Loading ...Its been announced today that 18 new channels will be launched on the Freesat platform late July and early August.
The first set of channels, launching Thursday 24 July, features a range of entertainment, news, shopping and gaming channels:
Zone Reality (channel 136)
Zone Horror (channel 138)
Russia Today (channel 206)
The Fight Network (channel 251)
Inspiration (channel 690)
PitchWorld (channel 804)
Gems TV (channel 805)
Shop on TV (channel 807)
Netplay TV (channel 851)
Gala TV (channel 861)
The second set, to launch Friday 1 August, consists of popular radio stations:
Capital FM (channel 719)
Choice FM (channel 720)
Classic fm (channel 721)
Gold (channel 722)
XFM (channel 723)
NME Radio (channel 727)
Insight Radio (channel 777)
BFBS Radio (channel 786)
Commenting on the addition of the eighteen new channels, Emma Scott, MD of Freesat, said;
Following last week’s launch of BBC and ITV regional variants, these new TV and radio channels further enhance Freesat’s offering and provide extra choice to viewers and listeners. This is great news for Freesat customers and something we will continue to do this year and beyond.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:45 am
Whilst I’m glad extra channels are being lauched, I’m going to struggle to get excited about crap like that - Russia Today? More shopping and quiz channels?
How wasteful.
Also, I can honestly say that I have never listen to the radio on my TV. Seriously, why?!
+1 for them making the effort. Next time, can we have something that people are actually going to watch…
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:50 am
Absolute junk!
Next my sunday paper will have a big banner on the front telling me there is “extra editorial” and then achieving it by filling the middle of it with leaflets, adverts, innovations catalogues, scratchcards…
Good thing I bought my Humax for nothing other than BBC HD, and carried a set of low expectations…
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:57 am
Wasteful? How is including some channels in the EPG that already broadcast on the satellites “wasteful”.
Who is the arbiter of taste to decree whether a channel is worthwhile or not? Maybe these are no good to you, but others obviously watch them or they would have closed down ages ago.
If you want some better channels, you had all better start e-mailing and calling the channel owners so that they know there is interest in them joining the Freesat EPG.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:58 am
I feel an education is needed on what to expect from new channels launching on Freesat. You’ll only receive FTA channels which decide to stump up the money for an Freesat EPG slot (£30k/year TV, 5k/year Radio). If you have a look at a list of FTA channels, you’ll find most are of an similar quality to these, so this is all you will ever get. Some have made comparisons to Sky, not realising that the major of channels enjoyed by many on Sky include Dave, UK Gold etc, all of which are subscription channels and therefore will never likely be available as a FTA channel, and therefore on Freesat.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Admin - I agree. These comments from those knocking these new channels are unrealistic. What do they expect for nothing live football channels, latest film channels etc. I think they have not read the logo “ITS FREESAT” not “FEESAT”.
I think some people need to take a reality check and realise just what a good service they are getting for nothing.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Looking forward to Zone Horror for the odd bit of B movie goodness, though the wife won’t be so pleased!. Nothing much else of interest though, fingers crossed for some more HD channels at some point.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
For the record - I commented that “I had low expectations” from the start, so in what way is that knocking the “new” channels.. They are indeed free, but Im not about to get excited over it..
There is a place for the Freesat service of course - but how about Emma Scott start the fanfare for something that takes a bit of Freesat HQ effort, and not the results of these “Free” channels paying the crazy EPG insertion fee to get to a wider audience.
Thank you “Free channels” for paying to get on the platform, no thanks to Freesat HQ.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
The rest of CSC Media’s channels would be nice, along with a few more HD channels.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Admin any chance you can ask the powers that be for some info on when we might get some more HD content in the way of new channels.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Lets be honest for a service that has only been up and running for a couple of months Freesat is excellant. W should be supporting it not knocking it. We all need to take a step back and let Freesat get on with developing the service. At the end of 12 months of it being up and running that is the time to review how it has done. If it has not performed as expected, then is the time for constructive critisism. So far it has more or less delivered on its promises.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:01 pm
These channels are already available as non freesat channels, so whats the big deal. When are we going to get quality additions like the interactive services which are denied to us at present, although FTA receivers can tune them in. Transponder 12441V BBCi1-7 is barred to us as non freesat channels, WHY?
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
All the criticism is a result of our instant generation IMHO. “I want it now” is the cry heard by parents across the land, and sadly, most give in too often.
Whatever happened to delayed gratification, saving up for things, the joy of anticipation?
As I see it, this Freesat thing is a big complicated long term project.
It will take time, but it is happening.
My advice is “Stop jumping up and down in your Prams”.
Things will happen in their own good time and a year from now you wont re-cognise it.
I am now ducking down low to avoid the flack having had my say.
Best wishes to all, Chris
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
John - its likely that most of the channels introduced to the EPG over the next few months will be FTA channels, and therefore already available as non-freesat channels. The difference being that you’ll get the 7 day listing and for the less techie, a much easier way of accessing them. A few exceptions include channel Five, which is presently FTV but will go FTA eventually!
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Nice to see a few more channels, hoping we might see a bit more HD content. Also it’s a shame ITV hid their regions and you have to put them in the non freesat mode, why could they not put a couple of alternatives regions alone side BBC Regions, or even better let UTV and STV appear on the normal EPG along side the BBC regions.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Chris - your absolutely right though, so no need to duck. Freesat need to allow the introduction of these channels in order to increase popularity, which in turn will then give them the popularity needed to maybe intice existing ’subscription’ channels over to the free way of thinking, but this won’t happen until viewing figures are high enough for the channels to consider it a viable option by way of advertising etc.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Well I have been looking forward to “Russia Today” as there are some good non-news programs on there sometimes. I would like to see the “Travel Channel”s on Freesat soon, but will just have to wait and see.
Steve — don’t you know! lots of people DO actually WATCH the shopping channels. do you know how they know this? because lots and lots of people do buy from the shopping channels. I must admit they are not my type of channels but they are paying 30k each to be on their own part of the EPG each year.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Zone Horror is a part-time film channel Lee B, hence in the entertainment. It’s mostly repeated series and modern-ish made-for-video American films as opposed to the actual classic B movie genre itself of the 40 to 70s.
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:19 pm
I have been watching some B&W B movies on Zone Horror already via the non freesat option on the receiver, but will be happy to see a 7 day EPG so I don’t miss anything “good”. I agree classic B movies are not on every day but they do have some available….if they were on any more often the wife would have a fit!.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:08 pm
I don’t think any of these are HD channels - when are we more likely to get some more HD channels? BBC HD has so far only been good for Euro 2008 and whilst the same could be said for ITV HD - at the moment its a joke! haven’t seen any films broadcast on either.
Channel 4 is a state controlled channel - why the hell are their HD channels only available on sky?
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Just a point I’m a little confused about: The cahnnel ‘Dave’ is on freeview and is FTA so is that not likely to be included in freesat ?
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Re: Tim (Hull) - regarding Dave, UKTV who own the channel will have signed different carrage agreements for each platform. Dave took over an existing 24hr stream on Freeview which was previously used by UKTV History, whilst on the other platforms, they have a long-term agreement with BSkyB which makes the UKTV family of channels part of the various subscription ‘mixes’ on satellite.
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Dave,
You seem to forget that we already subscribe to all these channels - we pay a license fee to the BBC that then buys in and commissions programmes. Equally ITV, C4 etc use advertising revenue to buy in channels.
So why shouldn’t some of the BBC licence fee money or ITV / C4 advertising revenue be spent on buying in Pay Channels for Freesat to make it competitive with Sky?
When you look at the cr*p on the terrestrial BBC, some of the money could definately be better spent on Freesat.
For several weeks now, I’ve been struggling to find 1 program a night worth watching between all 5 channels, thats hardly what I’d call delivering value for money.
I’m quite well aware the remit doesn’t probably allow for the money to be spent on Freesat now, but equally maybe thats something they should look at.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
@ Chris - thx for explaining it, makes sense
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:11 pm
With regard to new free HD channels you are unlikely to see anything beyond channel 4HD and an expansion of ITV HD this side of christmas at the very earliest. What is going to pay for them? The size of the freesat audience at present is highly unlikely to attract advertising revenue to pay for HD broadcasting which is many times the cost of SD.
As regards Freeview channels - Dave and Virgin are highly unlikely to appear on freesat for at least a year or two. they are encrypted subscription channels on satellite and are likely to remain so for some time due to rights issues and revenue issues plus other factors. There is very little space left on Astra 2D to enable restricting FTA broadcasts to the UK and until another satellite is launched to the 28 East orbital position with a tight broadcast footprint on the British Isles then you are highly unlikely to see more than a handful of pay channels at the very most joining freesat. The vast majority of the channels you will get in the next year are already available in the non freesat modes.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Everyone likes a good moan however, I remember when I first signed up to Sky. You got very few channels and Sky radio. So lets give Freesat a chance.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Many people, including me want this ‘concept’ to work because (1) it’s Free (2) means we don’t have to be a slave to Sky…..
I was a supporter of this idea 2 years ago….I still am…but want to say…
1) Freesat have used the HD angle to ’sell the idea/boxes’…ummm…BBC HD should be 12 hours a day, even with repeats….they won’t spend anymore of our money compared to transmitting the preview….THE BBC TRUST ARE OUT OR DATE, TO OLD IN THEIR THINKING..WAKE UP OR RESIGN…..of course BBC Parliament, Radio 6,7,8,etc are good ways to spend my money…..wake up……..
2) ITV…..HD….playing with it…..achieving nothing….commit to it or fail….look at your share price…..invest or die…..
3) No Five….well, Five are tied in to SKY for now but even then they say no Five US or Fiver……why not…….no justification as a commercial broadcaster…..smells to me
4) No C4HD….oh….my TV licence supports C4……PSB…..STOP WASTING MONEY ON PATHETIC PROGRAMS LIKE BIG BROTHER THAT ONLY ‘BIILY A.S.B.O NO MATES WATCHES’
In fact I would go as far to say that BBC1,2…ITV1…C4….and Five should all be HD…24/7…..as a bear minimum……
The Freeview/digital switchover fiasco is typical British….to small, too late, to considered……always left behind….2nd best…….No more GREAT in GB !!!
We, the consumer must SHOUT for more….the bosses must be held accountable and OFCOM etc……well….keep earning your fat salaries/bonuses for reinventing deliberation/prudence…..prudence…we heard that before…now look at us all.
ALL WE WANT IS GOOD, HD TV….AND FREESAT AND FREEVIEW CAN, YES, CAN GIVE US THAT…IN FACT, COULD OF 5 YEARS AGO….
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:53 pm
You would think the advertisers would want more channels to broadcast in HD, because reports from the USA show people tend to watch programs they would not normaly watch just because they are in HD, I myself at present am still with Freesat from Sky but have to pay £10.00 a month just to record Freesat, so when the time is right, ie a Freesat PVR is available and also Ch4HD, I will switch to Freesat, but back to my original point, I, myself am watching more and more BBC HD and Ch4 HD and less and less SD channels.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:32 pm
My God,
What a joke offering, there is now way you can even run a freeview package with cack like this, I can’t believe that some people actaully seem to pleased about this line up.
I think we would just be fooling ourselves if we except this as OK!
if you want substandard shopping sh** like this you may as well just stream it off the net.
How the hell can you offer a service that really just offers all the terestial channels that most people already have but with the addition of BBCHD that only broadcasts the odd time anyway.
And the thing that makes me really laugh is the fact that I can’t see any channels at all that arn’t already on Sky Freeview, and don’t confuse me with a Sky fan because I certainly am not, this is why I’m so dissapointed in the way this is panning out, I really hoped for some new low budget entertainment channels that no one had ever seen before, after all this is how some of the Sky FTV started.
And the “this isn’t a pay package” just doesn’t cut the mustard, thats like going into a garage offering free tyres and them fitting you with a new one, but with a puncture!
They are selling this as a new service boasting about the fact that it’s free, but as it turns out, there’s hardly anything new about any of the channels at all with the exception of BBCHD(ITVHD surely doesnt even count as this stage)
So thats it is it? you pay out 120 quid for one channel - not such a good deal after all is it!
Maybe they could rebrand it CrapSat
Mike
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:37 am
People complaining about these channels I think forget ONE thing, these channels are FREE TO AIR and have been broadcasting on satellite for years, it’s not like they are new channels taking up space, they are simply being added to the Freesat EPG, because at the end of the day Freesat is simply a new EPG and Interactive spec on a box. The channels have always been there, like there are many other channels there, but not on the Freesat EPG and have to be currently added manually. I find Russia Today a good channel. I simply add all the FTA channels on manually until channels pay to be on the Freesat EPG. Sometimes I think people think that there is somehow some new satellite these channels are broadcasting from - when there isn’t they are broadcasting from and are the exact same channels you pick up with a Sky box or standard FTA box or the new Freesat box.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:43 am
Wayne: I remember when I first had satellite - back then people weren’t Sky brainwashed, people asked if you had satellite, never Sky. Back then the channels were free to air, then Astra 1 launched and Sky moved Sky Channel to Astra 1 and added a few other channels, MTV and a couple of other channels came across too. German channels and a few Dutch channels came to Astra 1 also. They were great days, however over times Sky brainwashed people into thinking satellite means only Sky and started charging people for what was once free. Nowadays you hear people ask “Do you have Sky” when that was never heard of - always “Have you got satellite”. People now say “Remember when there were German channels on Sky” when there never was German channels on Sky, it just happened that German channels broadcast on Astra 1 too and your satellite receiver picked all channels up.
Who do we blame, Sky for being so good at brainwashing, or the viewer for being so susceptible to the brainwashing?
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:14 am
I agree with many of the other comments here. I don’t think people are giving Freesat enough time to develop the service. I am the same as ‘King TuT’ I remember the days when it was just satellite TV and your film channel was using a dodgy box to beat the encryption on the Canal+ (Not me Officer honest).
Then as KT rightly says everyone was brain washed into thinking Satellite TV is Sky TV and these same people have been paying ever since… Back to my point, people should support this service not knock it (licence fee aside) it is a free service and the investment is a box costing less than the price of a 1 year package with sky. If you look at the posting from Humax stating the reason for the delay in the release of the HD PVR is that there are a lot of future upgrades planned Freesat and that they are trying to future proof the box as much as possible only gives me confidence that this service will offer value for money, oh its free, now that is good value!!!
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:59 am
I think a number of people are totalling missing the point. FREESAT is just another vehicle for receiving free to air channels and I expect once it settles down all free to air channels that are on SKY will also be on FREESAT.
I expect as well evenually channel 4 HD will be on their as well.
I am not really sure what those making all the negative comments were expecting as I have said before this is FREESAT not FEESAT. Lets also be totally honest apart from sport and films all the best programmes that are made all more or less start out on the main FTA channels.
If you want Nat Geo, History, Sport, current films etc then go and pay your £40 or £50 a month to SKY. Just stop complaining about what is evolving into what will be an excellant alternative to FREEVIEW. For the average viewer there is more than enough to keep them entertained on the existing channels on FREESAT so any further additions will be a bonus. Also most of these FTA channels that are not on there at the moment can be found by searching for non freesat channels. eg. I like the three Travel Channels and have now put them on my non FREESAT list.
So all you knockers either have a realiity check and stop complaining about what is an excellant service or dip your hand on your pocket and go and pay you £50 or whatever it is to SKY every month.
Remember this is just another platform for receiving FTA channels.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:21 am
I’m pleased to see Russia Today in the list. Russia is a fascinating country. The girls who read the news on it are pretty hot too.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:24 am
No offence intended towards anyone, but I’m afraid I just don’t understand why some people are getting so upset and angry about Freesat. As I see it, Freesat already offers a very good FREE service. With the exception of Five and C4 HD, the core services are already in place. If you want more than Freesat has (or will have) to offer, then, by all means, subscribe to Sky. It’s up to you.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:29 am
Davei - I agree with you. I think some people just don’t understand what is meant by the word FREE. I do wonder if most of the knockers are just SKY subscribers just trying to wind us up.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:49 am
Freesat’s selection of channels is great if, like some I know, you can’t get terrestrial Freeview or cable and can’t afford Sky. And these are the people for which freesat is intended.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Denis,
With the greatest respect, I think you are also missing the point.
See my post above (22). We are already paying for these channels through the license fee - Freesat is set up through the BBC trust and is a BBC backed service, backed with licence payers money.
I expect the BBC to invest my licence money by buying in premium programmes / channels and making them available for free on Freesat as do many others.
Freesat is the new premium public service for the UK (HD developments have left Freeview a dead duck due to bandwidth and the switchover has put paid to analogue) and Freesat should therefore receive public licence fee investment in programming as such.
The BBC trust are living in the past if they think that Freesat is anything other than THE system of delivery for the future and if they think that the public will accept 200 more channels of mediocrity, unless of course they want to do away with the licence fee and make it truly free.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Just had the retune message pop up on Foxsat, 10 New TV channels now available.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
[…] 18 New Channels On Freesat Platform […]
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Please don’t kid us with “NEW CHANNELS” . These are crap.
Where is Channel 5? , CH4 HD? And a working ITV HD?
Now they are new channels!!
My default TV is still Freeview.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I’d settle for subtitles on BBCHD……..
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Al - You just don’t get it do you. What other channels are you expecting?
You are only going to get the FTA channels that are present on Sky plus the main channels 1 to 5 as they go HD.
This is FREESAT not FEESAT. It is costing enough to provide the existing service and planned developments. You cannot realistically expect any other channels other than FTA ones unless users are prepared to pay a subscription. Then it is not in the spirit of what the service was set up for.
I really do not know what other channels people expect to receive?
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Do what I do regularly do on my sky+ planner, have a look down and see how often you record channels you are paying for, in my case it is rare to record a channel I pay for with sky. The only thing I am paying for at the minute is the sky+ record facility, Livingtv which has some programmes on my wife loves and nick jr for the kids. Looking forward to a pvr then will persuade wife to sacrifice most haunted and next top model as I did with the sport. The free to air channels are still putting out the vast majority of great and important telly, if you want films try a service like lovefilm, I have its basic package and it works for us.
Virgin own Living tv and a number of other channels now, after the dispute with sky they will surely have plans for the future to put channels on freesat, as with other channels I am convinced they are waiting for the sky tie in deals to end. Not convinced many of the entertainment pack channels on sky see much of our subscription money from sky if any money at all, we just need to give service time, for me not having a digital aerial it is great to know that when better kit is brought in and services improve I can put set top boxes or integrated tvs on the end of the extra cables I had put in from my lnb into kitchen and dining room, will be able to watch telly without forking out to sky.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Denis to answer your question, I expect them to use some of my licence fee to buy in some quality pay channels and then provide them on Freesat for free as part of public service broadcasting.
The are nearly 26 million people (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7291578.stm) paying on average £12 per month for a BBC licence. Whereas that might be much cheaper than Sky, the volume makes up the difference in revenue - I’m sure Sky would die to have 26 million UK subscribers. (They actually have 7 million which means revenue for revenue, the BBC’s licence fee with 4 times as many subscribers is equivolent to the revenue raised by a £48 package on Sky (4 x £12), and since only a few have a £45 package, which I believe is the top package, the BBC are clearly better off than Sky for revenue!) So this raises the question as to why can’t the BBC deliver the same value for money?
To further answer your question, I also expect them to use some of the money they get in by charging for slots on the satellite to be used for the same purpose.
The BBC spend millions on costume dramas watched by only a handful of people but won’t stand / share with the other major channels, the cost of operating the Freesat service themselves. In my opinion, its the, “its got to be self funding its a minority service attitude”, thats tying the channels commercial subscription monies into paying for the satelite bandwidth and not the channels purchasing.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Al - Just what “quality pay channels” do you think the BBC should buy in????
I see you NEVER name any channels,
I wonder why….
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Hi Mick,
I’ve avoided naming many because its all subjective. Whereas many people will agree on quality they won’t necessarily all agree on the exact choices.
Some I’d personally like to see are:
- Setanta (already discussed I know)
- An up-to-date HD movie channel and maybe a general movies channel in HD
- National Geographic’s & Discovery’s Channels or quality equivolents if tied in exclusively to Sky
- Extreme Channel to provide some variety from the usual sports
- Dave
- maybe Disney for the kids / those afternoons you want wholesome movies to watch (assuming not tied exclusively to Sky)
- A comedy channel of some description to provide classic comedy viewing such as Fools and Horses, Faulty Towers etc etc.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:29 am
Al - Get real !!!! You are just not going to get those sort ot channels on a Free service. If thats what you are expecting then I suggest you go and pay your money to SKY.
The vast majority of FREESAT users understand what the service is about. A small minority just do not get it and have totally unrealistic expectations.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:33 am
Al - As regards value for money. The BBC is a quality channel that it is far superior to any other channel on any platform free or otherwise. A large majority of the programmes on the pay channels started off on the BBC.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Tried to see new channels on Thursday 24th at 8-40 AM, non were on EPG or would not come up when keyed in channel number.
I have a Humax i tried to manually Re-Tune but it came up as NO NEW CHANNELS ?????
July 24th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Denis the BBC has more money than Sky but can’t deliver the same quality of channels on its satelite service, what does that say about value for money?
Public service broadcasting shouldn’t be the poor relation. Why should those who can’t affiord Sky have to suffer inferior programming? There should be a quality public service that delivers a large variety of quality media and then services such as Sky that offer a little bit more more in the way of premium specialist services eg. All the latest movies immediately after release, The Premiership etc. At the moment theres a poor public service in my opinion, and then Sky leaving little in between. You’re either a tv have or have not. At the end of the day if so much licence fee money wasn’t wasted on the rubbish that we do get on the BBC then they could afford some quality channels.
I disagree the BBC is a quality channel.
Tonight we have:
- The One Show - more current affairs drivel
- Eastenders - OK accepted very popular programme so quality standard there
- Celebrity Masterchef - about the most boring cookery programme out there (look for the F-word for how to do cookery dynamically) and even if you like it, who really wants cookery in a prime time slot on the primary BBC channel?
- John Barrowman - the making of me (who? - do we really want to sit in during prime time and watch an analysis of why he’s gay?)http://www.tvguideuk.co.uk/cgi-bin/bbcprog.cgi?FILENAME=20080724/20080724_2100_4223_14885_60×tamp=1216885268)
- News
- One Foot in the Grave - Repeat from January 1990 - a programme from 18 1/2 years ago and not even one of the real classic series either like Only Fools and Horses or Faulty Towers.
- Unfaithful - a film most have never heard of and a 1.5 star rating on Real Movies out of 5 for quality: http://www.realmovienews.com/reviews/150.
At the weekend no doubt we’ll have more boring talent shows - anyone seen Oliver or maybe Nancy!, and more cheap antique shows and house hunting programmes.
Don’t get me wrong, there are some good house programmes out there - Grand Designs and Build a New LIfe in the Country to name 2, but none on the BBC and most of the programmes are just fillers, every other programme is antiques or houses especially during daytime tv.
The BBC always gets praised by art critics for its costume dramas but how many people actually watch these? The BBC spends a disproportionate amount of money on commissioning lavish dramas that appeal in the most to a minority audience of pensioners. Thats not to say pensioners shouldn’t have programmes that appeal to them, just that I have to question the budget vs audience balance on these costume dramas as they tend to be very very very expensive.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Al - I am afraid we are never going to agree. The BBC over all its channels provides a top quality service. No doubt like me you may have been to the USA and seen the absolute drivel they have to put up with there. If thats the type of service people want here then they can keep it. If we do not support the BBC we will end up with a service like in the USA.
I still think you need to get real, if you are not happy with what is turning into an excellant service on Freesat either stop knocking it or ditch your Freesat box and go and pay your money to SKY.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Al - your comments are based on ignorance and an ingrained anti BBC stance which will no doubt be unshakable, no matter what anyone says to you. Firstly, the BBC needs a high revenue because they actually MAKE programmes, many of which are highly expensive to produce, especially drama and documentary. Sky tend to buy other people’s programmes in the main, which means their budgets are spent on acquisition, not production.
Costume dramas are expensive but highly popular with viewers, hence their appearance on BBC 1 (they are not just watched by a “handful of pensioners”). They are ‘flagship’ programmes, and if the BBC restricted itself to low budget programme making you’d no doubt be moaning about that too (why do I pay my licence fee blah blah blah).
It’s not just costume dramas that cost money, shows such as Spooks, with high production values, and natural history documentaries, also cost a lot but are well worth it in terms of viewer appreciation and sales abroad, which generate revenue to make more high quality programmes.
The UKTV channels are not purely owned by the BBC and it would be commercially unviable to put them all out free to air. If they did you’d be whinging about that - why do the BBC waste my licence fee etc.
However, I would think in the medium term one or more of the UKTV channels could appear on Freesat for free, rather like Dave does on terrestrial Freeview at the moment.
Finally, perhaps you could have a think about what Freesat is for and how the BBC works because posting another diatribe. At the very least, get your facts right.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Tony - Thanks for those comments.I do not expect Al to change his viewpoint. He is amongst a small minority of people who have totally missed the point as to what Freesat is about. As I have already said if people like Al had their way the BBC would disappear and we would end up with the sort of TV service that they have in the USA. I have been there and seen it. It is absolute drivel with adverts interupted by poor quality programs. Those people I have met in the USA are really envious of the quality service that the BBC provides.
Still I suppose like everything it is all a matter of opinion. There are those are prepared to sit through hours of Big Brother ( a program no more exciting than watching paint dry).
We should support Freesat and not knock it. The service has made great progress considering its short life so far.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Denis I agree we’ll have to disagree, but I’m not anti-BBC, I just don’t think that current programming is brilliant - (my local pub is full of people every night now who are out because they say they can find nothing worth watching on tv) and also I don’t think that Freesat is getting its fair share of the revenue - if you look at the terms under which Freesat was set up, its supposed to become self financing so no BBC funding in the longer term and yet its the new premium service over Freeview.
Whatever our differences, I’m sure you’ll accept the fact that Freeview is a service that has been left behind by technological developments. If not you need to check out UK free tv where the talk is far more technical. Come 2009, Freeview quality is to be reduced allegedly by 33% approx to make way for the possibility of 4 HD channels, thats SD picture quality reduction across the board, so all Freeview pictures are to suffer this quality reduction. After that, its more or less stuffed as there simply isn’t allegedly the bandwidth there to implement any more HD programming, and thats ignoring the fact that Super HD or Supervision as its sometimes called is already on the horizon and undergoing testing in Japan. Super HD is 4 times larger in pixel terms than Full HD @ approx 7,680 × 4,320 pixels. A predicted broadcasting test date I saw somewhere for Super Vision in the UK is 2013, so not that far away.
So whatever, happens Freesat is the future for public broadcasting for the UK and yet Freesat is getting less (soon to become no) funding and no publicity when compared to Freeview. This to me raises a very fundamental question why don’t the BBC prioritise Freesat over Freeview when it comes to funding and why aren’t we seeing premium services bought in?
However, to stop this from becoming circular, yep we agree to disagree.
BTW, I was one of Freesat’s biggest supporters pre-launch and still potentially am if they’d just up the quality of content.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Agree here that Freesat is the future replacement for Freeview, although Freesat deny this categorically…for now. Freesat has a good opportunity at having access to the full Freeview range, but it will take a few years for those channels such as Dave etc to see the advantages in advertisement revenue over subscription commissions. Freesat needs to grow its audience to a similar chunk of the population that have Freeview then you’ll see many subscription channels becoming FTA (beam space permitting). If Freesat do this right, and as said have more funding to push hard and make it clear that Freesat is the future, Freeview isn’t, then they have a good chance of gaining all non-sky owned subscription channels. If that happens, Sky will have to re-act by buying up these channels prior to any more to ensure they retain a good level of subscription customers.
I’ll create a blog about this at some point to discuss further. Its an interesting prospect for the long term future.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I can’t understand all this knocking of the BBC. Try living abroad. Just think what you get from the Beeb for your license fee compared to what you have to pay for Sky. They charge you nearly as much as a TV license for each and every extra TV you wish to watch in your own home, on top of whatever your original subscription may be. OK, so I don’t like everything that the Beeb produces, but I will defend its right to produce it and if there’s nothing on that I want to watch then I find something else to do. What other broadcaster produces quality programmes knowing that they’ll never appeal to majority audiences? What other broadcaster would have produced the superb “The Art Of Spain”, for example, knowing its limited appeal?
The BBC’s remit is to entertain, inform and educate. It does it superbly. Its programmes are not merely intended to make as much profit as possible for the broadcaster.
As for Freesat, it’s an excellent service which does what it says on the tin. As one who lives in an area where the the only digital service available until now has been Freesat from Sky it suits me fine to have ditched my Sky box and changed to Freesat HD. To receive BBC HD using Sky Freesat would have meant forking out four hundred quid for the box just because I refuse to subscribe to any other Sky service. I feel well rid of them.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Al - a no score draw - end of match !!!!
July 24th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
A sensibly debated match I must add
July 24th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
what a load a rubbish…. get rid of them all and get five in their place
July 25th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Get Dave and Fun Radio (great for the kids), release a 300gb PVR for less than £150 and I’m all yours Freesat.
July 26th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Rome was not built in a day!.
I wonder if Freesat will always launch 10 channels at a time, why was
there only 8 radio stations considering we had 10 TV channels?.
I wonder how much space is really left on 2D, tell me how you know people.
I want the music channels, I really want Club Land TV, I watch this in none Freesat mode.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:24 am
Radio stations went live about 11am BST
August 1st, 2008 at 6:18 pm
[…] new radio channels previously discussed (18 New Channels On Freesat Platform) went live at 11am this morning. These channels […]