Ok I'm a newbie here put I would like to get some questions answered. So what makes some channels to be fta and others encrypted? Why is that some start out fta then become encrypted (i.e. SBC-TV). What triggers a station to go from fta to encrypted? Why is that all of these stations seem to be globecast? Is it that the encrypted seem to have better programming? Also if it's free than how do they make money since they need to buy space on the satellite to put up their programming? Why is all those arabic and persian channels are fta but the hindi ones all are encrypted or were once fta but moving towards encryption? Please give some feedback.
FTA vs Encrypted??
- Thread starter mrtrance
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 13
- Views 4K
- Status
The answer is money $$$, for some other channels that forever have been FTA the reason for being free is both cultural and religious, for instance several free channels on Hispasat coming from Spain have cultural significance because they are from regions that which to be recognized, some channels are important for tourism such as Canarias Internacional.
Islamic programming is FTA to reach the masses of devotees and non devotees in some cases.
Hindi programming may be at the mercy of Dish Network and Direct TV, they get good money for their packages and definitely would frown at the fact that it's FTA.
Encryption costs money too, one of the reasons some channels are FTA.
As FTA viewership grows because of the relative low cost of setting up, one can only wonder what lays ahead.
I believe that C-band FTA is the safest only because of the practicality of a C-band setup, some countries networks have little to fear in this case, because of footprints that require very large dishes especially in South America , where the affordability of a BUD is out of reach for many people.
Islamic programming is FTA to reach the masses of devotees and non devotees in some cases.
Hindi programming may be at the mercy of Dish Network and Direct TV, they get good money for their packages and definitely would frown at the fact that it's FTA.
Encryption costs money too, one of the reasons some channels are FTA.
As FTA viewership grows because of the relative low cost of setting up, one can only wonder what lays ahead.
I believe that C-band FTA is the safest only because of the practicality of a C-band setup, some countries networks have little to fear in this case, because of footprints that require very large dishes especially in South America , where the affordability of a BUD is out of reach for many people.
shopping around
Occasionally a new channel is selling itself and if it gets picked up by a
provider- Bang - it's gone.
Occasionally a new channel is selling itself and if it gets picked up by a
provider- Bang - it's gone.
As noted above, the main reason channels are encrypted is $$$
A new channel may be FTA for a while as a freeview, but then it will be scrambled. Globecast is like Dish & DirecTv, a pay subscription service. They sell the programming. You can get the free stuff along with subscription programming.
Also, some of these channels agree on contracts with Dish/Direct to be there. Hate to say it, but the main reason stuff is scrambled is the companies KNOW that lots of people will pay to see their "homeland" programming.
A new channel may be FTA for a while as a freeview, but then it will be scrambled. Globecast is like Dish & DirecTv, a pay subscription service. They sell the programming. You can get the free stuff along with subscription programming.
Also, some of these channels agree on contracts with Dish/Direct to be there. Hate to say it, but the main reason stuff is scrambled is the companies KNOW that lots of people will pay to see their "homeland" programming.
One main reason that was not mentioned is Broadcasting Rights....FTA feeds can't hold limitations on re-broadcasting.....
Iceberg said:
And once in a while we win when a channel decides it is being extorted by Dish Network and moves to IA-5....... The example being BVN (Dutch).
Yeah, its the money. Some channels on C band like ESPN will be non-encrypted at times during the day such as in between ball games or whatever. You'll be watching a pre-game show or something and right before the game starts, bam - black screen. Sort of like a teaser in order to get you to purchase it.
I always scan for ALL channels just because sometimes they show up as encrypted on the scan, but they are really not...at least some of the time. It's not our fault that they forget to turn the encryption back on.
I always scan for ALL channels just because sometimes they show up as encrypted on the scan, but they are really not...at least some of the time. It's not our fault that they forget to turn the encryption back on.
Das Hammer said:
The "teaser" as you indicated is really not for anyones enjoyment. It normally is for the benifit of Broadcasters to gather material prior to the main event. Non-rights holders take "pre-game" material to assemble and distribute...
Krapola said:
Absolutely. This is the part that many people just don't seem to get. That is that these signals aren't really intended for home veiwers to recieve directly. That's true for 99.9 % of all FTA signals.
As for why some signals are not encrypted (or FTA) it's all about cost and benefit. It doesn't cost that much for a programmer to encrypt their signal and it's very easy for them to turn on the encryption if they want to do so. However, sometimes it may be more convienent (for whatever reason) for them to simply not do so as long as they percieve that it doesn't significantly affect their bottom line. The key word here is "perceive". If they percieve that "unauthorized" reception of their signal is going to have a negative impact on their business model then you can bet they're gonna encrypt. They're the ones making the desicion so what they "percieve" to be the case is what matters. In cases like this perception may be even more important than reality. How much "attention" is brought to unecrypted feeds can greatly impact the perception of network executives making these kinds of desicions. If it's plaster all of the internet that a certain feed is available in the clear it's entirely possible that folks in charge at the network that provides that feed may become worried that it could impact their bottom line and rather than take that risk they will move to protect their content. So, how we treat information about the location of certain feeds can have an impact on whether or not those signals encrypt.
Another important thing to keep in mind is that it's not always the people providing a signal who really make the desicion to encrypt. Sometimes third parties like networks, sports sanctioning bodies, or content producers will bring pressure onto them to do so. A prime examples of this happened a while back with equity broadcasting. Remember how they used to have a Fox channel in their mux that was unencrypted and they were forced to encrypt it. So even if the people who are providing a signal don't care about "unauthorized" viewers, that doesn't mean there aren't others who do care and they can bring about pressure to force encryption.
"It doesn't cost that much for a programmer to encrypt their signal and it's very easy for them to turn on the encryption if they want to do so."
Only if the the Broadcaster has the infrastructure in place....SAS's aren't cheap..Scientific Atlanta propriorty DES Encryption is top dollar as well....Smart Cards and Cams can get spendy with multiple D/L sites....I would certaily differ on cost ideas.....
Only if the the Broadcaster has the infrastructure in place....SAS's aren't cheap..Scientific Atlanta propriorty DES Encryption is top dollar as well....Smart Cards and Cams can get spendy with multiple D/L sites....I would certaily differ on cost ideas.....
boy I guess Doc Scott, the stuff on AMC5, all the Int'l stuff on IA5 and AMC4 must make up that .1 percent then?
Come on stefan....Sadoun already said it once and I'll repeat. There is a LOT of stuff up there that IS for public consumption.
Iceberg said:
Big difference between a LOT of stuff up there to watch and a LOT of stuff up there worth watching....:sleeo
Iceberg said:
WELL SAID! And its just going to get MORE and MORE popular!
In Europe most ALL FTA channels are there for general consumption, and we are catching up FAST here
Rather than talking FTA down we should be trying to make it more popular here in the USA, and thats what we are doing here in the satelliteGuys.US FTA forum!
- Status
