How Will Sky Respond to Freesat

jb wrote:
: is the actual carrier - think of the provider as the link between the show
: creator/provider for exmple the bbc and you - what does sky actually have to
: offer in this scenario - do they create and provide popular soaps, films,
: comedy, entertainment? my understading is that they simply carry most
: content... which is exacly what the bbc and itv inted doing for free...

Perhaps I am unusual but I find that a lot of the american content which
Sky (along with C4 and Five!) have a lot of better than much of the UK
stuff.

I am not arguing against the attraction of the BBC, ITV (at times!), C4 and
Five - but they will be on both Sky and Freesat. It's (most of) the rest!

In uk.media.tv.sky Ed wrote:

: Does an HD box cost more to manufacture? otherwise I dont understand
: why they would sell/give away anything else

Yes - allegedly! Freesat are charging typically £100 more for them anyway.

I am unsure how much is a hangover from the past - when they would have been
more costly - against what they think they can get for more functionality!

On May 7, 2:28*pm, Brian McIlwrath wrote:
In uk.media.tv.sky Ed wrote:

: Does an HD box cost more to manufacture? otherwise I dont understand
: why they would sell/give away anything else

Yes - allegedly! Freesat are charging typically £100 more for them anyway.

I am unsure how much is a hangover from the past - when they would have been
more costly - against what they think they can get for more functionality!

I assumed it was just a question of screwing a few pcbs together and
sellotaping them to a hard disk, whacking on a box and mailing them to
distributors.

On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:28:59 +0000 (UTC), Brian McIlwrath
wrote:

In uk.media.tv.sky Ed wrote:

: Does an HD box cost more to manufacture? otherwise I dont understand
: why they would sell/give away anything else

Yes - allegedly! Freesat are charging typically £100 more for them anyway.

I am unsure how much is a hangover from the past - when they would have been
more costly - against what they think they can get for more functionality!

Not having seen a HD picture ( well not knowingly anyway) is there any
great advantage to it .You used to hear all these stories of folks
plooks and blackheads being very obvious ..... I've already had one
experience of modern technology when watching football on an LCD
flatscreen and that wasn't a pleasant one so I'm not keen to be
disappointed again .

In uk.media.tv.sky wrote:

: Not having seen a HD picture ( well not knowingly anyway) is there any
: great advantage to it .You used to hear all these stories of folks
: plooks and blackheads being very obvious ..... I've already had one
: experience of modern technology when watching football on an LCD
: flatscreen and that wasn't a pleasant one so I'm not keen to be
: disappointed again .

I don't think you would be disappointed with HD on a flatscreen TV!

Football (and any live sport) really comes alive. Going back to SD afterwards
is pretty painful

On May 7, 3:15*pm, Brian McIlwrath wrote:
In uk.media.tv.sky wrote:

: Not having seen a HD picture ( well not knowingly anyway) is there any
: great advantage to it .You used to hear all these stories of folks
: plooks and blackheads being very obvious ..... I've already had one
: experience of modern technology when watching football on an LCD
: flatscreen and that wasn't a pleasant one so I'm not keen to be
: disappointed again .

I don't think you would be disappointed with HD on a flatscreen TV!

Football (and any live sport) really comes alive. Going back to SD afterwards
is pretty painful

Watching Sky football coverage on LCD screen is perfectly acceptable,
because it is filmed in HD so broadcast in hig quality. I am sure HD
is better, but not £300 for the box and £120 a year for the sub better.

uk.media.tv.sky
Brian McIlwrath
Wed, 7 May 2008 13:08:39 +0000 (UTC)


I just cannot see the Freesat dross having an enormous impact!


The humble freeview box will have given some people their first taste of
having more than five tv channels to choose from .

So there will be x percent of people who will get freesat for no other
reason than theres no subscription - the only 2 real differences being
its not a diy install and a zero is added to the price .


--
www.krustov.co.uk

how Sky will respond


Well, they would let them have Sky 1, etc on it, like they woun't on
Virgin/NTL and I guess they'll come up with some offer or something,
other thing they could do, is charge the BBC and ITV more money to
carry UK Gold, etc on Sky.

"Ed" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 3:15 pm, Brian McIlwrath wrote:
In uk.media.tv.sky wrote:

: Not having seen a HD picture ( well not knowingly anyway) is there any
: great advantage to it .You used to hear all these stories of folks
: plooks and blackheads being very obvious ..... I've already had one
: experience of modern technology when watching football on an LCD
: flatscreen and that wasn't a pleasant one so I'm not keen to be
: disappointed again .

I don't think you would be disappointed with HD on a flatscreen TV!

Football (and any live sport) really comes alive. Going back to SD
afterwards
is pretty painful

Watching Sky football coverage on LCD screen is perfectly acceptable,
because it is filmed in HD so broadcast in hig quality.

I disagree - as I've said at other times on this group, I would love to get
a nice neat flat TV and LCD should fit the bill but I've yet to watch
football on any LCD set that hasn't had me wanting to go home and watch it
on my CRT set. I was under the impression that the maximum refresh rate of
LCD sets mean that it's currently impossible to get rid of the motion blur
and the source obviously has nothing to do with this. If you have a
recommendation of an LCD set I can demo I'm very very interested.

"Nigel Barker" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 May 2008 12:44:30 GMT, "jb" wrote:


whilst you may very well be right - i have assumed that a third of its
existing base will migrate to the 'free' service within two years - egg'd
on
by ITV HD which is very popular eg Emerdale Corry etc etc.

Sky's 'normal' churn rate is 10-12%. Which means that each year they lose
over 900,000 customers &
if they want to grow their subscriber base they need to recruit about a
million new or returning
subscribers. I wouldn't be at all surprised if those figures are adversely
affected by the launch of
Freesat.
--

Cheers

Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

if you assume that the number which you have quoted leaving - doubles and
the number which actually return is cut to a third of its heady hey-day
numbers you arrive at 6 million which is the figure i mentioned and if you
assume that channels have been braodly replaced by content in four years
time sky might just possibly have been replaced comletely by then - hard to
believe i know - but then who can honesatly say they can imagine a model of
exactly how things will be in the tv world in two years time let alone
four!!!

cheers

jb