MO
No - Sky are reusing the space for their subscription service - if they get their own way, which knowing OFCOM they probably will.
So that means Sky are in effect robbing Freeview of some of it's free channel space.
Brekkie Boy posted:
Moz posted:
Will this mean that some Freeview multiplexes will be freed up?
No - Sky are reusing the space for their subscription service - if they get their own way, which knowing OFCOM they probably will.
So that means Sky are in effect robbing Freeview of some of it's free channel space.
NW
Yep, but to quote from Square Eyes in the other Thread...
I personally think it's a disgrace, fine it's Sky's space they can do what they like with it and indeed they are within the Law and the Broadcasting regulations to do so, but I think it's wrong that they intend to do this, fine on Satellite and Cable where the big bucks are, but it shouldn't be on DTT. Sky have three channels that constantly blag about Sky's services, isn't that enough an advert?
Square Eyes posted:
Sky Three, Sports News & News are on Multiplex C on DTT. When the licences were issued in 2002 after the demise of ITV Digital, the requirement on Multiplexes B, C & D was was to carry free services.
That was then, so don't hold your breath for OFCOM intervention, they lifted this requirement last year so have already paved the way.
This is the relevant bit of the blurb ;
Multiplexes are licensed by Ofcom under the Broadcasting Act 1996 or, in the case of multiplex 1, granted by the Government. Three of the six multiplex licences (multiplexes B, C and D) contain a requirement that all the services they carry “shall be provided on a free to air basis save with the prior consent of Ofcom”. This requirement was inserted to reflect commitments made by the applicants for these licences when the licences were awarded in 2002.
Ofcom believes that there are good arguments to support a proposal to remove the ‘free to air only’ (FTA) requirement on multiplexes B, C and D on the basis that the requirement is no longer necessary and there are no compelling reasons to retain it. Ofcom has consulted on whether the requirement should be removed. The consultation was published 27 October 2005 and closed 12 January 2006. We received 21 responses from individuals and 12 from organisations. The responses were varied and ranged from strongly supporting the proposal to strongly opposing it.
Decision
Ofcom has concluded that the restriction on the services that can be carried on multiplexes B, C and D is no longer necessary, and can be removed without adverse effect on any other relevant Ofcom duties, including our duty to further the interests of citizens and consumers, promote competition, ensure efficient use of the radio spectrum and ensuring the availability of a wide range of TV and radio services from a sufficient plurality of providers. Ofcom is minded to remove the requirement in response to a request from each licensee, without further public consultation.
But yes it stinks, and a complete change of business plan for Sky who must be struggling to sell any more dishes.
That was then, so don't hold your breath for OFCOM intervention, they lifted this requirement last year so have already paved the way.
This is the relevant bit of the blurb ;
Multiplexes are licensed by Ofcom under the Broadcasting Act 1996 or, in the case of multiplex 1, granted by the Government. Three of the six multiplex licences (multiplexes B, C and D) contain a requirement that all the services they carry “shall be provided on a free to air basis save with the prior consent of Ofcom”. This requirement was inserted to reflect commitments made by the applicants for these licences when the licences were awarded in 2002.
Ofcom believes that there are good arguments to support a proposal to remove the ‘free to air only’ (FTA) requirement on multiplexes B, C and D on the basis that the requirement is no longer necessary and there are no compelling reasons to retain it. Ofcom has consulted on whether the requirement should be removed. The consultation was published 27 October 2005 and closed 12 January 2006. We received 21 responses from individuals and 12 from organisations. The responses were varied and ranged from strongly supporting the proposal to strongly opposing it.
Decision
Ofcom has concluded that the restriction on the services that can be carried on multiplexes B, C and D is no longer necessary, and can be removed without adverse effect on any other relevant Ofcom duties, including our duty to further the interests of citizens and consumers, promote competition, ensure efficient use of the radio spectrum and ensuring the availability of a wide range of TV and radio services from a sufficient plurality of providers. Ofcom is minded to remove the requirement in response to a request from each licensee, without further public consultation.
But yes it stinks, and a complete change of business plan for Sky who must be struggling to sell any more dishes.
I personally think it's a disgrace, fine it's Sky's space they can do what they like with it and indeed they are within the Law and the Broadcasting regulations to do so, but I think it's wrong that they intend to do this, fine on Satellite and Cable where the big bucks are, but it shouldn't be on DTT. Sky have three channels that constantly blag about Sky's services, isn't that enough an advert?
JH
Me neither. And I know I've mentioned it on here before, but Sky News viewing figures are so bad on a regular 'normal' day (rarely above 100,000 and more like 70,000 peak for the week) that halving their available audience (particularly the 'free' bit of the audience) seems like madness, and the beginning of the end.
gillw posted:
There are around 8.5 million Sky Digital viewers and around 9.3 million Freeview viewers. Not sure how cable viewers there are? but I just cannot understand why Sky News would purposely remove themselves from nearly 10 million homes.
Me neither. And I know I've mentioned it on here before, but Sky News viewing figures are so bad on a regular 'normal' day (rarely above 100,000 and more like 70,000 peak for the week) that halving their available audience (particularly the 'free' bit of the audience) seems like madness, and the beginning of the end.
BR
As I said in that thread, it's ridiculous OFCOM can make a decision based on a consultation that involved just 21 people (and 12 organisations). Anyone who has even just touched on statistics in school would know a sample of 21 people can't begin to accurately reflect the views of 10m viewers.
nwtv2003 posted:
I personally think it's a disgrace, fine it's Sky's space they can do what they like with it and indeed they are within the Law and the Broadcasting regulations to do so, but I think it's wrong that they intend to do this, fine on Satellite and Cable where the big bucks are, but it shouldn't be on DTT. Sky have three channels that constantly blag about Sky's services, isn't that enough an advert?
As I said in that thread, it's ridiculous OFCOM can make a decision based on a consultation that involved just 21 people (and 12 organisations). Anyone who has even just touched on statistics in school would know a sample of 21 people can't begin to accurately reflect the views of 10m viewers.
MD
You seem to see it as Sky advertising through Freeview, then shouldnt you be happy the channels are going from freeview, to an optional subscription.
nwtv2003 posted:
I personally think it's a disgrace, fine it's Sky's space they can do what they like with it and indeed they are within the Law and the Broadcasting regulations to do so, but I think it's wrong that they intend to do this, fine on Satellite and Cable where the big bucks are, but it shouldn't be on DTT. Sky have three channels that constantly blag about Sky's services, isn't that enough an advert?
You seem to see it as Sky advertising through Freeview, then shouldnt you be happy the channels are going from freeview, to an optional subscription.
GI
You seem to see it as Sky advertising through Freeview, then shouldnt you be happy the channels are going from freeview, to an optional subscription.
This is the bottom line - Sky News on Freeview generates no income, but a subscription service on DTT in it's place has the potential to generate income.
martinDTanderson posted:
nwtv2003 posted:
I personally think it's a disgrace, fine it's Sky's space they can do what they like with it and indeed they are within the Law and the Broadcasting regulations to do so, but I think it's wrong that they intend to do this, fine on Satellite and Cable where the big bucks are, but it shouldn't be on DTT. Sky have three channels that constantly blag about Sky's services, isn't that enough an advert?
You seem to see it as Sky advertising through Freeview, then shouldnt you be happy the channels are going from freeview, to an optional subscription.
This is the bottom line - Sky News on Freeview generates no income, but a subscription service on DTT in it's place has the potential to generate income.
RT
You seem to see it as Sky advertising through Freeview, then shouldnt you be happy the channels are going from freeview, to an optional subscription.
This is the bottom line - Sky News on Freeview generates no income, but a subscription service on DTT in it's place has the potential to generate income.
I think it's 26 million house holds now that have Freeview. The vast majority of new televisions have Freeview build in, so that figure is set to rise dramatically.
The number of people who will be able to view Sky News will drop by tens-of-millions, something I'm sure advertisers will not be happy about. It will not only lead to a dramatic decrease of Sky News viewers, but obviously those viewers will switch to News 24, making any gap between the two channels twice as big, rather than a reduction in viewing figures purely through people not watching Sky News.
rts
Founding member
gillw posted:
martinDTanderson posted:
nwtv2003 posted:
I personally think it's a disgrace, fine it's Sky's space they can do what they like with it and indeed they are within the Law and the Broadcasting regulations to do so, but I think it's wrong that they intend to do this, fine on Satellite and Cable where the big bucks are, but it shouldn't be on DTT. Sky have three channels that constantly blag about Sky's services, isn't that enough an advert?
You seem to see it as Sky advertising through Freeview, then shouldnt you be happy the channels are going from freeview, to an optional subscription.
This is the bottom line - Sky News on Freeview generates no income, but a subscription service on DTT in it's place has the potential to generate income.
I think it's 26 million house holds now that have Freeview. The vast majority of new televisions have Freeview build in, so that figure is set to rise dramatically.
The number of people who will be able to view Sky News will drop by tens-of-millions, something I'm sure advertisers will not be happy about. It will not only lead to a dramatic decrease of Sky News viewers, but obviously those viewers will switch to News 24, making any gap between the two channels twice as big, rather than a reduction in viewing figures purely through people not watching Sky News.
BR
Half it's advertising avenue will come from Freeview - that will be wiped out and won't be compensated for in subscription fees. And I'd imagine the cut Sky News would get would be tiny compared to Sky One, Sky Sports and Sky News.
It's only Sky who seem to think subscription is the way forward - most of the other major broadcasters, most significantly C4, have seen the advertising model as more sustainable.
gillw posted:
This is the bottom line - Sky News on Freeview generates no income, but a subscription service on DTT in it's place has the potential to generate income.
Half it's advertising avenue will come from Freeview - that will be wiped out and won't be compensated for in subscription fees. And I'd imagine the cut Sky News would get would be tiny compared to Sky One, Sky Sports and Sky News.
It's only Sky who seem to think subscription is the way forward - most of the other major broadcasters, most significantly C4, have seen the advertising model as more sustainable.
ST
The wheel is turning, but the hamster has left the cage.
This was my favourite bit.
Brekkie Boy posted:
Half it's advertising avenue will come from Freeview - that will be wiped out and won't be compensated for in subscription fees. And I'd imagine the cut Sky News would get would be tiny compared to Sky One, Sky Sports and Sky News.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster has left the cage.
Quote:
It's only Sky who seem to think subscription is the way forward most of the other major broadcasters, most significantly C4, have seen the advertising model as more sustainable
This was my favourite bit.
RO
Ha, you have to love John Ryley's quotes in there.
Basically what he is saying amounts to "Sky News is a big draw and people will pay for it". B-llocks they will. Sky News has never, ever, been a major draw to Sky Digital so god knows why they think it would be a draw to DTT viewers who have always overwhelmingly favoured News 24.
I really don't like the sound of "allowing us to concentrate on core viewers" or whatever phrase he used - i.e. viewers with Sky Digital. Presumably this means suffering a return of the nauseating Sky News Active promos every five minutes.
I like this quote from Ryley last week on the introduction of the train station screens he calls it-
"part of a strategy to make Sky News available through a wide range of digital media."
I wonder is removing the channel from Freeview part of the same strategy?
cat posted:
Ha, you have to love John Ryley's quotes in there.
Basically what he is saying amounts to "Sky News is a big draw and people will pay for it". B-llocks they will. Sky News has never, ever, been a major draw to Sky Digital so god knows why they think it would be a draw to DTT viewers who have always overwhelmingly favoured News 24.
I really don't like the sound of "allowing us to concentrate on core viewers" or whatever phrase he used - i.e. viewers with Sky Digital. Presumably this means suffering a return of the nauseating Sky News Active promos every five minutes.
I like this quote from Ryley last week on the introduction of the train station screens he calls it-
"part of a strategy to make Sky News available through a wide range of digital media."
I wonder is removing the channel from Freeview part of the same strategy?