PDA

View Full Version : Why Freeview should be on Sky



Apsattv
10-05-2008, 12:15 AM
From http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/CU0805/S00043.htm

Opinion: Paul Norris

TVNZ has now launched two new digital channels – TVNZ 6 began in September 2007, a multi-service channel aimed at children in the daytime, families in the early evening, and adults in the late evening. In March 2008 TVNZ 7 was launched, a factual channel with news on the hour and offering a broad range of news, current affairs and documentary material. These channels are largely funded from public money – the Government gave TVNZ $79 million to cover the first five years.

They also contain a considerable amount of what would normally be seen as public service programming, especially the news, current affairs and documentary content on TVNZ 7. They are commercial-free channels, significantly different from all the other free-to-air channels we can watch. But most notably different in that most of us cannot watch these new channels. They are available on Freeview, for which you need a set-top-box, and there are only about 100,000 of these in homes at this point. Unlike all the other free-to-air channels, they are not available to Sky subscribers, because TVNZ and Sky have not reached a deal on terms.

This is simply not good enough. Public broadcasting, and publicly-funded programmes should be available to as wide an audience as possible. You might argue that TVNZ is in breach of its Charter by not ensuring that these channels are available to Sky viewers. How can TVNZ possibly be serious about its mission to “inspire New Zealanders on every screen” when its programming is denied to the 45% of householders who have Sky?
For its part the Government has been notably silent. How can it tolerate the spending all this public money for a mere handful of viewers? Why has it not threatened to impose “must carry” rules requiring Sky to carry the new channels? It should use its power to bring Sky and TVNZ to the negotiating table. That would be acting in the public interest.

ENDS

InTheSand
10-05-2008, 07:59 PM
Hmm... I hope the government doesn't attempt anything like this... Why should a state owned enterprise be forced to make its services available to a money-grabbing monopoly?

If it did come to this with the government, shouldn't Sky then be forced to put Prime on Freeview?

Just my 2c worth...

- Ali

Injuised
10-05-2008, 10:22 PM
dead right and sport is also publicly funded to the tune of 90 million a year and the public with a freeview STB cant view that either

This is simply not good enough. Public broadcasting, and publicly-funded sport should be available to as wide an audience as possible. You might argue that SKY is in breach of its Charter by not ensuring that these channels are available to Freeview viewers. How can SKY possibly be serious when its programming is denied to the 55% of NZ householders

How can the goverment tolerate the spending all this public money for a mere 45% of viewers? Why has it not threatened to impose “must transmit FTA” rules requiring Sky to transmit sport channels FTA? It should use its power to bring Sky and TVNZ to the negotiating table. That would be acting in the public interest.

nickrout
20-05-2008, 03:15 PM
What bollocks. Anyone who currently has Sky can get Freeview for $150.00 odd for a receiver, plus some loose change for a splitter and some patch leads.

paulw
20-05-2008, 07:37 PM
What bollocks. Anyone who currently has Sky can get Freeview for $150.00 odd for a receiver, plus some loose change for a splitter and some patch leads.

Not in Hidef you wont..

nickrout
27-05-2008, 01:36 PM
Not in Hidef you wont..

We weren't talking about HD. We were talking about access to public service broadcasting on TVNZ6/7.

krs
27-05-2008, 07:00 PM
Doesn't TVNZ's deal with TV1&2 on Sky runout in 2011? Maybe they could pull them from Sky's service. How many people would switch off sky when the rugby season's finished then?

kiwisteve
27-05-2008, 07:08 PM
If Sky want it then they should pay for it !!

wiredr
27-05-2008, 08:54 PM
it is because sky has a large cash flow that they can pay the sporting bodies large fees for coverage, these fees then allow the sporting bodies to afford hi ranking players for their teems which then makes us want to watch their sports because of the talent in the teams . free to air networks cant do this as all their revenue comes from advertising, which they only get if there are people watching their channels , kind of a catch 22 . look at what happened with Disney channel. for freeview to advance it needs to provide a better alternative to sky either in better content or superior technical quality.and be able to deliver this service to as many people as possible for less than sky.
to get free view dts costs at least $250.and 0/month to get 27 channels on sky costs about $99 and $49/mnth . to get free view hd can cost over $1000 if you don't already have a uhf aerial lets face it over 600,000 people pay sky for shit TV and less than 60,000 the other 40,000 people already had a sky dish. have shelled out between $250 to $700 to watch free view with 30% advertising content. i myself watch all my telly via pvr with either time slip or delayed playback and the mandatory use of the skip button on the remote every ten minutes. great no adds . so if enough people used pvrs and skipped adds then how are the advertisers going to react . they drop their rates so the tv stations get less revenue so they then can only buy crappier programs which in turn less people watch. hmm not good. but fear not there is a solution , video on demand for a small fee. there that's my 4c worth.

paulw
27-05-2008, 11:00 PM
so they then can only buy crappier programs which in turn less people watch. hmm not good. but fear not there is a solution , video on demand for a small fee. there that's my 4c worth.

They already buy crappier programs but the problem is that they are aimed at the lowest common denominator, hence a glut of reality, weight loss and makeover programs..