BBC, ITV to launch free satellite HDTV in UK by 2008

Although there's a lot of grumbling in the UK about that £135 ($270) yearly television license fee (only $87 for a black and white set!), it's hard to complain that the BBC doesn't try to use all that money in cool ways. Adding to their already-ambitious plans to distribute HDTV through torrent, datacasting, and IPTV, the Beeb announced today that, after years of delays, they've been approved to pair up with ITV and launch a free 200-channel HD-capable satellite service called Freesat in the spring of 2008. The move is designed to provide digital service to the estimated 25% of the British public that can't get the successful Freeview DVB-T service, but it'll also be free to any license payer who ponys up for one of the several available interactive receivers. Hmm, that's an interesting version of "free," must be the British spelling.

[Via TechDigest]

[Pedro @ Apr 28th 2007 12:29PM]

Free = no subscription. What's complicated about that?

[Karl @ Apr 28th 2007 12:38PM]

By 'free', they mean that it's a one-off payment for the hardware you need to recieve it. It'll probably work on more hardware besides that. Just like you need a freeview box or a digital tuner today, you'll need a freesat box or satellite tuner for this.

The good news, though, is the HDTV side of things. We're having real problems right now trying to get Ofcom to license some of the old analog spectrum for HD content. They want to auction it off, and the semi-public BBC can't compete with private companies like Sky when it comes to auctions. At least we'll still be able to get free HDTV!

[Richard Beer @ Apr 28th 2007 12:48PM]

I don't think there is a lot of grumbling about the TV license fee. Having watched the drivel that passes for american TV I'd happily pay the £10 a month to have a good selection of channels that carry no advertisments.

[Chrisphillers @ Apr 28th 2007 12:54PM]

'drivel that passes for american TV' lol! Yes there is a lot of drivel but there is also a lot of really great stuff. Have you actually watched British TV lately!? Its dire.

[Jamie Marsden @ Apr 28th 2007 12:53PM]

Personally, I will fight tooth and nail if anyone ever tries to cancel the license fee and give us adverts. I LIKE the BBC the way it is.

[McGinley @ Apr 28th 2007 1:02PM]

British TV is good.Very good.I love channel 4...

[Nick @ Apr 28th 2007 12:58PM]

"you buy the equipment which we have to manufacture at our own loss, and you enjoy the free service we provide"

Seems like a perfectly fair deal to me, as a UK licence-fee paying citizen.
Bring it on :)

[Chrisphillers @ Apr 28th 2007 1:06PM]

I agree its got some good stuff, channel 4 and BBC 2 being the highlights but there likewise is a lot of drivel too! (aka ITV - oh the humanity!) I am a bit sick of Brits going on about the superiority of British TV, its just not true, there are some very high qual US programmes.

[Mark Rich @ Apr 28th 2007 1:12PM]

The licence fee pays for 10 national radio stations, numerous local stations, 7 digital TV channels and the production and purchashing of programmes for them all. The licence fee is a winner for what is achieved at just a few pence a day for each household.

The only thing that confuses me about this service/statement is the existing FreeSat service from Murdoch's commerical broadcaster Sky. It alrerady has a buy a box and nothing more service (http://www.freesatfromsky.com/). Granted the Sky service is usually pretty poor with little domestic or European made material, most bought from Murdoch's Fox service in America, but BBC digital channels are already available obtainable from the box/dish.

The second confusing point is the the BBC is not allowed to provide a distribution service similar to Sky's as that's outside of its Public Service remit so where is it going to get the extra channels from that this story suggests?

Marky

[McGinley @ Apr 28th 2007 1:13PM]

Yeah I have to agree that ITV is terrible...

[KultiVator @ Apr 28th 2007 1:06PM]

TV without ads is the dog's danglies!

Keep it coming... in HD!

KultiVator

[AlbaMale @ Apr 28th 2007 1:20PM]

I have to agree with Chrisphillers, there are some very good US TV dramas. The likes of House MD, NCIS , The Sopranos and Heroes stand out. I think British news reporting produces a more balanced view of the world than you probably get on US TV but overall the absence of advertising in the UK ( on the BBC at least) is the biggest difference between the two.
I too will fight tooth and nail to maintain the BBC TV/Radio licence fee, it's a bargain!!

[L.Rawlins @ Apr 28th 2007 2:02PM]

'Freesat' already exists in the market place. It's just not advertised as potently as the 'Freeview' product.

You can pick it up from Sky right now. One-off hardware purchase and installation. NO SUBSCRIPTION.

BSKYB, BBC, ITV and others are involved in both 'Freeview' and 'Freesat', however with Sky hardware in place to distribute the 'Freesat' service presently, Sky appears to prefer to commercialise its paid for services in a bid to part you from your cash on contract, whilst the other networks have put their money into the traditionally based 'over the aerial' Freeview service for now.

http://www.freesatfromsky.com/
(As NOT seen on TV)

[srw985 @ Apr 29th 2007 2:16AM]

Just as you said above, any generic HD capable reciever will work for HD in the UK, for BBC HD only though, but thats the only channel anyway.

And you can still get all the other free to view channels

[L.Rawlins @ Apr 28th 2007 2:17PM]

Sorry Mark, didn't see your response. :o)

I read the report produced at the end of a smallscale HD Freeview trial in the London area that revealed people are not only receptive to the HD era of quality but that they expect to receive the service at minimal extra cost for service.

The report hinted that transmitting HD Freeview over traditional means might not be fit for purpose. What with the bandwidth allocations and loads of a widespread rollout of high def content nationwide.

I reckon that this marketing revival of 'Freesat' by the Beeb and its consortium is in direct response to the found limitations in the HD capabilities of aerial fed Freeview.

(I'd like to point out that this is my own speculation on the trial findings and that I'm in no way affiliated with the group.)

Regardless, progress is progress, and this now means I don't have to wait until 2012 for analogs demise to receive the MUX2 allocation of programming in my area, because at the moment... 'they just don't have the power, captain'.

Yay.

[Liam Daly @ Apr 28th 2007 2:47PM]

Doesnt BSkyB own 17.9% in ITV... and BSkyB owns sky?

Bet BSKYB are going to be pissed off at ITV

[L.Rawlins @ Apr 28th 2007 2:59PM]

Well, I know we're losing the Sky programming line-up on 'Freeview' come June-ish time.

'Screw you guys. It's our ball... and we're going home.'

Hahaha!

[shaun @ Apr 28th 2007 3:16PM]

we may have good tv shows here in britain but they aren't really very innovative (except maybe life on mars, hustle and spooks, and anything by ricky gervais)

I dont think the broadcasters are willing to spend too much on one show, that's why we don't have anything even close to the quality of Lost or Heroes etc

[Mike @ Apr 29th 2007 6:30PM]

Dr. Who isn't bad, if you don't mind the general campness. It stops me cutting myself after watching Battlestar Galactica.

[mahdi @ Apr 28th 2007 3:47PM]

well on the up side, it will mean those of us who don't wish to put our money into the coffers of rupert murdoch will get a range of decent HD channels

on the downside, we're being led by the balls by the BBC (who charge a small fortune with the tv licence already) if we want a piece of the receiver hardware

[roba @ Apr 28th 2007 5:03PM]

'led by the balls'... ? I think you'll find that as part of the whole Freesat deal the stb will be open to third party developers sticking to a brief the same way as Freeview boxes are delt with now (unlike BSkyB's HD stb). So the BBC wont have anything to do with the pricing of the boxes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consult/closed_consultations/freesat.html

Go Aunti Beeb!

[mahdi @ Apr 28th 2007 5:08PM]

great so yet another company to tax us if we want to watch tv

[Rymix @ Apr 28th 2007 5:00PM]

For those who don't already know, you can already get some free-to-air HD content by simply installing a satellite dish (or using an existing Sky one) and plug in an HD satellite receiver.

And...also in case you didn't realise, you don't actually need a Sky subscription. There's plenty of free stuff out there, especially if you install a motorised dish (so you can oint it at different satellites).

Get something like the Humax HDCI2000 and you'll be good a several years, whilst this HD stuff really takes off. You'll save a fortune on unnecessary subscriptions, and will have a setup flexible enough for future developments like those described in the article.

[Mark Rich @ Apr 29th 2007 3:58AM]

The EBU standadised HD broadcasts across Europe into two different formats. A "lower" quality standard for sports events etc. and a "higher" quality one for films and drama. The BBC wouldn't lock anyone into a UK only HD standard as they were the driving initative to the EBU for this.

[miken @ Apr 29th 2007 5:10AM]

Let's see. You cant watch the best US tv in the US without buying premium service AND adding HBO or perhaps Showtime. This means an investment of something approaching $100 a month where I live, whether you use cable or satellite.

Somehow, the $22.50 a month for the all the BBC services, even with the additonal one time cost of a satellite receiver, OR Freeview receiver seems like a terrific bargain for me.

[Tarnished Halo @ Apr 29th 2007 6:26AM]

Im sure when you watch free TV in America you have to buy a TV set. So not so free I guess... must be another weird perverted American take of the beautiful language.

What has America provided to the English language beyond words like Nudda, Foo, Fo-Sho, Kewl, n003 and Dude that was sick (in a good way)?

[simond10 @ Apr 29th 2007 7:07AM]

Sure american tv has its highlights, Lost, Battlestar, Family Guy, Simpsons, American Dad, King of the Hill, Startrek, My Name is Earl, 3rd Rock From The Sun, Married With Children ... cant think of any more but apart from the above american TV is TERRIBLE (considering you guys have about 10 billion channels, that pretty bad) , nothing but drivel RAMMED full of commercials, you cant go more than 10 minutes without commercials, WTF?

I mean the series '24', it should be called 15 because the rest of ot is commercials. WE DO have a broadcaster like that.. SKY, they do a similae thing on sky 1, 2 &3 3 they are constantly getting taken to court or being critisised but somehow they get away with it.

The BBC (the largest broadcaster in the world) has NO commercials on their channels or radio stations, and is respected the world over as producing some of the best tv and news coverage in the world, so you carry on paying a subscription AND watching 20 minutes of adverts every hour (not including the ammount of product placment you guys have), im happy with my licence fee.

Oh and the reason the fee seems so much to you is that you currencey is as weak as a baby's fart.

[L.Rawlins @ Apr 29th 2007 8:52AM]

I really hope that they can lock down the interface in some way. More often than not, you'll spec-up the set top box of your dreams in the store and buy it, only to find that because the Freeview UI is open to manufacturer interpretation that when you turn the damn thing on the whole experience is just colossal amounts of crap to use.

I think that this is the single biggest flaw in 'Freeview'. Nobody should be expected to learn a different interface per STB or Digital TV (and remote layout) in order to utilise the contents of ONE service.

Trouble is, since these manufacturers patent their GUI innovations, no two manufacturers can use them, which fractures the whole Freeview market with a multitude of bizarre, god-awful workarounds to perform the same exact same functions.

[Mark Rich @ Apr 29th 2007 9:56AM]

I used to work for a firm providing the software for Freeview boxes. The underlying code is the same on many boxes. Your are correct that the interface that appears on the top is subject to manufactuers demands, but in the end the interface that wins is the one on the cheapest and/or most reliable box.

The satellite set top market is already well established. It has suffered in the UK in the past few years as Satellite has meant only Murdoch's Sky offering. Compare with a few years back when magazines like Satellite TV reviewed numerous offerings and had showed how many channels are available without subscription. The BBC moved away from Sky's digital box a couple of years back to be available without a Sky subscription card and to another satellite. If more channels take this route then we could see more boxes being offered for services other that that of Sky. That would be good.

[everythingblogcast @ May 4th 2007 7:13PM]

I feel that the BBC license fee is a waste because they have to show sport every time they can, then on the news for scoccer "if you dont want to know the results/score look away now" but any other sport like F1 and the winner is blah its really bad. And why should we pay for a service that has sh*t shows on. Sport always has to damage everything else. Take STVOY was to be on at 18:00 on Tuesday nights but since a dart player can throw that thing STVOY was put off. And yet the BBC has wasted more of our money on cr*p shows. Many want SG1 to be bought by the BBC so SG1 can continue but no they have no plans yet its ok to waste money on other sports and shows that only 1% of the population likes. I feel that we should not have to pay just for the BBC when they sell most of the shows on, the BBC choiced to setup why show people that have a TV have to pay if they are not reciveing a good service, they even mess the Northern Ireland thing most people emplyed by the BBC from england shoukd be sued for calling Northern Ireland, Ireland, we have to pay UK taxs and the stupid license fee for cr*p.
Even if you just get BBC 1 and BBC 2 you are paying for the radio, the rest of the BBC TV, BBCi and the website. TV license fee why should you pay for a service that your TV can not pick up. And now we are into the problem if you have a freeview box, its not a TV is it no its a box that can pick up digtal signals. If your not happy you can get some of your money back by claiming "The sales of Goods act" because this act also covers services and the BBC is a service. And the bbc service that we pay over £130 a year is not good enought. Even between the early hours they put CeeFax on which is unless we pay for a year service of TV not ceefax during the early hours - yes some people would watch this but most of us will be sleeping but thats not the point. Only UK people can come back on this, if you dont have any of this problems to deal with within the UK. Other people around the world comment if you have to pay for a tv license fee. Add dont flame me because I have the right to bad mouth the BBC because they are the useless company in the UK.

[Marky @ May 7th 2007 12:36PM]

Your comments don't seem to be make a lot of sense in an argument. You probably have a lot to say but need to slow down and break up your points.

The BBC programming on TV and Radio consistently show themselves to be a higher quality than Murdoch's Sky with it's 5 Simpsons episodes in a row day after day and US imports or ITV with it's endless facination with celebraties and soap operas.

Channel 4 is the only other highlight in the British schedules but then like the BBC it is a public service broadcaster and has a job to do as well as make money. The BBC only has a job to do. Any money made from sales of shows goes back into programming and research to help develop TV and overall it hasn't done bad. The quality slipped in the late 80's under John Birt and the 80's fad of privatising and outsourcing but it came back and with digital TV has florished.

The licence fee is generally a good deal for what you get radio and TV wise. Even if you don't watch TV much, odds are you listen to a BBC radio station somewhere beit a national or local one and without realising have become used to the lack of advertising spoiling the programmes. Try listening to a commericial station for half a day and see how the adverts begin to annoy after a while as you have heard the same one over and over. Music is also compromised on commericial stations as the play lists are shorter and the quantity of different shows very much smaller.

The point I am trying to make, I guess, in defence of the licence fee is that you do get back more than you contribute and not always realising it. Surely a few pence each day is worth the programming choice one gets compared to the few hundred pounds one has to pay for Murdoch's closed system?

I think in your argument you were also complaining that sport has reduced the quality of shows. I do agree that sport costs are too high. Sky wants exclusive rights to obtain customers and sport companies and teams see the opportunity to make lots of money. It's greed of course. Look what happened to ITV Digital when they told the Football Association that if they didn't reduce their fees the company would fold. The FA argued for more money as the smaller clubs had already spent the expected revenues and the ITV Digital went bankrupt. The cost of the sports events do restrict choice. The recent Cricket World Cup would have obtained better viewing figures and coverage if Channel 4 or the BBC had been able to show the live matches rather than the 5% (best guess based on 15% of UK have Sky) of the population with Sky Sports subscriptions.

However, even with reduced sports choice that money saved has been ploughed into wonderful shows on all the BBC channels which in turn have been sold to other countries raising more money to help pay for more.

I cannot understand the objection to the licence fee when the benefits gained are so many.

[mickey @ Jul 18th 2007 7:17PM]

Does any one know how big the BBC website is how many pages and so on?

BBC.co.uk