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

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."

--

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!

--

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.

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.

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.


--

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

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.

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

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.

--