Loading ...Following on from the discussion below of 230 channels by early 2009, we questioned what the ‘technical issues with Sky’ could be causing for channels to be added in batches. Without requesting a reply, Freesat’s PR agency (whom have been absolutely fantastic since taking over) kindly sent over an explanation, which to be honest, shocked!!! This is what we received:
Due to Sky’s position in the satellite TV transmission, Freesat’s services have to pass through a Sky-controlled stage. In order for Freesat services to be acceptable to Sky at this stage in the broadcast chain, Sky requires all Freesat services previously to have passed through another technical process, managed by Sky, called ‘configuration’. This ensures that the Freesat services’ components meet Sky’s technical specifications.
For the ‘configuration’ process, Sky have specified limits on:
- the number of services they will configure in a month
- the type of services they will configure
- the grouping of services by transponder, and
- the frequency with which they will work on each transponder.
Freesat is obliged to plan its forward launch schedule within these requirements.
So this suggests that Sky have incredible control even over FTA channels becoming available on the Freesat EPG, and should this measure not be in place, its highly likely that all the signed-up FTA channels would already be available on the Freesat EPG. We can only hope that channel FIVE will be fast tracked to take up its position soon, but how do Freesat possibly make the decision on the running order of channels to be added, do they even have a choice, is it first come first serve or at the discretion of Sky? One things for sure, putting all technical issues to one side, this is a good way for Sky to control the market and not allowing Freesat to gather pace too quickly.
What does everyone else think?
July 24th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Maybe OFCOM should get involved…….restrictive practices….ummmm…..
July 24th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
thats a complete joke it sounds like sky have freesat by the balls then. Is all i can say is god help freesat because sky wont do the format any favours im sure specialy if it could in any way affect skys profit margins (ye ye its not meant to be competing with sky i know) but im sure people will be deciding to join freesat rather than Freesatfromsky i for one decided on freesat over Freesatfromsky so freesat got my money sky didnt that in my eyes is taking profit away from sky correct me if im wrong. So do bbc/itv pay sky for this chain of events?
July 24th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
I agree with MJV Ofcom should get involved, because as i see it Sky dont own the astra satellites. So what as it to to with them if a FTA channel wants to join the freesat epg. Other than they want to stay dominant in the market.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Completely agree with Dean and MJV, why is this being allowed to happen… utter disgrace.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
I’m not sure about that, sky have nothing to do with freesat and I can’t see why freesat would feel obliged to allow them to do this – sky doesn’t control the satellites.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
also its interesting how you didnt ask freesat directly for a statement on this issue sounds like they couldnt wait to get it of there chest. hhhhhmmmm.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Sky may not own the infrastructure in respect to satellite/Astra/uplinkage etc etc but money talks…they are the biggest Satellite player in europe..what they say will go…even if it’s over posh diners…nods and winks…backhanders…
They are aggressive….and will do anything to get subscribers. They are more than able to be underhand…not suggesting for one minute they would be….drag their feet…whatever you want to call it.
OFCOM should investigate SKY’s influence over Freesat’s plans….
Free TV (oh…if it’s OK with SKY)……ADMIN….get some more detailed facts…publish….and we can all email OFCOM….!!
July 24th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Dean and MJV are right OFCOM SHOULD INTERVEEN Sky are leading Freesat around by the nose
Of course Sky are putting obstacles in the way, they will loose customers,Ofcom should get off there backsides and make Sky be more helpful
July 24th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
If the Sky restrictive practices are true should we not try an on-line petition to release Freesat from this stranglehold also perhaps Freesat should pursue sky to stop using their registered name?
July 24th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Nationalise Sky, that will teach them.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Ofcom’s number
If you want to complain to Ofcom please call us on 020 7981 3040 or 0300 123 3333.
this was from their web site, I’m going to find out more about this……………..
July 24th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
It seems to me the rules have been designed to minimise the posibillty of disruption to existing services including Freesats. I assume that Ofcom has already approved these rules and so is unlikley to change them. The only alternative would be for Ofcom to tender for another company to provide the service.
July 25th, 2008 at 5:41 am
Yes if this as already gone through OFCOM then it should be a completely neutral company that deals with this. That as no influence from sky or freesat that way sky aren’t effectig freesat and freesat aren’t affecting sky…
July 25th, 2008 at 5:48 am
Lets hope OFCOM keep control of the situation and take SKY to task if they do not play fair.
Looking at it realistically the only major channels left at this stage to come on to Freesat are 4HD and Five. If we could get those then I think most Freesat users will be quite happy.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:02 am
I can’t believe this Sky is just an EPG, where else would you have your competition managing your channel launches and telling you what you can and can’t do.
I think it’s a joke and Ofcom should step in and sort this out. If Sky had not been involved with Freesat I have no doubt we would have had many more channel launches by now.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:06 am
If a petition is to be raised to complain to OFCOM, i for one would certainly sign Who do SKY think they are, contollers of the television, are they taking over doing OFCOM “S job.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:22 am
I agree absolutely with MJV and Dean – this is a case for OFCOM. And OFCOM, for their part, need make sure that they are seen to be absolutely neutral in their handling of this matter. It would also help if Freesat were a little less passive in protecting their (and our) interests.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Ofcom and all these so called agencies. who knows if they are somewhere along the line in cahoots with Sky etc. We have seen it before.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:52 am
I was involved with setting up the first non-Sky interactive gaming channel, Avago, back in 2001. Although we were more-or-less ready to launch on 11 September 2001 (an easy to remember date) the channel did not actually get on air until July 4 2002 because of a ‘technical process’ that rather helpfully gave time Sky time to sort out their Sky Bet Vegas channel that started on 4 April 2003.
I can’t believe they are still doing it, but they are already blocking people coming onto fSfS too…
http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051311
July 25th, 2008 at 9:01 am
If Ofcom don’t want to do anything then maybe the European Commission will.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:12 am
typical murdoch practice – play as dirty as you can get away with – they just try to control and manipulate the world to suite their own needs.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:22 am
with this news why do Freesat allow Sky to use the freesat name for their service – I am sure one or two punters have been confused by this
July 25th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Pedro: Sky have always done this. Back when UK Gold launched, Sky started their “Sky Movies Gold” channel a few weeks before.
If you want to complain to Ofcom please call on 020 7981 3040 or 0300 123 3333.
Or email graham.howell@ofcom.org.uk
July 25th, 2008 at 9:44 am
I contacted OFCOM this morning 25TH JULY, to complain about Sky “s conduct ( i spoke to a rather arrogant man in broadcasting complaints dept , who said that any complaints to them should be made to OFCOM by FREESAT THEMSELVES and not by individuals, he was not aware of what SKY were doing , or he wasnt bothered and gave the impression.
my reply was they were TOOTHLESS TIGERS,.
Can anyone tell me who pays for OFCOM in there plush offices in the centre of London,and all the staff, DO THEY GET FINANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT ( I. E US )
July 25th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Just out of curiosity, does any one know what happens elsewhere in Europe where there are often several satellite service providers carrying the same channels at the same orbital positions and often, though not always, using the same TPs? (e.g. on 13°E, AXN is carried by Arqiva, Polsat and SkyItalia – not actually the best example, as different TPs are used, but I mention it just to illustrate my point.) Surely a lot of these channels carry EPG data apart from the Media Highway standard (for now and next).
July 25th, 2008 at 10:08 am
It is very unfair on freesat but i feel ofcom will do nothing they are like the goverment where sky is concerned sky say jump and they say how high,this domination should have been dealt with years ago.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:09 am
freesat from the bbc/itv but sky tell us want to do.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:31 am
I will be interested to see if Ofcom let Sky do the Picnic thing on Freeview, as Freeview has so little space/bandwidth already to let Sky encrypt a good chunk of it would be a disaster.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Another place to complain to is to Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/contact_us.aspx
July 25th, 2008 at 10:46 am
or enquiries@culture.gov.uk
July 25th, 2008 at 10:53 am
It would appear that this blog is either inflammatory in purpose or extremely ill researched. There are many valid reasons why Sky should place linits on integration of freesat data with their own. AFAIK this is the first time two non DVB-S standard EPG systems have attempted to be integrated on the same transponders – across Europe virtually all multi platform satellite broadcasters use standard DVB-S EPG data systems and being standardised need very little if any testing for compliance with existing transmissions.
Many posts here smack of knee-jerk Wild West “vigalanteeism” in its worst form from uninformed people who have glanced at one statement and reacted without any consideration of why this has to happen and why the platform holders themselves are the only people (those in full possession of the facts) who can raise any complaint with OFCOM as one poster seems inflamed at being correctly informed.
Consider the outcry and the damages freesat would be liable for if all the freesat EPG was suddenly dumped into the system and it caused the viewing of over 10 million viewers to be badly affected as against te wishes of a few tens of thousands (?) who want the process to be rushed.
Before I am flamed, I am not “Anti-freesat” in fact I welcome its appearance (and have installed over 200 systems for friends, relatives and neighbours over the last 20 years mostly FTA) BUT it must be achieved with minimal disturbance on the existing viewers using that satellite. Has anyone actually thought that the delay in new channels appearring on the EPG has been caused with some problems that have appearred already in the combination of the two platforms.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:11 am
davemurgatroyd – pls don’t accuse this blog/site of being inflammatory or extremely ill researched, the information has come directly from Freesat who were keen to share this information, it was not requested. There are clearly technical reasons for this route which weren’t available at the time of making this post, but the mere fact that Sky have involvement in the Freesat process is enough for readers to offer up their thoughts.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:15 am
i dont care for all this fancy jargon these realy intelligent people use. at the end of the day sky will be laughing as usual people keep on harping on that freesat is not competition for them….what a load of tosh when people have a choice over a service from freesat and Freesatfromsky and people are choosing to buy in to freesat HOW IS THAT NOT COMPETITION from a sky point of view. any oppurtunity sky have to make things difficult for a format that is taking money away from them i am sure they will make it as awkward as possible for that new format to succeed surely it is as black and white as that.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:22 am
I’d have been surprised if from a technical point of view there wasn’t some sort of conflict between Sky and Freesat. No big conspiracy – they’re just sharing the same satellite feed so have to be careful not to tread on each others toes so to speak.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:49 am
I reserve judgment on whether or not this is a deliberate ploy by Sky or just caution on behalf of Freesat to avoid problems. Both sides of the argument seem to have some merit, who knows which is true. Certainly Sky have potentially a lot to gain by ensuring the roll out isn’t smooth (not that I’m suggesting that they would do anything deliberately to cause that). Equally, as Dave said, there are very good reasons why it shouldn’t be rushed out in such a way as to risk upsetting the existing EPG. Only Freesat and their technicians really know the true anwser to all of this I feel.
BTW, Briantist, welcome to the forums. For those who don’t know Brian, he runs UK Free TV, another site dedicated to all forms of tv and technical transmission issues, and he has very good knowledge on the technical side of tv transmission and reception.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Yeah – like freesat wouldnt do the same if the situation was reversed
One thing that most people seem to be forgetting is that lots of these fta channels that are going to appear on freesat are going infomercial / weird / obsure / home shopping channels
Complain about not having channels you are never going to watch ?
July 25th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
davemurgatroyd, is this really the first time two EPG systems (additional to the DVB-S Media Highway standard) have attempted to be integrated on the same transponders? After all, on the various European and Middle Eastern sats there are lots of (proprietary) EPG data services that are additional to the Media Highway content carried by the various channels. I realise that many German channels are entirely reliant on Media Highway for their full 7-day EPGs, but they’re quite unusual in that regard.
And in any case, who approved and appointed BSkyB as sole gatekeeper (in terms of the adaptation hub) to the 28.x°E group of sats?
July 25th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
AFAIK most of the other proprietary EPG systems that compete on the same satellite do not cover virtually every channel on that satellite position and EPG data is transmitted seperately for each with many of the channels having different broadcasts for different platforms with differing encryptions as well.
Sky were the first to setup (and up to now the only ones willing to run them) the hubs on 28 East and freesat wishing to avail themselves of those facilities must ensure that they do not disrupt the existing services.
July 25th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Thanks for the clarification, davemurgatroyd.
This still leaves us with a very unsatisfactory situation, however, with BSkyB effectively acting as gatekeepers for public service broadcasting (indeed, ANY broadcasting) by satellite aimed at the UK. It would surely be in the public interest for OFCOM to take steps towards resolving this issue – even if it takes some time to do it. The obverse of that is, of course, that it would be against the public interest for OFCOM to ignore the matter.
Freesat needs a free hand to develop as it sees fit, providing that it doesn’t interfere with Sky’s (or anyone else’s); it should surely be Freesat’s responsibility to ensure the necessary compliance – I don’t see that Sky has any mandate to police the actions of another service’s actions (that would be OFCOM’s job – and the present situation presumably involves unwanted expenditure on Sky’s part anyway).
July 25th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
No offence intended to anybody on here
But it seems to me that some users are of the firm opinion that the sun shines out freesat’s botty and they can do no wrong
A good example of this is the freesat channel numbering system – for dont you think it would be much better if freesat used the same channels as sky does
Or perhaps (yet another) different set of channel numbers is just what the uk needs
July 25th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
I think Freesat should seek to remove itself from the control that the parasite SKY has over their great system. I would like to see the BBC having a sport only channel,that would leave BBC1/2 with their programming untouched.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
davemurgatroyd – how dare you offer up a balanced argument!! go and love sky somewhere else and leave us to plan our next assault on Murdoch’s evil empire.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
To me it seems a conflict of interest here. The same as the BBC controlling the teletext broadcast of ITV!!
It MAY be perfectly OK but it clearly can be seen as Sky controlling Freesat.
This should not have been allowed & OFCOM should clearly have stepped in & set on a way that both Freesat & Sky would not be seen as the bad boy.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
I don’t understand this talk of the ‘EPG’ causing technical problems that davemurgatroyd mentions, utterly stupid. A stream, on whatever transponder would be simple serial data containing time, date and programme info, easily serparated. Do Sky actually produce a decent programme, Dream Team comes to mind, utter rubbish. They provide ‘lip service’ with their programming and prey on the ignorant. It’s all down to back handers, winks and nods.
They are an EPG provider and charge a fortune for it. Tell ‘em to shove it, get a FTA receiver and go buy a copy of the Radio Times, like in the ‘olden’ days.
July 26th, 2008 at 1:26 am
if ofcom donot stop this sky bully boy tactic then i can only assume that ofcom is being paid off by sky
July 26th, 2008 at 1:34 am
SKYEPG = sky fan
davemurgatroyd = sky fan
what is wrong in supporting freesat, it has the possibility of being a great service, but that will damage sky you cry, well i say you are fools, how can you openly support a monopoly and a dictatorship, sky will never reduce prices if you openly support them like this and dip your hand in your pockets everytime they ask, sky really are dictators and have alot of people brainwashed into thinking satellite tv is sky and sky own the satellites, well they dont, wake up to this company and its spin, it is scared of freesat because freesat will show the normal everyday consumer that you dont need sky to get satellite tv.
July 26th, 2008 at 4:59 am
Well said Steve. We should all get behind Freesat to break the SKY monopoly.
July 26th, 2008 at 6:11 am
I’m not sure I get it, fair anough that sky don’t want there channels knackered but surely the proses is the same for each channel. After you have done the same thing over 80 some thing times you would think the proces would have been mastered. Also they have been planning this for years why are they only starting to do this? I’m not that bothered it gives me some thing to look forward to.
Where as daves points are very valid, skyepg you might want to look up the word troll.
July 26th, 2008 at 8:49 am
First impressions, without reading any of the earlier / previous comments:
1. Ofcom, should be involved…
2. Restrictive practicies comes to mind…
3. Anti-competitive legislations comes to mind…
4. Why are Freesat using Sky / Astra systems, whats wrong with Eutelsat, thats in basically the same slot…
Looks like Skys got EVERYONE by the short and curlies !!!!
July 26th, 2008 at 9:44 am
“Denis Says:
July 26th, 2008 at 4:59 am
Well said Steve. We should all get behind Freesat to break the SKY monopoly.”
We might not agree on the exact content necessary to do this Denis but we certainly agree on this.
BTW Sky fans, I’m not a Sky hater, I just believe that there should be an equally good parallel free service so people have a genuine choice not dictated by their ability to pay large sums over and above the license fee. People can then buy based on their want for a particular branded channel or niche rather than on overall quality.
“Daveb Says:
July 26th, 2008 at 8:49 am
4. Why are Freesat using Sky / Astra systems, whats wrong with Eutelsat, thats in basically the same slot…”
I’m not 100% sure Dave, but I think there’s a restriction on the terms of service that means that Freesat may only be broadcast to the UK. I think because of this Astra 2D’s been used due to its limited footprint which is tightly concentrated on the UK.
However, there is some question if this is the case as to why Sky couldn’t be moved to free up more space on the Astra Satelite. So long as a relalignment either wasn’t necessary or it was a one off shift, I couldn’t see the harm.
July 26th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Steve I suggest you actually read the end of my first post having installed over 200 systems NONE of which were Sky subscriptions with the only exception being my own system, some 85 to 90% of which would now be called Freesat installations for free UK TV (the rest were mainly subscribers to foreign channels for football etc., I could hardly be called a Sky fan. take a reality pill. My own viewing comprises 40% Sky sub channels, 30% Freeview/freesat and 30% free channels from other satellites (I have PVRs and receivers for all 3)
At the moment the only thing in freesat’s favour is that is a cheaper way into HD TV, otherwise a FreesatFromSky installation beats it hands down on price (via its “Pay once view forever” offer at £75 fully installed) and SD channel availoability. Hopefully this will change over the next year or two (except possibly on price). SD freesat boxes at the moment are a cheaper altrnative for those with an existing dish and cabling.
All the posters on here need to remember that Sky setup and have succesfully run the adaptation hubs for over 9 years so why should freesat be able to muscle in and demand all their channels are added at once with the possible result of disruption to over 10 million viewers (over 1 million of those are not Sky subscribers). Freesat if it wants to use existing facilities must fit in with those facilities otherwise they are free to go away and set up their own facilities with a delay of perhaps a couple of years and woe betide them if doing so causes interference to existing channels – something the satellite operators themselves would not stand for and make them likely to throw freesat totally off the satellites with no notice. So many of the posters on here seem to live in cloud cuckoo land with very little knowledge of how the real commercial world of broadcasting actually works – existing services be they Sky’s subscription or FTA services take precedence over newcomers who must fit in with those or suffer the consequences.
People must also remember that this so called revelation from freesat came in response to a technical query regarding delays to new channels and DOES NOT state whether there is any blame attached to Sky dragging its heels or whether it is down to difficulties freesat themselves are havine in meeting the required specification of the adaptation hubs. If Sky in fact are proved to be at fault and that is up to freesat themselves to state and prove then I hope Sky are taken to task by OFCOM etc BUT it is not up to a group of technically uninformed people to start demanding action as one poster has already been told by OFCOM themselves..
July 26th, 2008 at 10:26 am
It does help tremendously in discussing this if you understand a bit more about how the broadcasts aimed at the UK work.
Firstly, Freesat is essentially aiming to get a fair number of the channels that already broadcast FTA onto their EPG. They aren’t using a different satellite, because that would mean that broadcasters would have to pay for another load of transponder space, just to reach Freesat homes; for the forseeable future, those homes will be very much the minority, and many channels will not consider it worthwhile.
So, to make it a viable proposition, Freesat uses exactly the same streams as Sky does – transponder space arranged by the broadcasters. Anything else would be costly and pointless duplication of broadcasts.
But, for many years, Sky has been the de-facto way of receiving channels in the UK. As part of the process of going on the Sky EPG, before it reaches the satellite uplink, the streams intended for a particular transponder pass through a Sky Adaptation Hub, which adds the EPG data required for the Sky system. These hubs are managed by Sky, and are essential to making sure their platform works ok.
There wasn’t an issue in the past, because no one else wanted to run an EPG alongside theirs.
Now Freesat do. If Sky wasn’t there, then Freesat would have to apply a similar process, with their own Adaptation Hubs, adding all the EPG data to the transponders carrying Freesat channels – that data includes things like the signals that will allow future PVRs to start on time, now and next into, and so on.
It would be costly to have a second adaptation hub in the uplink chain of every transponder – and you’d still need to co-operate with Sky to make them work together. So it’s far more sensible to simply arrange with Sky that the Freesat data passes through their hubs correctly.
And that’s what this “shock” announcement is about. It’s something the more technical folk have known for a long time.
If Sky are deliberately slowing things down, that’s a matter for Freesat to take up with Ofcom. But we don’t know if the limits are based, for example, on how many staff they have to do this job, or the time it takes to do – and remember, they need to be cautious, because a mistake could cause channels to disappear on both platforms.
If the satellite system in the UK had developed differently, perhaps this wouldnt be the case. But it has – and before screaming “foul” or emailing MPs, Ofcom and anyone else, it is important that if you’re going to complain, you at least understand why this is happening, surely.
July 26th, 2008 at 10:26 am
It would not be viable to use another satellite system. Sky and Freesat share the same video streams it is only the EPG that is different. Most TV companies would not want the extra expence to duplicate satellite services.
As far as I know Freesat have not complained to either Sky or Ofcom about the calibration service. Infact I suspect that Freesat are quite happy about batching and would not wan’t to add them all in one go and risk crashing the whole system.
At present it makes sense for Sky to run the calibration service as they are the bigest user. It is up to Ofcom to make sure that the rules are fair.
Remember this info comes from a PR company and so is totally unreliable.
July 26th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Daveb – you show your lack of knowledge by your suggestion of using Eutelstat only. Freesat (for their EPG) and some of the freesat channels themselves do in fact use Eutelstat (Eurobird satellite) BUT the major restriction of a lot of the channels (BBC, ITV, channel 4, Five etc) have to restrict the broadcast of their channels to the British Isles down to “rights issues”. Broadcasters buy in (and sell) programmes for exclusive broadcast to a specific territory with those for restricted territories (e.g UK only or FTV or subscription) being the cheapest and those with no restrictions (pan European as they are known) being vastly more expensive. These restrictions can be restricted in two main ways – EITHER broadcasting from Astra 2D only (which programme providers accept as having a restrictive enough broadcast footprint to qualify) OR restricting via viewing cards be they FTV (FreesatFromSky) cards or subscription (Sky or Setanta). There are a few channels such as BBC News which produce all their own programming and have no rights issues. Other channels although producing their own content or possessing large libraries of material also suffer from this issue due to their selling exclusive rights for this material to other broadcasters. The whole issue of freesat, FTA or FTV is a very complicated one involving not only the rights but also finding space on Astra 2D to broadcast from, EPG fees, advertising revenue increase (from at the moment a very small potential audience increase.
I am sure freesat will develop over the next couple of years BUT it will never be a competitor to Sky 9as many of you seem to wish to think) and merely compete with FreesatFromSky and generic FTA receivers. All3 systems have major pros and cons at the moment and that is unlikely to change much.
July 26th, 2008 at 10:34 am
(in reply to steve)
Where do you get the ‘dip your hand in your pockets everytime they ask’ from as like a normal freesat you get sky freesat fitted for £150 with nothing more to pay
In fact – it could even be said that sky freesat is the better option as you can decide later if you want to add some pay channels with a simple phone call
A good example of this might be to get the sky movie channels switched on for christmas and then get them switched off in the middle of january or whatever
July 26th, 2008 at 10:48 am
luke [QUOTE]I’m not sure I get it, fair anough that sky don’t want there channels knackered but surely the proses is the same for each channel. After you have done the same thing over 80 some thing times you would think the proces would have been mastered. Also they have been planning this for years why are they only starting to do this? I’m not that bothered it gives me some thing to look forward to.[/QUOTE]
Sky themselves restricted the number of channels added at any one time to their own EPG (yes even subscription channels) way before freesat even came on the scene, checking conformity of individual channels and their ability to maintain that does take time so from this viewpoint there is no sinister motive apparent at all fron this present situation giving that we also have two basically non compatable EPG systems trying to coexist.
July 26th, 2008 at 11:05 am
davemurgatroyd. One has to ask why non-standard DVB-S epg’s should have been offered up in the first instance, as you rightly state, in almost all cases European broadcasters use standard DVB-S EPG data systems. However, where non standard EPG’s come into play then surely the management of this in terms of ensuring integration and systems compatibilty should rest with the Satellite operators and NOT with a particular broadcaster acting as gatekeeper.
July 26th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Standard DVB-S EPG sytems do not have a lot of the capabilities that proprietary EPG systems have.
As regard satellite operators being responsible for the management that has two major problems – firstly at 28 East we have two different competing operators namely SES Astra and Eutelstat – which would take responsability for the platform (particularly as they would have no control of transmissions on their competitors satellite(s)) and secondly the satellite operators have experience in transmission only of satellite data and none whatsoever in EPG design and operation.
July 26th, 2008 at 11:53 am
As anti-Sky and pro-Freesat as I am, I can’t help thinking that Freesat just don’t have either the mandate or the funding to take on what is an extremely onerous and resource-sapping task – i.e. managing the complexities/parameters required to pull this dual EPG/uplink process off and to keep it running smoothly going forward.
Don’t forget, we are talking David and Goliath here, and as much as it annoys and aggravates that Sky can effectively throttle Freesat in this way, as long as they can prove that this provisioning process isn’t deliberately anti-competitive, then Freesat is shackled. Just look at BT and LLU as an example. Sky have a vice-like stranglehold, and a multi-billion pound infrastructure to ensure it stays that way.
Sky can write this overhead off as a drop in the ocean. Freesat are working on a shoestring budget, a funding leash with such monolithic entities as the BBC Trust on the other end. Bodies that are actually having to remain outwardly impartial and non-discriminatory in many respects.
Turning to OFCOM is frankly a waste of time. When have OFCOM ever done the right thing anyway? Useless bunch of suits. Just another revenue channel for the government as far as I’m concerned.
The only way that this irksome dependency is going to go away is if the government agree to fund a third-party agency to take it on. Can’t see it, can you?
Freesat will just have to ride it out. They are always going to be bit-part players in the UK satellite market. That makes it all the more important that we continue to give them our full support.
July 26th, 2008 at 11:57 am
I fully understand the capabilities issues in what you describe. Currently we have now a developing conflict of interest which could widen in the future should other broadcasters not necessarily in th UK decide on the introduction of non-standard EPG’s. My point is no one broadcaster should be controlling this as in this current situation it maybe or is being seen to favour self interest and unfair practice. So perhaps now is the time for some EU oversight.
July 26th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
There are already many regulations on EPGs from both OFCOM and the EU so I would suggest you read through some of them , virtually everything anyone has raised in this thread is covered by some regulation/directive already in place. The oversight you suggest is brought into existance when a complaint is made to either of those bodies.
July 26th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
davemurgtroyd—- Will take up your suggestion out of interest! Whilst I have no personal gripe with “Sky” I do have some concerns with regard to their business model. If you remember their pulling up by Ofcom re share dealings relating to ITV.
I wonder if they have offloaded these yet as instructed by Ofcom. Or whether they continue to stall on this one. Don’t think I would wish them as a bed partner!
July 26th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Mind you, you can also say the same for ITV and to a lesser extent the BBC with their allowance (perhaps by poor management perhaps not) of direct fraud of viewers with all the phone-in scams, a crime OFCOM thought so heinous as to fine the pair on amount almost equal to their total investment in freesat. Similar has also happened with a local radio broadcasting group so is this a sign that either viewing figures have far more prominence than integrity to the whole media industry or there are that many incompetent managers within it. I am afraid that I have lost my faith in all of them. the ratings are God.
July 26th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
davemurgatroyd——–acknowledging the misdemeanors of the BBC and ITV such episodes were more to do with management control or “lack of” than directed from the top–(in full acknowledgement of the fact that these should never have happeened) rather than a deliberate company policy to effectively block competition in scuppering Virgin media’s intent to take a stake in ITV..
July 26th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Wasn’t it always a wonder how SKY has been allowed to manipulate the TV/Sat market without any control at all??
July 26th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Sorry my experiences of various industries during my life prior to retirement says that the whole management chain would have to be so incompetent to deny knowledge over an extensive period as to be totally unemployable in any capacity after discovery and any company found out in such practices to be totally unusable by any reputable broadcaster (if any such exist which I doubt strongly). At lkeast most of Sky’s reputed crimes are in a vast majority at most commercial rivalry .
July 27th, 2008 at 6:41 am
davemurgatroyd —– Yes Dave, but there is a difference between healthy commercial rilvary and market domination! Lots of parallels with the Murdoch Empire and that of Microsoft.
July 27th, 2008 at 7:57 am
I think we should move on. I’m getting bored! This has become one of those issues like politics and religion. No one will ever agree.
The bottom line is I chose a freesat system because I am not prepared to pay any more money to Sky Therefore for what ever historical reason I resent the fact that a commercial organisation can wield any power/influence ove a public service.
July 27th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Essentially, I agree with Michael.
For me, however, my (branded) Freesat receiver (a Humax Foxsat-HD) is supplemental to my primary receiver, which is a Dreambox DM 7025 (with a FSFS card – I had a Sky subscription once, but as I mainly watch FTA/FTV channels, it wasn’t worth maintaining it). Freesat, however, gives me an easy way into HD (plus I can get a handful more non-Freesat FTA HD channels, thanks to my existing motorised dish), provides MHEG5 capability and, of course, it has that infamous EPG. Oh, and I’m looking forward to seeing what that Ethernet port will make possible.
I have nothing against BSkyB (they’re one of the best, probably THE best, subscription satellite service providers in Europe) – however, I can’t help disapproving of the the fact that their market dominance means they can exert unreasonable and undue influence over the provision of public service broadcasting. (That’s more or less what Michael said, only I just had to say it in a more wordy way!)
I also agree that we should move on, but in the absence of of a new thread, I thought I’d do the ‘moving on’ after submitting just one more comment!
July 27th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I’m bored with this I think I will go and watch Russia Today.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Да камрад
July 27th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
(Yes comrade) in case you were wondering.
July 28th, 2008 at 5:24 am
Ah yes!!!
July 28th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
ok lets take a real look why sky dont want freesat to succeed
if you take freesatfrom sky then sky have a platform to alow pay tv and take money off you, they donot want to know people who dont subcribe and this can be proved when they say things like you need a new card, pay up, sky really donot care what is good for the consumer, it believes they know best and tell you what you are going to watch, look at the agreesive advertising campaign since the freesat launch all for sky+ which in turn equals subcripions, sky protecting there inferstructure please they are a customer of SES ASTRA, plewase donot even try and tell me that sky own them because they donot, SES could inturn actually force sky to comply to freesat request because it in SES ASTRA’s interest to have as many dishes pointing toward there satellites, sky may uplink some content, wow for them there not the only ones doing it, sky has brainwashed the consumer and they should be made to publically announce this as wrong and misleading like the bbc or itv would have to, if they mislead the public with a program they are publically thrown to the dogs, sky are parasites on the satellite world, they bully compeditors out of the market, iu have even read that they have hacked other systems to ensure compeditors fail. they even now want to change the freeview standard on compression and take freeview subscription services off topup tv in the hope the ofcom will let them run the picnic service. believe me when i say sky are only interested in taking out the opposition and forcing you all to pay them for tv services, and if you disagree then you either are brainwashed by the hype or you have no interest in future developments, you really have got to realise if there is competition then technology and enhanced services with get better and better because that what happens when you are competing, iplayer will be a good starting point for freesat, althou isp’s will have to pull there finger out and get the infracture for iptv properly instead of over selling bandwith all the time. HD tv will have a chance to grow under freesat because the public will in time demand hdtv as the norm, we have been sold hdtv’s for years now and lets face it we are all asking for hd content for this and that. broadcasters will invest and give us more because HD will be more accessable for everyone. and not just upscaled rubbish sky pump out claiming HD content, they are lying to you all about that.
July 28th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Sky undoubtedly want to make sure their service remains working. But regardless of who owns the satellites, it is a fact that the Sky Adaptation hubs, which are necessary to the architecture of the Sky platform, lie in the uplink path of all the transponders carrying programming available on Sky.
If you think SES Astra – or anyone else – is going to turn round and tell Sky to completely rearrange the architecture of their systems, when they’re not doing anything wrong, then you really are tremendously naive.
There is absolutely no information to suggest that Sky aren’t complying with Freesat’s request to allow their information to be added to the streams before uplinking. Not one single bit.
Sky has said they will make changes in batches – most likely one adaptation hub at a time. Is that really so unreasonable?
It only becomes unreasonable if they’re deliberately doing it much more slowly than possible. There is no evidence anywhere here that they are.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Everybody’s comments here are valid but I am starting to think that life is too short. There are much more important things. Yes we want GOOD Freesat, PLENTY of HD, and boxes that work…..oh, and a PVR…..
I have got very frustrated over certain aspects of Freeview, my Goodmans HD box…..but….it’s early days…..
Lets all forget Sky….that’s why we have Freesat…..imagine they don’t exist….all of us be patient….smile and before we know it…..we have a PVR….more channels….and upgraded boxes………
Let’s all chill….and put our minds to more serious things like rising food and fuel prices…and falling house prices……..come to think of it….carry on this thread (only joking)
July 28th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
P.S. LIP SYNC ON ZONE ROMANTICA IS DOING MY NUT !!!
July 28th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
LOOK WE HAVE DONE THIS BLOG TO DEATH. HAVE ‘NT YOU ALL GOT HOMES TO GO TO. GOOD NIGHT FROM ME AND BECAUSE OF LIP SYNC ITS ————-
July 29th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
[...] Technical Reason For Freesat Batch Launch [...]
July 30th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
This is just daft, the problem is due to the bbc and itv wishing to keep their interactive services with Sky STB’s. If they remove this then they remove their Revenue. They can quite easily remove the OpenTV Stream from all their channels and continue on their own boxes (MHEG) however they will ultimately lose all functionality of the “Press the red button to vote!” etc.. on all the Sky Box’s out there. Think about it, 8 million STB’s + our own or just our own box’s. Hmmm … I know which one I would go for.
P.S. I do beleive the BBC & ITV knew the process long before they introduced their service so why sign on the dotted line?
July 31st, 2008 at 10:18 am
It’s not to just do with interactive services. It’s to do with the EPG data.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:22 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.