Arirang TV Launches HD channel on Freesat

Freesat has announced the launch of Korean public service channel Arirang TV. Available in HD on channel 214 from today, Arirang takes Freesat’s total HD channel offering to 14.

Based in Seoul, South Korea, Arirang TV is an English language public broadcaster delivering news, cultural affairs and documentaries to international audiences. With the addition of Arirang to its service Freesat viewers can now watch popular Korean programming, including Arirang Prime, Simply K-Pop and Showbiz Korea.

Alistair Thom, Managing Director at Freesat, said:

We’re pleased to welcome Arirang TV to Freesat. Not only does this latest addition strengthen our HD channel line-up, it also broadens our channel footprint to bring a wide range of news and cultural programmes from around the world to the UK, all subscription free.

Moon Jae-Wan, CEO at Arirang TV, said:

We are very excited for Arirang TV’s launch on Freesat. As an international broadcaster we are always looking to expand our global audience reach, and being available to UK viewers through Freesat is a monumental leap towards that goal. As the first Korean channel to launch in the UK, we hope to connect our audience with the diverse culture and dynamics of Korea.

47 thoughts on “Arirang TV Launches HD channel on Freesat”

  1. Whoopee, get real Freesat just because its a HD Channel does not mean its on your subscibets wishlist. Cannot wait to edit and delete! There is Free and there is ?

  2. Brian Underwhelmed said:
    Whoopee, get real Freesat just because its a HD Channel does not mean its on your subscibets wishlist. Cannot wait to edit and delete! There is Free and there is ?

    Freesat must remember to consult you next time to ensure every channel added fits exactly what you need! Sod everyone else or the fact variety not only gives choice, but pays the bills for the platform!

  3. admin said: Freesat must remember to consult you next time to ensure every channel added fits exactly what you need! Sod everyone else or the fact variety not only gives choice, but pays the bills for the platform!

    Dosent change the fact that it’s another niche channel who’s viewing figures will be in the hundreds. Choice is always good, but if Freesat can add nothing but channels that appeal to such a tiny minority how on earth is that going to increase the number of “new customers”to the platform. Sky also have this new Korean channel. Strangely they don’t feel the need to make a song and dance about it. Probably because they know its hardly going to draw in any new customers.

  4. The beauty of freesat is that we can have mainstream AND niche channels. I want more HD, Arirang fits the bill

  5. Bodger said:
    The beauty of freesat is that we can have mainstream AND niche channels. I want more HD, Arirang fits the bill

    Easily pleased then Bodger?

  6. Well,… If Freesat get some income from this, whether or not anyone watches it, then maybe that may help pay for some decent advertising which may attract more customers, which in turn may land more important/popular channels in future.

  7. Bodger said:
    The beauty of freesat is that we can have mainstream AND niche channels. I want more HD, Arirang fits the bill

    If it’s just HD that you want your definitely on the wrong platform. Unless you watch anything that’s HD regardless of content, now that’s just bizarre. Crap is crap, even if it’s 1080i crap.

  8. What’s wrong with people here? It’s another free HD channel added to the platform which is surely good news. You do not have to watch it.
    As I see it Freesat continues to meet the needs of a large number of people who cannot receive Freeview (or at least the full Freeview service) or who want the maximum choice of free channels. It’s not intended to compete with the likes of Sky and Virgin which offer a premium service at a premium price.

  9. lawrence pearce said:
    What’s wrong with people here? It’s another free HD channel added to the platform which is surely good news. You do not have to watch it.
    As I see it Freesat continues to meet the needs of a large number of people who cannot receive Freeview (or at least the full Freeview service) or who want the maximum choice of free channels. It’s not intended to compete with the likes of Sky and Virginwhich offer a premium service at a premiumprice.

    My point is Freesat needs to grow if it is to remain financially viable in the long term. With the BBC been under pressure to cut spending, with them been freesats principal backer ( I think we are all agreed ITV don’t give two shits about freesat) then failure to keep the platform fresh and relevant means aggressively fighting to add channels and products that appeal to a wider audience than it currently does. If it can’t, with the rapid advance of technology , freesat will become an irrelevant service that can’t provide what the viewing public wants. Freesat runs at a massive financial loss. Without government money it would fold in the real competitive world. Maybe freesat is complacent about its future as management knows the BBC has to keep paying for its survival. Maybe privatisation of freesat is the answer.

  10. Jack said: If it’s just HD that you want your definitely on the wrong platform. Unless you watch anything that’s HD regardless of content, now that’s just bizarre. Crap is crap, even if it’s 1080i crap.

    Always will be until and unless the government step in and set a high minimum standard for broadcasting in the UK (across all platforms). ATM broadcasters can just broadcast any quality to suit their budget, and it shows. That’s no doubt why some people say they can’t tell the difference between HD and SD.

    To pick just 1 channel, when HD 1st came out on the BBC, the difference was like night and day. Now, there’s hardly any visible difference in my opinion. Then again when you look at the bit rate history it’s gone from a fixed rate of around 17mbs at launch in 2010 down to a variable average of only 3.7mbs today (low of 3mbs!!!)!

    http://en.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=10847&pid=6941&live=69&lang=en .

    Even allowing for codec improvements, it’s hardly surprising that a lot of the sharpness and detail from the original appears not longer there.

    I can show the difference in BBC HD as I took photos of my tv back in 2010 when the quality debate was raging even then @17mbs as Sky was arguably better at 21mbs!

    Here’s a photo of World Cup football on BBC HD back in 2010 @ 17mbs (bearing in mind this is a photograph of the tv on pause, not a direct stream or screen capture and so suffers a huge loss of quality compared to what’s actually on the screen – the camera pixelates it and picks up lines and flicker, plus pause always causes loss of clarity).

    However, I think even though that is the case, the difference in quality is staggeringly clear to see compared to BBC HD today:

    http://i65.tinypic.com/20zwl6s.jpg

    I also wanted a very high level of edge sharpness on the BBC. Something which in debates on their blog, from memory, they rejected in favour of “HD can be smooth but detailed”.

    I’ve said it many times before – we need government regulated and enforced minimum codec standards and high minimum bit rate standards eg at least 15mbs for HD, @ 45mbs for UHD @ Premium Standard (HDR and Rec2020) for 4K, @95mbs for 8K Premium across all platforms.

    Probably some minimum sharpness and colour saturation tests as well with exceptions only for “atmospheric” programmes eg period dramas that lend themselves to flat colour (although I think the sharpness exception is probably flawed as a picture can be period in feel and also still sharp in my opinion. After all people didn’t have unsharp eyes many years ago unless of course they needed glasses!).

    Will never happen though as the politicians in Government probably mostly watch Sky or Virgin. Last thing I believe they’re likely to bring about is a free service that can compete on quality or content for free.

    Just my opinions though.

  11. Al (Original) said: Always will be until and unless the government step in and set a high minimum standard for broadcasting in the UK (across all platforms). ATM broadcasters can just broadcast any quality to suit their budget, and it shows. That’s no doubt why some people say they can’t tell the difference between HD and SD.
    To pick just 1 channel, when HD 1st came out on the BBC, the difference was like night and day. Now, there’s hardly any visible difference in my opinion. Then again when you look at the bit rate history it’s gone from a fixed rate of around 17mbs at launch in 2010 down to a variable average of only 3.7mbs today (low of 3mbs!!!)!
    http://en.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=10847&pid=6941&live=69&lang=en .
    Even allowing for codec improvements, it’s hardly surprising that a lot of the sharpness and detail from the original appears not longer there.
    I can show the difference in BBC HD as I took photos of my tv back in 2010 when the quality debate was raging even then @17mbs as Sky was arguably better at 21mbs!
    Here’s a photo of World Cup football on BBC HD back in 2010 @ 17mbs (bearing in mind this is a photograph of the tv on pause, not a direct stream or screen capture and so suffers a huge loss of quality compared to what’s actually on the screen – the camera pixelates it and picks up lines and flicker, plus pause always causes loss of clarity).
    However, I think even though that is the case, the difference in quality is staggeringly clear to see compared to BBC HD today:
    http://i65.tinypic.com/20zwl6s.jpg
    I also wanted a very high level of edge sharpness on the BBC. Something which in debates on their blog, from memory, they rejected in favour of “HD can be smooth but detailed”.
    I’ve said it many times before – we need government regulated and enforced minimum codec standards and high minimum bit rate standards eg at least 15mbs for HD, @ 45mbs for UHD @ Premium Standard (HDR and Rec2020) for 4K, @95mbs for 8K Premium across all platforms.
    Probably some minimum sharpness and colour saturation tests as well with exceptions only for “atmospheric” programmes eg period dramas that lend themselves to flat colour (although I think the sharpness exception is probably flawed as a picture can be period in feel and also still sharp in my opinion. After all people didn’t have unsharp eyes many years ago unless of course they needed glasses!).
    Will never happen though as the politicians in Government probably mostly watch Sky or Virgin. Last thing I believe they’re likely to bring about is a free service that can compete on quality or content for free.
    Just my opinions though.

    Your absolutely correct about the BBC. I can see little difference in quality between sd/HD anymore. But at least the SD is watchable, unlike the cbs channels which are just abysmal. All the government is interested in is how much money they can make from selling as much terrestrial bandwidth as they can to mobile operators. They don’t care about free tv or the people who watch it. But as most of them are also morons who wouldn’t know sd from uhd it’s hardly surprising. I don’t expect anything will ever change. Freesat/Freeview will forever be picking up the scraps from the funding table. Remember when many USA dramas filtered down from sky to freeview.Not anymore, sky, Netflix and Amazon have an iron grip on 95% of new content, and they keep it there for good. Want to watch Game of thrones, walking dead, etc? Then you have no option but to subscribe or buy them on disc, because they will never filter down to free tv platforms

  12. This info is on A516. They think freesat is going backwards by the sound of it.

    FREESAT channel withdrawals
    Freesat appears to be struggling to retain or gain channels. New channel Blaze – despite being free-to-air on satellite failed to arrive on Freesat at launch, and three channels have during September quietly pulled the plug on the platform:

  13. Dan said:
    This info is on A516. They think freesat is going backwards by the sound of it.
    FREESAT channel withdrawals
    Freesat appears to be struggling to retain or gain channels. New channel Blaze – despite being free-to-air on satellite failed to arrive on Freesat at launch, andthree channels have during September quietly pulled the plug on the platform:

    How long before the BBC/ITV pulls the plug altogether? RIP Freesat???

  14. I think a South Korean channel in English is a great addition & welcome it. What with North Korea’s shenanigans it will be good to get a direct South Korean perspective on things.

  15. I Know the limitations. If I want loads of HD I wouldnt have Freesat I would pay for Sky. Thats why I say say “Arirang fits the bill” and I’ll wait for free HD.

  16. Big Adam said:
    When did the Trolls move in?

    Oh sorry, I thought this was a forum to discuss and debate the way forward for free tv. I see you think any criticism or reporting of facts, and yes a little speculation, is unacceptable. In future I will remember to quote the party line comrade “Big Adam”

    Bodger said:
    I Know the limitations. If I want loads of HD I wouldnt have Freesat I would pay for Sky. Thats why I say say “Arirang fits the bill” and I’ll wait for free HD.

    So you care not for developing the platform to draw in more customers? So long as your happy sod evryone else. Nice !!

  17. Dipper said:
    I think a South Korean channel in English is a great addition & welcome it. What with North Korea’s shenanigans it will be good to get a direct South Korean perspective on things.

    Because the internet hasn’t been invented yet where you live ?

  18. Jack said: Because the internet hasn’t been invented yet where you live ?

    Jack, You seem a little upset, calm down a bit.
    And yes, the internet reached Guernsey a long time ago.
    If you can’t see that all the lovely things Sky has to offer cost the equivalent of a new top-of-the-range Freesat box approximately every 3 months and for that you get loads of HD channels with all the hours of adverts that go with them then why don’t you go and give Mr Murdoch his shilling?
    I am perfectly happy with a one-time payment for the TV that I watch and the radio I listen to. As for BBC HD being poor, I suggest you replace or adjust your TV or go to an optician, the difference on my TV is obvious and the HD excellent!

  19. Jack said: Oh sorry, I thought this was a forum to discuss and debate the way forward for free tv. I see you think any criticism or reporting of facts, and yes a little speculation, is unacceptable. In future I will remember to quote the party line comrade “Big Adam”

    Dad?

  20. More channels the better but with the new Blaze Channel emerging on Freeview and many Freesat Channels disappearing, i’m starting to get worried about the future of Freesat.

  21. Jack said: Oh sorry, I thought this was a forum to discuss and debate the way forward for free tv. I see you think any criticism or reporting of facts, and yes a little speculation, is unacceptable. In future I will remember to quote the party line comrade “Big Adam”

    So you care not for developing the platform to draw in more customers? So long as your happy sod evryone else. Nice !!

    By “developing” do you mean paid for channels. If so then YOU are on the wrong platform. If thats not what you mean, what do you mean? (be nice if you can please)

  22. the French government handle things rather differently.

    I also watch a lot of French TV on Fransat, one of their satellite broadcast systems via a Humax FR1000HD from 5W; loosely the closest equivalent to Freesat, but it requires a free viewing card which comes with the box. Earlier this year all main-stream TV channels, basically *all* the TNT channels, their equivalent to Freeview (DTT), went HD in MPEG4 and all the satellite systems were required to follow suit. A number of previously encrypted channels also went FTA (well, technically FTV since a viewing card is required). Fransat claim 100% HD. That isn’t entirely true – but to all intents and purposes it is.

    There are now no main channels in SD, even the 24 regional France 3 variants plus the National version are in HD, at least in theory. In practice, it’s a little more weird. Although the regional variants are on HD channels, most actually only relay SD feeds (the lower quality is very obvious). I suspect this may be because it will take significant time to roll-out the HD kit to all regions – or maybe they’re just being French! As a result, any older satellite or terrestrial receivers which could only handle SD or MPEG2 simply ceased working!

    There are now four 24-hour news channels. The most recent, this month, being the launch of France Info, by France Télévisions (loosely equivalent to the BBC). Previously, this was only a radio station and more recently a website and app, but now they’ve closely integrated them. Overnight, it shows France 24 (French language version), loosely equivalent to BBC World (News) and broadcast from a number of other satellites (but not 5W) in various languages. This is currently only in SD and as it is intended as an international channel, is unlikely to become available on Fransat/TNT.

    Incidentally, the picture quality of all the main French HD channels is generally excellent. Although things went a little weird for a while during the switchover phase in March/April.

    Just thought some might find the comparison interesting.

    The Humax FR1000HD is a little weird/bonkers in some respects with some bizarre interface design decisions – a S/W update a few months ago at least fixed some of the most major bugs. Even so, a number of features are rather better than its nearest equivalent the HB1000s. It uses the RM-06S remote, oddly entirely labelled in English (probably just hurriedly thrown together like much Humax kit appears to be!). I am led to believe that is used for one of the Freeview models here. Infinitely better than the hideous remote for the HB1000s, which doesn’t even have a visible model number. Perhaps even they were embarrased by it!

  23. Bodger said:
    I Know the limitations. If I want loads of HD I wouldnt have Freesat I would pay for Sky. Thats why I say say “Arirang fits the bill” and I’ll wait for free HD.

    That could be construed as a very arrogant statement as it fails to take account of the fact that a large number of people in this country can’t afford to pay for pay tv.

  24. Keith (original) said:
    the French government handle things rather differently.
    I also watch a lot of French TV on Fransat, one of their satellite broadcast systems via a Humax FR1000HD from 5W; loosely the closest equivalent to Freesat, but it requires a free viewing card which comes with the box.Earlier this year all main-stream TV channels, basically *all* the TNT channels, their equivalent to Freeview (DTT), went HD in MPEG4 and all the satellite systems were required to follow suit.A number of previously encrypted channels also went FTA (well, technically FTV since a viewing card is required).Fransat claim 100% HD.That isn’t entirely true – but to all intents and purposes it is.
    There are now no main channels in SD, even the 24 regional France 3 variants plus the National version are in HD, at least in theory.In practice, it’s a little more weird.Although the regional variants are on HD channels, most actually only relay SD feeds (the lower quality is very obvious).I suspect this may be because it will take significant time to roll-out the HD kit to all regions – or maybe they’re just being French!As a result, any older satellite or terrestrial receivers which could only handle SD or MPEG2 simply ceased working!
    There are now four 24-hour news channels.The most recent, this month, being the launch of France Info, by France Télévisions (loosely equivalent to the BBC).Previously, this was only a radio station and more recently a website and app, but now they’ve closely integrated them.Overnight, it shows France 24 (French language version), loosely equivalent to BBC World (News) and broadcast from a number of other satellites (but not 5W) in various languages.This is currently only in SD and as it is intended as an international channel, is unlikely to become available on Fransat/TNT.
    Incidentally, the picture quality of all the main French HD channels is generally excellent.Although things went a little weird for a while during the switchover phase in March/April.
    Just thought some might find the comparison interesting.
    The Humax FR1000HD is a little weird/bonkers in some respects with some bizarre interface design decisions – a S/W update a few months ago at least fixed some of the most major bugs.Even so, a number of features are rather better than its nearest equivalent the HB1000s.It uses the RM-06S remote, oddly entirely labelled in English (probably just hurriedly thrown together like much Humax kit appears to be!).I am led to believe that is used for one of the Freeview models here.Infinitely better than the hideous remote for the HB1000s, which doesn’t even have a visible model number. Perhaps even they were embarrased by it!

    Exactly how it should be here Keith. The trouble is in France you have a very socialist society / government, whereas in the UK you have governments that many would say are very focused on looking after the rich and their interests. It’s not in the interest of commercial profits to force broadcasters to all switch to HD and especially at any kind of specified minimum standard, as bandwidth and new equipment, costs, and that means less profit for shareholders.

    Personally, I find it a national scandal that we’re still broadcasting a tv standard that’s approximately 65 years old in 2016.

    This is what is holding back 4K and 8K to a large extent in my opinion as there’s probably not enough bandwidth to broadcast 3 or 4 standards simultaneously eg BBC One SD, BBC One HD, BBC One 4K. A simple switch to a minimum HD standard for all broadcasts, would still allow people to watch SD via downscaling and would remove some channel duplication over SD / HD. The number of non HD ready tv’s out there now is probably very small and with a HD set top box costing as little as £30, and no doubt plenty refurbished or 2nd hand, there’s little reason not to make the switch.

    A universal minimum UK encoding / equipment / broadcast rate standard would also stop channels cherry picking platforms as all platforms both pay and FTA would have to comply. The only downside would be in the case of Freeview, the number of channels would have to reduce due to lack of terrestrial bandwidth. However, that’s hardly a major loss as some of it would happen naturally as one or two more obscure channels would probably be unable to meet the standards and fold thereby freeing the bandwidth without the loss of the major channels the majority value.

  25. The drive for (Government) income over quality is demonstrated even more in digital radio/DAB. They’ve greatly limited the bandwith allocation, as a result many of the BBC stations broadcast in mono only and even the ones in stereo are transmitted at a very low data-rate. Yet they bang on about _increased_ quallity over VHF/FM! Most of the time this is far from the case – even worse if you’re not very close to the transmitter or if you move. What is worse is that they frequentkly talk about a switchover and auctioning off the 92-108MHz bandwith to non-broadcasting services.

    The government has really battered the BBC over recent years. They forced them to fund for the international and foreign language services which were previously funded by the Foreign Office. They forced them to pay for the free licences for the over-70s, which was a Government policy. They forced them to largely fund the ‘Digital Switchover’. They’re taking, or talking of taking, funding for Channel 4 and S4C and any public service broadcasting on other channels from the licence fee. A lot of the dispersing of facilities around the regions was forced on them by government and again funded, or largely funded, from the licence fee. Various government politcians insist that ‘popular’ programming should be restricted to the commercial channels and vested interests in publishing moan about not being able compete against the BBC building highly popular, free and unbiased news and feature websites, e.g. BBC Food, from the licence fee and force them to close or be radically scaled back. Whilst at the same time they are happy to encourage $ky’s monopoly on being able to outbid everyone else many times over to secure programming and allow them to charge a subscription and show advertising.

    In France Canal+, the nearest (and earlier) equivalent of $ky, only charges a subscription, I believe. They also frequentky collaborate with both France Télévisions and the owners of TF1 to co-produce some big productions for France 2 and 3. Also series or films previously shown on originally on Canal+ subscription channels sometime appear only couple of years later on France 2 or 3. They show many popular US series, which get swallowed-up exclusively on $ky here, on France 2, sometimes even earlier than they appear on $ky. They have now started showing a few Netflix of Amazon series on France 2. For example, Mr Robot is currently being shown late on Monday evenings; the last series of Castle being shown earlier in the evening.

    I often enjoy watching English language series with English audio (not currently available on France 3) but with French subtitles. I find it fascinating, and a useful leaning experience, how they sometimes choose to translate/explain things to a French audience. It sometimes produces some unintentionally hilarious results. Of course, subtitles have to be concise and easily understood but sometimes their choice of translation can bit a little bizarre and significantly changes the meaning/story. It certainly provides an interesting insight into the French world-view.

  26. Hi guys
    Can you all have a guess what the usual freesat Christmas channel surprise is. 🙂

    \\\\\\\\\\\\\\
    \\\\\\\\\\\\\\
    \\\\\\\\\\\\\\

  27. Dan said:
    Hi guys
    Can you all have a guess what the usual freesat Christmas channel surprise is.
    \\\\\\\\\\\\\\
    \\\\\\\\\\\\\\
    \\\\\\\\\\\\\\

    I could 🙂

    ————————

    Well after wading through all these “glass half empty comments, let’s be thankful that an HD channel has joined the platform. It looks like there’s some better content than NHK World on there and documentaries about North Korea would interest me.

    I’ve said it before and will keep saying it until I’m blue in the face. Do not blame Freesat for the lack of more HD from the PSB’s (ITV2/3/4 E4/More4/Film4) blame Sky! It’s them who pay literally millions of pounds to keep these channels behind paywalls. If the money stopped tomorrow these broadcasters wouldn’t carry on keeping HD versions of their channels behind paywalls (and in a walled subscription garden) as it really wouldn’t make commercial sense to do so!

    If we were all contributing to “joinfreeview”, if such a site existed, then I’m sure the very same threads moaning about the lack of more HD would be as much applicable there – again all down to Sky!!

  28. RAM said:
    Dan
    Do you know there is a Xmas channel surprise or are you just assuming?

    Hi ram I’m just assuming cos they’ve done this for the last few year.. and sorry but sort of hoping as well.

    Neil said: I could
    ————————
    Well after wading through all these “glass half empty comments, let’s be thankful that an HD channel has joined the platform. It looks like there’s some better content than NHK World on there and documentaries about North Korea would interest me.
    I’ve said it before and will keep saying it until I’m blue in the face. Do not blame Freesat for the lack of more HD from the PSB’s (ITV2/3/4 E4/More4/Film4) blame Sky! It’s them who pay literally millions of pounds to keep these channels behind paywalls. If the money stopped tomorrow these broadcasters wouldn’t carry on keeping HD versions of their channels behind paywalls (and in a walled subscription garden) as it really wouldn’t make commercial sense to do so!
    If we were all contributing to “joinfreeview”, if such a site existed, then I’m sure the very same threads moaning about the lack of more HD would be as much applicable there – again all down to Sky!!

    Hi Neil
    🙂

    And to be honest I’m not all that bothered about HD version of ITV channels don’t get me wrong if a channel is in HD I’d watch it but at my age I remember when they was only 2 and then 3 channels with awful pictures lol.

  29. Neil said: I could
    ————————
    Well after wading through all these “glass half empty comments, let’s be thankful that an HD channel has joined the platform. It looks like there’s some better content than NHK World on there and documentaries about North Korea would interest me.
    I’ve said it before and will keep saying it until I’m blue in the face. Do not blame Freesat for the lack of more HD from the PSB’s (ITV2/3/4 E4/More4/Film4) blame Sky! It’s them who pay literally millions of pounds to keep these channels behind paywalls. If the money stopped tomorrow these broadcasters wouldn’t carry on keeping HD versions of their channels behind paywalls (and in a walled subscription garden) as it really wouldn’t make commercial sense to do so!
    If we were all contributing to “joinfreeview”, if such a site existed, then I’m sure the very same threads moaning about the lack of more HD would be as much applicable there – again all down to Sky!!

    I don’t think that’s quite true. The HD channels you mention were launched with pay tv in mind. Should sky cease paying a sub for them it’s just as likley they would shut them down as make them free to air. Time will tell as broadcasters move to 4k I suppose. Just my opinion. Not intending to offend anyone. The other point I made about developing freesat was aimed at moving freesat to a multi tuner and mixed sat/ broadband system including apps such as Amazon and Now tv. Not everyone can afford or wants pay tv. But with the quantum leap sky has taken with “Q” freesat and freeview need to up there game. Freesat with 4k capabilities would allow streaming of 4k content from Netflix. Adding now tv would allow cheaper access to pay channels without a contract.

  30. Al (Original) said: That could be construed as a very arrogant statement as it fails to take account of the fact that a large number of people in this country can’t afford to pay for pay tv.

    Al. Sometimes you are Berk.

  31. Bodger said: Al. Sometimes you are Berk.

    I’m with you there Bodger.
    There are also a lot of people who can’t afford a luxury yacht or private island which is just about as relevant.
    I personally could just afford to pay for Sky but choose not to as Freesat fits the bill & that greedy Murdoch bloke doesn’t get my money.

  32. Hi admin not sure if you’ve done this since 2012. But how about doing another poll of channels FTA to join freesat… or would this restart something lol….

  33. Maybe next time Sky And Freesat work together before NTL:Telewest a long time cable TV service now Virgin Media live home working channels available course electric guitar.

  34. I have an inkling that some time ago Ronnie mentioned he had a vision or hearing problem and he has a different way of typing than most of us. Maybe he could do with some assistance with his predictive text mangler.
    What’s the point you’re trying to make Ronnie?

  35. Ahhh Hi Rick, Welcome. Yes the great Dave debate. A question we have been asking for quite a while on the Freesat forums. There seam to be 2 answers. 1: No Dave because of Sky and it being behind their pay wall. 2: Licensing as if it were on Freesat everyone in Europe would be able to view it and something about content which can only be shown in the UK, hence why its only on Freeview. So I guess its up to you with one you believe. I personally think its because they get a fat payout from Sky.

  36. JJ said:
    Ahhh Hi Rick, Welcome. Yes the great Dave debate. A question we have been asking for quite a while on the Freesat forums. There seam to be 2 answers. 1: No Dave because of Sky and it being behind their pay wall. 2: Licensing as if it were on Freesat everyone in Europe would be able to view it and something about content which can only be shown in the UK, hence why its only on Freeview. So I guess its up to you with one you believe. I personally think its because they get a fat payout from Sky.

    Or because Sky’s contract with Dave is out of step with the other three FTA offerings. In answer to Rick’s comment, I strongly suspect Dave and Home, plus potentially other UKTV channels, will go FTA and join; it’s not a case of ‘if’ but ‘when’

  37. Neil said: Or because Sky’s contract with Dave is out of step with the other three FTA offerings. In answer to Rick’s comment, I strongly suspect Dave and Home, plus potentially other UKTV channels, will go FTA and join; it’s not a case of ‘if’ but ‘when’

    Sounds very promising Neil. Thanks for any advice and do you know a lot about freesat

Comments are closed.