TV Home Forum

Deal saves ITV,4 and 5 for non Sky subscribers

(October 2003)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
EM
EmleyMoor
Last-minute deal on free-to-air satellite from MediaGuardian

Owen Gibson
Wednesday October 22, 2003

Hundreds of thousands of satellite viewers who would have been left with blank screens by the BBC's decision to break away from BSkyB and broadcast its satellite signal "in the clear" have been saved by a last-minute deal.
Sports and tourism minister Richard Caborn announced in parliament yesterday that the commercial broadcasters had "made a deal" that would see them investing hundreds of thousands of pounds in a scheme to provide special viewing cards to viewers of free-to-air satellite signals.

An estimated 600,000 viewers who have digital satellite systems but do not subscribe to Sky Digital were due to lose ITV, Channel 4 and Channel Five later this year when Sky changes its encryption system.

Since renegotiating its deal with BSkyB earlier this year and switching to its own satellite free of Sky's encryption, the BBC has stopped paying for the solus card that allows digital satellite viewers who do not subscribe to Sky Digital to watch the terrestrial channels.

While the commercial channels will contribute hundreds of thousands of pounds to the scheme, for the first time viewers will have to pay towards the cost of the cards.

"Good progress is being made and the broadcasters are close to a solution. I am able to announce you today very good news: they have now made a deal", said Mr Caborn during a recess yesterday afternoon.

"All the details are not finalised yet, but we already know that those people who currently have a non-subscription satellite viewing card and who wish to continue receiving the commercially funded public service channels without paying a subscription to Sky or another pay-TV broadcaster will be able to get a new card," he added.

The news will be greeted with particular relief by non-BSkyB subscribers who receive a poor analogue signal, forcing them to watch terrestrial TV through a satellite dish.

Mr Caborn said viewers would have to pay around £20 plus VAT for a new card, which would last for at least two years. He added that Sky had promised not to disable the existing cards until the scheme was up and running.

All affected viewers will be alerted to the new scheme through onscreen messages that will appear next week and direct them to a call centre.

"We believe this is a very good outcome. It has not been easy to achieve; and I want to take this opportunity to thank the broadcasters for their hard work," said Mr Caborn.

The BBC announced earlier this year it would no longer pay the £12 per subscriber annual charge for the cards after it opted out of BSkyB's encryption system in a move that the BBC director general, Greg Dyke, said would save the corporation £85m over five years.

The BBC now broadcasts "in the clear", meaning its channels can be picked up by anyone with a satellite dish, even if they do not have a Sky Digital subscription.

The three commercial terrestrial broadcasters remain contracted to BSkyB and continue to have their broadcasts encrypted. BSkyB has already said it would continue to provide the solus cards to non-Sky subscribers if terrestrial broadcasters paid for the service.
:-(
A former member
This is daft. Now ITV, 4 and five are wasting money. Technically, it is wasting money, because they're doing this for just 62,000 viewers - compare this to the axing of Crossroads (which I hated) which had a good 1 million viewers.

Besides, those people who want Free to View should get Freeview. I know not everyone can receive it, but if they're so desperate for the dire commercial terrestrial channels, they should have to pay a lower subscription.
AS
Asa Admin
chrisb posted:
This is daft. Now ITV, 4 and five are wasting money. Technically, it is wasting money, because they're doing this for just 62,000 viewers - compare this to the axing of Crossroads (which I hated) which had a good 1 million viewers.

62,000? The press release said 600,000 - a closer number to that odd connection made with Crossroads.

chrisb posted:
Besides, those people who want Free to View should get Freeview. I know not everyone can receive it, but if they're so desperate for the dire commercial terrestrial channels, they should have to pay a lower subscription.

That sentence doesn't add up - you admit that "not everyone can receive it" and yet want them to pay a lower subscription to presumably, receive it?! If they're out of signal, they're out of signal! It's like the issue with five - many people who have perfect signal and all five terrestrial channels fail to take into account the many people who are affected!

As a satellite viewer, I shouldn't be forced into going back to analogue to watch the main channels if I haven't got a Sky subscription. Besides, they're getting £20 per household. That should cover most of the cost.
Last edited by Asa on 22 October 2003 4:06pm
:-(
A former member
62,000? The article says 600,000 - which I believe is comprised of 300,000 FTV card holders and 300,000 ex-Sky subscribers.

Freeview is indeed not available in some areas and will be at a lower power level until the analogue system is switched off, which will never happen if satellite is purely subscription only.

We have three Sky receivers in our house - one with a Sky £18/month pack and the other two with FTV cards (P2 using a Pout subscription Smile ). I would be very pissed off if I had to pay a monthly fee for receiving something that I used to get for free, and in my opinion, £20 per card issue is an acceptable fee.

I recently bought another Sky system from a friend who is emigrating - I am installing it for my grandmother whose house is next to trees that severely reduce the signal from the terrestrial transmitter. She also used to like "Home and Away" but hasn't been able to watch it since it moved to C5.

Oh, and check how much an Freeview box and aerial costs - you could get a 2nd hand satellite system off ebay and have it installed for about the same money.

Gareth
:-(
A former member
Sorry, I misread the numbers in the article and didn't explain my points very well.

What I meant at first was that ITV are going to spend a lot of money to keep 600,000 viewers happy, and yet would not spend this money to keep 1,000,000 happy (by showing Crossroads on ITV2). Crossroads was merely the first example that sprung to mind, and my theory made more sense if it had only been 62,000 viewers.

My other point was basically an alternative to their suggestion; pay a lump sum for the card or pay a low SKY subscription. I wasn't refering to Freeview here.

I've confused myself really, I must've had a temporary lapse of common sense whilst posting that before. Sorry.
PE
Pete Founding member
chrisb posted:
Sorry, I misread the numbers in the article and didn't explain my points very well.

What I meant at first was that ITV are going to spend a lot of money to keep 600,000 viewers happy, and yet would not spend this money to keep 1,000,000 happy (by showing Crossroads on ITV2). Crossroads was merely the first example that sprung to mind, and my theory made more sense if it had only been 62,000 viewers.


Maybe Pickard didn't have a chance to axe Sky...

I thought ITV were planning to move onto the BBC's satellite to avoid Sky's ridiculous costs aswell. Any idea if or when this would happen?
:-(
A former member
Hymagumba posted:
chrisb posted:
Sorry, I misread the numbers in the article and didn't explain my points very well.

What I meant at first was that ITV are going to spend a lot of money to keep 600,000 viewers happy, and yet would not spend this money to keep 1,000,000 happy (by showing Crossroads on ITV2). Crossroads was merely the first example that sprung to mind, and my theory made more sense if it had only been 62,000 viewers.


Maybe Pickard didn't have a chance to axe Sky...

I thought ITV were planning to move onto the BBC's satellite to avoid Sky's ridiculous costs aswell. Any idea if or when this would happen?


Pickard wouldn't have to axe Sky - ITV weren't on the platform at the beginning and they could easily move or leave again, if they weren't breaking an expensive SKY contract that is...
WI
william Founding member
Asa posted:
chrisb posted:
This is daft. Now ITV, 4 and five are wasting money. Technically, it is wasting money, because they're doing this for just 62,000 viewers - compare this to the axing of Crossroads (which I hated) which had a good 1 million viewers.

62,000? The press release said 600,000 - a closer number to that odd connection made with Crossroads.

chrisb posted:
Besides, those people who want Free to View should get Freeview. I know not everyone can receive it, but if they're so desperate for the dire commercial terrestrial channels, they should have to pay a lower subscription.

That sentence doesn't add up - you admit that "not everyone can receive it" and yet want them to pay a lower subscription to presumably, receive it?! If they're out of signal, they're out of signal! It's like the issue with five - many people who have perfect signal and all five terrestrial channels fail to take into account the many people who are affected!

As a satellite viewer, I shouldn't be forced into going back to analogue to watch the main channels if I haven't got a Sky subscription. Besides, they're getting £20 per household. That should cover most of the cost.


I'd question the accuracy of the figures being quoted.

If the BBC were paying £12 per subscriber per year, and people will in future be expected to pay approx £20 + VAT (that comes to £23.50) for a card that expires after two years, then the 'significant' contribution made by ITV, C4 + 5 amounts to all of 50p....

Were there any other costs bourne by anyone else in the past?
NH
Nick Harvey Founding member
Hymagumba posted:
I thought ITV were planning to move onto the BBC's satellite to avoid Sky's ridiculous costs aswell.

ITV were actually on Astra 2D with a UK only beam BEFORE the BBC joined in. ITV went on there from the start, so the BBC and ITV are now on the same bird and the same beam configuration.

Quite WHY ITV initially went for an encryption contract with Sky is a bit of a mystery. PROBABLY something to do with getting on position 103 in the EPG, but I'm not certain of that.

When ITV's initial (five year) contract with Sky expires, I suspect they'll do the same deal as the BBC have now done. It's just that the BBC's first five years were up first, so they had the chance to rearrange things earlier.

Newer posts