, regardless of whether or not they subscribe to any Sky channels. Nevertheless, your comments have been noted in our Viewer Enquiries Report. As you know, this is circulated throughout the company and will be seen by all relevant personnel. Thank you for your interest in Five. Yours sincerely David VIEWER ADVISOR Please note that the contact details for Five Customer Services are as follows: Telephone: 0845 7 05 05 05 / 020 7421 7270 Text telephone for use by deaf people: 0845 7 41 37 87 E-mail: Fax: 020 7836 1286 -- DVD rental: www.southeastbirmingham.co.uk/dvd PAYG Mobile Offers: www.southeastbirmingham.co.uk/payg Items for sale: www.dodgy-dealer.co.uk www.five.tv ************************************************** ******************** This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. It must not be sent by or its contents copied or disclosed to persons other than the intended recipient. Any liability arising from any third party acting or refraining from acting on any information contained in this e-mail is excluded. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately and delete it and any copies from your computer and network. This e-mail has been checked for viruses but it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the opening use or onward transmission of the e-mail and any attachments will not adversely affect its systems or data and no responsibility is accepted by Five in this regard. Channel 5 Broadcasting Limited is registered in England and Wales under registration number 03147640 and its registered office is at 22 Long Acre, London, WC2E 9LY. ************************************************** ******************** |
Five's new channels testing?
allan tracy wrote:
André Coutanche wrote: allan tracy wrote: What will the new channels be called - five two, five three etc? Five US and Five life. http://www.five.tv/aboutfive/press/p...wonewchannels/ André Coutanche Thank you. Five Life sounds like a bundle of fun - more girl's TV. How come a channel aimed at a female audience is considered viable yet somethig similar aimed at dysfunctional, autistic and infantile men (i.e. the sort that are interested in science engineering and things with wheels/wings) is not to be even encouraged? I suppose it's the feminisation of TV and the media again, but do Five really not wan't a male audience or do all the girls, that clearly run it, believe for one second that blokes are going to tune into irrelevant people TV. The country's going soft just look at all the complaints Top Gear attracts just because they dare to put some wheels on. That's because they're reviewing stuff that nobody watching the programme can afford. It's not that like I don't like the occasional "fun" item, such as the "Star in the reasonably priced car", but the Amphibious Cars", The Drive-Time Radio Show and the 3 Go Off Caravaning were just appalling waste of time and not funny at all. Even the races were interesting, whether it was the Ducati Veyron or the Race Around the London Marathon Route, but some of the really dumb stuff just grates. I'm not expecting it to act like the '70's and early '80's shows, but at least if they didn't treat every review of a non-hot hatch/sports/supercar as "Yawn, this ordinary car is soooo terrible, not like the SuperDooper SRZXTi 5000." Though at least it's not Vroom-Vroom, which seems completely Chavtastic. Though I did find the Cat and Mouse item entertaining. Five US will no doubt be full of all the stuff the other channels have already declined which, given that I avoid most US TV already, hardly sounds appealing. Probably it have 1st view of the series that they current show on five such as House, Criminal Minds, CSI, Killer Instinct etc. Some of the US stuff that's appeared on ITV4 such as the The Inside, Robbery Homicide Division and Wanted, have been pretty good. I agree there is probably a lot of dross on US TV, but there are good US TV series as well. Actually, AUS TV is not all bad they could do better to import some of that, in fact Serbo Croat TV holds more appeal than the US stuff. Bruce S. -- Replace the by by blueyonder |
Five's new channels testing?
Zero Tolerance wrote:
You don't have to pay Sky to get Channel 5. It's FTV. You do actually have to pay Sky something to get the viewing card. -- Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these. The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5 UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73 BBC/ITV reception trouble? ; http://www.astra2d.com/ ---- Only the truth as I see it. No monies return'd. ;-) |
Five's new channels testing?
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:26:01 +0200, Jomtien wrote:
|Zero Tolerance wrote: | |You don't have to pay Sky to get Channel 5. It's FTV. | |You do actually have to pay Sky something to get the viewing card. Yes GBP20 see sig. Ch5 bumpf says that they will be Free To Air, but I expect they are Linguistically Challenged. -- Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst* method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies. |
Five's new channels testing?
In article ,
Adrian A wrote: Peter Gillett wrote: In article .com, allan tracy wrote: Brian Wescombe wrote: Are Five's new channels testing on digital satellite yet? Thanks in advance I didn't know about this. What have we got to look forward to - Canadian football? What will the new channels be called - five two, five three etc? Probably E5 and more5 ;-) Peter Where have you been for the last few weeks? five life and five US. Did you not understand the smiley? Peter -- Peter Gillett : Totnes : South Devon |
Five's new channels testing?
Mike wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:00:37 +0000 (UTC), Brian McIlwrath wrote: Actually the BBC have been *VERY* secretive about what the ultimate savings have been!! They did announce how much they were saving by not paying Sky BUT have never admitted just how much extra they are having to pay for the rights to films/events!! It is quite possible that they are actually paying MORE now! As long as the extra money doesn't go to that smug **** Murdoch or any of his family it's alright by me :) The money that gets paid to 20th Century Fox for rights ends up in his hands. At least the Beeb don't show the Simpsons and 24 any longer. -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. |
Five's new channels testing?
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:11:01 +0100, "John Porcella"
wrote: I wrote to Five about this. Here is the correspondence. Your Reference: VA/167105/IK (Please quote this reference in all further correspondence) Date: 13th September 2006 Dear John Thank you for your recent further e-mail and please allow us to apologise for the delay in responding. We were sorry to read that you were unhappy with our previous response. We can not comment on ITV's licence to broadcast, as that may very well be different from ours, as indeed Channel 4's may be too. We would also remind you that as we do not make any programmes ourselves, we only receive broadcast rights. When we purchase broadcast rights for programmes and films, we only buy rights for UK broadcast, as even if a rights holder would sell us their programming for further broadcasting, the cost would be prohibitive. Obviously it is in our interest, as a commercial broadcaster, to maximise our audience, but not at any cost. It is also worth bearing in mind that, as ITV makes many of its own programmes, these restrictions may not apply to their satellite output. Thank you for your interest in Five. Yours sincerely Ian VIEWER ADVISOR Please note that the contact details for Five Customer Services are as follows: Telephone: 0845 7 05 05 05 / 020 7421 7270 Text telephone for use by deaf people: 0845 7 41 37 87 E-mail: Fax: 020 7836 1286 You should reply by pointing out that if they moved their transmissions from Astra 2B to Astra 2D there would be no issue with regard to broadcasting outside of the licensed territory. The Astra 2D beam is tightly focused on the UK & is the satellite that ITV, BBC & Film 4 all broadcast FTA. There is plenty of transponder space there as BSkyB have a load of encrypted channels that they could easily swap with the five transponders on Astra 2B. -- Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur |
Five's new channels testing?
The message
from Mark Carver contains these words: Mike wrote: On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:00:37 +0000 (UTC), Brian McIlwrath wrote: Actually the BBC have been *VERY* secretive about what the ultimate savings have been!! They did announce how much they were saving by not paying Sky BUT have never admitted just how much extra they are having to pay for the rights to films/events!! It is quite possible that they are actually paying MORE now! As long as the extra money doesn't go to that smug **** Murdoch or any of his family it's alright by me :) The money that gets paid to 20th Century Fox for rights ends up in his hands. At least the Beeb don't show the Simpsons and 24 any longer. Ah, "24", a series that very quickly demonstrates the concept of the phrase "A Month of Sundays" (same idea, but on a shorter timescale:-). -- Regards, John. Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying. The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots. |
Five's new channels testing?
Nigel Barker wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:11:01 +0100, "John Porcella" wrote: You should reply by pointing out that if they moved their transmissions from Astra 2B to Astra 2D there would be no issue with regard to broadcasting outside of the licensed territory. The Astra 2D beam is tightly focused on the UK & is the satellite that ITV, BBC & Film 4 all broadcast FTA. There is plenty of transponder space there as BSkyB have a load of encrypted channels that they could easily swap with the five transponders on Astra 2B. The problem is that BSkyB perform C5's uplinking (unlike BBC, ITV, and 4), so they're unlikely to do that swap. C5 would do better to try and rent space on one of ITV or the BBC's transponders, but I suspect uplinking and encryption are bundled together into a package with Sky. -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. |
Five's new channels testing?
"michael adams" writes:
Women also buy most of the soap and the deoderant as well as the aftershave around christmas. As they get most of the benefit. If there's a hunk spraying the stuff on himself then the advert is ususally aimed at women. If there's a bit of totty then the advert is aimed at men. Wondered why I felt the need to buy so many tampons. Graham |
Five's new channels testing?
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:57:33 GMT, Nigel Barker wrote:
You should reply by pointing out that if they moved their transmissions from Astra 2B to Astra 2D there would be no issue with regard to broadcasting outside of the licensed territory. The Astra 2D beam is tightly focused on the UK & is the satellite that ITV, BBC & Film 4 all broadcast FTA. That's the myth - you should have read the earlier comment from C5 which pointed out, quite correctly, that: "The recent decision by the BBC and ITV to broadcast in the clear from a different satellite is not something that Five can copy. The satellite coverage now used by these channels can still reach parts of mainland Europe, and the Republic of Ireland." -- |
Five's new channels testing?
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:05:40 +0100, Mark Carver
wrote: C5 would do better to try and rent space on one of ITV or the BBC's transponders There is absolutely no possibility of them agreeing to that! -- |
Five's new channels testing?
Mark Carver wrote: Nigel Barker wrote: On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:11:01 +0100, "John Porcella" wrote: You should reply by pointing out that if they moved their transmissions from Astra 2B to Astra 2D there would be no issue with regard to broadcasting outside of the licensed territory. The Astra 2D beam is tightly focused on the UK & is the satellite that ITV, BBC & Film 4 all broadcast FTA. There is plenty of transponder space there as BSkyB have a load of encrypted channels that they could easily swap with the five transponders on Astra 2B. The problem is that BSkyB perform C5's uplinking (unlike BBC, ITV, and 4), so they're unlikely to do that swap. C5 would do better to try and rent space on one of ITV or the BBC's transponders, but I suspect uplinking and encryption are bundled together into a package with Sky. -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. C5 is the most recent (and last) channel authorised under Act of Parliament to broadcast. They are a private channel but they ought to be able to uplink to Astra themselves; lets face it, it is Astra who are beaming the signal in and as you point out the 2D satellite would overcome this ridiculous argument over licensing. One of the points I was making about the fact that US serials and films are widely broadcast on both public and commercial European broadcasters is that the programme is viewable across the Continent, including the UK, FTA. Of course a French channel will dub Quantum Leap (Code Quantum) into French and a German channel will dub into German, but the point is the programmes are freely available. Their whole schedules are 'in the clear'. Isn't 5 owned by RTL anyway?? If it still is, it makes a mockery that we can choose RTL and RTL2 programmes freely from both Germany and Austria. Ongoing encryption of 5 after the analogue switch off will currently make it available only by contacting Sky and so Sky can bolster their "offerings". C5 was meant to be a public channel in terms of viewing. If ITV can broadcast US films and serials and the BBC can also, then 5 should do so also. The channel may be private but they have a duty to broadcast by digital satellite to all UK residents and by using Videoguard they are denying many of us the right to their channel(s). Dropping encryption would also save them alot of money. Encryption is all about a denial of service and it goes against the ethos of good satellite broadcasting. If half the UK broadcasters can do it "in the clear" and all the German stations (about 20 of them), plus the French public and Commercial stations, then I believe that 5 should fall in and broadcast as they should - to all digital satellite viewers. |
Five's new channels testing?
Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:05:40 +0100, Mark Carver wrote: C5 would do better to try and rent space on one of ITV or the BBC's transponders There is absolutely no possibility of them agreeing to that! For political or technical reasons ? Technical I can understand, the BBC and ITV rented transponders are already choc-a-bloc with no spare capacity. Not even enough it would seem for the BBC to be a 'proper' broadcaster and supply its radio stations at 256kb/s. Political, well if BBC and ITV want to get 'Freesat' off the ground, they will need all the friends they can muster. -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. |
Five's new channels testing?
On 19 Sep 2006 04:26:12 -0700, "galaxyguy"
wrote: and as you point out the 2D satellite would overcome this ridiculous argument over licensing. Except it wouldn't because 2D reaches large chunks of Europe and, closer to home, Ireland, which Channel 5 do not purchase transmission rights for. Of course a French channel will dub Quantum Leap (Code Quantum) into French and a German channel will dub into German, but the point is the programmes are freely available. Their whole schedules are 'in the clear'. And in French. Or German. Chances of any significant audience outside France and Germany? Slim. Ongoing encryption of 5 after the analogue switch off will currently make it available only by contacting Sky and so Sky can bolster their "offerings". Isn't that rather up to Channel 5 and nobody else? C5 was meant to be a public channel in terms of viewing. Are you suggesting that it's not? Some kind of closed-circuit TV? :-) If ITV can broadcast US films and serials and the BBC can also, then 5 should do so also. If ITV and the ludicrously over-funded BBC can afford to pay extra for European & Irish rights, then that's up to them. It suits their political ideologies better to say "well, going FTA won't save us any money, in fact it'll cost us more, but we can stick two fingers up at Sky and that's important to us" then that's fine. Other companies, like Channel 4 and Channel 5, (a) do not have as much money to throw around on playing such games, and (b) probably have no desire to anyway. Five is a private company with private shareholders. Why would it waste money on buying rights for audiences outside its transmission area, just for going FTA? It's money down the drain. No sensible company would do it. The channel may be private but they have a duty to broadcast by digital satellite to all UK residents and by using Videoguard they are denying many of us the right to their channel(s). Dropping encryption would also save them alot of money. Five are a private company and they have NO duty to broadcast by digital satellite AT ALL, they have NO duty to broadcast "to all UK residents", and those residents have no "right" to their channels. It would not save them ANY money, it would cost them MORE. What is in it for them? Nothing. -- |
Five's new channels testing?
On 2006-09-18, John Porcella wrote:
with wheels/wings) is not to be even encouraged? I suppose it's the feminisation of TV and the media again, but do Five really not wan't "wan't"? So he can't use apostrophes correctly. At least that's a bit more complicated than quoting correctly, which appears to be too difficult for you... Perhaps you should just stop your pedantic whinging until you're able to make posts which not only correctly use apostrophes, but which actually: a) Contain facts, not bull****. b) Comply with netiquette. -- David Taylor |
Five's new channels testing?
Zero Tolerance wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006 04:26:12 -0700, "galaxyguy" wrote: and as you point out the 2D satellite would overcome this ridiculous argument over licensing. Except it wouldn't because 2D reaches large chunks of Europe and, closer to home, Ireland, which Channel 5 do not purchase transmission rights for. Of course a French channel will dub Quantum Leap (Code Quantum) into French and a German channel will dub into German, but the point is the programmes are freely available. Their whole schedules are 'in the clear'. And in French. Or German. Chances of any significant audience outside France and Germany? Slim. Ongoing encryption of 5 after the analogue switch off will currently make it available only by contacting Sky and so Sky can bolster their "offerings". Isn't that rather up to Channel 5 and nobody else? C5 was meant to be a public channel in terms of viewing. Are you suggesting that it's not? Some kind of closed-circuit TV? :-) If ITV can broadcast US films and serials and the BBC can also, then 5 should do so also. If ITV and the ludicrously over-funded BBC can afford to pay extra for European & Irish rights, then that's up to them. It suits their political ideologies better to say "well, going FTA won't save us any money, in fact it'll cost us more, but we can stick two fingers up at Sky and that's important to us" then that's fine. Other companies, like Channel 4 and Channel 5, (a) do not have as much money to throw around on playing such games, and (b) probably have no desire to anyway. Five is a private company with private shareholders. Why would it waste money on buying rights for audiences outside its transmission area, just for going FTA? It's money down the drain. No sensible company would do it. The channel may be private but they have a duty to broadcast by digital satellite to all UK residents and by using Videoguard they are denying many of us the right to their channel(s). Dropping encryption would also save them alot of money. Five are a private company and they have NO duty to broadcast by digital satellite AT ALL, they have NO duty to broadcast "to all UK residents", and those residents have no "right" to their channels. It would not save them ANY money, it would cost them MORE. What is in it for them? Nothing. -Zero Tolerance, I begin to understand why you chose your 'nick'; you seem rather strongly intolerant of views, or am I just imagining it? As to your points: You suggest that few people outside France or Germany would watch their channels and I suppose we might as well add Spanish and Italian FTA channels into the mix, might'nt we? If you are watching Sports events, a Classical concert, Ice Skating, Marine and Nature programmes is it necessary to speak the/any language - No. My example of "Code Quantum" on M6 is a good one in that most American TV is so easy to follow that you can follow it without it being in English. So, 'Quantum Leap' is at least intelligent and worthwhile but most US serials are so facile that the thin plots are utterly predicatable.Watching them in a foreign language can make them seem at least a bit more interesting sometimes. Arte, the best European Arts Channel which is free to air broadcasts in either French or German. They present many English programmes and show them in English with sub-titles. TV5 Europe offers subtitles in French, Dutch, German and about 5 other languages; they too have great films. Lots of people in England learning a foreign language seek out these channels and many non-learners enjoy watching the sun rising over the Alps each morning - the view you express that the actual and potential audience size is "Slim" is very debatable. Lets move on to the audience shall we? When I suggest that offering 5 via Sky which can then bolster it up as one of their channel "offerings", you tell me "Isn't that up to Channel 5 and nobody else?" Hmmmm. Although a private channel C5 was established as a Mainstream channel by Parliament. In the move from analogue to digital I'm sure it was never the intention of Government to hand over C5 on digital satellite exclusively to Sky. Many UK satellite owners own non Videoguard receivers; they also pay a licence fee not just for the BBC but for the right to view UK public TV channels; curiously this includes Channel 5. As I said earlier encryption is all about audience denial and C5 has no right to enter into a cosy private exclusive relationship with Sky. It has a public duty too; so again I say 'No it isn't up to C5 and nobody else'. Who owns 5? You mention private shareholders but I note that 5 is not registered on the UK exchanges, so who owns 5? If it is the private shareholders of RTL then they are operating double standards because RTL and RTL2 are 'in the clear' 24/7 in analogue and digitally. Do I watch them - sometimes, yes. I wander how much they pay for UK and Irish broadcasting? (I bet they don't pay €1) Yet they broadcast from both Austria and Germany right over the UK, Ireland and up to Iceland, I guess. C5 ought to challenge any "restrictive licensing" from the US and enter into an alliance with all the FTA channels to end such nonsense. You are being held to ransom. There are about 60 digital and analogue TV stations, UK and European who broadcast across the beam width offered by their signal from Astra. Its time C5 realised that whilst it is private that it is primarily a broadcaster and a larger audience brings with it better negotiating rights to advertisers. ITV has that benefit now along with BBC World, TF1, M6, Vox, ZDF, RTL, 3Sat, etc etc. Broadcasting is about broadcasting and encryption of your digital signals is all about 'narrowcasting'. Your channel already imitates M6 in many ways (which I believe is now also owned by RTL). Learn from all your rivals and don't shut out UK viewers after the Analogue switch off. |
Five's new channels testing?
In article ,
Edster wrote: (Zero Tolerance) wrote in message Five are a private company and they have NO duty to broadcast by digital satellite AT ALL, they have NO duty to broadcast "to all UK residents", and those residents have no "right" to their channels. It would not save them ANY money, it would cost them MORE. What is in it for them? Nothing. Larger audiences would mean larger advertising fees. larger audiences would mean they could try to get higher advertising fees. However if the firm advertising is offering UK products it's not a lot of use if the extra viewers are outside the UK -- From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey" Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11 |
Five's new channels testing?
On 19 Sep 2006 08:42:50 -0700, "galaxyguy"
wrote: -Zero Tolerance, I begin to understand why you chose your 'nick'; you seem rather strongly intolerant of views, or am I just imagining it? I am uncompromising and intolerant of error or faulty logic. I do respect views and opinions (and am really easily swayed by a good point) but I do tend to jump on "opinion stated as fact" - sometimes too much, so if that is the case here, my apologies. :-) You suggest that few people outside France or Germany would watch their channels and I suppose we might as well add Spanish and Italian FTA channels into the mix, might'nt we? If you are watching Sports events, a Classical concert, Ice Skating, Marine and Nature programmes is it necessary to speak the/any language - No. Absolutely, but for the most part, watching TV in a language you don't speak is, for most people, and most types of broadcast, not much fun. Don't get me wrong, I've got a FTA box hooked up to Astra 1 and I love nosing through it and Hotbird on occasion. I adore the quality and presentation of European TV and it's a constant source of regret to me that I just can't make the time to really sit down and learn a few new languages. Nonetheless - in most cases, the 'value' of a programme dubbed into French is fairly small outside France. Ditto Italy, Germany, etc. My example of "Code Quantum" on M6 is a good one in that most American TV is so easy to follow that you can follow it without it being in English. Again, fair enough, but hardly a mass-market activity. Interesting as foreign television is, if I want to be properly entertained, it's going to need to be in my own language. the view you express that the actual and potential audience size is "Slim" is very debatable. I think I'd stand by that. The points you make are good - excellent, in fact. But realistically, how many people in the UK are going to all sit down and watch something in a language they don't speak? With no subtitles? Is the audience for that activity going to trouble even the most minor of English-language channels on Sky? I honestly doubt it. Hmmmm. Although a private channel C5 was established as a Mainstream channel by Parliament. In the move from analogue to digital I'm sure it was never the intention of Government to hand over C5 on digital satellite exclusively to Sky. Perhaps, but in the absence of any prohibitions to the contrary, it's really not any of their business. C5 certainly has obligations as regards its terrestrial carriage - it must be FTA, etc. (Although I seem to recall that the original licence did make provision for a certain percentage of pay content, but that was a LONG time ago and might no longer be the case.) But as far as satellite goes, it's free to make its own arrangements. It wasn't that long ago that a Sky box and viewing card was good enough for all five terrestrial channels. OK, the BBC broke ranks for political reasons and to protect the future of the licence fee. (Greg Dyke's autobiography deals with this in excellent detail.) ITV wouldn't **** on Sky if they were on fire, so again no surprise in that move. But it mustn't be assumed that all these moves were cost-saving or even cost-neutral, because the reality is far from that. Many UK satellite owners own non Videoguard receivers; they also pay a licence fee not just for the BBC but for the right to view UK public TV channels; curiously this includes Channel 5. No, that's not true. The licence fee is for the right to operate a television reciever, it's not a right to recieve any particular channel. As I said earlier encryption is all about audience denial and C5 has no right to enter into a cosy private exclusive relationship with Sky. It has a public duty too; so again I say 'No it isn't up to C5 and nobody else'. I do see your point but I disagree. UK Company law states that companies are obliged to operate in the best interests of the shareholders, and that - in the absence of any specific regulation to the contrary - altering its satellite transmission arrangements to provide for FTA broadcast is not a move which it is legally under any kind of "duty" to perform unless it saves the company money or opens up new revenue opportunities. It doesn't make sense for C5 to do such a thing. It only needs a brief look at the experience of the BBC and ITV to realise that such a move costs more in programme rights, and results in the inability to show certain material entirely when those wider rights are simply not available. Bear in mind that C4 and C5 rely on a far larger amount of imported material - the very same imported material that is also eagerly snapped up by channels in Ireland, who often have exclusive rights in that territory. Will C4 and C5 want to lose out on major imported shows for their UK viewers, simply because they can't prevent FTA satellite transmissions from spilling into Ireland? Who owns 5? You mention private shareholders but I note that 5 is not registered on the UK exchanges, so who owns 5? If it is the private shareholders of RTL then they are operating double standards because RTL and RTL2 are 'in the clear' 24/7 in analogue and digitally. In a foreign language - so any overspill is effectively 'de minimis'. Very different kettle of fish to broadcasting in English (at all), or, for example, the situation where UK and Irish broadcasters can hold rights to the same english-language presentation of a programme. Think of a big import that you love - Sopranos, Desperate Housewives, CSI, Lost, whatever, I don't know. Are you an Aaron Sorkin fan? Did you like The West Wing? Want to see Studio 60? Now imagine that instead of waiting until January to see this series, you can tune your satellite receiver into an Irish channel that's showing it FTA. Are you going to wait? Probably not - and that situation, in reverse, is the problem. Those Irish channels are encrypted for the same reasons as the more import-heavy UK ones are. Its time C5 realised that whilst it is private that it is primarily a broadcaster and a larger audience brings with it better negotiating rights to advertisers. ITV has that benefit now along with BBC World, TF1, M6, Vox, ZDF, RTL, 3Sat, etc etc. But this is exactly the point - people who book adverts on ITV do so because they want to reach a UK audience. Sometimes not even the whole UK, just a tiny little bit of it. Overspill into Europe is no help and of no interest. And again using the Irish example, it's a positive hazard, where TV3, which up until recently was 45% owned by ITV and screened huge swathes of its material (Emmerdale, Coronation Street, Coronation Street, Coronation Street..). If ITV started selling adverts targeted at Ireland, suddenly TV3 goes out of business, and, in reverse, that means the income ITV were making from selling those programmes suddenly goes pop. It was always the dream of European satellite broadcasting that there would be powerful, Europe-wide "Super Stations" filled with blue-chip Europe-wide brands, commercials for consumer electronics, fast food, cars and banks that united us all in our Europed Europeanness. It didn't happen. Even advertisers segment the countries of Europe. They don't WANT people in France seeing commercials for something they haven't released in that territory yet. McDonalds don't want English viewers seeing their World Cup commercials saying "Come on Germany!" while at the same time they say "Come on England!" on British channels. There's just no money in Europe-wide broadcasting, outside of sex and shopping. -- |
Five's new channels testing?
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:55:11 +0100, Edster wrote:
Larger audiences would mean larger advertising fees. Any possible increase in audience would be so small as to be massively outweighed by the increased programme costs, and loss of viewers from no longer being able to attract the best imports. If going FTA on satellite suddenly brought in another 8 million viewers, then yeah, it'd make a whole lot of sense. As it stands, going FTA would raise your potential audience by.. what.. about 1%? It's not worth getting out of bed for. -- |
Five's new channels testing?
In article ,
Zero Tolerance wrote: McDonalds don't want English viewers seeing their World Cup commercials saying "Come on Germany!" while at the same time they say "Come on England!" on British channels. There's just no money in Europe-wide broadcasting, outside of sex and shopping. or "Carlsberg" "The Official England Team Drink, especially when a match involved England v Denmark -- From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey" Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11 |
Five's new channels testing?
charles wrote:
In article , Zero Tolerance wrote: McDonalds don't want English viewers seeing their World Cup commercials saying "Come on Germany!" while at the same time they say "Come on England!" on British channels. There's just no money in Europe-wide broadcasting, outside of sex and shopping. or "Carlsberg" "The Official England Team Drink, especially when a match involved England v Denmark Or Champion's League sponsors, Sony Playstation and Amstel 'beer'. -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. |
Five's new channels testing?
Mark Carver wrote: Zero Tolerance, Many thanks for the time you've taken and in answering many of my points. I didnot intend to show disrespect to you regarding your 'nick' and I'm very pleased you took none. There is nothing wrong with strong opinions or facts epsecially when they enable a good debate. I too take on board a number of your points but for the sake of keeping the debate going can just throw a few remarks into the pot again? You replied 'The licence fee is for the right to operate a television receiver, it's not a right to receive any particular channel'. I guess you are right but when television is all digital then homeowners with no Freeview Aerials and boxes or Sky receivers or other digital satellite boxes will, under your argument still have to pay a licence fee even though they have no TV channels! I'm assuming you still agree that will be the case. OK, being one of only several thousands of UK viewers with a non Videoguard non Sky digital s.t.b. I can live with seeing "Service Is Not Running Or Scrambled" for Channel 5. After all it will be 2012 before Crystal Palace shuts down analogue. One of the main points I have been making is that anyone wanting to see German clear TV, or French, or Spanish, or Italian can do so and they can watch series such as Lost if they choose here in Britain and Ireland in their living room. However, we in Britain cannot see your channels because of your issues over licensing. OK, for a minute I'll pass over that and offer C5 the Canal + answer to this question. Canal + as you know was the first PPV TV station and its immense success led to the development (some time later, of Sky). So how do they resolve this issue? Answer, easily. The programmes they make themselves or have commissioned are 'in the clear' and each day at lunchtime and in the early evening popular programmes are broadcast and identified in schedules as 'Clear'. Afterwards when a new film comes on, or an import series, or football then, they encrypt. You mentioned a list of US programmes to me and I have honestly to reply that however successful they are to 5, that I haven't seen any of them at all. Maybe I've missed out on "West Wing" but I don't actually live in the USA and I choose to trawl the 5 schedules for UK made programmes and this week the highlight would be 'Hotel Inspector', which has been very entertaining. Your brief News and Weather programmes are English and so even if you followed the strictest definitions imposed by US serials then you would still be able to broadcast 'in the clear' for part of your schedules. I did take on board your comment about 5 not necessarily wanting to use digital satellite. I do understand you have to pay Sky an extremely large fortune to be included in their EPG. This is something most Sky viewers will be unaware of, but must figure in your broadcasting costs. 5 though is not a small, struggling station is it? It is part of the RTL stable and as such your parent group is very wealthy. Advertising - an interesting area, isn't it? You think pan European advertising would never take off; but it has and in many ways. Firstly look at the Car adverts transmitted in Britain - all the cars are shown in a 'general European environment' - but they are nearly all left hand drive cars. Adverts made for the biggest car buying public. Secondly, what about Euronews and Eurosport. They feature adverts for aimed at all of us. I'm sure Somfy blinds, Renault, Kia and Rolex etc... don't consider their money wasted. Finally, as to the adverts on ITV and German channels. Many adverts are the same such as many womens lotions and hair dyes. And I'm sure that even within the UK it has done Becks Beir and all the other German brewers no harm to have free overseas advertising. It's a win, win situation. I honestly think you underestimate the number of extra viewers you may gain, but I do realise that, for example, RTL2 is a duplicate of 5 in many ways. German TV viewers are fortunate in that they have so many domestic channels and that they all broadcast FTA in both broadcasting formats still. One reason for this is the ongoing poverty in the former East but, most importantly, the Mountains in the South make terrestrial transmission too difficult and satellite solves the issues. Well 5, you aren't broke and ITV isn't wealthy any longer. If they can broadcast 'in the clear', I trust that you will review this issue. There is the option of partial encryption I've mentioned which is used by Canal + and Digital + Espana. |
Five's new channels testing?
galaxyguy wrote:
Mark Carver wrote: Zero Tolerance, Many thanks for the time you've taken and in answering many of my points. I didnot intend to show disrespect to you regarding your 'nick' and I'm very pleased you took none. There is nothing wrong with strong opinions or facts epsecially when they enable a good debate. I too take on board a number of your points but for the sake of keeping the debate going can just throw a few remarks into the pot again? You replied 'The licence fee is for the right to operate a television receiver, it's not a right to receive any particular channel'. I guess you are right but when television is all digital then homeowners with no Freeview Aerials and boxes or Sky receivers or other digital satellite boxes will, under your argument still have to pay a licence fee even though they have no TV channels! I'm assuming you still agree that will be the case. No, that won't be the case. For a start there's no such thing as a "Freeview Aerial" the vast majority of people currently recieving analogue broadcasts will be able to recieve digital just by connecting a digital reciever. For the few that are unable to recieve any broadcast channels then no licence fee is payable. snip |
Five's new channels testing?
Galaxy Guy wrote
Zero Tolerance, Many thanks for the time you've taken and in answering many of my points...... Mark Carver, Apologises that your name appeared above my own posting. I probably didn't edit the lines sufficiently. I want to make it clear that the above posting is my own. If I can reply to the point about "Freeview Aerials", in my area and I guess in most too, existing analogue aerials which deliver perfect analogue pictures 'pixelate' on Freeview channels and don't over the full line up. Consequently an outlay of about £120+ is needed for a big, wide aerial in order to deliver this digital terrestrial service. That said, apart from the ugliness of these bigger aerials their cost is soon recouped in comparison to cable and most Sky possibilities. |
Five's new channels testing?
On 20 Sep 2006 04:28:30 -0700, "galaxyguy"
wrote: when television is all digital then homeowners with no Freeview Aerials and boxes or Sky receivers or other digital satellite boxes will, under your argument still have to pay a licence fee even though An interesting point - it will depend on how a 'television reciever' is defined at the time once analogue switchoff occurs. Certainly, an analogue TV which is not capable of receiving television pictures then - as now - will not require a licence. It will only be if it's used in connection with something that receives 'live or as live television', such as a Freeview box or even some kind of broadband system, that it becomes a "television receiver" again. Answer, easily. The programmes they make themselves or have commissioned are 'in the clear' and each day at lunchtime and in the early evening popular programmes are broadcast and identified in schedules as 'Clear'. Afterwards when a new film comes on, or an import series, or football then, they encrypt. A good idea, but then, realistically, what is the benefit? FTA viewers will just complain that they can't see C5 "when anything good is on", and if they're going to have to have a Sky box to view the encrypted programmes, then they may as well view on a Sky box all the time. I did take on board your comment about 5 not necessarily wanting to use digital satellite. I do understand you have to pay Sky an extremely large fortune to be included in their EPG. It's not actually a large amount of money compared to what broadcasting actually costs. The last time I saw the figures (they were on a website somewhere) the cost for an FTV channel was something like £75k per year. Given that an outfit like 5 could easily spend more than that on just one episode of a programme, it simply doesn't figure. Look at some of the free to air channels on Sky - if even the lowest of low grade rubbish available there can afford to pay to be on the EPG, then it's clearly not a particularly burdensome charge. It is part of the RTL stable and as such your parent group is very wealthy. Hold on, you keep saying "your" - I'm not Channel 5! Did you copy and paste this from an email you sent them? :-) Secondly, what about Euronews and Eurosport. They feature adverts for aimed at all of us. I'm sure Somfy blinds, Renault, Kia and Rolex etc... don't consider their money wasted. True enough, but Euronews and Eurosport's adverts do have a certain kind of "Europudding" feel to them. It's very unlikely that they're covering their costs purely from those commercials. The other problem is that advertising codes vary enormously between different European nations. What's legal in one country is illegal in another. It could be impossible to comply with two different sets of regulations which control the same thing. Well 5, you aren't broke and ITV isn't wealthy any longer. If they can broadcast 'in the clear', I trust that you will review this issue. I will do no such thing. And again, I am not channel 5. :-) -- |
Five's new channels testing?
|
Five's new channels testing?
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 04:28:30 -0700, galaxyguy wrote:
Mark Carver wrote: You replied 'The licence fee is for the right to operate a television receiver, it's not a right to receive any particular channel'. I guess you are right but when television is all digital then homeowners with no Freeview Aerials and boxes or Sky receivers or other digital satellite boxes will, under your argument still have to pay a licence fee even though they have no TV channels! Seeing as people who live in analogue blackspots (ie, people who live in isolated areas without any analogue coverage) have to pay a licence fee if they own a TV simply for watching videos, then I think it's safe to assume that the same will be true after the switch. Maybe you could wiggle out of it if all your reception equipment is analogue (and you don't have broadband internet either), but I doubt TV Licencing would let you get away with it without a trip to court. Answer, easily. The programmes they make themselves or have commissioned are 'in the clear' and each day at lunchtime and in the early evening popular programmes are broadcast and identified in schedules as 'Clear'. Afterwards when a new film comes on, or an import series, or football then, they encrypt. Even though Five commissions programming, they still don't (for the most part at least) own that programming - the production companies retain ownership. So it doesn't matter if the programme is from the US or the UK, Five don't really own it either way. 5 though is not a small, struggling station is it? It is part of the RTL stable and as such your parent group is very wealthy. It's not exactly a large station either, and it has to justify it's existence to RTL (who then have to justify their existence to an even larger media company). Advertising - an interesting area, isn't it? You think pan European advertising would never take off; but it has and in many ways. Firstly look at the Car adverts transmitted in Britain - all the cars are shown While there will be many adverts reused across European territories, the people paying for them to be shown will be different groups. Why would Ford UK pay for Ford Spain's advertising? Pan European advertising will only take off once you have truly "european" companies. no harm to have free overseas advertising. It's a win, win situation. I honestly think you underestimate the number of extra viewers you may gain, How many people in the UK are actually affected by Five encrypting on Satellite? As far as I can tell, the only people affected are those who can not/will not get Five over freeview and are unwilling to get a Sky "free to view" installation. I can't see there being that many people, and I have to wonder if those few people are going to be that interested in the sort of programming Five is outputting (you said yourself that you don't have any interest in US programming - which means that any ability to watch Five US would be of no use to you) cheers maethor ps. I don't represent Five either :-) |
Five's new channels testing?
In article ,
maethorechannen wrote: Seeing as people who live in analogue blackspots (ie, people who live in isolated areas without any analogue coverage) have to pay a licence fee if they own a TV simply for watching videos, they don't need a TV Licence for simply watching videos -- From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey" Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11 |
Five's new channels testing?
"maethorechannen" wrote in message ... On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 04:28:30 -0700, galaxyguy wrote: Mark Carver wrote: You replied 'The licence fee is for the right to operate a television receiver, it's not a right to receive any particular channel'. I guess you are right but when television is all digital then homeowners with no Freeview Aerials and boxes or Sky receivers or other digital satellite boxes will, under your argument still have to pay a licence fee even though they have no TV channels! Seeing as people who live in analogue blackspots (ie, people who live in isolated areas without any analogue coverage) have to pay a licence fee if they own a TV simply for watching videos, then I think it's safe to assume that the same will be true after the switch. You don't need a licence if your TV is set up just for watching videos! However if you do not have a licence you may be subject to an abusive assault by the Licence Authority which apparently can be so intimidating that people have been known to go out and buy a TV so as to get a licence so as to stop the hassle! |
Five's new channels testing?
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:17:23 GMT, (Zero Tolerance)
wrote: It's not actually a large amount of money compared to what broadcasting actually costs. The last time I saw the figures (they were on a website somewhere) the cost for an FTV channel was something like £75k per year. Given that an outfit like 5 could easily spend more than that on just one episode of a programme, it simply doesn't figure. Look at some of the free to air channels on Sky - if even the lowest of low grade rubbish available there can afford to pay to be on the EPG, then it's clearly not a particularly burdensome charge. It is according to the 'Rapture' channel. To quote their press Release "Rapture TV believes that BSkyB is charging excessively high fees for the supply of an EPG service on the UK's only DSat platform." http://www.rapturetv.com/pressrelease/ -- Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur |
Five's new channels testing?
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 02:51:32 +0100, maethorechannen wrote:
How many people in the UK are actually affected by Five encrypting on Satellite? As far as I can tell, the only people affected are those who can not/will not get Five over freeview and are unwilling to get a Sky "free to view" installation. The so called "Free To View" installation actually costs 150 pounds which would be quite a disincentive to many people. -- Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur |
Five's new channels testing?
Zero Tolerance, Thanks again for an informative reply. Your detailed
comments and defence of the current status quo with 5 led me to believe you may have some loose association with them. It was in that sense that I wrote "your" a number of times. Indeed, it's a shame you aren't C5 in wealth terms:) Let me assure you and all readers here that I have not emailed 5 with any of my postings here. I guess they monitor views expressed here anyway. I have not cut and pasted anything and I hope my expressed opinions, which I've taken some time to elaborate are not seized on and 'cut and pasted' by anyone else to C5. (Although opinions are not covered by licensing agreements). I'm disappointed that nearly every view I've stated has been knocked back, but then again C5 may agree with some views I've noted. My only contact with them was on Monday when I telephoned and was put through to a very pleasant person from their Engineering Department who quietly listened to me and told me that my expressed views would be circulated around 5 as part of that day's log. I was impressed and thanked him. A little later I tried phoning Channel 4 to discuss these 'in the clear' satellite issues. I did not get beyond the Duty Officer who was not helpful at all. As regards the concept of a C5USA channel coming on air within days, no I doubt very much whether there will be anything worth watching on it at all, for me. I am actually a bit suprised the Channel can be legitimately allowed because I was sure that the EBU or Eurovision or the EU have applied restrictions to all European TV stations that their imported quota from outside Europe was fiercly restricted. I can't recall the percentage but I thought it was as low as 20% at peak broadcasting times. How you can establish a channel with 100% of US programming and get away with it beats me; it certainly sounds very retrograde and will undoubtedly be 'disposable TV'? What a waste of transponder space and ideas. An earlier correspondent remarked that a channel showing programmes from Australia {and New Zealand:my addition} would sound much more appealing. I tend to agree though the quota issue remains, doesn't it? |
Five's new channels testing?
Nigel Barker wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 02:51:32 +0100, maethorechannen wrote: How many people in the UK are actually affected by Five encrypting on Satellite? As far as I can tell, the only people affected are those who can not/will not get Five over freeview and are unwilling to get a Sky "free to view" installation. The so called "Free To View" installation actually costs 150 pounds which would be quite a disincentive to many people. Agreed. And the encryption of "Free To View" channels results in a gross anti-competitive advantage for Sky. Competitively priced satellite receivers will remain unavailable on the High Street as long as they can't receive many of the popular Terrestrial/Freeview channels. -- Dave Farrance |
Five's new channels testing?
Dave Farrance wrote:
Nigel Barker wrote: On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 02:51:32 +0100, maethorechannen wrote: How many people in the UK are actually affected by Five encrypting on Satellite? As far as I can tell, the only people affected are those who can not/will not get Five over freeview and are unwilling to get a Sky "free to view" installation. The so called "Free To View" installation actually costs 150 pounds which would be quite a disincentive to many people. Agreed. And the encryption of "Free To View" channels results in a gross anti-competitive advantage for Sky. Competitively priced satellite receivers will remain unavailable on the High Street as long as they can't receive many of the popular Terrestrial/Freeview channels. There would be nothing to stop five dual encrypting if they wished, ie. Videoguard and CryptoWorks or any other system where CAMs are freely available. -- Adrian |
Five's new channels testing?
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:08:50 GMT, Nigel Barker wrote:
It is according to the 'Rapture' channel. To quote their press Release "Rapture TV believes that BSkyB is charging excessively high fees for the supply of an EPG service on the UK's only DSat platform." http://www.rapturetv.com/pressrelease/ Rapture could be like Jomtien, who believes that charging even one penny would be an excessively high fee. -- |
Five's new channels testing?
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 04:21:28 +0100, charles wrote:
In article , maethorechannen wrote: Seeing as people who live in analogue blackspots (ie, people who live in isolated areas without any analogue coverage) have to pay a licence fee if they own a TV simply for watching videos, they don't need a TV Licence for simply watching videos You do if you are using a VCR or a TV with a tuner. The use of any device capable of receiving a televison transmission requires the licence fee be paid (http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/informa...dex.jsp#link1). The only way you could get around it is if you are using a monitor and DVD/video player - even then, they you are probably going to have to show that none of your equipment has a tuner. |
Five's new channels testing?
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 03:15:14 -0700, galaxyguy wrote:
I tend to agree though the quota issue remains, doesn't it? IIRC, the quota has a "when reasonable" clause - if your channel is dedicated to non EU content, then the quota is not "reasonable" and and therefore no longer applies. That's assuming the quota still exists (I seem to remember that they were considering scrapping it, as it's not particularly effective in a multichannel environment). |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com