"This is maybe the first time we are hearing any detail of this proposal," said Paul Sparkes, executive vice-president of corporate affairs with CTVglobemedia. "It is not really `free.' It is fee-for-carriage for them. It is another free ride."
Sounds like their sister is not amused.
"Smith said FreeSat would also be a boon to conventional broadcasters because it would allow them to avoid "huge investments" in new transmission towers and distribution systems to carry those high-definition signals across the country."
They are a little afraid of OTA. OTA will still kick their butt in the compression department anyway.
It's just a wolf in sheep's clothing, really. They're trying to come across as the good guys here, when their ulterior motive (upsell to these FreeSat people) is glaringly apparent.
It really doesn't solve the problem, though. Someone in Thunder Bay would be getting CTV HD Toronto - not CTV HD Thunder Bay.
Don't forget that lots of people don't have access to OTA - period. For those wanting the equivalent channels, this might be a nice option. Really, since those channels are technically free anyway, why shouldn't all the television providers be offering them in the clear? That puts them all on equal footing.
That is how the FCC sees things in the U.S. now: Locals broadcasting in Digital OTA are carried free in the station's area by cable and satellite providers.
When more and more Locals go to Digital OTA there will have to be similar solutions offered here in Canada, I'm sure.
Is this a way to get Bev boxes into more houses? Absolutely!
Would this be good for the consumer? Absolutely!
Personally, I think it is brilliant marketing. Give people the technology to get the "free" stuff with a chance to upsell. It definitely benefits those that only want the "free" stuff, doesn't take anything away from those who want to pay to subscribe. Even if cable co's don't offer something similar, they have had a foothold over sat for years/decades. Houses always came prewired for cable and it is only in recent years that some come prewired for sat.
Again, it doesn't solve the problem they're claiming it's aimed at. They're saying they'll save broadcasters money by removing the need for them to launch OTA HD channels in all their various markets. But that removes local programming for people outside of a few select areas.
Agreed, this might be good for some people, but for the most part it's a trick on Bell's part to try to fool the CRTC.
I doubt it's a trick, but I agree they'll use it as a means to get new subscribers (no company does anything for free). That's why I said it has to be done across the board, including cable.
why would bell promote a service that is free??...it doesn't sound right to me, and knowing bell, they will design it in such a way that the "free service" will be practically useless without "adding" to it.
So its not completely free
The "New Bell HD Packages (formerly titled: Bell HD Price Increase)" thread is getting just as much complaining about them raising the prices
I don't get it
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
So all those not happy in this thread, should they just scrap the "free" hd, and raise prices?