Loading ...Jul 29 2008
It was of no surprise that our previous blog post entitled ‘Technical Reason For Freesat Batch Launch‘ would raise a number of questions/comments with regards to how and why Sky control the technical aspects of Freesat’s ability to add FTA channels.
The comments certainly made an impression on Sky, who have released a statement to TechRadar UK.
Have a read for yourself here – “Sky responds to Freesat red-tape hold up talk”.
July 29th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Sky’s response isn’t particularly informative – and it doesn’t contradict or add to anything that has been claimed by other parties (of a material, factual nature, that is). It is encouraging, however, that Sky is not oblivious to the negative reactions to its participation in getting Freesat services to air.
July 29th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Well done to the admin for creating a storm in a teacup that wouldn’t have been out of place in a tabloid newspaper. You’ve now got a mention in a ‘proper’ website.
July 29th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Glen – do our readers not have a right to know the latest released information and discuss matters they have an opinion on?
July 29th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I think the webmaster should be impartial, rather than trying to fan the flames of anti-Sky sentiment.
July 29th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Glen, as I understand it, admin merely passed on to us a statement that had been made by Freesat’s PR people. What made this a story, however, seems to have been the large number of responses from people like us – i.e. visitors to this site. Some of those responses may have been disproportionate (Who’s to say?), but the fact that Sky have felt the impact of those responses is, I think, a good thing; it is good, and to Sky’s credit, that they are not impervious to criticism (whether justified or not).
July 29th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Hey. I’m the ed at TechRadar and I just wanted to say well done on the scoop.
Your reaction to the press release was understandable and I think it was your responses to the release more than anything that allowed Sky to respond – which is good for everybody.
You didn’t send yourself the release and by publishing it and commenting honestly on your reactions to it you created the story.
And @Glen – Sky getting to respond gives them a chance to state their case rather than staying passive and being seen as the bad guy.
If anything this (your) story helped the situation rather than exacerbated it because it brought facts into the public domain for everyone to see.
Thanks,
Patrick
July 29th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
admin wrote ‘this is a good way for Sky to control the market and not allowing Freesat to gather pace too quickly.’
- you think that is merely passing a statement on?
admin wrote ‘Freesat’s PR agency … kindly sent over an explanation, which to be honest, shocked!!!’
- and that? Its an absolute lack of knowledge. Unsuspecting people read this site assuming the webmaster knows what he’s talking about. I’m not implying he’s stupid, just uninformed.
Glen.
July 29th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
In Sky’s response they admit that they control how many channels & the type of channels that will be allowed on Freesat each month. So Sky admit they control Freesat. Yes. Freesat has no REAL control.
July 29th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
No, Sky don’t admit that they control freesat; that’s exactly the sort of sloppy phrasing that made this into a little echo chamber of outrage in the first place.
Sky confirm that they control the equipment that combines the two different sets of EPG data on transponders carrying their channels, and since it’s their equipment, they decide how many changes they’ll make to it each month.
Saying “admit” makes it sound like they were keeping this a secret. They weren’t. Those with technical knowledge knew this from the start.
July 29th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Thanks Patrick, your appreciation for the news we released is appreciated.
July 29th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Nigel
Sky says
Sky have specified limits on:
- the number of services they will configure in a month. Ie Sky control the amount of channels each month that go on Freesat.
- the type of services they will configure. What type of Channel, ie Five.
It’s not what I say it’s what Sky seems to say.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:15 am
mark my words very boldly here because sky will be seeking an injuction against freesat in the high courts, claiming unfair intervention on the astra network. this will then stop any channels being added to the lineup for a couple of years while the lawyers argue.
July 30th, 2008 at 8:55 am
I’m quite capable of reading what the freesat comment said; but my point wasn’t about that.
It was about the fact that you thrown in phrases like “Sky admit they control freesat” when they have done nothing of the sort. Language is important, and the tone you have chosen to take suggests that this is something that has been hidden and only revealed under pressure.
It is no such thing, and using that sort of tone is exactly why the previous stream of contents was full of people expressing outrage at the way something’s done, without any technical understanding of the processes involved, and the bald technical facts that it has to be done that way.
And to “Steve,” Sky would have absolutely no reason to claim unfair intervention on Astra.
Both parties will carry on doing what they were doing before this storm in a teacup was manufactured – working together to ensure that both sets of EPG data are combined on the transponders, without disrupting either platform.
That’s all that’s happening. Not a deliberate move by Sky to slow things down. Not a “sudden shock revelation” of Sky having complete control over Freesat.
Two companies co-operating, and lots of panic by people who don’t understand the technical issues, assuming that if Sky are involved, they must be up to no good.
July 30th, 2008 at 9:30 am
But Nigel, this is not a purely technical matter. The fact is that BSkyB are, in effect, controlling the use of the technology at issue. It is, of course, perfectly true that Freesat, the BBC Trust, et al, accepted this situation prior to Freesat’s launch – which raises the question as to whether or not a public service should have accepted these conditions (though the alternative may have meant delaying launch even longer).
But as I pointed out on a previous thread, it is not unknown for satellite TV service providers to act cooperatively without one having the privileged position of acting as gatekeeper for the others. At the time I gave a poor example; this time I’ll give a better example:
The various CineCinema channels are carried on the same TP on 13°E. They are also available to the consumer via several different service providers (France Telecom, Noos Numérique, TPS, etc.). Not only do some of these providers use different EPGs (in addition to the standard Media Highway EPG), they use different encryption methods, too (an additional ‘problem’ not applicable to Freesat/Sky). And yet they are able to do this cooperatively. Of course, if someone knows that one of these service providers has gatekeeper control (whether for technological reasons or not) over the others, then I’d be interested to hear it
July 30th, 2008 at 9:51 am
One thing I would like to point out is that Freesat is not a threat to Sky infact they may be a help. Freesat encourages people to install dishes which can also by used by Sky boxes and so making it easier for people to subscribe to Sky. Freesat will also give people an appetite for HD which may encourage them to switch to Sky to get many more HD channels.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Glen,
Admins comment was an observation rather than a matter of fact.
His job is to allow and stimulate discussion about matters surrounding Freesat and by posting what he did he stimulated a discussion on the subject and far from your observation, not all of it was anti-Sky. Several people stayed neutral, I believe I was one and several actively defended Sky’s position. A range of views is what discussion is all about.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:22 am
The only way the BBC Trust could have decided not to allow Sky to have this control would have been by insisting that Sky first rebuilt the architecture of their platform, before Freesat launched. And I hardly think that would happen.
Satellite in the UK is in a fairly unique position, because of the way it has evolved, with Sky having their adaptation hubs in place. If Sky were to build their platform now, they might well do it differently, but they did it to launch back in 1998 when all the technology was very new, and some of the more standard options available to people now might not have been open to them.
Different encryption isn’t actually very hard – it’s clearly specified in the DVB specs. And most of the other operators are using pretty standard DVB-S EPGs as well. But yes, where things require multiple data streams to get to the same transponder, somewhere there will be a bit of kit that’s merging all those, at the uplink centre. And someone will be in charge of that bit of kit, making sure it runs properly, and passes through everyone’s data to the transponder.
Effectively, the bloke who operates that bit of kit is the gatekeeper, and just as Sky and Freesat need to co-operate, then when the uplink for that TP was configured, the various parties will have needed to co-operate to get it all set up properly. But we don’t hear about that, because it’s all been done already.
Sky is in a slightly different position, for various reasons. Firstly, their system isn’t entirely DVB-standard. And secondly, it is a huge platform – far bigger than the others. And as it’s evolved, it’s become pretty much a full-service operation for channels, managing the EPG (the hubs, though at the uplink centres, are controlled by Sky), and all a channel has to do is get transponder space. If someone else had wanted to run a service at 28.2 back at the start, then Sky would probably have worked out ways to co-exist much sooner. But no one did, and they’ve spent 10 years building up a fairly sophisticated platform, with end to end control.
We are where we are because of how satellite evolved in the UK, and that can’t be changed.
There are two ways round Sky’s adaptation hubs.
One would be for Freesat to use completely separate transponders, which would mean each channel would send another stream, costing them more money for a few Freesat viewers. The channels wouldn’t pay for that.
The other would be for Sky to rearrange their architecture to suit the needs of Freesat. Neither Freesat nor Sky is likely to pay for that.
So, they did the logical, sensible thing – they have arranged with Sky for the Sky systems to be programmed to allow the insertion of Freesat data too.
And yes, it’s happening co-operatively.
The only suggestion that Sky are deliberately slowing things down or obstructing Freesat has come from the fevered imaginations of a few people.
So far no one – not Freesat, not Sky, no one – has suggested or given any evidence to say that Sky are deliberately going slowly or not co-operating. They don’t have much choice – they’d rightly be dragged before Ofcom and the OFT if they did.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
but sky are slowing things down by saying we will only allow x number of channels per month to be on freesat, now that is control from sky and nigel it does not matter how much you protest, we all know sky hate freesat and what it stands for and by defending there position you are simply climbing into bed with them on all issues of satellite broadcasting in the uk, actually do you work for the sky pr department and your mission is to make everyone think sky are great, well write away we could all do with a laugh.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:26 am
Hold on!!! I think everyone is getting a bit carried away here. Even if the channels are only added in batches you can upload then manually if you need to see them now. Also lets face it apart from Five and 4HD we have the majority of the main channels that are going to be on Freesat for the forseeable future. Can we move on to another subject that is more positive please?
July 31st, 2008 at 7:14 am
Here, Here…!!….now getting a bit sad and boring…..
New series of Grumpy Old Men being recorded soon……first topic…..Freesat..
Lot more important things in life.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:00 am
Amazing, isn’t it? Pointing out how satellite TV works actually gets me accused of working for Sky’s PR department.
No, I don’t work for them. When a Sky rep knocked on the door the other week, I told him to go away, because I have no intention of giving the company any money, and I told him not to bother any of the other flats in the building, because I (as part of the management company) wouldn’t give them permission for a Sky dish.
What you’re confusing as being “pro Sky” is the fact that I actually understand the process involved, rather than thinking “Oh, big evil company, let’s kick them.”
Contrary to the knee jerk reaction from some people round here, there are sound technical reasons why Sky are involved in the process. I’m explaining those, not defending Sky’s position.
Of course Sky would rather they don’t have competition. I’ve never denied that. But they’re also bright enough to realise that being deliberately disruptive is not going to help them either – and no one has suggested that they are doing that.
So, there are limits on how many channels can be added at a time. Is that really surprising, when there are hundreds of channels and dozens of hubs to reconfigure?
If you had a platform that relied on changes being made to lots of bits of equipment, wouldn’t you do it gradually, instead of rushing through and risking taking loads of channels off air if anything went wrong?
Imagine the bashing Freesat would get in the Murdoch press is everything was done at breakneck pace and a mistake took some Sky channels off the EPG.
Unfortunately, it seems logic and reason don’t have much place in these discussions, if pointing out how things work is enough to get you labelled a Sky supporter.
I’ll say again – I don’t hold any brief for Sky. But if you’re going to start jumping up and down, complaining to Ofcom or writing to your MP, you’ll look far less stupid if you actually understand what’s happening in the first place, instead of writing in green ink “Sky are involved in something. It must be bad because they’re evil.”
If there’s any evidence that Sky are slowing things down, then they deserve to be hit with everything they can be – fined, and investigated by the OFT for their actions.
So far, there isn’t any.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:07 am
Nigel – I suggest you give this article a rest. This is getting really boring to the rest of us.
As I have already said extra channels are available on a manual search. Most of the channels that the majority of Freesat users want are already in place. So can we please move on to a more interesting subject?
July 31st, 2008 at 10:16 am
Sorry if you think understanding how things actually work is boring. I think it’s quite important. You don’t have to read it if you’d rather not know.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:34 am
Nigel – Most people that read these articles want a short straight to the point comment and not read an extract from “War and Peace”.
Clearly you are not or were not in the sort of job that required you to be quick and concise with your explanations.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:46 am
Denis: Nigel’s contributions are not boring at all, and I don’t see how you can claim to speak for the rest of us.
I, for one, am grateful to Nigel for his clear explanations. Sometimes clarity can’t be done in ‘quick and concise’.
As for the job that Nigel does, why don’t you Google “Nigel Whitfield”?
July 31st, 2008 at 10:48 am
Actually, I’m a writer. If you want a long explanation of how Freesat works, I’ll happily give you something with a lot more detail than I have done. I’ve hardly been verbose – it would be hard to explain what’s actually happening in many fewer words.
It’s up to the admin of the site whether or not they want reasoned contributions and useful information; not anyone else.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:57 am
Nigel 0-0 draw !!!!
July 31st, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Balanced debate is fine, but posts are being monitored. No problem with it continuing, it helps keep the website at the top of google
July 31st, 2008 at 10:30 pm
quite clearly nigel you have worked in the IT writing sector for many years, and will know all about how corporate bully tactics work in thrusting a product in your face even if its overpriced rubbish, however you stance on knowing exactly how the sky system works and the finer points of freesat makes me believe that you are or have been in direct contact with technical people at sky, hence you worldly knowledge on the subject, with make me believe you are merely a sky plant here and proberbly on other forums, defending the corporate image of your payslip.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:50 pm
if freesat asked all its consumers for £10 a month simply to own and use a pvr what would there reaction be, because sky have brainwashed consumers with it and got away with exactly that. i feel there would be a string of folks ringing ofcom, but i guess sky have labour in there pocket as well so they feel they can do what they like.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:03 pm
You’re proberbly right. Nigel is proberbly a Sky plant. He’ll proberbly stay away now that you’ve found him out.
August 1st, 2008 at 8:30 am
I decided to find out how the system works, because I think this is an important issue, and also one relevant to the article about Freesat I wrote for the current PCW – and that’s why I posted here, so more people would be informed.
It really is sad that pointing out how something works, and the logic of people actually co-operating over something like adding channels is enough to get me labelled a sky plant; frankly, it says a lot more about the person levelling that baseless accusation than it does about me.
If it makes you happy, while I’ve spoken with Freesat about how the system works, I haven’t spoken with anyone at Sky. I’ve simply done my research.
If you bother to read what I’ve written elsewhere, you’ll see I’m certainly not a defender of Sky. And if I really was in their pay, would I have put just as much effort into defending Freesat against people who claim their launch was a disaster?
But, obviously, you’ve decided anyone who doesn’t subscribe to your world view, and is able to articulate a different viewpoint, must be a Sky plant.
August 1st, 2008 at 9:51 am
What a twisted view of the world ‘Glen McFarlane’ and ‘steve’ have. Nigel has a job which requires him to be informed, amongst other things, about satellite broadcasting so he passes some of that information on to readers of this blog. Those who don’t like the truth carried in the postings decide that there is some kind of anti-Sky conspiracy afoot. How ridiculous!
How ridiculous also is the statement ‘we all know sky hate freesat and what it stands for’. ‘We all know’? I don’t know that.
I suppose the incredibly helpful website he set up which is dedicated to helping owners of Topfield PVRs is another anti-Sky attack?
August 1st, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Please ignore my reference to Glen McFarlane in the above post (#33). After re-reading post #31 I can now see it wasn’t aimed at Nigel but at another contributor… Apologies to Glen for missing the point!
August 1st, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Comments on this particular subject have now been blocked to avoid any further arguing between readers. This is a well respected Freesat blog, and whilst we welcome debate, we don’t appreciate abusive comments to each other. We’d hope that everyone is here to promote and help assist the development of the Freesat platform, lets not ruin this.