Talk:Freesat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] Replica page

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

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)