| Author |
Message |
Tam/WB2TT
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: Free Satellite ? |
|
|
"Luhan" <fake@not.valid> wrote in message news:UCPmf.786$Ru.29@fed1read05...
| Quote: | Ken Taylor wrote:
"Luhan" <fake@not.valid> wrote in message
news:PPImf.734$Ru.52@fed1read05...
Don Bowey wrote:
On 12/10/05 2:08 PM, in article 8lImf.726$Ru.239@fed1read05, "Luhan"
fake@not.valid> wrote:
Ken Taylor wrote:
"Luhan" <fake@not.valid> wrote in message
news:rmDmf.653$Ru.43@fed1read05...
The BBC is now broadcasting from a satallite for free. No
subscription
cards needed!
http://www.brymar.co.uk/info/bbc-new/bbc-new.html
This looks like a great business model. After all, a satellite is
just
an antenna, like any cities local stations has. Its just a bit
higher
up. So use it that way, garner advertizing revenue from covering all
of
the western hemisphere all at once, and run a highly profitable
business.
Luhan
It looks like a great business model to you because you don't appear
to
be
paying anything for it. But *someone* is paying for space on three
transponders - satellites are way more expensive than 'just an
antenna'.
No-one else has been able to make money with this idea, so my guess is
they
will do this until the British taxpayer yelps loud enough.
Cheers.
Ken
"just an antenna" is a bit of a simplification. Yet regular broadcasts
need million watt transmitters. Local TV stations get advertizing
revenue based on the size of their audience. So, it would seem on
ballance, that the extra expense of transmitting via satellite would be
well covered by the advertizing revenue gained from the huge audiance.
Also, you can broadcast multiple stations with one satallite. This
makes the whole thing even more viable.
Luhan
I suspect you might learn enough to really understand satellite systems
if
you would first learn to spell it correctly for your google searches.
Don
No problem, google corrects my spelling!
(Ain't technology great)
Luhan
I've also noted that there's enough people out there making the same
spelling errors as me that I can still google up a storm. :-)
WRT the original topic, however, the cost of a few extra watts in a
terrestrial transmitter is piddling compared to the cost of putting up a
satellite, let alone actually making it, getting a useful slot, etc etc.
Plus the advertising revenue is awkward - what market do you aim at?
Given
you have a limited number of channels , the $/sec are exorbitant if you
really think you're going to get payback. And the terrestrial transmitter
is
a helluva lot easier to service and stretch out those useful years than a
satellite. I could go on.....
No-one has succeeded with this yet, but if you think you're on a winner,
go
for it. :-)
Cheers.
Ken
Hi,
I'm floating out this idea because I have not seen it discussed before.
From some of what I've seen here, its not entirely out of the question.
This particular NG is like a skeet shoot - you toss something out and wait
to see if it flys or is totally shot down. Either way, I was curious
about other peoples reaction.
Thanks for the comments,
Luhan
|
I don't live in the UK, but my understanding is that free satellite BBC is
the only way to provide 100% coverage of digital channels during the
transition period. Besides, it's not really free, is it - don't you pay a
licensing fee?
Tam
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ken Taylor
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: Free Satellite ? |
|
|
martin griffith wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 12:48:22 +0100, in sci.electronics.design Paul
Burridge <pb@shove.your.spam.up.your.arse.atlanticstar.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:28:46 -0700, Luhan <fake@not.valid> wrote:
The BBC is now broadcasting from a satallite for free. No subscription
cards needed!
Big deal. No one in their right mind would want to suffer the BBC's
unremitting diet of political propaganda and politically-correct
finger-wagging. Free it may be, but still not worth it.
I liked most of the new Dr. Who, but it was done by BBC Wales
martin
|
Some of the Beeb's best stuff was done in the regions.
Ken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zak
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: Free Satellite ? |
|
|
Ken Taylor wrote:
| Quote: | If you add religion, state sponsored and shopping channels there are
even more (about 1400 channels) - but many not worth watching.
I'm not saying it can't/won't/shouldn't be done - I'm just saying it's not
commercially viable. *Someone* is paying the infrastructure costs, and in
those examples you've given (assuming they were via satellite, that wasn't
particularly clear) I'm betting it's the mug taxpayer. Getting advertisers
to foot the bill would be nigh on impossible.
|
It IS possible, as is clear from my channel list. Is CNBC a state
channel? Is QVC one? RTL is definitely commercial, advertiser
supported... 3 channels in Germany, on sattelite, no cipher - heck,
even still transmitted in analogue next to digital... and analog is many
times as expensive as analog (analog is a single channel in 27 MHz,
digital is 40 Mbit/sec, which should give you 6 or 7 decent quality
channels.
Take a look at Lyngsat.com and look at the offerings on Astra 1 or Hotbird.
And then there's some 5 or 6 channels by Iranian refugees, transmitted
from the US to Iran. From the entirely unprofessional looks I'd suppose
these are privately funded.
Whether it is affordable depends on both cost and viewership. The retail
cost of unsubsidized receiver kits (dish, LNB and MPEG decoder) is
around 70 euro is Germany. This makes for a large number of viewers,
which allows even narrow interest channels like Bahn TV ("the railways
channel") to exist, it seems. I don't knoow who's paying for that, but
if they can, general entertainment can do teh same for sure.
FWIW I remember a discussion of Dutch state TV channel BVN being
transmitted in one of the paid packages (DirectV or whoever). BVN wanted
to go 'free' as well, but the paid package said "we'll kick you out, we
won't have anything that is for free". So there you have it: either ride
with the big backages, with an installed base of equipment, or go in
MPEG-2 on your own, on a satellite that no-one has pointed a dish at.
Thomas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken Taylor
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:17 am Post subject:
Re: Free Satellite ? |
|
|
"Zak" <jute@zak.invalid> wrote in message
news:439c7e3c$0$14802$6c4159fb@news.tweaknews.nl...
| Quote: | Ken Taylor wrote:
If you add religion, state sponsored and shopping channels there are
even more (about 1400 channels) - but many not worth watching.
I'm not saying it can't/won't/shouldn't be done - I'm just saying it's
not
commercially viable. *Someone* is paying the infrastructure costs, and
in
those examples you've given (assuming they were via satellite, that
wasn't
particularly clear) I'm betting it's the mug taxpayer. Getting
advertisers
to foot the bill would be nigh on impossible.
It IS possible, as is clear from my channel list. Is CNBC a state
channel? Is QVC one? RTL is definitely commercial, advertiser
supported... 3 channels in Germany, on sattelite, no cipher - heck,
even still transmitted in analogue next to digital... and analog is many
times as expensive as analog (analog is a single channel in 27 MHz,
digital is 40 Mbit/sec, which should give you 6 or 7 decent quality
channels.
Take a look at Lyngsat.com and look at the offerings on Astra 1 or
Hotbird.
And then there's some 5 or 6 channels by Iranian refugees, transmitted
from the US to Iran. From the entirely unprofessional looks I'd suppose
these are privately funded.
Whether it is affordable depends on both cost and viewership. The retail
cost of unsubsidized receiver kits (dish, LNB and MPEG decoder) is
around 70 euro is Germany. This makes for a large number of viewers,
which allows even narrow interest channels like Bahn TV ("the railways
channel") to exist, it seems. I don't knoow who's paying for that, but
if they can, general entertainment can do teh same for sure.
FWIW I remember a discussion of Dutch state TV channel BVN being
transmitted in one of the paid packages (DirectV or whoever). BVN wanted
to go 'free' as well, but the paid package said "we'll kick you out, we
won't have anything that is for free". So there you have it: either ride
with the big backages, with an installed base of equipment, or go in
MPEG-2 on your own, on a satellite that no-one has pointed a dish at.
Thomas
|
Not doubting any of that - the OP was opining a business model whereby
advertising would pay for free channels. While not doubting that RTL is as
you say private and advertiser-supported, I can't see any evidence of the
satellite channels being self-supporting, which is what the original
discussion was about. If you want to include cross-subsidization, then sure,
anything is possible. I'm also not questioning that there are or should be
free-to-air channels on satellite: again, just the original concept. A nice
one, but it hasn't been shown to work. CNBC may be closer to it but they
cross-subsidies from their other network fees, so same deal.
Your last comment is an interesting one - we went through a very similar
process here in New Zealand a couple of years ago when Sky fought
tooth-and-nail to prevent being mandated to broadcast free-to-air (VHF/UHF)
channels freely over their bouquet. The government backed down, as they also
did later on over local loop unbundling.
You run Lyngsat? Great site, I go there often.....
Cheers.
Ken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in