i t v DIGITAL is almost gone now!

The other consortium was called DTN and was wholly-owned by NTL.

Sky are the only ones who have made a success of the DTT market, and originally BSkyB was part of the BDB consortium, it was just a snub at sky, that they were kicked out of the group, as they wanted to try out do them, and have failed miserably.

ITV Digital remind me of that man who pretended he won the lottery, spent what he couldnt afford, lied to everyone about it, and refused to admit defeat even when everyone could see it.

Would the government actually allow BSkyB to buy ITVD?????

its not totally impossible, the draft communications bill they are working on, is said to revolutionise the Cross media ownership rules.

If ITV Digital can't make a success of DTT, what makes you think anyone else will?

Cause all the problems are down to Granada and Carlton, and ntl and telewest arent doign that well either, Sky have the experience, the infrastructure, the reputation, and the channel contracts...

Rather than let the Pay DTT market disappear, Sky should run it, under the government's terms and conditions.

But wouldn't they have the same problems, that not many people want a limited range of channels, and a limited range of interactive services

What would be the point of offering a DTT platform, when you can get basically the same channels on a basic Sky Digital package

Excluding all those who can't have a dish for various reasons

Well we could turn that argument around Andrew and say what was the point of offering a DTT platform, when you can get basically the same channels on a basic Sky Digital package, for that is what Carlton and Granada gave us in the form of On Digital.

Martin, it wasn't Carlton and Granada who kicked Sky out of the consortium, it was the ITC, so your analogy about the fake lottery winner is invalid.

i think you're thinking about Eurosport news which losed off Hotbird in the summer. Your use of the term 'Sky Box' instead of 'Analogue Satellite Receiver' shows you are also a member of the 'Sky has left analogue satellite therefore analogue satellite is dead'. Eurosport is actually the only English language channel on Astra which has confirmed that it has no plans to discontinue it's analogue service. It will doubtless be there until the last day of analogue transmission from Astra (which is at least 4/5 years away).


BSB failed because Sky launched a long time before them and, at that time, there was not really anything missing from the 4 terrestrial channels and so a limited number of people wanted a multichannel platform - these people had allready opted for Sky before BSB even launched leaving BSB with virtually no subscribers. There were technical differences between the two platforms, whilst BSB could not have more than 5 channels without additional satellite launches, Sky could have launched with 16 (being Astra's first customers all the the transponders on Astra 1A were available to them if they wanted them), but in inferior quality to BSB's. This does not even compare with the technical limitations of the DSAT platform compared to DTT. And this time round, SkyDigital launched only a very short time before ONdigital, and it's fair to say that the number of subscribers on SkyDigital was hardly significant at that time (until Sky introduced their free box offer and started curtailing Sky Analogue in 2000, Sky Analogue actually had MANY MORE subscribers than SkyDigital did).


It's a failure of ITV Digital. Sky has, from a technical point, a superior platform. No one can dispute that. Anyone who tries can have hard facts shoved in their face. ON, and later ITV digital knew all about these limitations, and yet instead of trying to find their own place in the market (an early report on Digital TV suggested that, if the three markets of DSAT, DTT and DCAB targetted the right customers, there was room for all of them. Unfortunately they all target the same customers and ultimately Sky will win) they tried to take on Sky - possibly one of the most ludicriously stupid business decisions ever. That not being enough, when they actually sucesfully bid for Football rights so they could have exclusive coverage on their platform, instead of realising this wouldn't work and licensing the channel to Sky, they instead dragged their heals and produced a 'We have more Football than Sky' advert. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?


Sky can because they allready have a succesful digital TV service and would not be totally reliant on a pay DTT service. Providing their own channels would cost nothing, and other channels are, I believe, contracted to Sky for broadcast in the UK, how Sky choose to transmit these channels I believe is down to them. And even if some broadcasters get shirty, Sky, allready having good links with them, will surely easily be able to extend the contracts to cover DTT transmissions. Sky may be anti-competitive, but at the end of the day, if those of you with no access to any form of pay TV other than ITV Digital still want to see new episodes of The Simpsons and Buffy and watch UK Gold and Paramount, a Sky-run service is the only option. BoxCo may be able to get an FTA version of Sky One on DTT, but as was previously mentioned, virtually all of the programming that keep Sky One going would not be allowed to be transmitted on this. It won't be the same.



I think the point is more that not many people want a limited range of channels and a limited range of interactive services but at the same time pay virtually the same for them as Sky Viewers do. A Sky DTT service could be run for much less money, and so charge cheaper subscriptions. If they are significantly cheaper, then people may start queing up for the limitations of the DTT platform, because they will be paying a hell of a lot less for it.

My analogy was perfectly Valid

ITV Digital remind me of that man who pretended he won the lottery,

spent what he couldnt afford
the overspent on the football rights and have not yet managed to recoup the £800 million they have invested in BDB

lied to everyone about it
Stuart Preeble made a public announcment saying ITV Digital embellished on the success and admitted they made the situation out to be better than it was http://media.guardian.co.uk/city/story/0,7497,659065,00.html
check out November 2000

and refused to admit defeat even when everyone could see it.
well thats happening right now!

> A Sky DTT service could be run for much less money

No, that's not true. The cost of the CA system is still expensive, and I do not think practically the cost could go much below a tenner no matter what channels were put on any Sky DTT.

It was one of the seeds of the ITVD downfall in fact -- OnD as was bought Canal+'s SECA encryption system because it's easy to use and cheap. Problem is that it's no good. They could have used a more secure system like Philips's Cryptoworks or Via's Nagravision (they were not allowed to use NDS apparently) but this would have been more expensive. That decision probably cost ITVD dear in the long run.

I agree with most of the rest of your post though Chris.

OK OK mdta I concede the point, I took it from the point of view that I thought you were saying that Sky's presence was analogous to the money which turned out not to be won. Yes the rest of it is valid

I have to say though that I think it would be the worst possible outcome for Sky to take over DTT, it would entirely miss the opportunities which are now becoming available for the platform. Terrestrial television has always been free for all and that is how DTT should have continued. No PPV, no subscriptions, all free. There has to be a completely free, no strings attached, portable way of getting digital television (apart from the cost of the receiving kit obviously!) before analogue can be switched off. Neither NTL nor Sky offer this.

(Edited by jason at 1:37 am on Mar. 23, 2002)