Sunday, 10 February 2008



They also strongly believe that increased competition will be beneficial to consumers,
offering a choice of service and introducing competition in the subscription-free satellite TV
market, as shown by answers to Question 7.
Question 8 asked whether the launch of “Freesat” would lead to the market exit of
alternatives from commercial suppliers, and while recognising that the proposal does
increase competition, respondents did not consider it likely to do so.
Finally, Question 9 asked if the proposition went far enough in limiting the impact of the
proposition on the market. Again, responses here were resoundingly in agreement that theproposal did go far enough.
Respondents clearly believe that the proposal will not have a detrimental effect on the
market, that it is fair to current and any future competitors, and that the introduction of
competition in the market is desirable.
Questions 10 and 11 look at the conditions the Trust could impose if it approves the
The response to Question 10 is still strongly in favour of imposing conditions to prevent
other participants in the JV benefiting from Licence Fee money, and to ensure appropriate
separation between Freeview and “Freesat”.
Question 11 presented an opportunity to suggest any other conditions the Trust should
consider imposing if it approves the proposals. Key themes here were limiting the cost to
viewers, not allowing pay-per-view TV to beincluded, and that a future-proof capabilities
should remain free for all.
Other responses
Finally, Question 12 invited any other commentsrespondents might have on the proposals.
The majority of these were a summary of the respondents overall view, either supportive or
critical. Many of these responses reiterated a certain element of the consultation, such as
improving access, incorporating HD and introducing competition. This question was also
used to give a more personal element with, for instance, respondents citing personal
experience of poor reception and other issues.

No comments: