That article says "The investigation will take until early May to complete " so I guess that means that ITV will stay encrypted until at least May unfortunately.
That article says "The investigation will take until early May to complete " so I guess that means that ITV will stay encrypted until at least May unfortunately.
That's not entirely correct. Ofcom have up to four months to investigate complaints such as this but it was also reported yesterday that they are expected to rule a lot sooner.
Maybe it's a case of who blinks first. Will ITV threaten to go FTA without regionalisation in which case they will have ITV1 London on 103 everywhere and all the other regions further down (probably in the 800s)? This would be a similar threat to the BBC one which of course resulted in them obtaining a knock-down price of £4m for the regionalisation.
Can there be any possible justification for charging ITV £13m more than the BBC for regionalisation? This is surely just a case of Sky trying to screw them for as much cash as they can.
ITV should stop b****y moaning and just go FTA, we all know they are trying it on in an attempt to get cheap FTV carriage and keep the lower prices they have to pay for not buying FTA Dsat rights for all their programming.
Their refusual to walk away from the table and abandon encryption speaks volumes for their attitude to SKY and Dsat viewers who after years of neglect they now see as a cash cow both in terms of the advertising revenues they help generate and the cash they get from subscriptions.
At least the BBC made a decision and stuck with it, they wanted FTA and got a deal for region mapping that they were happy with. ITV it seems hints at FTA but wants to stay FTV with some PAY element and get cheaper encryption to boot.
I have a vague memory that ITV applauding the beep when it when FTA many years ago. They wanted to do the same when contract time came for renewal. Well thats how i remembered it, correct me if I got this wrong.
It is well known that the Beeb and ITV are very competetive. ITV has seen the Beeb do very well since going FTA most probaly ITV will want a chunk of that revenue also now.
If they do go FTA then it would be the best move for the future of UK Television Broadcasting futures. If ITV do not go FTA as the Beeb did then they are in effect killing the UK Television Broadcasting market dead for years to come.
The outcome will show whether ITV are behind the UK Television Broadcasting market or not. And whether it cares for it's customers as the Beeb had done some yeras ago. Seems all writing on these forums suggest more to do with money. While this is a fact as the Beeb had the same choice also, it is now about also the UK Television Broadcasting market and it's future. ITV hold the key to this right now, i hope they are brave enough to open the door with it and join the Beeb in going full FTA.
ITV should stop b****y moaning and just go FTA, we all know they are trying it on in an attempt to get cheap FTV carriage and keep the lower prices they have to pay for not buying FTA Dsat rights for all their programming.
I see nothing in any of the articles that suggest that ITV want to continue with the FTV scheme.
All the articles suggest that ITV are complaining about the regionalisation package Sky are offering.
If they wanted to continue with the FTV scheme, ITV would be complaining about the regionalisation and the encryption deal (as that would obviously cost more than the regionalisation package alone).
I think ITV would love to "b****y" go FTA, but they are hindered by Sky. Even putting ITV2 FTA could be problematic, as the regionalisation problem rears it's head in this case too.
ITV2 would have to be missing from the ROI EPG, so just putting it FTA would not be a solution without an agreement from Sky.
There is nothing in any of the (several) articles on the subject about encryption costs. One can only draw the conclusion from this that ITV do not want encryption anymore.
Their refusual to walk away from the table and abandon encryption speaks volumes for their attitude to SKY and Dsat viewers who after years of neglect they now see as a cash cow both in terms of the advertising revenues they help generate and the cash they get from subscriptions.
What is wrong with abandoning encryption? It would make many Dsat viewers in the UK very happy!
ITV can see that they are being overcharged- the BBC are FTA and still winning contracts for Hollywood movies (eg Harry Potter) and football (Premiership highlights, UEFA cup games etc).
Why shouldn't the largest commercial broadcaster in the UK get a similar deal to the one the UK's largest PSB got?
And what cash does ITV get from subscriptions?
ITV2 used to be part of the family pack, but is now FTV. The only reason it was part of the family pack was to offset the massive cost of encryption when ITV first went onto the Sky platform.
Going FTA is a positive thing for both Dsat viewers and Sky subscribers. Dsat viewers can finally watch ITV with a FTA box, and Sky subscribers can happily let their subscriptions lapse with no fear that they'll need to buy a 'solus' card in a few years time just to watch ITV.
It's a win-win situation for everyone (except for the company that's selling the encryption technologies...).
At least the BBC made a decision and stuck with it, they wanted FTA and got a deal for region mapping that they were happy with. ITV it seems hints at FTA but wants to stay FTV with some PAY element and get cheaper encryption to boot.
I don't see this at all. Maybe I'm a little bit thick, but can you point out any part of any of those news reports that suggest ITV are unhappy with the cost of encryption.
I can only see that ITV are unhappy with the cost of a regionalisation service similar to the one the BBC decided upon. Of course, the regionalisation service is only of concern to a broadcaster if they are going FTA....
I couldn't find any news story that suggests that ITV "wants to stay FTV with some PAY element and get cheaper encryption".
If you can point out your sources then I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong on this one...
mediaguardian-
"ITV has made a formal complaint to regulators about charges BSkyB wants to impose for ensuring that satellite viewers receive the correct regional version of the channel."
mediabulletin-
"Sky currently charges ITV £17m a year for access to its EPG service. Under a new deal, Sky is proposing that ITV pay between £13m and £17m to ensure viewers in different areas pick up the correct news and programming dedicated to their ITV region.
"ITV is insisting that Sky is overcharging the network and the fee should be more like the £4m rate the BBC pays."
Financial Times-
"ITV has complained to Ofcom, the media watchdog, about the money charged by British Sky Broadcasting for ensuring viewers of its satellite television service receive the right regional version of its flagship ITV1 channel."
If they do go FTA then it would be the best move for the future of UK Television Broadcasting futures. If ITV do not go FTA as the Beeb did then they are in effect killing the UK Television Broadcasting market dead for years to come
ITV have ultimately to decide if they want to join the BBC, leading a new development in UK broadcasting. Totally free digital Satellite with something (arguably) worth watching.
They have to bear in mind that had the BBC retained conditional access, they we're handing Sky £17m on a plate every year. ITV the same. £34m, then the estimated million FTV cards at £20 a piece with an expected lifespan of 3-5 years. So in effect handing Sky a revenue of £170m over 5 years. £340m over 10 years. They are giving their main rival money on a plate for semi-controlling their broadcasts.
And what does it cost for the rights, given Ireland is the only real overspill issue (where UTV is widely recieved). Anyone can get a friend to buy a £20 card on their behalf. There is no control of "FTV" under the current regime. Anyone can see that. They may as well go free outright.
The Danny Williams fight being on German TV didn't stop Sky charging us £15 a piece for it. FTA doesn't stop the FA selling the Cup and England internationals to the Beeb, nor did it stop UEFA selling Champions League to TM3 or RTL. The same goes for the F1 on RTL.
ITV can only take the gamble. Its not even really a gamble. They go into the same ballpark as the BBC. Theoretically the BBC Freesat vision could take off, certainly its cheaper than Sky's almost-free sat. More digital viewers = digital dividend from the government.
And what does it cost for the rights, given Ireland is the only real overspill issue (where UTV is widely recieved). Anyone can get a friend to buy a £20 card on their behalf. There is no control of "FTV" under the current regime. Anyone can see that. They may as well go free outright.
The Danny Williams fight being on German TV didn't stop Sky charging us £15 a piece for it. FTA doesn't stop the FA selling the Cup and England internationals to the Beeb, nor did it stop UEFA selling Champions League to TM3 or RTL. The same goes for the F1 on RTL.
We both know that 'rights issues' is a smokescreen. Even the people defending Sky surely can't believe that any 'rights holders' care if ITV are FTA or not.
Movies shouldn't be an issue- the movies that ITV show have (in general) already been shown in the local languages in other regions of Europe. (this is partly to do with the fact that some european countries get hollywood films in cinemas before the UK).
The other major rights problem is sport. Football is the main concern (eg the Champions League), but there is often a problem cited with Formula 1.
This is utter rubbish, of course. Sat.1 show a live champions league game every week that there's a game on. To the whole of Europe on 19.2e. FTA!
RTL show every Grand Prix to the whole of Europe on 19.2e. FTA!
It's quite big headed of people to think that people in Europe are really going to care that ITV are going to broadcast the occasional game of football, or a grand prix from an obscure satellite location. Not to mention the fact that the footprint of 19.2e is far more forgiving of smaller dishes than that of 28.2e.
And people in Europe are really not going to be bothered if ITV shows some old Hollywood movies, especially when they've received the special ITV treatment ("Yippie-kay-yay kemo sabe")
It's been done to death in other threads (and in this one), but I'll mention it again (for any 'rights holders' that may stumble across this thread)- ITV is already available in Ireland!
Not only is it broadcast in the North (since the North is part of the UK!), but you can receive it in many parts of the Republic using a large terrestrial aerial. If you can't use that, then you can get it on cable. If you can't get it on cable, then you can get it on MMDS. If you can't get it via these means, you can get a freesat card off ebay for about 20 quid and put it in your Irish Sky digibox.
If Sky really cared about preventing UK terrestrials from being seen abroad then surely they would at least prevent the freesat cards from being used in boxes they know are registered in the Republic of Ireland. Since even this loophole hasn't been addressed, the FTV scheme is absolutely useless at protecting the 'rights holders'.
The 'rights issues' are a smokescreen to persuade the UK terrestrials to stay encrypted (and therefore stay part of a closed platform).
FTA ITV would be one of the most damaging things to happen to Sky in a long while. The BBC going FTA on it's own was a big thing. But if ITV join them.... the floodgates have opened and we're into a new era of satellite TV...
Does anyone think there may be a clue as to what ITV want when you consider that ITV3 is completely free to air but is still on the EPG?
It would be best for us customers if ALL ITV channels were completely free to air but still on the EPG, that way anyone could buy a £70 FTA sat receiver and get at least all the BBC and ITV channels, but a non-subscription Sky box would still have ITV on the EPG.
If Ch4 and five followed on when their contracts expire, there would be no need for Sky to have to supply the £20 FTA cards which I am sure they don't make much, if any, profit from.
£12Million is better in their pocket than it is in Sky's.
Plus I'm sure Sky is not Carlton and Granada's favourite company after ITV Digital: not wanting to carry the ITV Sport Channel, giving away SKY boxes etc....
ITV should go FTA. What are rights providers gunna do? Not sell to ITV or BBC the two largest broadcasters? Come on...
btw and not wanting to get onto the subject but "conditional access" systems infringe upon established EU directives to allow the unhindered transmission of TV signals across borders.
It's been done to death in other threads (and in this one), but I'll mention it again (for any 'rights holders' that may stumble across this thread)- ITV is already available in Ireland!
Not only is it broadcast in the North (since the North is part of the UK!), but you can receive it in many parts of the Republic using a large terrestrial aerial. If you can't use that, then you can get it on cable. If you can't get it on cable, then you can get it on MMDS. If you can't get it via these means, you can get a freesat card off ebay for about 20 quid and put it in your Irish Sky digibox.
That's it, ITV1 (UTV) is the republics second most watched channel, only being beaten by RTE1. Despite not being available on the SKY epg, well FTV cards, but not all of the 25% of households are going to get one, so if they had a bit of sence, they'd fight to put UTV on the epg, for the chance to become the largest channel in the south, you can even see the UTV ads, showing prices in Euro, not bad for a channel that should not be broadcasting here at all.
Charles Allen will take the ITV channels off the Sky platform.He cannot afford to allow his company to be held to ransom by BSkyB in the way it is being at precisely this moment. :eek:
ITV is referring Sky to Ofcom because of the fees it is refusing to reduce but this is a preamble to following the BBC into free-to-air transmission while securing its due place on the Sky EPG and regionalisation features again like the BBC.The future of the public service broadcasters is off the BSkyB platform and unencrypted where they should have been from the outset on the satellite equivalent of Freeview.
It is likely that Sky - for the first time and despite all of the Murdoch organisations "lobbying" of the Government - will loose with the regulator Ofcom.ITV will get what it wants and the tyranny of Videoguard and the Sky Digibox will be finally broken. :mad:
Free-to-air sateliite receivers will rapidly make their appearance as will the standard DVB-S 7 day EPG.
And what does it cost for the rights, given Ireland is the only real overspill issue (where UTV is widely recieved). Anyone can get a friend to buy a £20 card on their behalf. There is no control of "FTV" under the current regime. Anyone can see that. They may as well go free outright.
Ireland isn't much of an issue really - as you've said, UTV (and ITV1 Wales) are available easily across the country, and Ireland's own TV3 is basically ITV1 Ireland in all but name. It shows Coronation Street, Emmerdale, X Factor, Celebrity and many other ITV1 shows. I believe Granada has a big stake in it.
Wasn't there a law change a few years ago about the compulsory sale of Cam units? What happened to that? Am I wrong.
I think Sky are allowed to withhold the sale of CAM units for as long as they provide the 'free' sky digiboxes to anyone who wants them.
And contrary to the spin provided by certain other members of the forum, a CAM does not make the encryption system any less secure. As an example, the Greek package Nova has been secure for a long time and you can get CAM's for their package.
The reason Sky remains unhacked is because they have the best minds in the business working at NDS... having a CAM won't change that.
What a CAM would do (and why I suspect Sky are reluctant to release one) is damage the money they get from channel numbering and Sky+.
A CAM would allow any FTA box with CAM slot to use a Sky Viewing card. This would allow channels to be renumbered, hidden, or added. A broadcaster wouldn't necessarily need to pay £76000 for a channel number, they could get people to retune their FTA CI box instead. PVR manufacturers could develop state of the art PVR's that don't charge £10 a month to be used, or PVR's that contain DVD burners for archiving...
Most FTA CI receivers also have 2 CAM slots, raising the possibility that some 'specialist' broadcasters could launch and use a different encryption system for their channels. Again, damaging to Sky's bottom line because anyone who wants to run pay-tv on satellite at the moment has to deal with Videoguard.
Aside from the terrestrials going FTA, a CAM would be one of the most damaging things to happen to Sky.
I don't see this at all. Maybe I'm a little bit thick, but can you point out any part of any of those news reports that suggest ITV are unhappy with the cost of encryption.
(...snip...)
If you can point out your sources then I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong on this one...
"ITV said that Sky's charges for carriage on the EPG and for conditional access services were "not fair and reasonable,""
Now, the dtg article seems to cite mediaguardian and the financial times as their sources. So I don't see how they come to the view that the problem is the encryption contract. Both cited articles refer to regionalisation and not conditional access...
I'm guessing (and this is only a guess) that the digitalspy article is referencing the other articles and again drawing the conclusion that ITV are complaining about encryption rather than regionalisation. I'm hoping someone at DS may be able to get clarification from ITV...
That would seem logical, Monkey Magic. If ITV are complaining about Sky’s figure of 10 million (quoted somewhere in the last day or two) then I assume they are comparing this with the (supposed) figure of 4 million charged for REGIONALISATION for the BBC. If it was the price of ENCRYPTION they were complaining about, then the 10 million figure would be being compared with 17 million (the price of encryption previously) and they would appear to have far less reason to go running to OFCOM to complain.
I just hope they tell Sky to stuff it and go FTA from January 20th.
I hope ITV come to an agreement with BSKYB and make ITV stay Free to View
Why? So ITV pay for encryption instead of programming? So Sky can fleece you for £20 every time you want an FTV card? To stop the Irish from seeing ITV?
As a SKY Subcriber i don't need to do that but since you put it that they pay for encrypion insted of programmes i agree let them go FREE to air.
I'm a Sky subscriber myself. But at the point of digital switchover it would be handy to be able to get a quad lnb (well, I have one already but for others out there) and 2/3 FTA boxes cheaply @ £50-70 each rather than having to get 2/3 Sky boxes (more expensive brand new) and give them £20 every few years for a card for "free" channels.
Why? So ITV pay for encryption instead of programming? So Sky can fleece you for £20 every time you want an FTV card? To stop the Irish from seeing ITV?
Its the first. They don't stop us seeing ITV, they positively encourage it. UTV's masts have suspiciously shaped coverage, every cable company or deflector system transmits UTV or HTV with permission....
Its the first. They don't stop us seeing ITV, they positively encourage it. UTV's masts have suspiciously shaped coverage, every cable company or deflector system transmits UTV or HTV with permission....
I put forward the questions knowing the obvious rebuttals to all of them.
Why? So ITV pay for encryption instead of programming?
No-one seriously could think thats a good idea.
So Sky can fleece you for £20 every time you want an FTV card?
Again. I'd rather keep my £20
To stop the Irish from seeing ITV?
They can see it anyway
Because I know, as do monkey magic and mentore, the arguments in favour of FTV over FTA are seriously flawed.
I think the recent move by ITV is a positive move for DSat broadcasting in the UK. It would seem from the complaint to Ofcom and others have picked up on this is that by complaining about regionalisation costs they have already decided to go FTA but Sky are being awkward as they were with BBC on regionalisation before caving in.
However for Sky this is very important as with both BBC and ITV going FTA this ultimately threatens their dominance on the hardware market in the UK but fortunately for the consumer it will give extra choice of receivers with functionality provided free such as Dsat PVR's hitting the market which you dont have to pay £10 per month for. If ITV go FTA then CH4 and CH5 will have to follow when their contracts expire and CH4 look as if they have already taken steps towards this with leasing transponder space on Astra 2D and also the rumours of E4 going FTA in the future. If the market goes this way then I would think that Sky would be forced to provide a CAM to allow people to view Sky services from non sky equipment otherwise they would potentially lose many customers. It would also force them into looking at providing better value packages to keep customers and better customer service.
This is only with the threat the ITV offers I think they will be further affected by NTL and Telewest offering VOD services next year and PVR's. After this there is the future threat from broadband delivered services as broadband speeds are increased.
I am a Sky subscriber but only really for the football but with Skys dominance at threat who knows when the next premiership agreement comes round maybe ITV would have a chance of winning some of them with Skys income hit by Hardware sales, Hardware repairs, EPG costs and encryption costs.
I think Sky are allowed to withhold the sale of CAM units for as long as they provide the 'free' sky digiboxes to anyone who wants them.
And contrary to the spin provided by certain other members of the forum, a CAM does not make the encryption system any less secure. As an example, the Greek package Nova has been secure for a long time and you can get CAM's for their package.
The reason Sky remains unhacked is because they have the best minds in the business working at NDS... having a CAM won't change that.
What a CAM would do (and why I suspect Sky are reluctant to release one) is damage the money they get from channel numbering and Sky+.
A CAM would allow any FTA box with CAM slot to use a Sky Viewing card. This would allow channels to be renumbered, hidden, or added. A broadcaster wouldn't necessarily need to pay £76000 for a channel number, they could get people to retune their FTA CI box instead. PVR manufacturers could develop state of the art PVR's that don't charge £10 a month to be used, or PVR's that contain DVD burners for archiving...
Most FTA CI receivers also have 2 CAM slots, raising the possibility that some 'specialist' broadcasters could launch and use a different encryption system for their channels. Again, damaging to Sky's bottom line because anyone who wants to run pay-tv on satellite at the moment has to deal with Videoguard.
Aside from the terrestrials going FTA, a CAM would be one of the most damaging things to happen to Sky.
It would certainly give a person more freedom of choice in the hardware department, and, as you say, would not make anything less secure, so Sky would get revenue from the supply of each channel all the time, ie you want a pay channel, you pay for it.
I only mentioned the CAM as then you could buy a CAM, a free to view card, and just get ITV1 and 2 and Ch4 and 5 on any CI slotted Digital Satellite Receiver. It would still bring up the problem of card supply, though, and cost us for the card and the CAM. (Perhaps not such a good idea!!)
It would be better for all us customers if ITV 1 and 2 just went FTA.
It would also mean that no-one would have to design and build the CAM, and continue to supply the FTV cards etc.
Comments
That article says "The investigation will take until early May to complete " so I guess that means that ITV will stay encrypted until at least May unfortunately.
That's not entirely correct. Ofcom have up to four months to investigate complaints such as this but it was also reported yesterday that they are expected to rule a lot sooner.
Maybe it's a case of who blinks first. Will ITV threaten to go FTA without regionalisation in which case they will have ITV1 London on 103 everywhere and all the other regions further down (probably in the 800s)? This would be a similar threat to the BBC one which of course resulted in them obtaining a knock-down price of £4m for the regionalisation.
Can there be any possible justification for charging ITV £13m more than the BBC for regionalisation? This is surely just a case of Sky trying to screw them for as much cash as they can.
Their refusual to walk away from the table and abandon encryption speaks volumes for their attitude to SKY and Dsat viewers who after years of neglect they now see as a cash cow both in terms of the advertising revenues they help generate and the cash they get from subscriptions.
At least the BBC made a decision and stuck with it, they wanted FTA and got a deal for region mapping that they were happy with. ITV it seems hints at FTA but wants to stay FTV with some PAY element and get cheaper encryption to boot.
It is well known that the Beeb and ITV are very competetive. ITV has seen the Beeb do very well since going FTA most probaly ITV will want a chunk of that revenue also now.
If they do go FTA then it would be the best move for the future of UK Television Broadcasting futures. If ITV do not go FTA as the Beeb did then they are in effect killing the UK Television Broadcasting market dead for years to come.
The outcome will show whether ITV are behind the UK Television Broadcasting market or not. And whether it cares for it's customers as the Beeb had done some yeras ago. Seems all writing on these forums suggest more to do with money. While this is a fact as the Beeb had the same choice also, it is now about also the UK Television Broadcasting market and it's future. ITV hold the key to this right now, i hope they are brave enough to open the door with it and join the Beeb in going full FTA.
I see nothing in any of the articles that suggest that ITV want to continue with the FTV scheme.
All the articles suggest that ITV are complaining about the regionalisation package Sky are offering.
If they wanted to continue with the FTV scheme, ITV would be complaining about the regionalisation and the encryption deal (as that would obviously cost more than the regionalisation package alone).
I think ITV would love to "b****y" go FTA, but they are hindered by Sky. Even putting ITV2 FTA could be problematic, as the regionalisation problem rears it's head in this case too.
ITV2 would have to be missing from the ROI EPG, so just putting it FTA would not be a solution without an agreement from Sky.
There is nothing in any of the (several) articles on the subject about encryption costs. One can only draw the conclusion from this that ITV do not want encryption anymore.
What is wrong with abandoning encryption? It would make many Dsat viewers in the UK very happy!
ITV can see that they are being overcharged- the BBC are FTA and still winning contracts for Hollywood movies (eg Harry Potter) and football (Premiership highlights, UEFA cup games etc).
Why shouldn't the largest commercial broadcaster in the UK get a similar deal to the one the UK's largest PSB got?
And what cash does ITV get from subscriptions?
ITV2 used to be part of the family pack, but is now FTV. The only reason it was part of the family pack was to offset the massive cost of encryption when ITV first went onto the Sky platform.
Going FTA is a positive thing for both Dsat viewers and Sky subscribers. Dsat viewers can finally watch ITV with a FTA box, and Sky subscribers can happily let their subscriptions lapse with no fear that they'll need to buy a 'solus' card in a few years time just to watch ITV.
It's a win-win situation for everyone (except for the company that's selling the encryption technologies...).
I don't see this at all. Maybe I'm a little bit thick, but can you point out any part of any of those news reports that suggest ITV are unhappy with the cost of encryption.
I can only see that ITV are unhappy with the cost of a regionalisation service similar to the one the BBC decided upon. Of course, the regionalisation service is only of concern to a broadcaster if they are going FTA....
I couldn't find any news story that suggests that ITV "wants to stay FTV with some PAY element and get cheaper encryption".
If you can point out your sources then I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong on this one...
mediaguardian-
"ITV has made a formal complaint to regulators about charges BSkyB wants to impose for ensuring that satellite viewers receive the correct regional version of the channel."
mediabulletin-
"Sky currently charges ITV £17m a year for access to its EPG service. Under a new deal, Sky is proposing that ITV pay between £13m and £17m to ensure viewers in different areas pick up the correct news and programming dedicated to their ITV region.
"ITV is insisting that Sky is overcharging the network and the fee should be more like the £4m rate the BBC pays."
Financial Times-
"ITV has complained to Ofcom, the media watchdog, about the money charged by British Sky Broadcasting for ensuring viewers of its satellite television service receive the right regional version of its flagship ITV1 channel."
ITV have ultimately to decide if they want to join the BBC, leading a new development in UK broadcasting. Totally free digital Satellite with something (arguably) worth watching.
They have to bear in mind that had the BBC retained conditional access, they we're handing Sky £17m on a plate every year. ITV the same. £34m, then the estimated million FTV cards at £20 a piece with an expected lifespan of 3-5 years. So in effect handing Sky a revenue of £170m over 5 years. £340m over 10 years. They are giving their main rival money on a plate for semi-controlling their broadcasts.
And what does it cost for the rights, given Ireland is the only real overspill issue (where UTV is widely recieved). Anyone can get a friend to buy a £20 card on their behalf. There is no control of "FTV" under the current regime. Anyone can see that. They may as well go free outright.
The Danny Williams fight being on German TV didn't stop Sky charging us £15 a piece for it. FTA doesn't stop the FA selling the Cup and England internationals to the Beeb, nor did it stop UEFA selling Champions League to TM3 or RTL. The same goes for the F1 on RTL.
ITV can only take the gamble. Its not even really a gamble. They go into the same ballpark as the BBC. Theoretically the BBC Freesat vision could take off, certainly its cheaper than Sky's almost-free sat. More digital viewers = digital dividend from the government.
We both know that 'rights issues' is a smokescreen. Even the people defending Sky surely can't believe that any 'rights holders' care if ITV are FTA or not.
Movies shouldn't be an issue- the movies that ITV show have (in general) already been shown in the local languages in other regions of Europe. (this is partly to do with the fact that some european countries get hollywood films in cinemas before the UK).
The other major rights problem is sport. Football is the main concern (eg the Champions League), but there is often a problem cited with Formula 1.
This is utter rubbish, of course. Sat.1 show a live champions league game every week that there's a game on. To the whole of Europe on 19.2e. FTA!
RTL show every Grand Prix to the whole of Europe on 19.2e. FTA!
It's quite big headed of people to think that people in Europe are really going to care that ITV are going to broadcast the occasional game of football, or a grand prix from an obscure satellite location. Not to mention the fact that the footprint of 19.2e is far more forgiving of smaller dishes than that of 28.2e.
And people in Europe are really not going to be bothered if ITV shows some old Hollywood movies, especially when they've received the special ITV treatment ("Yippie-kay-yay kemo sabe")
It's been done to death in other threads (and in this one), but I'll mention it again (for any 'rights holders' that may stumble across this thread)- ITV is already available in Ireland!
Not only is it broadcast in the North (since the North is part of the UK!), but you can receive it in many parts of the Republic using a large terrestrial aerial. If you can't use that, then you can get it on cable. If you can't get it on cable, then you can get it on MMDS. If you can't get it via these means, you can get a freesat card off ebay for about 20 quid and put it in your Irish Sky digibox.
If Sky really cared about preventing UK terrestrials from being seen abroad then surely they would at least prevent the freesat cards from being used in boxes they know are registered in the Republic of Ireland. Since even this loophole hasn't been addressed, the FTV scheme is absolutely useless at protecting the 'rights holders'.
The 'rights issues' are a smokescreen to persuade the UK terrestrials to stay encrypted (and therefore stay part of a closed platform).
FTA ITV would be one of the most damaging things to happen to Sky in a long while. The BBC going FTA on it's own was a big thing. But if ITV join them.... the floodgates have opened and we're into a new era of satellite TV...
It would be best for us customers if ALL ITV channels were completely free to air but still on the EPG, that way anyone could buy a £70 FTA sat receiver and get at least all the BBC and ITV channels, but a non-subscription Sky box would still have ITV on the EPG.
If Ch4 and five followed on when their contracts expire, there would be no need for Sky to have to supply the £20 FTA cards which I am sure they don't make much, if any, profit from.
If the BBC can do it, I don't see why ITV can't??
Plus I'm sure Sky is not Carlton and Granada's favourite company after ITV Digital: not wanting to carry the ITV Sport Channel, giving away SKY boxes etc....
ITV should go FTA. What are rights providers gunna do? Not sell to ITV or BBC the two largest broadcasters? Come on...
btw and not wanting to get onto the subject but "conditional access" systems infringe upon established EU directives to allow the unhindered transmission of TV signals across borders.
That's it, ITV1 (UTV) is the republics second most watched channel, only being beaten by RTE1. Despite not being available on the SKY epg, well FTV cards, but not all of the 25% of households are going to get one, so if they had a bit of sence, they'd fight to put UTV on the epg, for the chance to become the largest channel in the south, you can even see the UTV ads, showing prices in Euro, not bad for a channel that should not be broadcasting here at all.
ITV is referring Sky to Ofcom because of the fees it is refusing to reduce but this is a preamble to following the BBC into free-to-air transmission while securing its due place on the Sky EPG and regionalisation features again like the BBC.The future of the public service broadcasters is off the BSkyB platform and unencrypted where they should have been from the outset on the satellite equivalent of Freeview.
It is likely that Sky - for the first time and despite all of the Murdoch organisations "lobbying" of the Government - will loose with the regulator Ofcom.ITV will get what it wants and the tyranny of Videoguard and the Sky Digibox will be finally broken. :mad:
Free-to-air sateliite receivers will rapidly make their appearance as will the standard DVB-S 7 day EPG.
Roll-on *Freesat,say I!
*Freesat is a reg'd trademark of the BBC.
Ireland isn't much of an issue really - as you've said, UTV (and ITV1 Wales) are available easily across the country, and Ireland's own TV3 is basically ITV1 Ireland in all but name. It shows Coronation Street, Emmerdale, X Factor, Celebrity and many other ITV1 shows. I believe Granada has a big stake in it.
I think Sky are allowed to withhold the sale of CAM units for as long as they provide the 'free' sky digiboxes to anyone who wants them.
And contrary to the spin provided by certain other members of the forum, a CAM does not make the encryption system any less secure. As an example, the Greek package Nova has been secure for a long time and you can get CAM's for their package.
The reason Sky remains unhacked is because they have the best minds in the business working at NDS... having a CAM won't change that.
What a CAM would do (and why I suspect Sky are reluctant to release one) is damage the money they get from channel numbering and Sky+.
A CAM would allow any FTA box with CAM slot to use a Sky Viewing card. This would allow channels to be renumbered, hidden, or added. A broadcaster wouldn't necessarily need to pay £76000 for a channel number, they could get people to retune their FTA CI box instead. PVR manufacturers could develop state of the art PVR's that don't charge £10 a month to be used, or PVR's that contain DVD burners for archiving...
Most FTA CI receivers also have 2 CAM slots, raising the possibility that some 'specialist' broadcasters could launch and use a different encryption system for their channels. Again, damaging to Sky's bottom line because anyone who wants to run pay-tv on satellite at the moment has to deal with Videoguard.
Aside from the terrestrials going FTA, a CAM would be one of the most damaging things to happen to Sky.
I'll post a few sources myself.
dtg -
http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?id=557
"Ofcom has been called in after the breakdown in long-running negotiations between ITV and BSkyB over the encryption contract for ITV1 and ITV2."
digitalspy-
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds18178.html
"ITV said that Sky's charges for carriage on the EPG and for conditional access services were "not fair and reasonable,""
Now, the dtg article seems to cite mediaguardian and the financial times as their sources. So I don't see how they come to the view that the problem is the encryption contract. Both cited articles refer to regionalisation and not conditional access...
I'm guessing (and this is only a guess) that the digitalspy article is referencing the other articles and again drawing the conclusion that ITV are complaining about encryption rather than regionalisation. I'm hoping someone at DS may be able to get clarification from ITV...
I just hope they tell Sky to stuff it and go FTA from January 20th.
Why? So ITV pay for encryption instead of programming? So Sky can fleece you for £20 every time you want an FTV card? To stop the Irish from seeing ITV?
I'm a Sky subscriber myself. But at the point of digital switchover it would be handy to be able to get a quad lnb (well, I have one already but for others out there) and 2/3 FTA boxes cheaply @ £50-70 each rather than having to get 2/3 Sky boxes (more expensive brand new) and give them £20 every few years for a card for "free" channels.
Its the first. They don't stop us seeing ITV, they positively encourage it. UTV's masts have suspiciously shaped coverage, every cable company or deflector system transmits UTV or HTV with permission....
I put forward the questions knowing the obvious rebuttals to all of them.
No-one seriously could think thats a good idea.
Again. I'd rather keep my £20
They can see it anyway
Because I know, as do monkey magic and mentore, the arguments in favour of FTV over FTA are seriously flawed.
However for Sky this is very important as with both BBC and ITV going FTA this ultimately threatens their dominance on the hardware market in the UK but fortunately for the consumer it will give extra choice of receivers with functionality provided free such as Dsat PVR's hitting the market which you dont have to pay £10 per month for. If ITV go FTA then CH4 and CH5 will have to follow when their contracts expire and CH4 look as if they have already taken steps towards this with leasing transponder space on Astra 2D and also the rumours of E4 going FTA in the future. If the market goes this way then I would think that Sky would be forced to provide a CAM to allow people to view Sky services from non sky equipment otherwise they would potentially lose many customers. It would also force them into looking at providing better value packages to keep customers and better customer service.
This is only with the threat the ITV offers I think they will be further affected by NTL and Telewest offering VOD services next year and PVR's. After this there is the future threat from broadband delivered services as broadband speeds are increased.
I am a Sky subscriber but only really for the football but with Skys dominance at threat who knows when the next premiership agreement comes round maybe ITV would have a chance of winning some of them with Skys income hit by Hardware sales, Hardware repairs, EPG costs and encryption costs.
It would certainly give a person more freedom of choice in the hardware department, and, as you say, would not make anything less secure, so Sky would get revenue from the supply of each channel all the time, ie you want a pay channel, you pay for it.
I only mentioned the CAM as then you could buy a CAM, a free to view card, and just get ITV1 and 2 and Ch4 and 5 on any CI slotted Digital Satellite Receiver. It would still bring up the problem of card supply, though, and cost us for the card and the CAM. (Perhaps not such a good idea!!)
It would be better for all us customers if ITV 1 and 2 just went FTA.
It would also mean that no-one would have to design and build the CAM, and continue to supply the FTV cards etc.