With One on Foxtel, what’s the point of Freeview?
So does anyone want to buy a second hand Freeview box?
I’ve only used it twice, and I’m not going to need it after July 1.
It appears that Ten has done a deal with Foxtel to put its sport channel One onto the platform. That means the only channel unique to Freeview will no longer be unique to Freeview.
Which makes my investment in a Freeview box purely to watch Formula One worth $75 per grand prix. For that I expect Mark Weber to make me a toasted sandwich and Lewis Hamilton to do the commentary from the sofa.
By “what they can already get for free” do you mean if they have Foxtel? If so it’s not exactly free. There is a segment of the market who don’t have Foxtel, currently get free to air TV and would probably like to continue to do so.
That’s a fair point, Mark.
But I think the segment we’re talking about is the love-telly-enough-to-buy-a-Freeview-box but don’t love telly enough to get Foxtel demographic. And let’s remember that half of those will presumably be buying a TiVo.
Cheers,
Tim
Hi Tim – Apologies, but personally i think you are talking nonsense.
The whole point of Freeview is to push the digital market, which opens up a whole new world of TV as you can push more info down the same line. This then opens a whole new realm of opportunities for advertisers – increased interactive TV capabilities, higher broadband capabilities and increased competition for internet providers etc etc, so consumers also win.
Yes, this deal does make sense for Foxtel as Freeview would inevitably steal its share, but I think you have it all the wrong way round….
If you want One, but don’t already have Foxtel then get a Freeview box as you only have a one off payment.
Why would you want to sign up for Foxtel and pay monthly just to get One? Makes no sense, as you also have to pay for everything else you probably don’t want.
So essentially, Freeview IS a good investment for the 68% of Australian’s who don’t have Foxtel.
That’s a lot of people.
What you fail to mention is that when Freeview came to the UK, it did not have the multitude of channels is has now – there were around 15-20 (if that), including the 5 consumers already got for free.
It’s simply grown exponentially as people have bought into it, forcing TV channels to invest, now penetration is well over 85%, with many people having more than one box in their home.
I take your point that you are talking about hard core TV fans – but I suspect there are a lot of australians who would like more TV channels but dont want an expensive monthly fee.
Also, as Freeview takes off (which it will) the cost fo the set top box will come down, and the number of channels will increase…..do the math, penetration will soar. I would put money on it.
On a different note…what was Seven thinking when they “sky wrote” 7HD in Sydney’s sky yesterday?
What an ill considered medium to promote high definition.
If the “medium is the message” as Marshal McLuhan told us in the 60’s, the picture won’t blow us away…. it will be blown away.
Or maybe it read 7UP, or 2UP……?
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your comment. I’d agree with your assessment, except that I think it hinges on the growth in content on Freeview to drive the uptake. That’s the part that I’m pretty sure won’t happen here, despite it being the reason for the platform’s success in the UK.
The existing free-to-airs have, if I understand the situation correctly, already got the agreement to lock out competitors from the platform.
So whereas useful services like Sky News were available very early on on the British freeview platform, we won’t see them here unless the government steps in, which it almost certainly won’t.
Instead there will be half hearted offerings from Seven, Nine and Ten; genuine new services from the ABC and by the looks of it SBS won’t be able to afford to do very much. That’s not going to be compelling enough content to drive speedy penetration.
Clearly penetration will eventually grow because, as new TVs are purchased, they’ll be internally Freeview enabled. But that growth rate won’t be enough to follow the current switchover timetable.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
yeah, nonsense. Sounds like Foxtel spin…
Paul – $40 is not what I would consider an “expensive monthly fee”.
36 channels on Foxtel on the basic package including the top two most popular channels and movie channels and sport and music and cartoons and BBC!
If Aussie families took up pay tv and stopped taking the family to the movies – they would SAVE money each month.
And no, I don’t work for Foxtel.
Alex, believe it or not, $40 per month, or $500 per annum IS expensive to some families. The whole point of Freeview is that the channels are FREE – no subscription fees at all. Clearly the cost is an issue or Foxtel would have penetration greater than the 30-odd percent it’s sitting at now.
The other point that is missing from this discussion is that, within a few years, the analogue signal will disappear in a few years and in order to get free-to-air television, you MUST get a digital tuner. The FTA channels are trying to make it more palatable to transition to the new digital platform ASAP by tempting us with “new” content and channels via Freeview. Whether we value the new content or not is debatable, but that seems to be the intent.
If you don’t think $40 a month is not expensive you need to step out of your twitter box and get out a bit more….
Come on. Who is on foxtel and pays the minimum $40 a month deal? Don’t be disingenuous.
You have to be on $130 something a month to get the HD channels on foxtel and even then you end up spending your time mostly on the standard def free to air channels because 102 is easier to type into the keypad than remembering 212 or whatever it is for the HD channels.
HD set top boxes are rare and far too expensive right now. My city JB is completely out of stock of all set top boxes (the cheapest apparently are $99), and I saw a HD box on the weekend at another chain for over $250.
I can’t see why the HD programming can’t also be broadcast on SD boxes at least until SD boxes are phased out and HD box prices drop to under $50.
Looks like I have started a real discussion…..
First up:
Alex – $40 / month may not be expensive for you but for some it is, especailly when you look at it long term…1yr = $480, 2 yrs = $960 etc. Yes they do bundle packs so you woud not pro rata but be honest…1 x Freeview box $150 (currently) = undeniably much cheaper.
Going to the cinema is a family treat whereby they get OUT of the house, which beleive it or not people like to do every now and again.
Plus 36 more channels on Foxtel – awesome – that just means it takes longer to figure out there is nothing decent to watch …oh and you just paid $40 for the privelage, (plus installation fee’s had you bought it prior to the panic deals Foxtel are offering now Freeview just ramped up their campaign) – well done.
Tim – yes I do agree with you that there is a need to sort out the content, but when penetration increases I think you will see Foxtel knocking on their door to get access to the platform in order to tempt people over to Pay TV. I don’t agree with your pessimism over Government intervention though – if they want analogue switch off they will have to intervene – though I don’t dispute the current time line is unlikely to stay true.
Rogerio – do you have a massive moustache? Sounds like you might with a name like that….please see my comments to alex.
cheers
Just a small correction:
“This is the second market to use the freeview name”
New Zealand launched Freeview a while ago, so this is the third market (that I know of) to use the name.
Thanks for that Emily. Are you (or anyone else) able to say how Freeview is going in New Zealand?
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
And to clarify another point – Tivo has now joined with Freeview – I have seen the Tivo and Freeview ad, and the Tivo’s in the stores now have Freeview stickers – so Tim if half buy Tivo as you said, then Freeview has penetrated.
We have no choice anyway they are going to switch off free tv so we have to go to Freeview. I would rather it cost me $150 once than $99 per month which is what you have to pay to get a decent Foxtel package.
Anyway I have been trying to buy a set top box for 2 weeks and they are all sold out since the Freeview ad (or so Harvey Norman told me) so someone is buying them and I don’t want a Tivo for $700.
Guys, I hear all your points but have you considered that to make Freeview a success the networks need good viewer numbers so they can sell to the advertisers and make enough money to buy good content. So doesn’t it make sense instead of knocking it the whole time we should just watch sh*tloads of free tv and then they’ll give us more channels? Yeah, yeah I hear your scepticism already but whats our other option – pay for tv – Foxtel is a bastard that we don’t want to have more power. Sure, we have the internet but am sure you are all like me and surf the net with the tele on in the background.
“This is the second market to use the freeview name, but the Freeview package in the UK was very different – dozens of extra channels, available for nothing.”
In the UK you pay an annual TV license fee – so its not free and available for nothing.
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your comment. The TV licence fee in the UK only funds the BBC. Most of the channels on the UK version of Freeview are advertising-funded (even if the BBC ones get the best audiences).
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
We’re all going to end up watching everything on youtube anyway
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04......html?_r=1
I rent, so I can’t do a 12-24 month contract, and $40/month would get me approximately none of the channels I want to watch anyway. My two-year-old Bravia is Freeview ready, so it’s not really a contest in my books. (I do wonder how many people bought STBs unnecessarily after reading MSM articles incorrectly claiming that no existing TVs are Freeview ready.)
Also, in my experience with Foxtel, the channels I do want to watch hammer me with ads for other shows on the channel I’m already planning on watching, and show the same content on heavy rotation for a month before starting a new rotation. That’s just not something I’m willing to pay for.
I think a more appropriate headline would be “With ONE on Freeview, what’s the point of Foxtel.”
Seriously, if one of the other networks introduced a 24-hour news channel, I’d be kissing my Foxtel sub goodbye
ah – that old chestnut – well we pay tax in australia and the broadcasting budgets for ABC and SBS are granted by government from tax revenue. In the UK the tax is more upfront. Thats all. Aussies and Brits all pay a telly tax in one form or another.
“In the UK you pay an annual TV license fee – so its not free and available for nothing.”
But back on to foxtel. To make freeview irrelevant Foxtel needs to do this:
1) allow customers to buy a box outright.
2) Allow customers to recieve all FREEVIEW channels without subscribing to the pay platform.
This means that Everyone can have a FOXTEL box with the future chance of subscriptions meaning future revenue for FOXTEL.
Sound crazy – but this is EXACTLY what you do with a SKY box (FOXTEL) in the Uk. $300 gets you the box and an install AND 150 channels including radio stations. Here you get didly squat. Check Freesatfromsky. Come on Foxtel get with it….
Freeview in NZ has both satellite and DTT services – takeup has been about 245,000 STBs and HDTVs with Freeview tuners since May 2007. They currently have 12 channels if I remember correctly, with two more coming on shortly.
For some time, some of the channels on Freeview have been only available there, but now Sky will also have those channels.