BBC, Sky and Freesat

I never knew this before reading this article but the BBC had
trademarked the name Freesat, which sounds like a good idea. The bad
news is that it looks like it is going to let Sky use it.

http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/uknews/-bbc_freesat.htm

In other words it looks like the FTA satellite alternative to Sky is
not going to happen, which would be tragic. Anyone know who to
contact at the BBC to object to this plan?

"" wrote:
In other words it looks like the FTA satellite alternative to Sky is
not going to happen, which would be tragic. Anyone know who to
contact at the BBC to object to this plan?

and also try digging around www.dcms.gov.uk for their
digital tv bod whose address I posted in the past. It may also be possible
to attract the competition regulator's attention with the way all this and
the receiver market is going in the UK...

Ed wrote:
I never knew this before reading this article but the BBC had
trademarked the name Freesat, which sounds like a good idea. The bad
news is that it looks like it is going to let Sky use it.

http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/uknews/-bbc_freesat.htm

In other words it looks like the FTA satellite alternative to Sky is
not going to happen, which would be tragic.


I don't think it means that at all. This paragraph doesn't concur with
what you're saying, for example:

"The BBC has been in talks for months with other broadcasters, including
BSkyB, about its own free-to-air digital satellite service. It could,
for instance, share the trademark with BSkyB, allowing the commercial
broadcaster to call its own service Freesat 1 and launching its own
Freesat 2 service, with the Freesat brand jointly marketed by both
organisations."



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

DAB sounds worse than FM, Freeview, digital satellite, cable and
broadband internet radio

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 17:20:53 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

Ed wrote:
I never knew this before reading this article but the BBC had
trademarked the name Freesat, which sounds like a good idea. The bad
news is that it looks like it is going to let Sky use it.

http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/uknews/-bbc_freesat.htm

In other words it looks like the FTA satellite alternative to Sky is
not going to happen, which would be tragic.


I don't think it means that at all. This paragraph doesn't concur with
what you're saying, for example:

"The BBC has been in talks for months with other broadcasters, including
BSkyB, about its own free-to-air digital satellite service. It could,
for instance, share the trademark with BSkyB, allowing the commercial
broadcaster to call its own service Freesat 1 and launching its own
Freesat 2 service, with the Freesat brand jointly marketed by both
organisations."

I read that and thought there is no way there would ever be Freesat 1
and Freesat 2 because if one was based on Sky and one was based on
non-Sky technology the two would be incompatible. If the BBC lets Sky
use the Freesat name it will only be because it has given up any hope
of using the name itself.

Sky are stuck between a rock and a hard place because Freesat will
hurt their subscriptions but if they do not do it then someone else
will, and it will not be compatible with Sky. However if they do it
themselves then it will be compatible with Sky and they can encourage
people to upgrade and they can ensure that it is not so good that it
persuades people to stop paying their subscriptions to Sky and moving
to Freesat.

Freeview has been a great success for the BBC, but Freesat is a lot
more risky and politically risks upsetting Murdoch, so the government
may not want to upset Sky and lose the Sun.

Ed wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 17:20:53 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

Ed wrote:
I never knew this before reading this article but the BBC had
trademarked the name Freesat, which sounds like a good idea. The
bad news is that it looks like it is going to let Sky use it.

http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/uknews/-bbc_freesat.htm

In other words it looks like the FTA satellite alternative to Sky is
not going to happen, which would be tragic.


I don't think it means that at all. This paragraph doesn't concur
with what you're saying, for example:

"The BBC has been in talks for months with other broadcasters,
including BSkyB, about its own free-to-air digital satellite
service. It could, for instance, share the trademark with BSkyB,
allowing the commercial broadcaster to call its own service Freesat
1 and launching its own Freesat 2 service, with the Freesat brand
jointly marketed by both organisations."

I read that and thought there is no way there would ever be Freesat 1
and Freesat 2 because if one was based on Sky and one was based on
non-Sky technology the two would be incompatible. If the BBC lets Sky
use the Freesat name it will only be because it has given up any hope
of using the name itself.


Not necessarily, but I agree that it wouldn't look good for the
prospects of a BBC-led platform.


Sky are stuck between a rock and a hard place because Freesat will
hurt their subscriptions but if they do not do it then someone else
will, and it will not be compatible with Sky.


Yeah, they don't really have an option not to do it.


However if they do it
themselves then it will be compatible with Sky and they can encourage
people to upgrade and they can ensure that it is not so good that it
persuades people to stop paying their subscriptions to Sky and moving
to Freesat.


The real battle ground is over whether ITV, C4 and five are FTA or FTV.
If Sky can get away with keeping them FTV and chain people to Sky
digiboxes they will do, and an FTA system led by the BBC couldn't hope
to attract that many people, because you've got to offer 3, 4 and 5 when
they're switched off on analogue. But I think that Sky shouldn't be
allowed to chain people to their low quality Sky digiboxes and the
non-availability of a PVR because FTV people obviously can't have Sky+,
and this requires Ofcom to step in, although I've got so little faith in
Ofcom to do the right thing for consumers it beggars belief.


Freeview has been a great success for the BBC, but Freesat is a lot
more risky


Freesat wouldn't be risky for the BBC because it's already got ****loads
of channels on it.


and politically risks upsetting Murdoch, so the government
may not want to upset Sky and lose the Sun.


Sod Murdoch. Rupert hates the BBC anyway, so the BBC shouldn't care if
they **** him off or not. And the BBC should be independent of
Government anyway.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

DAB sounds worse than FM, Freeview, digital satellite, cable and
broadband internet radio