Sky to launch "Freeview Plus"

Sky are considering launching a new basic package dubbed "Freeview Plus" which would offer virtually the same channels as Freeview with a couple of extras. The plans are still at the proposal stage so there is little information on prices, but it is likely sibscribers would have to buy the dish and set top box.

I'd personally like to see a free-to-view digital satellite service and would rather buy that than a Freeview set-top box. The biggest advantage would be the scope for interactive services (although it's possible these could be confined as extras to subscribers) is far greater than Freeview. Whether Sky should run a free-to-view digital satellite service is another question, but I'd rather Sky offered it than no-one.

Also, from the articles I have read, I don't think "Freeview Plus" would be entirely free - a monthly subscription would probably still be involved.

Well I'm sure there would be issues about using the Freeview brand - the BBC won't be too happy about them calling it 'Freeview Plus'

Why does SKY try to monopolise everything? Can't they just leave Freeview as the Free-to-view platform? Grr.

Is this a joke.

Must be.

It's just been dubbed "Freeview Plus" by commentators (and Freeview nicked their name from a loser of the race for the DTT licences).

And re: Sky monopolising everything. By launching a free to air digital service they would remove Freeview's free to air monopoly.

Living in the twilight zone are we?

Nobody ever said anything about this B$kyB package being free.

This is a basic package for which you will have to pay : prices not yet available.

It's not a joke, but apparently, its still in "proposal stage" - according to Digital Spy anyway...

I don't quite understand why Sky want to do this. Fair enough - there are millions of viewers using Freeview, as opposed to sky - and they want those viewers to switch... but doesn't sky have a third of the shares in Freeview anyway? Would it really be in their best interests to go in direct competition with themselves?

I know that they would probably get more revenue with the viewers buying the dishes and boxes, but what was the point in investing in Freeview, if they are just gonna get p*ssed off with themselves for its success!?

Some people just do not get it, do they?

This is a lure, a bait.

The biggest problem that B$kyB have in uptake is the hardware installation.

Once you get people on board with a bargain basement package, you then bring them on board to the more expensive package with the bombardment of continual advertizing, even including blackmail advertizing about parent's not wanting to deprive their children, and also directly to children as well.

Incdentally, that is the whole purpose of Ftn, a showcase of Bravo and the other Flextech channels, and no doubt by Setanta when they commence broadcasting too.

"We now leave this live soccer match to join recorded highlights of Competition Angling already in progress, but viewers can watch the rest of the game on our subscription satellite service ...."

Anyways, once this package is available on B$kyB who in their right mind will continue to wach the stations for free on Digital Terrestrial Television, when you can pay to watch them on B$kyB?

Rupert wants your money, so get phoning to order that subscription now!!!

Freeview (and indeed Freeview Plus) were brand names coined by the Carlton/Granada proposition. At the time the BBC/Crown Castle application was called 'FreeToView'.


But why shouldn't Sky have their own Freeview service? I had a perfectly servicable Sky digibox which I had just cancelled the subscription to. I thought I'd make do with the free channels, until I realised that that basically equated to BBC channels, Sky News and QVC. I've ended up buying a DTT receiver so I can get some more channels (ITV2, Sky Travel, UK History, UK BrightIdeas, The Hits, FTN, TMF, and Sky Sports News are all pay channels on Sky), I would much rather have been able to stick with my Sky box, enjoy all it's multiple region wizadry and the superior technical quality of Dsat, but instead had to drop it because there is no decent (not that Freeview is that good either) free service on Dsat.

Anything which will open up free channels to different platforms I welcome.

But, it does now sound like it's a revised basic tier from Sky. This too I welcome. Their basic tier package only includes Sky One and Home&Leisure (all the other channels they list are free anyway). And you have to go right up to the family package (the top non-premium package) before you get a decent selection of channels. A new basic tier which actually provides a varied (but obviously more limited) channel choice, possibly in conjunction with all the DTT 'Freeview' channels, is long overdue, and much welcomed.

Freeview (and indeed Freeview Plus) were brand names coined by the Carlton/Granada proposition. At the time the BBC/Crown Castle application was called 'FreeToView'.


But why shouldn't Sky have their own Freeview service? I had a perfectly servicable Sky digibox which I had just cancelled the subscription to. I thought I'd make do with the free channels, until I realised that that basically equated to BBC channels, Sky News and QVC. I've ended up buying a DTT receiver so I can get some more channels (ITV2, Sky Travel, UK History, UK BrightIdeas, The Hits, FTN, TMF, and Sky Sports News are all pay channels on Sky), I would much rather have been able to stick with my Sky box, enjoy all it's multiple region wizadry and the superior technical quality of Dsat, but instead had to drop it because there is no decent (not that Freeview is that good either) free service on Dsat.

Anything which will open up free channels to different platforms I welcome.

But, it does now sound like it's a revised basic tier from Sky. This too I welcome. Their basic tier package only includes Sky One and Home&Leisure (all the other channels they list are free anyway). And you have to go right up to the family package (the top non-premium package) before you get a decent selection of channels. A new basic tier which actually provides a varied (but obviously more limited) channel choice, possibly in conjunction with all the DTT 'Freeview' channels, is long overdue, and much welcomed.

Beg your pardon?

At my place we have DSat in the lounge, and DTT in my room.

DTT picture quality* FAR surpasses DSat, which uses much higher compression - even on "mainstream" channels. (* and that is with an indoor aerial sat on top of my HiFi)

Note to pedants: I fully realise this is not down to the DVB-T/S specs - but the practical upshot of the implementation decisions made in order to get most "effective" usage of bandwidth.

I'm not just talking about picture quality, but about the technical quality of equipment used to receive it too.

In terms of the most ubiquitous UK devices for DSAT and DTT, the Sky box and the ex-ITV Digital box respectively, the DSAT equipment is far superior. Even amongst the 'generic' equipment, such as FTA Dsat and DTT receivers however, DSAT kit always seems to be more responsive.

Putting all channels aside, the whole usability experience of DSAT (of Sky in particular) far surpasses that of DTT.