Freesat: a sign of Freeview's failure

An uncharitable view of Freesat, the free-to-air satellite TV service launched today by the BBC and ITV, is that it demonstrates the failure of Freeview. Why else would the very people who begged us to buy a Freeview set-top box now be urging upon us an alternative, incompatible system involving a new set-top box, a satellite dish and professional installation?

In fact, Freeview has not been a failure. It has the makings of something much more frustrating: a short-term success. More than 14 million British households already use it, but some doubt its suitability as a national broadcast system for next-generation television.

It faces two main problems: patchy coverage, which leaves more than a quarter of the population without a signal, and problems cramming bandwidth-hungry high-definition signals onto the part of the broadcast TV spectrum. Limited trials of HD over Freeview are expected to begin next year, but only four channels will be available and viewers will have to buy yet another set-top box.

Freesat, which delivers its signal via satellite, will liberate the BBC and ITV from the constraints of the broadcast spectrum and allow them to offer more high-definition programming. Both broadcasters see HD as a way of holding onto viewers (and advertisers, in ITV’s case) in a fragmenting media market, and until now they’ve had to sit back and watch Sky TV take an early lead in HD programming.

Encouragingly for both broadcasters, nearly half a million subscribers have stumped up for Sky’s high-definition channels, proving that there is an appetite for super-sharp TV. A similar service without the barrier of a contract and monthly subscription is likely to be popular.

So where does that leave Freeview? Anyone who gets a good signal with the existing system and has no interest in upgrading to HD will probably stick with what they’ve got, but it would be hard to recommend it to anyone who has not yet made the switch to digital TV. For a relatively small, one-off fee, Freesat offers a much more future-proofed system.

That’s frustrating for those who plumped for Freeview but now have an HD-ready TV and want to make the most of it. Some will no doubt find the cash for Freesat, but the cynics among them may be wondering how long they’ll have to wait before it too is rendered obsolete.

Comments

[R A Morton]

Will the dish need to be changed from its Sky setting? Will I be able to receive the signal in Southern France?

[Darren Waters]

Aren't you confusing Freeview the hardware with Freeview the service?

For example - people who bought satellite receivers for free TV are in the same boat - ie the boxes are not, by and large, suited for HD reception and output.

Subscription services subsidise the cost of hardware but require a tie-in over a period of time to recoup money.

Free services with a one-off hardware cost do not.

Swings and roundabouts!

[Colin Soames]

This is more short term thinking, the money should be going into bringing 100Mb broadband to houses using optical fibres, giving streaming, on-demand services and super-fast t'interweb.

[David]

Any chance of a disclaimer for the relationship between TimesOnline and Sky. Because that article seems quite biased. All HD options require a new set top box compared to the standard definition services. In fact without the exclusive licensing of NDS (Sky's encryption system) Freesat like Freeview can be integrated into TVs. So it's just Sky HD that in the long term will need yet another STB.

Freeview's short term success isn't going to be hit by long term coverage issues. Because (whilst this wasn't mentioned switch-over will lead it to have comparative coverage to Sky/Freesat.

All the predictions are that Freeview will get most of the people left to switch. So Freeview's success isn't that short term.

[Jeff]

Colin,

You are missing the point about 100MB broadband and streaming services.

Firstly, the only two companies who can do this are BT and Virgin Media who have last mile networks to the home. Its not the job of the BBC to deliver the transmission path - they supply the content. The BBC are using infrastructure already in existance for both freeview (albeit digital not analogue kit on transmitter masts) and freesat - the trusty astra satellite. This means they meet their public service broadcasting criteria very adequately with 98% coverage through the satellite alone.

If people want sky sports or sky movies (insert disclaimer re: news corporation parent of the times and sky) they'll get Sky! Its clear that the difference between freeview and freesat is the lack of the sky channels - sky news, sky sports news and sky three as its clearly a competitive platform through a dish!

[Mr Adam Smith]

R A Morton in Southern France.

Are you paying a TV License Fee?

[Kevin]

My Freeview set top box picture is much inferior to normal, soon to be obsolete, analogue (less sharp, detailed and saturated) despite a full signal with no break up and at present seems a retrograde step.

[Simon]

David - The Times and Sky are both owned by Murdoch...!

[Tom Halpin]

Mr Adam Smith

Don't know about RA Morton but I'm paying a UK license fee and one in Southern France and it would be nice to have this service there

[Alex]

As someone who lives in the all new digital only area. I can tell you that freeview just doesn't work at my address. Having visited my inlaws who also live in a freeview area some channels aren't available and some are patchy. Freeview was fundamentally flawed from the outset and a true british shambles

This service has only a few differences with the free service offered by sky which I have used for several years. Yes it may have HD and cost a similar amount to install but it doesn't have all the channels.

We know have a bewildering number of services offering slighty different options with little or no customer benefit

[nobby]

I would rather have 4 channels of decent broadcasting than 200 channels of rubbish. I have Sky and regularly find there is nothing worth watching. Thank goodness for DVDs and video games.

[Simon Davenport]

Freesat will soon have BBC Iplayer, and other on demand systems.

[Phil Rogers]

It is now possible to buy a Freeview decoder for less than £20.
If you're not bothered about HD television, it's well worth it.

Having said that, for some people, there will be the extra cost of replacing their aerial if the one they have is not suitable.

According to the FreeView website, by area still does not get coverage, but I've been receiving digital TV signals since the days of OnDigital.

It's about time they updated their coverage data. My next-door neighbours believed what it said until I told them I'd been watching digital for years.