Talk:Freesat

Article overhaul

This article was a mix of BBC Freesat and FreesatFromSky. Some of the information in the article was confusing. I have removed the references to FreesatFromSky (as it has its own page) and made this article solely about the BBC and ITV's forthcoming service. —PaulyR 22:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to bring a disagreement from DigitalSpy over to here, but there are no genuine 'beta testers' for the Freesat hardware stated in the citation at the moment. So the citation is a not a good one. -- Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob dvd (talk • contribs) 19:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you tidy up the jargon somewhat, please? A memorandum is an intangible message, companies are not, so "as a memorandum" in the second sentence of the first major paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. Do you mean "by a memorandum", and if so, what kind, as you cannot form a legal entity that way. A memorandum of understanding may be a precursor agreement before proceeding to the formal incorporation, and other forms are possible. The definition of the corporate structure is therefore reduced to at the very least obfuscatory and quite possibly mendacious waffle.

Replica page

It looks like someone has started a similar page to this (FreeSat). Merge? --Jamesedmo 00:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Freesat from Sky

It is expected that Sky may have to rename this service due to the BBC's trademarks.

I thought that was why it had to be called officially "Freesat from Sky" and not just "Freesat". :: Keith :: 15:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Article sounds a bit like an advert

Does anyone agree that parts of the article sound more like a press release written by the company than an encyclopedia entry. For instance, the comparison to sky's free satellites service and why this is better, seems a bit corny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.50.147 (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This may be so, but if so it perhaps serves to counter the complete lack of public information out there currently about what is, after all, an important part of state-supported public broadcasting. It's surprising that the BBC adverts telling people that they need to update to digital before the analogue shut-down have not mentioned that there is another option coming soon apart from the Freeview that is so problematic for many people. Nor have they informed the public that there will soon be another way of receiving HD television (and now on Freeview too - just announced!), for free. Wikipedia is giving the public the information that it needs, and as long as it's sourced according to the rules then that's fine. --Lindosland (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Channels on Freesat

We should include a list of channels which will be available to air on freesat. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• the channels that will be available are not known yet, althoug it probally save to assuem free to air channels will be available it is not confirmed so you cant give alsit of channesl until it confirmed--andrewcrawford 20:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs)
• I have created a simple list from the known channels on this page: List of channels on Freesat I have included the source.--Freesatfan (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Coincidental?

Has anyone noticed the remarkable similarity in wording and structure that this article has to the information given at http://www.astra2d.com/freesat.htm? --Gilgongo (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Gilgongo. I did the major reorganisation of this article on the 27th of April. The structure and wording for the article were written by me without reference to the site you mention. So, if the two are similar, it must just be a coincidence. Cheers, Thebrid (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, well in that case I think we have a pretty clear case of plagiarism. Large parts of the wording, and a major part of the structure of the information on astra2d.com has obviously been copied wholesale from this Wikipedia article, with some minor changes to the style. I will contact astra2d.com and ask them either to attribute Wikipedia as the current licence demands, re-write or remove their page. --Gilgongo (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Gilgongo. Many thanks for your response. To be honest, the similarity isn't that great, certainly not enough to constitute plagiarism. I'll admit that some parts of the structure seem familiar, but the page diverges from the Wikipedia article as often as it follows it. Where section titles are the same, the details mentioned seem to be similar but worded differently. So, it doesn't seem they really copied the article. More likely, they just wrote their own page referring to Wikipedia as a reference. So long as they didn't copy directly, I think they're fine. Many thanks for your efforts anyway. Cheers, Thebrid (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. For example, take the section in the Wikipedia article titled "Move to free-to-air" and compare it line-by-line with the corresponding section on Astra2d.com titled "Free-To-Air":

W: In May 2003 the BBC moved all of their channels onto the Astra 2D satellite which has a footprint that focuses more tightly on the UK.

A: In May 2003, the BBC moved all of their channels onto the Astra 2D satellite which focuses more tightly on the UK.

W: This move allowed the BBC to stop encrypting their broadcasts while continuing to meet their licence obligations. They dropped the encryption two months later.

A: This allowed the BBC to stop encrypting their broadcasts while continuing to meet their licence and copyright obligations.

W: In September 2005, the BBC and ITV announced that they would collaborate on a free-to-air satellite service to complement Freeview.

A: In September 2005, the BBC and ITV announced that they would collaborate on a free-to-air satellite service to complement Freeview.

W: Two months later, ITV also moved their channels over to Astra 2D and then made them free-to-air.

A: Two months later, ITV began broadcasting in the clear.

W: The free-to-air channels could then be received using any standard digital satellite (DVB-S) receiver.

A: The free-to-air channels could then be received using any standard digital satellite (DVB-S) receiver.

In fact, most of the text compares in this way. This is a straight case of plagiarism. --Gilgongo (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Launched today

The BBC announced that the service launched today ("Free satellite TV service begins"), so I've altered the tense of the intro paragraphs. -- The Anome (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Future Channels

I believe the paragraph on Channel 4 in the Future Channels section should be removed as it is out of sate; E4, More4 and Channel 4, along with their +1 versions are all now FTA, and available on Freesat. Cyclonius (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

+1 ones aint added yet but it should be amended if it aint alreadyed--Andrewcrawford (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed Oudated info on HD

The following was removed for the following reasons:

"Freesat is likely to be the sole free platform for high definition content for the next few years. Presently, no high definition channels are available via digital terrestrial."

Reasons (1) HD content is already widely available by sky ref: http://sky.com/hd/ This has been provided long before Freesat and is well known by the UK community.

(2) For a long time FTA satellite receivers have been available for purchase from specialist shops such as Maplins. A Fortec Star receiver will currently, and has for some time, received BBC HD TV without the need for subscrption.

http://www.maplin.co.uk/module.aspx?ModuleNo=99265&doy=7m5

(3) HD TV WILL be on Freeview in the future, targeted for 2009.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7328029.stm

Preceding unsigned comment added by Chulcoop (talk • contribs) 23:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

it is talkign about subscription free service for hd so no it shoudlr emain,--Andrewcrawford (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

freesat name

For the user who thinks it should be Freesat go check freesat own page.

http://www.freesat.co.uk/ you will find everything is using freesat the way the name is meant to be.,Andrewcrawford (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That is fair enough frmoving (uk) ltd as it not meantioned ont eh site anyway--Andrewcrawford (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I take it that you didn't look at the bottom of the page then, where it clearly says '© Freesat (UK) Ltd 2008' and '"freesat" is a registered trade mark and the "freesat" logo is a trademark of Freesat (UK) Ltd'. Or look at [1] where 'Freesat' is used. As 'freesat' is a registered trade mark, we should use 'Freesat' in the article text to comply with WP:MOSTM and ensure that Wikipedia avoids any breaches of trademark. DrFrench (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

ITV plc or ITV Network ltd?

When the article states that the owner of Freesat is BBC and ITV plc (each with 50%), shouldn't it be BBC and ITV Netwotk Ltd?

I mean, ITV plc isn't the sole Channel 3 broadcaster (there are also STV, UTV and CTV), and ITV Network limited is the association behind the network and jointly owned by every ITV broadcaster (ITVplc, STV, CTV and UTV). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.152.217.253 (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

ad links

I've removed two links ( and associated text) from the Reception equipment section; they were for sites that ask for £10 payment for e-books on setting up freesat. This info can be found for free easily. 78.86.25.78 (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

S4C/2

In the article, it states "[...] and S4C 2 (Wales Only) currently broadcast exclusively on Freeview and are not available on any digital satellite platform."

This is not correct. I don't live in Wales and I've seen it. It broadcasts the Welsh assembly, it broadcasts at odd times in the middle of the week, and for much of the time it is a mostly static picture of a big red thing that looks like a cross between a boat buoy and a beachball.

Looking the channel up in Wiki :-) it says the tuning is 12129 V 27500 2/3 and it is available on Freesat as channel 202.

HeyRick1973 (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This sentance

On digital terrestrial, the channels have always been available free-to-air with the appropriate equipment

Were they free-to-air in the On-Digital days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.138.77 (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, the BBC and ITV channels that the sentence refers to have always been free-to-air ever since the start of DTT, including the ONdigital days. Bonusballs (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

List of channels on Freesat

I feel we erred somewhat in deleting this. Freesat is a major viewing platform along with Freeview, Sky and Virgin Media, so the information should be available here. How else do we keep track of these things? On another note, I've just removed a reference from Facebook claiming Sky News, Challenge TV and Pick TV are coming to Freesat tomorrow. I've no idea whether or not this is true (although we'll know tomorrow morning), but we need a press release to confirm it. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Haven't there have been numerous discussions on the issue of creating tv channel listings in articles, and hasn't the consensus always been that such lists are inappropriate? --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe so. Also, I think the source for those channels coming to Freesat was a tweet on the official ChallengeTV and PickTV feeds. (See [2]). Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 22:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but as we have a list of Freeview channels then why not the others? I see there was a multiple AFD of channel lists about a month ago, and the vast majority were deleted. Personally I feel it would be appropriate to list channels on the main providers such as Sky, Freesat, Freeview, Virgin, all of which have several million customers, but not on the smaller ones. On the Sky News thing, Freesat's official site now has an article about this, which has been added to this page, but we're 50% of the way through 3 December right now and I've yet to see it appear. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Both List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK) and List of free-to-air channels at 28°E were kept because they cover all channels (of a type) in an area rather than on a single service, with service lists deemed to be resources for conducting business and subject to constant change by the service provider. This leaves channels on Freesat to be listed in List of television stations in the United Kingdom, however an editor has removed any mention of non-DTT channel numbers and services from it, citing the AfDs. I don't believe that there is any consensus on that and they continue to be listed in Template:Infobox television channel. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a solution to this. What do people think of a Freesat template? It could list the channels available on Freesat in a similar way to the one we have for Freeview. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

it will be afd because the ones who got the lsit deleted will use notdir to say it should be deletedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This was proposed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels#Compromise to AfD and rejected citing WP:OCAT. I'm still of the opinion that a list of all channels in alphabetical order (List of television stations in the United Kingdom) which only contains information found within the channel articles (carriage, channel numbers etc.) would be an acceptable index of Wikipedia's own content/articles under WP:NOTDIR and MOS:LIST and of no use for conducting business without package details. While the presence of List of former TV channels in the United Kingdom somewhat negates the argument of it being ephemeral data. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally I'd like a quick and easy way to find out what channels are on what platform. If a template is not the solution then I'd be happy with an article listing the channels with their corresponding numbers on Freeview, Freesat, Sky, Virgin, etc, perhaps in the form of a table where each column is changeable to arrange them in the order they appear on each platform. Unfortunately that's a quite an involved task which would be a bit of a logistical nightmare for me to undertake, but hopefully someone may take it up. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It would only be a matter of reverting one edit and adding around a month's worth of changes. I have started a discussion on this at Talk:List of television stations in the United Kingdom#The way forward. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Freesat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080624181137/http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tce/policy07/ to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tce/policy07/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505055832/http://freesat.co.uk/files/7713/3346/3548/Freesat_Olympics_announcement_FINAL.pdf to http://www.freesat.co.uk/files/7713/3346/3548/Freesat_Olympics_announcement_FINAL.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090421060759/http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/reports/dtv/dtu_2008_q2/q2_2008 to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/reports/dtv/dtu_2008_q2/q2_2008
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325123719/http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/reports/dtv/dtu_2008_03/q3_2008.pdf to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/reports/dtv/dtu_2008_03/q3_2008.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/reports/dtv/dtu_2008_04/q42008.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090710234758/http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/reports/dtv/dtu_2009_01/q12009.pdf to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/reports/dtv/dtu_2009_01/q12009.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091009113318/http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/reports/dtv/dtu_2009_02/q22009.pdf to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/reports/dtv/dtu_2009_02/q22009.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/reports/dtv/dtv_2009_q3/dtv_2009_q3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100601184958/http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/reports/dtv/dtv_2009_q4/dtv_2009_q4.pdf to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/reports/dtv/dtv_2009_q4/dtv_2009_q4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)