Do you actually have to sub to bell to get this or can you pick up a bell receiver on ebay and start getting this service automatically? What I dont understand is why these channels arent available in the us anyhow.
Bell proposes new "freesat" service
- Thread starter Davage
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 131
- Views 21K
- Status
from the sounds of the CRTC hearing, there will be hundreds of channels available on Ka band on Nimiq 4 for free. However, any one person will only receive 5 or so of their local channels.
So I assume that you would need a Bell receiver (an FTA receiver likely wont work), and it would need to be authorized by Bell so that you only receive your locals, and not other locals. But time will tell.
In the mean time, lets see if we can find any feeds on 82W while they test the technology.
So I assume that you would need a Bell receiver (an FTA receiver likely wont work), and it would need to be authorized by Bell so that you only receive your locals, and not other locals. But time will tell.
In the mean time, lets see if we can find any feeds on 82W while they test the technology.
I am still wondering if Bell will have any terms and conditions for freesat, such as requiring a phone line to be hooked up. I also wonder if they will allow 2 or 3 receivers at one house for the free service. It will be interesting to read the fine print on this deal.
In the 1 hour CRTC hearing, I think they mentioned something about mulitple receivers - judging by the nature of the discusion with the CRTC, I think multiple receivers wont be an issue. The whole idea of this freesat is to provide free access to local channels for all Canadians.
And does anyone know if the Ka band on Nimiq 4 is on spotbeams? I believe part of the nature of Ka is spotbeams to free up bandwidth, so if this is the case it's possible it wont be encrypted... not likely though.
And does anyone know if the Ka band on Nimiq 4 is on spotbeams? I believe part of the nature of Ka is spotbeams to free up bandwidth, so if this is the case it's possible it wont be encrypted... not likely though.
Just a thought. One possible reason for the freesat to be in the clear is if Bell pays the Nagravision folks a license fee for every channel that is encrypted. They may not want to pay to scramble channels that they are giving away for free?
If that's the case, that they pay per channel encrypted, then odds would be very good for us to get it unencrypted.
No business is in business to lose money. They gotta make money somehow. And if they're giving it away, they're making money somehow. The devil will be in the details, somewhere. Most likely on the receiver and install, and then an opportunity to sub people. The local cable company shows all channels that can be subscribed to in the program guide whether or not you're subscribed. That way people will know what they're missing, and have to have it.
No business is in business to lose money. They gotta make money somehow. And if they're giving it away, they're making money somehow. The devil will be in the details, somewhere. Most likely on the receiver and install, and then an opportunity to sub people. The local cable company shows all channels that can be subscribed to in the program guide whether or not you're subscribed. That way people will know what they're missing, and have to have it.
I would doubt that it would not be encrypted. Bell would want to try to upsell anyone using the service. It might end up free for the end users, but they would want to sell their receivers that can only be used for the freesat service or their paid service. Why let the consumer use a receiver that they might use to receive other signals. Who would pay the cost.... why the bradcasters that want their signal on the satellite and there would probably be an administration fee as well for them to manage the service. To the end user it might be freesat, but to Bell its selling their service. Also, what is the list price of those receivers.... not the subsidised price?
Well if that is all they are talking about I'll stick to OTA, since going Bell's route would cost me more money with no extra channels. I can get all 4 of my local channels over the air with rabbit ears in my basement apartment even if they are a bit fuzzy. Since I have use of the yard I can see an outdoor antenna going up to get them better rather than spending several hundred more to get them in overcompressed quality on bell's equipment. Since all my OTA channels are on VHF, I can design and build my own antenna for less than $50.
I think that this has to do more with Bell getting the locals for free than anything else. It will help people who are in fringe areas, but if anyone lives within 20 miles of the transmitting towers they would we better off as is.
Will the broadcasters keep their OTA antenna's if they use the freesat service? What happens to your rabbit ears and fuzzy picture after the digital transition? I have lost quite a few channels due to the switch from VHF to UHF and the extremely weak signals of the digital signals.
A rather long copy and paste from the Friends of Canadian broadcasting website with a few more details fleshed out.
I think the estimate cost of $500 for subscriber equipment (installed) is going to be a deal breaker for many people, what kind of gear would need to cost that much?
It looks like they are proposing to use existing Bell receivers with some sort of CAM or card and a new dish/LNB.
I don't know much about KA band but presumably the antenna would be no larger than KU band, probably smaller. How much would rain and snow affect the higher KA band frequency?
Its going to be interesting to see how this unfolds.
Re: Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-113 Licence Renewals for Private Conventional Television Stations: Comments on Bell Television's "FreeSat" Proposal
May 10, 2009
Mr. Robert A. Morin
Secretary General
Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N2
Dear Mr. Morin:
During our presentation to the Commission on May 6, 2009, Vice-Chair Arpin asked me to file comments regarding the Bell Television "FreeSat" proposal.
At the outset, we wish to congratulate the Commission for providing leadership on the issue of Canada's conversion to over-the-air digital television. In contrast, we note with regret that the Government of Canada has yet to respond to the Digital Task Force report which was submitted to the Department of Canadian Heritage in 1997. Canada is required by treaty to abandon broadcasting transmission on the relevant VHF and UHF television spectrum by 2011. Thus far, the government has announced no subsidy to assist analog households to acquire converters. Nor has the government offered to assist broadcasters with the substantial cost of digital conversion.
If the FreeSat proposal were to be launched, Bell representatives have estimated that consumers would need to purchase a satellite dish and converter equipment at a cost in the order of $350-400 per household (plus installation). We ask the Commission to bear in mind that one reason why almost 10% of Canadians receive their signals over the air is because they cannot afford to subscribe to a cable or satellite distributor. The FreeSat proposal needs to be examined in this context.
In our submission, FRIENDS advocated on behalf of the three million Canadians who rely on OTA reception. Canadian Media Research Inc. has found that "given the slowing trend in the past 4?5 years, it seems unlikely that the OTA segment will decline by much in coming years" and the CMRI study also indicates that 26% of OTA viewers cannot afford the BDU charges. In other words, OTA viewing by millions of Canadians will continue to be a feature of our audio?visual system well into the future.
Cities with OTA viewing exceeding the Canadian average include: Windsor (27%), Saskatoon (15%), Montreal (14%), Quebec and Sherbrooke (13%). Even in cities with a lower proportion of OTA viewing, the number of viewers is substantial, for example: Toronto (477,000), Vancouver (138,000), Edmonton (113,000), and Ottawa (111,000). CMRI also reports that, even in households subscribing to a BDU service, not all television sets are hooked up to the cable/satellite service. OTA viewing accounted for 25% of TVO's audience in 2006, 16% for CBC?TV, 14% for CTV and 8% for Global.
We understand that the proposed FreeSat service would provide a minimum of five local and regionally relevant stations to communities across Canada which would otherwise no longer receive over-the-air television signals after the conversion to digital transmission had been completed and where local broadcasters have chosen not to build an OTA digital transmitter.
Reception of these standard definition digital signals would be provided free to consumers who spent $500 to replace their OTA antenna with a KA band satellite dish and a set top box, which would be authorized to receive the FreeSat service. Customers would also be responsible for the cost of installation, if required. Bell would utilize a specifically designed FreeSat dish but the set-top box would come from Bell's existing stock.
While FreeSat customers would not be required to subscribe to any of Bell Television's services, the FreeSat dish would be capable of receiving many Bell Television services. These would be available to the FreeSat customer at additional cost should the customer choose to subscriber to these services. Conversely, if existing Bell Television customers wished to downgrade to the FreeSat service, they would be able to do so by replacing their current equipment with the FreeSat equipment, also at their expense.
Assuming timely acceptance of all terms of the FreeSat proposal, it is estimated that the service could be up and running by the end of September 2010, well in advance of the Commission's target digital completion date of August 31, 2011.
The cost of back hauling the local signals to the Bell Television uplink facility in Toronto would be borne by the individual station group or, where applicable, the independent station.
Bell Television would operate the FreeSat service on a cost recovery basis1 only, with the following costs recouped from monies that Bell would otherwise have paid to the Local Programming Improvement Fund (LPIF) including:
* Start-up costs for FreeSat
* $1 million for bandwidth costs annually
* Customer care
* Cost of software for the dishes
* Annual maintenance costs
* Warranty repairs to boxes and equipment
* Cost and maintenance of the head end equipment and security system
* Broadcasters would be expected to give up their rights to distant signal revenue
Bell Television has estimated that, other than startup and bandwidth costs, all other costs would equal $50 per household per year, or $4 million per year based on the 80,000 subscribers that Bell projects for FreeSat. The offer to implement FreeSat service is contingent on Bell Television's overall contribution to Canadian programming (Canadian Television Fund, Bell Fund, small market programming fund and the LPIF) not exceeding 6% in the aggregate, as well as successful resolution of the distant signal negotiations with the station groups.
Maintaining a conduit by which current over-the-air homes can continue to receive their local signals is an important public policy issue, and FRIENDS applauds Bell Television's initiative in proposing FreeSat. In many communities we consider that the introduction of FreeSat could result in many homes getting an even better selection of television choice than they currently enjoy.
We note, with regret, however, that in many cases Bell Television does not seem to envisage including regional services such as TV Ontario or comparable educational broadcasters, apparently because their signals are regional, rather than local. We believe that provincial educational broadcasters' signals are already delivered to the Bell uplink facility. We recommend that Bell Television amend its proposal to include the provincial educational broadcaster, where it exists, as part of the FreeSat package of channels.
FRIENDS' primary concern is for the 3,000,000 Canadians who now receive their television signals over-the-air, as well as the overall impact that acceptance of this proposal would have on resources in the LPIF.
Considering that approximately 900,000 households' access to television reception may be curtailed by digital conversion, we recognize that many are located in urban areas where they have access to cable monopoly services but choose not to subscribe. FreeSat will probably not appeal to those households, including residents of large apartment and condominium buildings (multiple unit dwellings). Rather, we consider that FreeSat will be an attractive option to some residents of rural communities who can afford the initial capital outlay.
Analog households in most larger urban communities will have access to OTA digital signals, and therefore will be able to utilize a simple digital convertor box to watch television. As I mentioned to Vice Chair Arpin on May 6, FreeSat is a misnomer, as it would cost $500 to install. And, while it has promise in rural and smaller urban areas to help relatively affluent families, it does not address the issue of the other 90% of Canadians who currently receive analog signals over the air.
Yours sincerely,
Ian Morrison
Spokesperson
I think the estimate cost of $500 for subscriber equipment (installed) is going to be a deal breaker for many people, what kind of gear would need to cost that much?
It looks like they are proposing to use existing Bell receivers with some sort of CAM or card and a new dish/LNB.
I don't know much about KA band but presumably the antenna would be no larger than KU band, probably smaller. How much would rain and snow affect the higher KA band frequency?
Its going to be interesting to see how this unfolds.
Re: Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-113 Licence Renewals for Private Conventional Television Stations: Comments on Bell Television's "FreeSat" Proposal
May 10, 2009
Mr. Robert A. Morin
Secretary General
Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N2
Dear Mr. Morin:
During our presentation to the Commission on May 6, 2009, Vice-Chair Arpin asked me to file comments regarding the Bell Television "FreeSat" proposal.
At the outset, we wish to congratulate the Commission for providing leadership on the issue of Canada's conversion to over-the-air digital television. In contrast, we note with regret that the Government of Canada has yet to respond to the Digital Task Force report which was submitted to the Department of Canadian Heritage in 1997. Canada is required by treaty to abandon broadcasting transmission on the relevant VHF and UHF television spectrum by 2011. Thus far, the government has announced no subsidy to assist analog households to acquire converters. Nor has the government offered to assist broadcasters with the substantial cost of digital conversion.
If the FreeSat proposal were to be launched, Bell representatives have estimated that consumers would need to purchase a satellite dish and converter equipment at a cost in the order of $350-400 per household (plus installation). We ask the Commission to bear in mind that one reason why almost 10% of Canadians receive their signals over the air is because they cannot afford to subscribe to a cable or satellite distributor. The FreeSat proposal needs to be examined in this context.
In our submission, FRIENDS advocated on behalf of the three million Canadians who rely on OTA reception. Canadian Media Research Inc. has found that "given the slowing trend in the past 4?5 years, it seems unlikely that the OTA segment will decline by much in coming years" and the CMRI study also indicates that 26% of OTA viewers cannot afford the BDU charges. In other words, OTA viewing by millions of Canadians will continue to be a feature of our audio?visual system well into the future.
Cities with OTA viewing exceeding the Canadian average include: Windsor (27%), Saskatoon (15%), Montreal (14%), Quebec and Sherbrooke (13%). Even in cities with a lower proportion of OTA viewing, the number of viewers is substantial, for example: Toronto (477,000), Vancouver (138,000), Edmonton (113,000), and Ottawa (111,000). CMRI also reports that, even in households subscribing to a BDU service, not all television sets are hooked up to the cable/satellite service. OTA viewing accounted for 25% of TVO's audience in 2006, 16% for CBC?TV, 14% for CTV and 8% for Global.
We understand that the proposed FreeSat service would provide a minimum of five local and regionally relevant stations to communities across Canada which would otherwise no longer receive over-the-air television signals after the conversion to digital transmission had been completed and where local broadcasters have chosen not to build an OTA digital transmitter.
Reception of these standard definition digital signals would be provided free to consumers who spent $500 to replace their OTA antenna with a KA band satellite dish and a set top box, which would be authorized to receive the FreeSat service. Customers would also be responsible for the cost of installation, if required. Bell would utilize a specifically designed FreeSat dish but the set-top box would come from Bell's existing stock.
While FreeSat customers would not be required to subscribe to any of Bell Television's services, the FreeSat dish would be capable of receiving many Bell Television services. These would be available to the FreeSat customer at additional cost should the customer choose to subscriber to these services. Conversely, if existing Bell Television customers wished to downgrade to the FreeSat service, they would be able to do so by replacing their current equipment with the FreeSat equipment, also at their expense.
Assuming timely acceptance of all terms of the FreeSat proposal, it is estimated that the service could be up and running by the end of September 2010, well in advance of the Commission's target digital completion date of August 31, 2011.
The cost of back hauling the local signals to the Bell Television uplink facility in Toronto would be borne by the individual station group or, where applicable, the independent station.
Bell Television would operate the FreeSat service on a cost recovery basis1 only, with the following costs recouped from monies that Bell would otherwise have paid to the Local Programming Improvement Fund (LPIF) including:
* Start-up costs for FreeSat
* $1 million for bandwidth costs annually
* Customer care
* Cost of software for the dishes
* Annual maintenance costs
* Warranty repairs to boxes and equipment
* Cost and maintenance of the head end equipment and security system
* Broadcasters would be expected to give up their rights to distant signal revenue
Bell Television has estimated that, other than startup and bandwidth costs, all other costs would equal $50 per household per year, or $4 million per year based on the 80,000 subscribers that Bell projects for FreeSat. The offer to implement FreeSat service is contingent on Bell Television's overall contribution to Canadian programming (Canadian Television Fund, Bell Fund, small market programming fund and the LPIF) not exceeding 6% in the aggregate, as well as successful resolution of the distant signal negotiations with the station groups.
Maintaining a conduit by which current over-the-air homes can continue to receive their local signals is an important public policy issue, and FRIENDS applauds Bell Television's initiative in proposing FreeSat. In many communities we consider that the introduction of FreeSat could result in many homes getting an even better selection of television choice than they currently enjoy.
We note, with regret, however, that in many cases Bell Television does not seem to envisage including regional services such as TV Ontario or comparable educational broadcasters, apparently because their signals are regional, rather than local. We believe that provincial educational broadcasters' signals are already delivered to the Bell uplink facility. We recommend that Bell Television amend its proposal to include the provincial educational broadcaster, where it exists, as part of the FreeSat package of channels.
FRIENDS' primary concern is for the 3,000,000 Canadians who now receive their television signals over-the-air, as well as the overall impact that acceptance of this proposal would have on resources in the LPIF.
Considering that approximately 900,000 households' access to television reception may be curtailed by digital conversion, we recognize that many are located in urban areas where they have access to cable monopoly services but choose not to subscribe. FreeSat will probably not appeal to those households, including residents of large apartment and condominium buildings (multiple unit dwellings). Rather, we consider that FreeSat will be an attractive option to some residents of rural communities who can afford the initial capital outlay.
Analog households in most larger urban communities will have access to OTA digital signals, and therefore will be able to utilize a simple digital convertor box to watch television. As I mentioned to Vice Chair Arpin on May 6, FreeSat is a misnomer, as it would cost $500 to install. And, while it has promise in rural and smaller urban areas to help relatively affluent families, it does not address the issue of the other 90% of Canadians who currently receive analog signals over the air.
Yours sincerely,
Ian Morrison
Spokesperson
Well, I tried my rabbit ears outside and can get perfect reception on all my locals. From the the info I have read none of my locals are moving to UHF either after the digital switch, but I may be wrong. I am less than 12 miles from the analog towers, so I cannot see a problem when they switch to digital.
One thing I am wondering about is that this service is saying a MINIMUM of 5 channels not counting reginal channels like TVO. I can only get CBC, CTV, TVO and whatever the French CBC is. If a minimum of 5 channels in every locality, will I get Global and maybe A channel?
I still think I will wait and see what is passed. It still looks to me that this is just Bell offering a choice for the local broadcasters to pay them an annual fee to upload them to satellite instead of installing spending the money on digital transmitters.
That way Bell will actually GET money from the local channels instead of being able to rebroadcast them for FREE like they can now. It may also give Bell a better chance of putting Shaw TV (Starchoice) out of business.
I will definately wait and see what the CRTC says, before deciding what I will do.
actually what I've read is that both TBT stations the digital is UHF
CKPR 49
CHFD 54
whether thats right or not is anyones guess but they have those 2 stations allocated for that. DOnt know about the 2 translator stations
I was checking out rain fade on ka, and it is slightly worse than ku ( makes sense to me since the frequency is higher than ku). I won't leave the link since I'm not sure of the forum rules, but the web site I looked at said about 20 to 50 hours a year in sothern Canada.
Nimiq 4 has 8 ka transponders so might use that sat or they might use nimiq5 at 72.5W if it is up now, or in the future. I know DTV is using 72.5W, but Bell was supposed to use that slot. I'm not sure what the legal or other issues between them are.
Nimiq 4 has 8 ka transponders so might use that sat or they might use nimiq5 at 72.5W if it is up now, or in the future. I know DTV is using 72.5W, but Bell was supposed to use that slot. I'm not sure what the legal or other issues between them are.
Well I must have been wrong. O well, I'll just need to build a grey-hoverman then. It is a simple cheap UHF antenna that I was thinking of trying, but never got around to since the Duluth and Marquette UHF channels are beyond my reach except in very rare DX'ing times.
I just checked tv fool and all my locals are going UHF when then switch in 2 years. Also I might be able to get get WBKP-DT (CW) from Calumet,MI on channel 5.1, and KK5BR (55)analog from Grand Portage, MN. I really don't think I'll be able to get KK5BR because I don't think I have enough height to mount the antenna above ground level to clear the mountains but it seems like a good time to build an UHF antenna and try before I will get co-channel interference from CHFD when it goes digital.
I could see the Bell "freesat" model following something similar in Italy.
Check out this
Check out this
Code:
http://www.rapidtvnews.com/index.php/200902233207/nagra-confirms-tivu-sat-win.htmlAfter reading the details in Sadie's post above, I've come to the conclusion that the proposed Bell Freesat really isn't a good idea. $500 to get 'free tv' really isn't that free. If they simply removed the encryption from their existing signals so that any free-to-air receiver would get the channels, then people could pick up a Coolsat receiver for $40 on ebay to get their free service.
As was mentioned above, there are some people in multiple unit dwellings who will not have line of sight to the satellite, and the also choose not to subscribe to cable, but rely on over-the-air tv instead. Those people would simply be left in the dark.
These days I have been doing a lot more research on what is available over the air for free. I am one of the people who are looking at getting back into the good old antenna tv as a hobby
It would stink if over-the-air was gone completely, and the only option to get tv was to spend $500 for 'freesat'.
As was mentioned above, there are some people in multiple unit dwellings who will not have line of sight to the satellite, and the also choose not to subscribe to cable, but rely on over-the-air tv instead. Those people would simply be left in the dark.
These days I have been doing a lot more research on what is available over the air for free. I am one of the people who are looking at getting back into the good old antenna tv as a hobby
It would stink if over-the-air was gone completely, and the only option to get tv was to spend $500 for 'freesat'.
I think its obvious that Bell came up with Freesat idea in reply to high demand for OTA antennas in FTA stores, and e-buzz, press and ads about OTA, which greatly increased with gradual N3 intro in Sat TV and conversion to Digital in OTA. They do monitor the market and must react on such trends to survive. It also obvious from lowering BEV and DN sub fee structure, plus their ads now even claim allowing activation of suitable FTA receivers on a sub.
It doesn't really matter, what price tag Bell will set for Freesat. Nobody can force to buy a $500 receiver, when OTA is available with $20 antenna. Free market will take care of it. It will raise Bell's chance to get more subs from Freesat users though. Btw, Bell currently sells in Best Buy and The Source latest model Echo HD receivers usable for Freesat for $199 without a sub requirement (not sure, what else one can do with it, may be FTA?), and even for $99 with any 2-year sub. A dish & LNB combo may cost another $50, and for most self install is not a problem, especially given very strong BEV signal level.
Freesat won't affect OTA availability in dense population areas, since it's the strategic policy and security service. Promoting local stations on sat will only improve their revenue stream. How OTA service by the same local stations can possibly suffer from that? They won't abandon it, as sat service penetration is low in NA, consumer awareness about sat is also low, and there's landlord resistance to sat equipment in dense areas targeted by OTA.
It doesn't really matter, what price tag Bell will set for Freesat. Nobody can force to buy a $500 receiver, when OTA is available with $20 antenna. Free market will take care of it. It will raise Bell's chance to get more subs from Freesat users though. Btw, Bell currently sells in Best Buy and The Source latest model Echo HD receivers usable for Freesat for $199 without a sub requirement (not sure, what else one can do with it, may be FTA?), and even for $99 with any 2-year sub. A dish & LNB combo may cost another $50, and for most self install is not a problem, especially given very strong BEV signal level.
Freesat won't affect OTA availability in dense population areas, since it's the strategic policy and security service. Promoting local stations on sat will only improve their revenue stream. How OTA service by the same local stations can possibly suffer from that? They won't abandon it, as sat service penetration is low in NA, consumer awareness about sat is also low, and there's landlord resistance to sat equipment in dense areas targeted by OTA.
Last edited:
In the video i linked to earlier, they mentioned they would use Nimiq 4.
The $350-$400 price is a little high, but I'm sure it could be done for much less. In an ideal world, all we would need to do is purchase a Ka lnb and use that with our existing dishes and existing FTA receiver. That would be under $50. Ka will work fine on a 30" dish. In an imperfect world, we would need to purchase a bell receiver on ebay (they have said numerous times that a standard bell receiver is what they plan to use), a Ka LNB, and possibly an IF frequency convertor of some sort like Directv uses - total cost under $100. Now if we get the whole package from bell - new dish, lnb, hd receiver... ya, i could see it costing $350-$400.
I think it's a great proposal, and I hope it goes through the CRTC as this would be better for TV and better for FTA in general.:up
The problem they have with providing a true unscrambled FTA signal appears to be caused by the way the TV industry is set up in North America content is purchased and licensed for a certain market area, price no doubt varies with market size, plus in Canada we have the Canadian content rules and the CRTC, so we seem to stuck with some sort of scrambling like the example RVD420 gave in Italy.
I find Bell's estimated costs interesting, $1 million a year for bandwidth I can see, but $4 million a year for other costs including the security system seems high, it would be interesting to see a break down of these costs. Although Bell proposes to pay for the service with funds that otherwise would have been paid to The Local Programming Improvement Fund it would be interesting to know what level of advertising would be necessary to generate these kinds of funds.
Any way the figure is interesting $5 million a year to provide a secure service to 80,000 people providing the content is supplied at no cost. You would think the would be some kind of marketing opportunity in The United States with its far larger population base, the per subscriber cost should be lower.
As others have pointed out the cost of subscriber equipment seems high compared to what you can currently purchase a Bell ExpressVu receiver for, hopefully Bell is high balling the numbers at this stage of the game.
I've seen used Bell ExpressVU receivers at yard sales for $20, guess its time to pick up one just in case.
I find Bell's estimated costs interesting, $1 million a year for bandwidth I can see, but $4 million a year for other costs including the security system seems high, it would be interesting to see a break down of these costs. Although Bell proposes to pay for the service with funds that otherwise would have been paid to The Local Programming Improvement Fund it would be interesting to know what level of advertising would be necessary to generate these kinds of funds.
Any way the figure is interesting $5 million a year to provide a secure service to 80,000 people providing the content is supplied at no cost. You would think the would be some kind of marketing opportunity in The United States with its far larger population base, the per subscriber cost should be lower.
As others have pointed out the cost of subscriber equipment seems high compared to what you can currently purchase a Bell ExpressVu receiver for, hopefully Bell is high balling the numbers at this stage of the game.
I've seen used Bell ExpressVU receivers at yard sales for $20, guess its time to pick up one just in case.
- Status
