pinkhelmets
Inactive User
Tv viewing in the uk is changing, and fast. Freeview has been a huge success and now has more users than sky has. Broadband & downloads are also creating less demand for the pay-tv content as more people just select what they want; Internet movie hire or purchase, legitimate or illegal is not the point, its the fact that people are doing this at ever increasing rate. Digital switch-over and High Definition is also helping force fast change across the nation.
Do Sky need to change something, and fast?
Without doubt sky have had the monopoly and full control over our choice of TV, but could that dominant control now bite back and hit them hard? Over the past decade Sky have collected 400 million pounds just from broadcasters being on their EPG, just for having a channel number listed in the box software, not for the additional costs to broadcast! This kind of control has resulted in other channel broadcasters desperately in need of another platform as an alternative to show their channels. The monopoly doesnt just hit sky subscribers who pay more than any other subscribers in Europe.
BBC & ITV are now to provide that new platform in the form of Freesat, a non-profit based alternative. Broadcasters are signing up to make their channels available on the NEW Freesat EPG, and since the service will be subscription free it provides lots of choice at low cost to the end user. More channel choice than freeview, integrated internet downloads, Free High Definition channels, Free Pvr (no charge like Sky+)..... you can see the appeal.
At the end of the day broadcasters need viewers to get advertisers, so broadcasting free gives a great opportunity to gain viewers, with perhaps the extra benefit of much lower cost EPG charges! So all the extra benefits that Freesat brings to consumers is our bonus, but its not the first consideration on the list for broadcasters & advertisers.
Lets face facts, sky are greedy and have abused the monopoly they have held. Virgin recently told them to stuff their channels that Sky were demanding so much for, so how long will it be before other broadcasters tell them to stick their EPG and monopoly power? How long before broadcasters add new channels exclusively to Freesat, just like ITV are proposing with their new HD channel? Virgin, Ch4, BBC, ITV and many more broadcast companies have all had their hands burnt and now firmly stand on the opposite side of the fence to Sky.
Many subscribers stay with Sky for channels or content that isnt elsewhere, such as Documentaries, Nat Geo, Discovery etc. Yet in reality these channels each get less than 0.1% of the national viewing figures. Would any normal person really warrant the amount uk subscription costs for these only? Subscribers that stay for special content like Lost, US progs, movies or Premiership games, are also defecting to alternative options in growing numbers ~foriegn sat, or internet again....
The fact is, Freesat seems to have much to offer as an alternative and if broadcasters jump ship so will subscribers. The more of the public that buy Freesat = the broadcasters will certainly jump ship. Sky offering free broadband to subscribers will not be enough, they really need a complete rethink of their value and worth, they need to win back some friends.
Do Sky need to change something, and fast?
Without doubt sky have had the monopoly and full control over our choice of TV, but could that dominant control now bite back and hit them hard? Over the past decade Sky have collected 400 million pounds just from broadcasters being on their EPG, just for having a channel number listed in the box software, not for the additional costs to broadcast! This kind of control has resulted in other channel broadcasters desperately in need of another platform as an alternative to show their channels. The monopoly doesnt just hit sky subscribers who pay more than any other subscribers in Europe.
BBC & ITV are now to provide that new platform in the form of Freesat, a non-profit based alternative. Broadcasters are signing up to make their channels available on the NEW Freesat EPG, and since the service will be subscription free it provides lots of choice at low cost to the end user. More channel choice than freeview, integrated internet downloads, Free High Definition channels, Free Pvr (no charge like Sky+)..... you can see the appeal.
At the end of the day broadcasters need viewers to get advertisers, so broadcasting free gives a great opportunity to gain viewers, with perhaps the extra benefit of much lower cost EPG charges! So all the extra benefits that Freesat brings to consumers is our bonus, but its not the first consideration on the list for broadcasters & advertisers.
Lets face facts, sky are greedy and have abused the monopoly they have held. Virgin recently told them to stuff their channels that Sky were demanding so much for, so how long will it be before other broadcasters tell them to stick their EPG and monopoly power? How long before broadcasters add new channels exclusively to Freesat, just like ITV are proposing with their new HD channel? Virgin, Ch4, BBC, ITV and many more broadcast companies have all had their hands burnt and now firmly stand on the opposite side of the fence to Sky.
Many subscribers stay with Sky for channels or content that isnt elsewhere, such as Documentaries, Nat Geo, Discovery etc. Yet in reality these channels each get less than 0.1% of the national viewing figures. Would any normal person really warrant the amount uk subscription costs for these only? Subscribers that stay for special content like Lost, US progs, movies or Premiership games, are also defecting to alternative options in growing numbers ~foriegn sat, or internet again....
The fact is, Freesat seems to have much to offer as an alternative and if broadcasters jump ship so will subscribers. The more of the public that buy Freesat = the broadcasters will certainly jump ship. Sky offering free broadband to subscribers will not be enough, they really need a complete rethink of their value and worth, they need to win back some friends.