Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="2old4this" data-source="post: 2892" data-attributes="member: 174998">Here a few thoughts of my own on the points your raise:First, I don't agree with this idea that just because something's "free" on the terrestrial platform, it should also be free on satellite. That would hold true were it not for the fact that transmission by satellite is not a cost-free undertaking. Astra transponder space is very expensive. And then there's the share of the whole supporting infrastructure (cards & encryption system development&administration if it is FTV rather than truly FTA, but also the general costs of running a satellite company.) WIth respoect to the "anti-competitiveness" (or otherwise) of this:I would argue (have frequently done so here) that the way BSkyb has set itself up is in its entirety anti-competitive. Their insistance on not following European guidelines or standards (for example their refusal to allow receiver-independent Common Interface CAMs to be manufactured, and their continual refusal to enable the digibox to accept other CI CAMs) has effectively locked the mainstream satellite viewer into Sky. In fact, everything from their strict control of supply of digiboxes to their majority share-holding in the NDS company that owns the encryption system contributes to this lock-in. Everything from their use of a new orbital slot to their removal of dishes that pointed to the old one (which was multi-platform). The dishes they supply are not even capable (due to their extreme small size) of receiving other sigals. Even the digibox itself has been deliberately crippled in such a way that it is barely capable of receiving or handling transmissions form oother providers - or indeed even FTA transmissions which do not want to pay for an entry in the EPG (and all such cripples have been implemented in the software - the hardware has always been capable of more!)So what nonsense to see in the official response that they encourage any perceived anti-competiveness to be reported. It is the government that have allowed this to happen in the first place. Anyone who spends even a few minutes looking at the situation will see that BSkyb's entire business strategy is blatently anti-competitive.Let's also challenge the terminology and meaning of the response you quoted. Is the govenment really "committed to ensuring that the free channels which are currently available on analogue, (BBC 1 and 2, ITV and Channels 4/S4C and 5) will be available as free-to-air channels on all digital platforms"? ALL digital platforms? Free-to-air? Really?Free-to-Air means UNENCRYPTED. It does NOT mean encrypted in a form that can be decrypted using a card - even if the card is "free" to the target audience. Such transmissions are actually referred to as FTV = Free-to-view. The distinction, by the way, is particularly relevant in the context of Sky's business practice and the lock-in I mentioned. If indeed these channels were truly FTA then any digital satellite receiver would be able to receive them. The audience would be free to choose. If instead they are encrypted then the viewer is again dependent on some commercially-motivated provider to administer the cards and manage the necessary encryption infrastructure. As things stand today, this even means that the viewer is obliged to purchase a Sky Digibox. To bring this whole anti-competitive thing into sharp focus, imagine for a moment how difficult (if not impossible) it would be now for a second satellite provider to try to enter the UK market. Unless that provider is willing simply to be a content-provider on the Sky platform (like the various "adult" channels), there is virtually no way they could survive. If they wanted to use a different encyption technology then by definition every existing satellite viewer also wishing to receive the new service would need two satellite receivers. And if the new provider didn't want to (or couldn't afford to) transmit from the Astra2 orbital slot, then every existing satellite viewer would need a second dish - and that's already a non-starter due to planning restrictions in the UK. They wouldn't even have the option of a second LNB on the existing Sky dish since (a) the Sky dish is too small to support such an offset arrangement and (<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite6" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":cool:" /> Sky will not support any change to their "standard configuration". So it seems utterly bizarre to me that the government seeking to switch-off of analogue terrestrial transmissions, should be so dependent on one single anti-competitive satellite provider and one flaky digital terrestrial provider to pick up the baton. What if Sky went bust? Not likely? Well they still make hundreds of millions of pounds loss anually. And ITV-Digital is teetering on the brink. If the Government has a role at all, it should be to safeguard the consumers interests by encouraging a platform/techology that can be used by many different competing providers. They can start by FORCING Sky to adopt open standards and SPLITTING OFF the supply of the infrastructure (boxes, CAMs, dishes etc) from the supply of programming.2old</blockquote>

Verification