| Author |
Message |
Luhan
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Free Satellite ? |
|
|
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
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Don Bowey
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:34 am Post subject:
Re: Free Satellite ? |
|
|
On 12/10/05 8:28 AM, in article rmDmf.653$Ru.43@fed1read05, "Luhan"
<fake@not.valid> wrote:
| Quote: | The BBC is now broadcasting from a satallite for free. No subscription
cards needed!
http://www.brymar.co.uk/info/bbc-new/bbc-new.html
This looks like a great business model. After all, a satellite is just
an antenna, like any cities local stations has. Its just a bit higher
up. So use it that way, garner advertizing revenue from covering all of
the western hemisphere all at once, and run a highly profitable business.
Luhan
|
A satellite is much more than just an antenna. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Si Ballenger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: Free Satellite ? |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:28:46 -0700, Luhan <fake@not.valid> wrote:
| Quote: | The BBC is now broadcasting from a satallite for free. No subscription
cards needed!
http://www.brymar.co.uk/info/bbc-new/bbc-new.html
This looks like a great business model. After all, a satellite is just
an antenna, like any cities local stations has. Its just a bit higher
up. So use it that way, garner advertizing revenue from covering all of
the western hemisphere all at once, and run a highly profitable business.
Luhan
|
What channel is it on? I just see the local abc, nbc, fox, etc.
;-)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken Taylor
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: Free Satellite ? |
|
|
"Luhan" <fake@not.valid> wrote in message news:rmDmf.653$Ru.43@fed1read05...
| Quote: | 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
martin griffith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: Free Satellite ? |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 20:43:22 GMT, in sci.electronics.design
shb*NO*SPAM*@comporium.net (Si Ballenger) wrote:
| Quote: | 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!
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
What channel is it on? I just see the local abc, nbc, fox, etc.
;-)
checkout the sat footprint and freq's here |
http://www.brymar.co.uk/info/Astra/astra_sky/astra_sky.html
martin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luhan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: Free Satellite ? |
|
|
Ken Taylor wrote:
| Quote: | "Luhan" <fake@not.valid> wrote in message news:rmDmf.653$Ru.43@fed1read05...
The BBC is now broadcasting from a satallite for free. No subscription
cards needed!
http://www.brymar.co.uk/info/bbc-new/bbc-new.html
This looks like a great business model. After all, a satellite is just
an antenna, like any cities local stations has. Its just a bit higher
up. So use it that way, garner advertizing revenue from covering all of
the western hemisphere all at once, and run a highly profitable
business.
Luhan
It looks like a great business model to you because you don't appear to be
paying anything for it. But *someone* is paying for space on three
transponders - satellites are way more expensive than 'just an antenna'.
No-one else has been able to make money with this idea, so my guess is they
will do this until the British taxpayer yelps loud enough.
Cheers.
Ken
|
"just an antenna" is a bit of a simplification. Yet regular broadcasts
need million watt transmitters. Local TV stations get advertizing
revenue based on the size of their audience. So, it would seem on
ballance, that the extra expense of transmitting via satellite would be
well covered by the advertizing revenue gained from the huge audiance.
Also, you can broadcast multiple stations with one satallite. This
makes the whole thing even more viable.
Luhan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luhan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: Free Satellite ? |
|
|
Don Bowey wrote:
| Quote: | On 12/10/05 2:08 PM, in article 8lImf.726$Ru.239@fed1read05, "Luhan"
fake@not.valid> wrote:
Ken Taylor wrote:
"Luhan" <fake@not.valid> wrote in message news:rmDmf.653$Ru.43@fed1read05...
The BBC is now broadcasting from a satallite for free. No subscription
cards needed!
http://www.brymar.co.uk/info/bbc-new/bbc-new.html
This looks like a great business model. After all, a satellite is just
an antenna, like any cities local stations has. Its just a bit higher
up. So use it that way, garner advertizing revenue from covering all of
the western hemisphere all at once, and run a highly profitable
business.
Luhan
It looks like a great business model to you because you don't appear to be
paying anything for it. But *someone* is paying for space on three
transponders - satellites are way more expensive than 'just an antenna'.
No-one else has been able to make money with this idea, so my guess is they
will do this until the British taxpayer yelps loud enough.
Cheers.
Ken
"just an antenna" is a bit of a simplification. Yet regular broadcasts
need million watt transmitters. Local TV stations get advertizing
revenue based on the size of their audience. So, it would seem on
ballance, that the extra expense of transmitting via satellite would be
well covered by the advertizing revenue gained from the huge audiance.
Also, you can broadcast multiple stations with one satallite. This
makes the whole thing even more viable.
Luhan
I suspect you might learn enough to really understand satellite systems if
you would first learn to spell it correctly for your google searches.
Don
|
No problem, google corrects my spelling!
(Ain't technology great)
Luhan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Bowey
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: Free Satellite ? |
|
|
On 12/10/05 2:08 PM, in article 8lImf.726$Ru.239@fed1read05, "Luhan"
<fake@not.valid> wrote:
| Quote: | 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zak
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: Free Satellite ? |
|
|
Ken Taylor wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
|
Commercial TV in Germany is mostly free-to-air. The transponder hire
isn't that expensive when compared to the reach.
The same applies to the commercial ITV in the UK, to channels 2-5 in
France, many Italian channels...
If you add religion, state sponsored and shopping channels there are
even more (about 1400 channels) - but many not worth watching.
The problem with coding is that the whole infrastructure is more
expensive than just the transmission - and it doesn't even save money
becausetransmission cost is independent of the number of viewers.
Thomas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luhan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:35 am Post subject:
Re: Free Satellite ? |
|
|
Ken Taylor wrote:
| Quote: | "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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken Taylor
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:35 am Post subject:
Re: Free Satellite ? |
|
|
"Zak" <jute@zak.invalid> wrote in message
news:439b5771$0$23699$6c4159fb@news.tweaknews.nl...
| Quote: | Ken Taylor wrote:
It looks like a great business model to you because you don't appear to
be
paying anything for it. But *someone* is paying for space on three
transponders - satellites are way more expensive than 'just an antenna'.
No-one else has been able to make money with this idea, so my guess is
they
will do this until the British taxpayer yelps loud enough.
Commercial TV in Germany is mostly free-to-air. The transponder hire
isn't that expensive when compared to the reach.
The same applies to the commercial ITV in the UK, to channels 2-5 in
France, many Italian channels...
If you add religion, state sponsored and shopping channels there are
even more (about 1400 channels) - but many not worth watching.
The problem with coding is that the whole infrastructure is more
expensive than just the transmission - and it doesn't even save money
becausetransmission cost is independent of the number of viewers.
Thomas
|
I'm not saying it can't/won't/shouldn't be done - I'm just saying it's not
commercially viable. *Someone* is paying the infrastructure costs, and in
those examples you've given (assuming they were via satellite, that wasn't
particularly clear) I'm betting it's the mug taxpayer. Getting advertisers
to foot the bill would be nigh on impossible.
Ken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken Taylor
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:35 am Post subject:
Re: Free Satellite ? |
|
|
"Luhan" <fake@not.valid> wrote in message news:PPImf.734$Ru.52@fed1read05...
| Quote: | 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 $/sec are exorbitant if you
really think you're going to get payback. And the terrestrial transmitter is
a helluva lot easier to service and stretch out those useful years than a
satellite. I could go on.....
No-one has succeeded with this yet, but if you think you're on a winner, go
for it. :-)
Cheers.
Ken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken Taylor
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 11, 2005 3:59 pm Post subject:
Re: Free Satellite ? |
|
|
"Luhan" <fake@not.valid> wrote in message news:UCPmf.786$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 haven't seen it discussed here, but it turns up periodically within the
industry. Usually during the 'boom' years of the cycle, not surprisingly.
Once punters actually start counting the cash again, the idea goes away
again.
Cheers.
Ken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Burridge
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: Free Satellite ? |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:28:46 -0700, Luhan <fake@not.valid> wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
--
"What is now proved was once only imagin'd" - William Blake |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
martin griffith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: Free Satellite ? |
|
|
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:
| Quote: | 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in