[ian-d]

Originally Posted by Rapture TV

Ian-d, who are you referring to when you ask this question? If its Rapture TV then Rapture TV has no direct involvement. However I personally do therefore I can answer some of the questions that have been posted here.

freesat has little chance in the short or medium term of attracting any new free to air HD channels as the advertising market for TV has seen a drop of 20-30% in the last year.

Five's advertising revenue was down 35% in the first 6 months of this year. Add to this the drop in value of the pound against the Euro and you have the perfect storm for FTA channels.

The question posed on this thread was 'freesat a good idea but should offer some subscriptions'. freesat on its own can't do that but REAL Digital can and will. So hopefully this answers your question?

I was 100% referring to you David, I'm totally aware that this isn't a joint venture with RaptureTV but as you post with their username regardless of the subject, I didn't feel the need to stress that point; maybe I should have for those unaware.

Carry on

[paul_bounty]

Originally Posted by remlap

Sorry but when a website looks like one big wind up, how can anyone take that seriously.

It's not a wind up, Fortec Star is also working on this Real Digital project

http://www.fortecstar.com/whatsnew/i...temview&id=135

[remlap]

Originally Posted by Rapture TV

Perhaps you are happy to pay the ever increasing Sky subscriptions? Many however would welcome a clear choice from a service not owned or controlled by Sky.

Many non Digital Satellite homes may also like the freedom to choose a service that brings the maximum number of free digital TV channels while not forcing them to take out a subscription in order to get a cheap or 'free' Digital STB?

Who knows you may want to switch sides when you see whats on offer?

You are avoiding what I was saying, the site looks like a wind up, even if its the truth.

It has one of these to good to be true feels to it.

[Turks Hat]

Originally Posted by paul_bounty

It's not a wind up, Fortec Star is also working on this Real Digital project

http://www.fortecstar.com/whatsnew/i...temview&id=135

Well suited partners

[Rapture TV]

Originally Posted by remlap

You are avoiding what I was saying, the site looks like a wind up, even if its the truth.

It has one of these to good to be true feels to it.

I don't understand what you mean. Why is a open and fairly price service to good to be true?

Perhaps being sold a 'Free' satellite box or a HD PVR at '£49' that then truns out to cost an average customer over £400 per year does mean that anything that offer real choice for a low transparent cost is almost un believable.

The site isn't meant to look like a wind up and 18 months of work is a bit much for such a childish thing anyway.

[remlap]

Originally Posted by Rapture TV

I don't understand what you mean. Why is a open and fairly price service to good to be true?

Fact the site looks really dodgy that is all I am saying.

[Oops_Carole]

Originally Posted by remlap

Fact the site looks really dodgy that is all I am saying.

And this is much more like a quality www site ?

http://www.tvclosedownblog.com/

[remlap]

Originally Posted by Oops_Carole

And this is much more like a quality www site ?

http://www.tvclosedownblog.com/

My blogs long dead, and its not a business

[the_viasat_guy]

Originally Posted by Oops_Carole

And this is much more like a quality www site ?

http://www.tvclosedownblog.com/

And yet, That sitll looks much better than real digitals site

[coopermanyorks]

Originally Posted by the_viasat_guy

And yet, That sitll looks much better than real digitals site

Surely you missed off the smiley's ?

[Andrue]

Originally Posted by Rapture TV

Perhaps you are happy to pay the ever increasing Sky subscriptions?

So Real Digital will never increase its prices? It won't last long then. There'll be a brief honeymoon then channels will leave as they see their revenue being eroded by their own rising costs which aren't being matched by increased payments from RD. It's already on a shaky business model going for pay per view.

The problem I see here is you are claiming RD is going to be saving customers money compared to Sky. The gamble is dependant on attracting enough viewers to compensate for the reduced income. If it cripples itself by never raising prices then it doesn't stand a chance.

Many however would welcome a clear choice from a service not owned or controlled by Sky.

Yes but it needs to be a viable service. Keeping prices low is not a guarantee of success and is often a short-term strategy. Far too many things in this country are sold on price without regard to quality. You cannot have both.

[Andrue]

Originally Posted by Rapture TV

Perhaps being sold a 'Free' satellite box or a HD PVR at '£49' that then truns out to cost an average customer over £400 per year does mean that anything that offer real choice for a low transparent cost is almost un believable.

'Turns out'?

It's clear when you sign up what you are committing to. Anyone with any sense knows what 'free' offers are all about. Whether or not you choose to sign up is therefore an example of that wonderful thing called 'choice' that you so love.

Nobody is forced to subscribe to Sky. Those who don't subscribe are not severely disadvantaged by it. It's a luxury. Resorting to snide comments is not going to do your case any favours with me. I can only hope that whoever is running RD has a better business head on their shoulders than you do.

[coopermanyorks]

Sky believes in Buy it cheap,sell it high

So it pays coppers per channel per month,the figures came out in the Vm/Sky tit for tat a couple of years ago,no doubt someone will come along and confirm the prices Sky pay per month for certain channels

Sky then use the profits to offset the cost of giving away or reduced priced boxes

Effectively if you buy your own box you are not subsidising any new supplier of TV content for the price of the box

New company buys a Tv channel @ X p and sells it @ Y p , difference = profit
New company buys a Fortec box @ A p and sells it @ B p,difference = profit


Same idea offering pay tv channels,different method of getting to a profit

If someone can offer a reduced price ( we must wait and see the actual difference in £ ) then why would you not even consider it,as longs it offers you the channels you want at a price you are prepared to pay

For far to long now Sky have taken top dollar from me after giving very little to the channels

It really pisses me off when Sky seem to have a cosy relationship with ESPN and its offered to Sky customers at £10 Pm but VM can negotiate a deal to supply it free to their XL customers ( equiv to 6 mix customers)

I would guess the biggest problem that Rd will have is overcoming Skys dominance in the Pay Tv market and its need to strangle hold any new players who want to enter the market

I am thinking the encryption requirements by Sky of Sky premium channels such as Sports,Movies etc would be a big problem ?

[Andrue]

Originally Posted by coopermanyorks

If someone can offer a reduced price ( we must wait and see the actual difference in £ ) then why would you not even consider it,as longs it offers you the channels you want at a price you are prepared to pay

I would certainly consider it but I'm wise enough to know that cheapest does not necessarily mean best. Part of what's wrong with this country is the pervasive idea of driving down the cost on everything. It's a big reason why we end up with such shoddy goods and services.

The companies insist on taking their pound of flesh, the customers pay very little. Quality sits in between and is almost squeezed out of existence.

When we're talking about essential services I agree that keeping prices low is important(*) but for something as irrelevant as TV - nah. As long as some form of free TV exists that's fine. No one died from not being able to watch the latest series of <Insert-some-US-import-show-here>.

(*)Although even here it can be carried too far. Look at the state of the electricity industry - years of underinvestment. Broadband - the same. Companies/shareholders will always take profits out of the business. If you want a decent product that usually means paying a decent price.

Maybe/hopefully RD can achieve that but tbh knowing the TV industry as a whole I think it very unlikely. It's hard to imagine a more self-serving bunch of hyprocrites

[coopermanyorks]

Andrue,you seem to have taken a very anti RD slant ,maybe getting a tad personal with them,without giving them a chance to see if anything comes of it

The only thing that will improve things is to add some real (see what I did there ) competition to Sky.Sky took a gamble years ago and ploughed millions into it and now are looking to reap the rewards,but sometimes their protectionism gets a little uncomfortable for customers own good

[Andrue]

Originally Posted by coopermanyorks

Andrue,you seem to have taken a very anti RD slant ,maybe getting a tad personal with them,without giving them a chance to see if anything comes of it

Er..no. I think you have taken a very pro- stance and for that reason anyone that doesn't agree with you appears to be being negative.

Try reading my posts again. I have questioned some aspects of their business model as described here and pointed out what I feel is wrong with it. That's all. I'm pretty sure a lot of people would agree with me on principal - lower prices nearly always mean lower quality and the TV industry as with most media outlets is least likely to act in the consumer's interest (DRM anyone? Decent bandwidth allocation?)

Other than that I've welcomed the idea and said that I would consider it.

If you want to see negative comments look at the people attacking its website and making comments about Rapture TV's posts.

I would class my comments on RD so far as being constructive criticism or an attempt to elicit more information. Ie;"How that would that work? Please tell me more".

You seem to be a classic 'polarised thinker'. You simplify discussions by pigeon-holing people into 'for' or 'against'. The truth is that some people like myself can see several sides to most arguments. Just because I see some faults in the proposed service doesn't mean that I am against it.

[coopermanyorks]

Apologies Andrue if i got you wrong and misread your comments

I am neither Pro Sky Sky or anti Sky or Pro Rd or Anti Rd, I think any alternatives are to be welcomed , healthy competition is to be welcomed.It must be healthy competition though and not a convenient set up that ESPN and Sky seem to quickly arrived at. That is a carve up, not real competition

I do find it hard to see how RD will break through the Sky hold over certain Pay broadcasters without some intervention from the regulator
When you read through this thread , there does seem to be anti RD slant ,but simply because of one mans involvement with the new offering.

I am prepared to wait and digest the information and make a decision based on facts not promises,just like you ?

[Andrue]

Originally Posted by coopermanyorks

I am prepared to wait and digest the information and make a decision based on facts not promises,just like you ?

Yeah, that's about how I feel. I confess to scepticism which is why I'd like more information but if it saves me money and looks like it'll last longer than a month I would go for it.

I think the key to its success will be the level of take-up. If it's going to be cheaper than Sky then it needs more 'bums on seats' to compensate. Either that or whoever's running it will need to accept lower profits.

Tbh my ideal would be the pay-per-view model across the board using cable/internet in a true VoD arena. I've said before that I wish my TV experience was a matter of surfing to YouTube and picking something for a charge of a few pence per show.

Unfortunately that would kill off the middle men like Sky and RD and I don't see that happening. They are all too determined to take their cut. Mind you the studios and actors are all charging too much anyway. Another reason to go with YouTube. Let people provide the content and to hell with the big names

[Rapture TV]

Originally Posted by Andrue

Yeah, that's about how I feel. I confess to scepticism which is why I'd like more information but if it saves me money and looks like it'll last longer than a month I would go for it.

I think the key to its success will be the level of take-up. If it's going to be cheaper than Sky then it needs more 'bums on seats' to compensate. Either that or whoever's running it will need to accept lower profits.

Tbh my ideal would be the pay-per-view model across the board using cable/internet in a true VoD arena. I've said before that I wish my TV experience was a matter of surfing to YouTube and picking something for a charge of a few pence per show.

Unfortunately that would kill off the middle men like Sky and RD and I don't see that happening. They are all too determined to take their cut. Mind you the studios and actors are all charging too much anyway. Another reason to go with YouTube. Let people provide the content and to hell with the big names

Many interesting comments. The activation fee for a viewing card is simply to cover the cost of the card and the running costs of a EPG service. The service will not enter into Sky type set top box subsidies. This is a major reason for no price increases in the card activation fee.

Pay TV content costs may over time increase for some of the content. However the very fact that a competitive service will develop in line with Sky will temper any increases. In fact it may see over all Pay TV costs going down.

There has been no official press release but 1 is expected shortly. The channel list will include many more channels than freesat or freeview and all with the full 7 day EPG.

Whats interesting about Sky is that last year they spent £907 million on marketing. These details were part of the evidence that BT, Top Up TV and Virgin submitted to Ofcom.

Thats what Sky subscribers are paying for. REAL Digital won't be spending anywhere near that amount. Thats why costs will be much lower added to that there is no set top box subsidy. freesat has helped open up the Dsat market in the UK but they didn't plan for the future development of some Pay TV services.

[Rapture TV]

Originally Posted by Andrue

Yeah, that's about how I feel. I confess to scepticism which is why I'd like more information but if it saves me money and looks like it'll last longer than a month I would go for it.

I think the key to its success will be the level of take-up. If it's going to be cheaper than Sky then it needs more 'bums on seats' to compensate. Either that or whoever's running it will need to accept lower profits.

Tbh my ideal would be the pay-per-view model across the board using cable/internet in a true VoD arena. I've said before that I wish my TV experience was a matter of surfing to YouTube and picking something for a charge of a few pence per show.

Unfortunately that would kill off the middle men like Sky and RD and I don't see that happening. They are all too determined to take their cut. Mind you the studios and actors are all charging too much anyway. Another reason to go with YouTube. Let people provide the content and to hell with the big names

PPV has its place for most consumers, however many content would simply never make the light of day if its left to a online server.

It took ITV's 'Britians Got Talent' to get Youtubes highest viewed clip of Susan Boyle. Youtube didn't make it, pay for it and hasn't invested in any future content like it. So its a very useful service but its not going to replace TV and Movie production. On-line is a secondary outlet for the content and not the primary.

Similar claims were made when a Home Video machine was launch that it would destroy Cinema and the Hollywood Studios would be driven out of business. Of course as we now know nothing could be further from the truth.

Sky has in the past supported low budget films in the UK but that ended many years ago. HBO in the US is a good model as they are a Pay TV channel that invests many millions in original programming. Here we have the BBC that invests many millions in original programming and there is no commercials in them.

All a platform does, is to collect content and place it in one place with a user interface that makes it easier to find. The clever trick is to build up content that is exclusive to that platform. Then the platform is worth more than the sum of its parts.

[Andrue]

Originally Posted by Rapture TV

PPV has its place for most consumers, however many content would simply never make the light of day if its left to a online server.

..snip...

All a platform does, is to collect content and place it in one place with a user interface that makes it easier to find. The clever trick is to build up content that is exclusive to that platform. Then the platform is worth more than the sum of its parts.

True but what's to stop YouTube (or some other service as I only mentioned them as something people would recognise) collating stuff?

Why not (again Youtube is just an example):
Youtube/crimedrama
Youtube/soap
Youtube/comedy

All they need is a front page editorial/blog and you everything in one place. It'd basically be like an online DVD rental service only with programmes. Anyone with a camcorder can make a programme then post it for review.

Add in a 'what's new' email service and you have complete flexibility. There's actually nothing stopping such a service from funding its own content. My primary interest is in the flexibility of VoD and improving customer choice. Why force people to only watch what's fed to them? Open the market up and let us get what we want when we want from whomever in the world can provide it.

Youtube is a good start - but we need to merge the two I think. I don't use Youtube much because it's too much work trawling through for the rare gems.

[Rapture TV]

Originally Posted by Andrue

..snip...
True but what's to stop YouTube (or some other service as I only mentioned them as something people would recognise) collating stuff?

Why not (again Youtube is just an example):
Youtube/crimedrama
Youtube/soap
Youtube/comedy

All they need is a front page editorial/blog and you everything in one place. It'd basically be like an online DVD rental service only with programmes. Anyone with a camcorder can make a programme then post it for review.

Add in a 'what's new' email service and you have complete flexibility. There's actually nothing stopping such a service from funding its own content. My primary interest is in the flexibility of VoD and improving customer choice. Why force people to only watch what's fed to them? Open the market up and let us get what we want when we want from whomever in the world can provide it.

Youtube is a good start - but we need to merge the two I think. I don't use Youtube much because it's too much work trawling through for the rare gems.

Youtube simply can't deliver the picture quality that a TV viewer requires to be engaged with the content. Its not that they couldn't but the bandwidth that is required costs to much. Add to this limitation there is the un reliable nature of broadband.

Until ever home has fiber direct to the back of your set top box or TV you will never be able to deliver a reliable service.

The internet is a fantastic tool but its not going to change the content business. Programmes and Movies cost money to make to a high standard lots of money. Home Camcorders can be used to shoot stuff and even editing can be done on a laptop. However the quality is never able to match the viewing experience of TV and/or Movies. If it was then the Hollywood studios would be doing it that way.

The 3rd reason Youtube won't replace TV in my opinion is that HD has raised the bar even further. Youtube can't even deliver SD quality TV content and has no chance of delivering HD content without a massive increase in the cost of bandwidth. How do you pay for that bandwidth?

I always remember someone in the TV advertising business telling me the virtues of on-line viewing. At the time they claimed Youtube has 100 million viewers last week. I said great, how many viewers watched TV last week? The answer was in the billions.

The Youtube clip of Susan Boyle has pasted 300 million viewings. But NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS and even Fox have had that with just a couple of news stories. Then all the other TV networks around the world have delivered it to 3 or 4 times the Youtube number. So Youtube may well become a tool for viewers/consumers to find what they are interested in? It just means that the customer will buy it from another delivery platform whether its DVD, Blue Ray or PPV etc.

[Andrue]

Originally Posted by Rapture TV

Youtube simply can't deliver the picture quality that a TV viewer requires to be engaged with the content.

You're still not reading my post properly. I'm mentioning Youtube as an example of the kind of service that could exist. Just because it doesn't currently have an adequate specification is no reason to assume that it won't in the future or that some other service that does will rise to prominence.

I'm well aware of the bandwidth requirements and they aren't as big an issue as a lot of people think. For SD using the latest encoders you only need 2Mb/s. Even HD can be squeezed into less than 10Mb/s now. Backhaul and core might be an issue but I have it on good authority that there's plenty of physical capacity in the UK it's just that the lit fibre tax is keeping it out of service. Oh - that and Ofcom due to the way they way they've squeezed BT in the local loop.

So yes, I'm speculating, but it's doable within a decade if the will is there and (as I indicated in my original post) it's my preference. Whether I'll get what I want is another matter but it isn't so much a technical challenge as a business one.

[Rapture TV]

Originally Posted by Andrue

You're still not reading my post properly. I'm mentioning Youtube as an example of the kind of service that could exist. Just because it doesn't currently have an adequate specification is no reason to assume that it won't in the future or that some other service that does will rise to prominence.

I'm well aware of the bandwidth requirements and they aren't as big an issue as a lot of people think. For SD using the latest encoders you only need 2Mb/s. Even HD can be squeezed into less than 10Mb/s now. Backhaul and core might be an issue but I have it on good authority that there's plenty of physical capacity in the UK it's just that the lit fibre tax is keeping it out of service. Oh - that and Ofcom due to the way they way they've squeezed BT in the local loop.

So yes, I'm speculating, but it's doable within a decade if the will is there and (as I indicated in my original post) it's my preference. Whether I'll get what I want is another matter but it isn't so much a technical challenge as a business one.

I have seen online full HD at 4.5mgbits and it looked very good indeed. I have virgin medias 10mg broadband and until they replaced the cable under the street its been nothing but trouble. Its why although I think in an ideal world I think your right that such a service could and would work. The problem is and I did spend a year working for Telewest, the fact that there is so many connections from the delivery network to your decoding equipment. Anyone can cause problems and they do on a regular basis.

I think the future will bring the economies of Digital Satellite delivery and the internet all working as part of one system. I just don't believe Murdoch should be allowed to run or control that gateway.

[bosslady]

Originally Posted by goggled

As to Originally Posted by Rapture TV View Post
Such a service is already in the pipeline. It will be called REAL Digital and the first set top boxes from Fortec Star should appear around Christmas.
some would suggest you look carefully at Rapture TV's posting history, and learn long period diving without a diving bell or snorkel.

does anyone know which retailers will be selling this box?