Freesat-type Service in North America
- Thread starter Chief Twit
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 14
- Views 30K
-
WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!
If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!
While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!
Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
- Status
no:
The cable TV and direct broadcast satellite TV providers will lobby congress in the US, to prevent it.
Canada is as hamstrung by similar companies, so again: no.
Where else in North America is there a population with sufficient money to even try?
Just my personal opinion.
The cable TV and direct broadcast satellite TV providers will lobby congress in the US, to prevent it.
Canada is as hamstrung by similar companies, so again: no.
Where else in North America is there a population with sufficient money to even try?
Just my personal opinion.
The way the CRTC has been lately, you may be right guapoharry... I wouldn't be suprised if the CRTC approves the "Fee For Carriage" aka.. TV Tax
Two problems as I see it.
The average north American doesn't have a clue what is available in the rest of the world for free and no one is going to pay to educate them.
As far as I know there is no effective organization that represents the consumer only various well funded industry groups fighting over how to split up the pie.
We now have the technology to render conventional satellite and cable companies obsolete the Freesat and IPTV model that works in other parts of the world make these middlemen obsolete.
You can bet they will fight this by every means at their disposal.
The average north American doesn't have a clue what is available in the rest of the world for free and no one is going to pay to educate them.
As far as I know there is no effective organization that represents the consumer only various well funded industry groups fighting over how to split up the pie.
We now have the technology to render conventional satellite and cable companies obsolete the Freesat and IPTV model that works in other parts of the world make these middlemen obsolete.
You can bet they will fight this by every means at their disposal.
I have a hard time talking to people about this, they just don't seem very interested. Does the average congressperson have a clue? Maybe they need an earful from each of us regarding this matter. But I see no mass consumer uprising any time soon. I really wonder why?
I haven't found one. Consumer's Union argues for ala carte programming, but they obviously haven't been effective.
Cable was born in the horse and buggy era. They want to stay in the horse and buggy era, and erect barriers online to keep us riding their one trick pony. I hope they fail.
I know of local people with no television at all in their households, and other people who say they want to drop their cable or pay sat -- but don't. Maybe OTA will make a minor comeback as the sole provider in many homes and entice people to leave cable behind?
If Echostar was "leading the free-to-air revolution" here -- and by that I mean in some honest way -- they would have every household in America, or at least force their competition to match their offer and then every household would have sat one way or the other. The premium pay channels should thrive in such an arrangement. The junk channels nobody wants would die, I guess. Don't like television advertising? Why not have a plan that eliminates or reduce ads -- for a fee?
For most people with a half decent internet connection this is a perfectly good option as much of what is available from the specialty channels is available for free or very low cost over the internet.
I don't know why the providers of these specialty channels aren't making their content available directly over the internet on a subscription bases.
For instance the Discovery Channel, National Geographic, History Channel plus a few others usually costs an extra $5+ per month after you have to purchase a load of other junk you may not want.
Of that $5 I bet the providers only receive a few dollars.
I bet many people would be willing to pay the providers directly (on an annual basis to keep administration costs down) for content over the internet and get the channels they want and not a load of extra junk.
Right now you can get a lot of this content for free through services such as Hulu and Blinkx.
I expect this is what has got a lot of media executives worried, technology is changing their world fast.
Some reasons as to why Freesat (and its predecessor) works:
1) Sky (the monopoly pay-tv broadcaster) doesn't own or control the satellites the channels on its platform broadcast from. They wouldn't be able to tell anyone what to do, and channels are free to appear on the Freesat EPG, the Sky EPG, or both.
2) One of the satellites it broadcasts from has a nominally UK footprint (not in practice, it covers a wider area). This means that the broadcasters can remain FTA but still pay for UK-only rights. Wouldn't Canada/Mexico overspill be an issue?
3) Cable doesn't cover anywhere near as many people as it does in the US, and it's a much newer "invention". Terrestrial and satellite are king - walk down any street and you'll see that the vast majority have the trademark Sky minidish. You only have to then buy a Freesat box and plug it in.
4) The logistics of uplinking our main broadcasters is rather less challenging than in the US. (5 channels, 2 of which have 15+ regional variations, compared to what, thousands of US TV stations?). It should also be said that the channels were already being uplinked for Sky customers, Freesat is nothing more than a different box and a different EPG referencing the same transponders.
1) Sky (the monopoly pay-tv broadcaster) doesn't own or control the satellites the channels on its platform broadcast from. They wouldn't be able to tell anyone what to do, and channels are free to appear on the Freesat EPG, the Sky EPG, or both.
2) One of the satellites it broadcasts from has a nominally UK footprint (not in practice, it covers a wider area). This means that the broadcasters can remain FTA but still pay for UK-only rights. Wouldn't Canada/Mexico overspill be an issue?
3) Cable doesn't cover anywhere near as many people as it does in the US, and it's a much newer "invention". Terrestrial and satellite are king - walk down any street and you'll see that the vast majority have the trademark Sky minidish. You only have to then buy a Freesat box and plug it in.
4) The logistics of uplinking our main broadcasters is rather less challenging than in the US. (5 channels, 2 of which have 15+ regional variations, compared to what, thousands of US TV stations?). It should also be said that the channels were already being uplinked for Sky customers, Freesat is nothing more than a different box and a different EPG referencing the same transponders.
If you want pay-TV. Our free to air broadcasters don't have the money to spend on big name sports or movies, so that stays on the pay channels (the exceptions being certain sporting events that must be free to air thanks to the government, and some football matches).
The Sky equipment is a LOT cheaper than freesat (eBay), and the software is far more mature. (though unfortunately, you have to pay Sky £10/month to use the PVR to record, unless you subscribe to any channels). The number of free to air channels on the Sky EPG is far greater than Freesat, too. But that might be because Freesat is barely a year old.
Freesat TV won't work in the USA, nationwide at least.
Here is why:
All the participating stations that have to be unlinked (and pay for it themselves), plus have a mechanism to control access to them to theit exclusive markets (spot beams can handle some of that).
In the past few years, TV stations have made significant investments in digital transmission. They will not throw that away or make more investment anytime soon.
Stations rely on money for retansmission consent. Maybe not a whole lot, but some. Switching to a Freesat platform would cost them, instead of earn them extra income.
Now, for Canada, it makes a bit more sense, in that there are not a whole lot of individual stations (mostly mini-station networks with a handful of re-transmitters), most of which have not begun to switch digital, and as it seems, might just shut down their transmitters and be on pay platforms only, or shut down entirely. Because of the alleged shape of Canadian broadcasters and their desire for FFC, I don't see them lining up for such a scheme.
Here is why:
All the participating stations that have to be unlinked (and pay for it themselves), plus have a mechanism to control access to them to theit exclusive markets (spot beams can handle some of that).
In the past few years, TV stations have made significant investments in digital transmission. They will not throw that away or make more investment anytime soon.
Stations rely on money for retansmission consent. Maybe not a whole lot, but some. Switching to a Freesat platform would cost them, instead of earn them extra income.
Now, for Canada, it makes a bit more sense, in that there are not a whole lot of individual stations (mostly mini-station networks with a handful of re-transmitters), most of which have not begun to switch digital, and as it seems, might just shut down their transmitters and be on pay platforms only, or shut down entirely. Because of the alleged shape of Canadian broadcasters and their desire for FFC, I don't see them lining up for such a scheme.
When I first read the proposal from Bell Expressview to offer "free" satallite tv, I thought initially not to bad an idea. Once I had gotten into the report on this I had to absolutly laugh, they are offering 5, yupper I had read it right, a whole 5 (five) channels, this is of course also to view this"free" channels you would have to buy one of "their" recievers. What a total joke. I had to re-read it once or twice just so I knew I had read it right.
The reason I laugh is because with a simple set of rabbit ears, heck with 2 coat hangers, and some speaker wire, connected right to the tv, I can get more channels, clearly, than what I could get with buying a reciever, installing a dish and using their so called "free" sat service.
If Bell wants to give us free sat service than do so but let us use the millions of "true" free to air recievers that are all ready being used, free is free, so why should I have to purchase a reciever from Bell,
oh thats right, not only would I be paying for the reciever when I bought that reciever from Bell, but also paying for the service too, and then have to put up with a ton of commercials as well, why just so they can pocket millions of dollars, I think not.
I would sooner have to pay a tax on a cable bill than have a whole 5 channels from Bell. 5 channels, what a bloody joke.
I would rather have my OTA any day than to have to pay Bell for a reciever for their so called "free" sat service. I can recieve close to 35 channels, both American, and Canadian with my OTA. From Buffalo, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Detroit, Windsor, Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Toronto, and even a few in between those places too, and all I got is a recycled 50 foot tower, antenna head, amplifier, rotor, all of which is about 15 or so years old.(yupper it didn't cost dime one, except for new rotor wire, and a new 300 ohm- to 75ohm outdoor transformer and new coax, everything else was totally free)
I recieve both digital, and for the time being analog, until all Canadian transmitters are forced to go digital, which most have already done.
Now if Bell was to offer say 15 or 20 channels, mostly locals, then and only then would I even concider it being worth to have to purchase a reciever from Bell to view "free" sat tv, and really as far as I am concerned it should simply be up to me to purchase any one of the "true" fta recievers instead of a special reciever from Bell, as if it is "truely" free sat, then it should be unencrypted so all can view. For me this so called 5(five) channels is just a big scam, which I have experienced Bell sat tv, the so called customer reps are extemely arrogant, ignorant individuals, but that is my opinion, I like my "true" fta, and my OTA, it's free in every sence of the word.
The reason I laugh is because with a simple set of rabbit ears, heck with 2 coat hangers, and some speaker wire, connected right to the tv, I can get more channels, clearly, than what I could get with buying a reciever, installing a dish and using their so called "free" sat service.
If Bell wants to give us free sat service than do so but let us use the millions of "true" free to air recievers that are all ready being used, free is free, so why should I have to purchase a reciever from Bell,
oh thats right, not only would I be paying for the reciever when I bought that reciever from Bell, but also paying for the service too, and then have to put up with a ton of commercials as well, why just so they can pocket millions of dollars, I think not.
I would sooner have to pay a tax on a cable bill than have a whole 5 channels from Bell. 5 channels, what a bloody joke.
I would rather have my OTA any day than to have to pay Bell for a reciever for their so called "free" sat service. I can recieve close to 35 channels, both American, and Canadian with my OTA. From Buffalo, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Detroit, Windsor, Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Toronto, and even a few in between those places too, and all I got is a recycled 50 foot tower, antenna head, amplifier, rotor, all of which is about 15 or so years old.(yupper it didn't cost dime one, except for new rotor wire, and a new 300 ohm- to 75ohm outdoor transformer and new coax, everything else was totally free)
I recieve both digital, and for the time being analog, until all Canadian transmitters are forced to go digital, which most have already done.
Now if Bell was to offer say 15 or 20 channels, mostly locals, then and only then would I even concider it being worth to have to purchase a reciever from Bell to view "free" sat tv, and really as far as I am concerned it should simply be up to me to purchase any one of the "true" fta recievers instead of a special reciever from Bell, as if it is "truely" free sat, then it should be unencrypted so all can view. For me this so called 5(five) channels is just a big scam, which I have experienced Bell sat tv, the so called customer reps are extemely arrogant, ignorant individuals, but that is my opinion, I like my "true" fta, and my OTA, it's free in every sence of the word.
A Canadian Freesat service would need to be encrypted, because many Canadian stations air content that would be detrimental at least to rights holders in the US, if aired FTA on satellite. By using encryption, those rights are protected, and access can controlled to those entitled to receive those channels, plus they can sell them as an extra locals package to other subscribers.
UK Freesat is mostly unencrypted because they have nobody to protect the rights of.
UK Freesat is mostly unencrypted because they have nobody to protect the rights of.
Where else in North America is there a population with sufficient money to even try?
Just my personal opinion.
In some way in México (which by the way it's also Northamerica) it's happening, but mostly with cultural content due to it's government 'sponsorship', as of right now just on the SatMex satellites we can get 120-150 channels, but the 'biggest' channels (from Televisa) are not available because of their partnership with Sky.
Still... there are a few independent channels via satellite worth watching, but a lot of people in México don't know about FTA, aside from the fact that most people prefeer to pirate DN with FTA receivers, and it's not because of the dish size required, in most of the country a 4 feet dish is needed and in the two biggest cities, at least a 2.4 meter offset dish is needed for each satellite you want to get.
M.
Wrong.
The BBC produces/commissions a lot of content, it also buys imports from the US and international networks. For the latter two, it will only buy UK rights. It therefore has to attempt to stop anyone who isn't in the UK from receiving its channels (high quality widescreen SD programs, with English audio/subtitles are VERY desirable - that's why Germany and so on can broadcast Europe-wide. No one cares for German dubs of US/British content).
ITV/Channel 4 have similar issues, perhaps more so since they buy or commission far more content than the BBC does.
All of the companies that need to do it without encrypting transmit through a satellite that (in theory) has a footprint that covers the UK and Ireland only. This means that the broadcasters can go to the rights holders and claim that they're only broadcasting to the UK (the Irish overspill is tolerated) and only need to pay for UK rights. In practice the footprint is slightly larger (you can easily get it in northern France, as you go east the dish size required increases rather quickly).
It should be said that some nominally FTA channels actually encrypt using Sky's encryption system, but you can decrypt them with a card that you can get for a one-off charge, or any ex-subscription card. This is how we used to do it before that satellite was launched.
- Status
