BBC/ITV Freesat...Do I need a Freesat Card for my SKY box ? Do I needa Freesat Box ?

The only reference I can find is to legislation requiring competition in
Digital TV supply. It should be noted that the costs of running so called
FTA channels have to found from somewhere, they are not free to run! In
the case of the BBC it's by Licence, in the case of others it might be
advertising. The BBC would be allowed to say that running Freesat has
costs which other FTA channels must pay for to be accessed by it. As long
as users have a choice the EU doesn't care. If the UK government was only
legislating to only allow Freesat to operate then they would be in breach
of EU competition law.


The issue here is also that the UK government allowed SKY to introduce a
"financial model" where the channels paid to be in the EPG. It would be
anti-competitive to ask that Freesat covered their EPG costs when SKY
doesn't. It's the FTA channels who will be behaving anti-competitively and
restricting choice if they are willing to pay SKY to be in their EPG, but
not Freesat.

John Russell wrote:
:
: The only reference I can find is to legislation requiring competition in
: Digital TV supply. It should be noted that the costs of running so called
: FTA channels have to found from somewhere, they are not free to run! In
: the case of the BBC it's by Licence, in the case of others it might be
: advertising. The BBC would be allowed to say that running Freesat has
: costs which other FTA channels must pay for to be accessed by it. As long
: as users have a choice the EU doesn't care. If the UK government was only
: legislating to only allow Freesat to operate then they would be in breach
: of EU competition law.
:

: The issue here is also that the UK government allowed SKY to introduce a
: "financial model" where the channels paid to be in the EPG.

Paying to be in an EPG is pretty universal! Freesat are not free either.

: doesn't. It's the FTA channels who will be behaving anti-competitively and
: restricting choice if they are willing to pay SKY to be in their EPG, but
: not Freesat.

That's not the issue in question! The question is should (or must!)
receivers allow manual tuning of FTA channels which are *NOT* paying to be in
the EPG - and dump these in some obscure list (as Sky do!). The (very few)
Freesat receivers which have escaped the intense pre-launch secrecy do
not - but they might acquire this in a software update.

"Brian McIlwrath" wrote in message
...
John Russell wrote:
:
: The only reference I can find is to legislation requiring competition
in
: Digital TV supply. It should be noted that the costs of running so
called
: FTA channels have to found from somewhere, they are not free to run!
In
: the case of the BBC it's by Licence, in the case of others it might be
: advertising. The BBC would be allowed to say that running Freesat has
: costs which other FTA channels must pay for to be accessed by it. As
long
: as users have a choice the EU doesn't care. If the UK government was
only
: legislating to only allow Freesat to operate then they would be in
breach
: of EU competition law.
:

: The issue here is also that the UK government allowed SKY to introduce
a
: "financial model" where the channels paid to be in the EPG.

Paying to be in an EPG is pretty universal! Freesat are not free either.

: doesn't. It's the FTA channels who will be behaving anti-competitively
and
: restricting choice if they are willing to pay SKY to be in their EPG,
but
: not Freesat.

That's not the issue in question! The question is should (or must!)
receivers allow manual tuning of FTA channels which are *NOT* paying to be
in
the EPG - and dump these in some obscure list (as Sky do!). The (very few)
Freesat receivers which have escaped the intense pre-launch secrecy do
not - but they might acquire this in a software update.

It is just as much an issue. If the EPG was considered like a listing mag
then it would be SKY and Freesat's job to pay the channels for them to
appear in the EPG. The problem over FTA would then disappear as both would
be obliged to offer access to all FTA channels by paying the channels to
have them in the EPG.

"John Russell" wrote in message
...

"Brian McIlwrath" wrote in message
...
John Russell wrote:
:
: The only reference I can find is to legislation requiring competition
in
: Digital TV supply. It should be noted that the costs of running so
called
: FTA channels have to found from somewhere, they are not free to run!
In
: the case of the BBC it's by Licence, in the case of others it might
be
: advertising. The BBC would be allowed to say that running Freesat
has
: costs which other FTA channels must pay for to be accessed by it. As
long
: as users have a choice the EU doesn't care. If the UK government was
only
: legislating to only allow Freesat to operate then they would be in
breach
: of EU competition law.
:

: The issue here is also that the UK government allowed SKY to introduce
a
: "financial model" where the channels paid to be in the EPG.

Paying to be in an EPG is pretty universal! Freesat are not free either.

: doesn't. It's the FTA channels who will be behaving anti-competitively
and
: restricting choice if they are willing to pay SKY to be in their EPG,
but
: not Freesat.

That's not the issue in question! The question is should (or must!)
receivers allow manual tuning of FTA channels which are *NOT* paying to
be in
the EPG - and dump these in some obscure list (as Sky do!). The (very
few)
Freesat receivers which have escaped the intense pre-launch secrecy do
not - but they might acquire this in a software update.

It is just as much an issue. If the EPG was considered like a listing mag
then it would be SKY and Freesat's job to pay the channels for them to
appear in the EPG. The problem over FTA would then disappear as both would
be obliged to offer access to all FTA channels by paying the channels to
have them in the EPG.


P.S. It' only the OFT in the UK which believe in the ludicrous idea that a
"box" is a "platform", as argued by Virgin against SKY. It makes more sense
to call Sat, Cable or DVB-T a platform. As long as you can buy a box on
each platform for FTA channels then the EU may well be satisifed that
competition and access to FTA is being satsified.

"Brian McIlwrath" wrote in message
...
Commander Gideon wrote:

: Ch4 are testing for FTA but no sign of FIVE tests yet unless i am
mistaken!

There have been no indications that Five will go FTA any time soon!

The Freesat website states that FIVE will be on it soon!