BBC TRUST FREESAT CONCLUSION.

AS REPORTED BY THE BBC TRUST IN APRIL 2007.

"Should the "Freesat" proposal be future proof? 91% said "Yes" and 9% said "No".Sample of comments from those people who believe the proposition should be
future-proof
“Yes most definitely, High Definition should be a top priority.”
“High def is preferable since most TVs are now being built to accommodate this. Mine
already does although I do not use it due to the extra Sky HD costs”
“…it is in the best interests of the consumer that all free to air programming is provided
with the latest available technological enhancements (HDTV is the new “colour” TV and all
consumers should have equal access to it.”
“I think the set-top boxes should be capable of receiving both standards so that a new box is
not necessary when high definition broadcast become the standard.”
“The future is now, high definition is already available and the sales of HD TV sets show how
much people want it.”
“Yes - make software downloadable”
“Yes, it should offer a choice as it is wrong to assume that everybody will have the means or
the need to buy a HD TV to go with the set top box if it is only available in HD”
“Without a doubt, otherwise in 10 years time they will be obsolete and we will have to go
through the same process again”
“It would be best to make all Freesat boxes HD. This reduces consumer confusion, advances
the prospects for HD, avoids premature redundancy of newly purchased equipment, and
does not excessively increase the cost. Importantly it also allows SD channels to use MPEG4,
allowing more room for future expansion of services.”

BBC FREESAT FUTURE DECIDED BY THE BBC TRUST.

AS REPORTED BY THE BBC TRUST IN APRIL 2007.

“Yes, furthermore the technology is now available to the BBC to deliver Freesat in IPTV
format with a satellite return path, facilitating a far wider range of interactive services thatn
are currently available in other European satellite TV offerings.”
Sample of comments from those people who believe the proposition should
not be future-proof
“If I can pick up your freesat on my existing sat box, I personally would not be bothered
about HD. The existing digital picture is more than ample for me. If people want HD they
should have to pay the extra for it.”
Question 5 – Do you agree with the Trust's conclusion that the BBC's
“Freesat” proposals are consistent with the BBC's Public Purposes because
they will improve access to its digital services?
Of the 617 responses to question 5, 93% consider that the proposal is consistent with the
BBC’s Public Purposes, while only 7% do not.

"Is the proposal consistent with the BBC's Public Purposes?" 93% said "yes" and 7% said "No".Sample of comments from respondents who believe that the proposal isconsistent with the BBC’s Public Purposes
“Freesat is in line with the licence remit, the system helps to provide Digital and HDservices”
“I agree, digital services will be required by all when analogue transmissions are turned off
and I believe that a mixture of digital service options should be available at a range of price
points. From a basic low cost service that freeview currently offers, to a low cost enhanced
services option (freesat) to the medium cost and premium services offered by sky and Virgin
Media.” 

BBC TRUST DECIDES FREESAT FUTURE.

AS REPORTED BY THE BBC TRUST IN APRIL 2007.

“I agree that these proposals are consistent with the BBC's Public Purposes. They will
increase the coverage of Digital services and will provide a service to licence fee payers that
do not have access to them currently.”
“Yes. The BBC's proposal is essential if it is to provide a service to all of the population
following the analogue switch off. It would be inconsistent if one had to pay a licence fee to
the BBC and then deal with a commercial organisation before receiving any service.”
“The RDI LB endorses any actions promoting access to the BBC's digital services, insofar as
extending the platforms on which these servicescan be viewed would appear to be entirely
consistent with its [the BBC's] remit.”
“Absolutely yes.
Again, beyond improving access to HD, etc. services for the UK mainland, in the CI region it
appears to be our ONLY hope of access to ANY license fee paid digital PSB services at all!”
“Yes. Freesat is an essential development as long as digital signals cannot be strengthened in
other ways. It will also help begin making HD content more widespread.”
“I think the BBC Trust is completely correct in their conclusion that Freesat is part of the
BBC's mandate to provide public digital services. Freesat represents another channel for
people to use, that is free (outside of the TV Licence) and offers choice. The BBC could also
harness the power of Freesat (and Freeview) to use peoples existing Broadband connections
so that feedback from set top boxes or Integrated Digital TV's can be sent direct to the
programme makers, especially good for panel shows requiring public voting, or precise
viewing numbers (for advertisers).”
“I agree 100%. Public Service Broadcasting is one of the gems in British society. We should
guard it against unfair competition and seek to maintain it and its very high standards.”
Sample of comments from respondents who believe that the proposal is notconsistent with the BBC’s Public Purposes
“No, at best Freesat will only duplicate some of the terrestrial coverage. The extra cost is a
waste for the minimal benefit to fringe areas. The licence fee should be used for program
production.”
Question 6 – Has the Trust correctly identified those markets that may be
affected by the launch of “Freesat”?
Of the 463 responses to question 6, 93% consider that the Trust has correctly identified
those markets that may be affected by the launch of ‘Freesat’, while 7% do not.



"Has the Trust correctly identified the markets that may be affected?" 93% said "Yes" and 7% said "No".Organisations were the exception , with 31%believing that the correct markets had not
been identified, compared to the average of 7%. Among the markets suggested as missing
from the Trust’s analysis were distribution methods and the likely future shape of the HD
market (specifically a Freeview HD offering)

Those reponding that markets had not been correctly identified consisted of, organisations (31%), other (11%), Overall(7%) andSelf (5%).Sample of comments from respondents who believe that the correct markets
have been identified
“Yes indeed. In fact it is about time that DSAT services become competitively recognised as
a true public resource, as they are through most European countries, and not an exclusive
resource incorrectly perceived to be "owned and controlled" by a single privately owned,
subscription TV, service provider as they have become in the UK. 

BBC FREESAT DECIDED BY BBC TRUST.

AS REPORTED BY THE BBC TRUST IN APRIL 2007.

PSB Freesat can only correct this misconception and improve the currently lacking
competition on DSAT services.”
“The basics are if you can’t get freeview already then you may receive this option. So I wouldsay the nail was hit on the head.”
“There is currently a monopoly - BSkyB - the Trust could target low income consumers.”
“I believe you have, and I feel that the BBC has a remit to broadcast its services to a wide a
range of people as possible and if Freesat meets that need then it should be done.
Commercial channels have no problem with launching new services that affect its rivals.”
“Given that there is very little (perceivable) competition in the television broadcast market, I
welcome anything that will have a positive impact on that market. The dominance of BSkyB
and to a lesser extent NTL/Virgin Media is something that the BBC would do well toinfluence”
“As far as I can tell, but I was brought up to regard competition as a health option.”
“Except for the European coverage I think it has.”
“I think it helps these markets as it gets a better understanding to those reluctant to go
digital, and may convince them to improve their services.”
“Yes, it should be remembered that originally the UK had two satellite providers Sky &
British satellite broadcasting, Freesat would be bringing balance back to the market.”
Sample of comments from respondents who believe that the correct markets
have not been identified
“Mainly, but they are forgetting the growing number of viewers with cheap equipment to
watch FTA satellite. They also pay Licence Fee but are confronted with a new rise in costs.”
“The markets not mentioned are the distribution mechanisms. The choice of which satelliteoperator’s capacity Freesat may use will have a dramatic impact on the future proofing of the
Freesat service.”
“The analysis is reasonable. I think that it ignores the potential effect of additional services
(not regular PSB) joining Freesat after launch. An HD offering in Freesat might displace the
provision of an HD offering on Freeview. This would be a negative outcome, but not so
negative as a scenario where BSkyB controlled all distribution of digital TV.”
“The total market size for set top boxes will increase with the take up of digital however the
mix between different manufactures could change.”
Question 7 – Do you agree with the Trust's conclusion that launching the
"Freesat" proposition will have a beneficial effect for consumers by increasing 

BBC TRUST FREESAT CONCLUSION.

AS REPORTED BY THE BBC TRUST IN APRIL 2007.

choice and introducing competition in the subscription-free satellite TV
market?
Of the 588 responses to question 7, 92% consider that the proposal will have a beneficial
effect for consumers by increasing choice and introducing competition, while 8% disagree.

Will "Freesat" be beneficial to consumers?
No8%
Yes92%
YesNo
The regional differences can again be observed in the responses to this question. In
Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales all respondents believe that ‘Freesat’ will be beneficial
to consumers.

"Freesat" will be beneficial for consumers0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
NorthernIrelandScotlandWalesEnglandOverallNolocationPercentages of respondent by location who agfrred that "Freesat" will be beneficial to consumers was: Northern Ireland: 100%; Scotland: 100%; Wales: 100%; England: 92%; Overall: 92%; No location: 82%.
Organisations responding to the consultation also recognise the benefits of the proposal,
with 93% of those who responded answering ‘yes’ to question 7.

"Freesat" will be beneficial for consumers50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
OrganisationSelfOverallOther
Sample of comments from respondents who believe the proposals will be
beneficial to consumers
“Yes. It will help also to drive down the cost of equipment”
“Yes as Sky is the only company offering such a service at present. Equipment can be costly
purchased through them. Some competition will help bring prices down.”
“It will definitely make the market known and accessible.”
“Indeed. If the market were left simply to consumer forces there would be far less choice
than we now have, and the "minority" programming we have would be non-existent.”
“Yes. Therefore the Consumer Expert Group has supported BBC involvement in a Freesat
proposition since our 2004 report "persuasion or compulsion? Consumers and analogue
switch-off"”
“Yes. I think that providing competition - and an alternative - to the present satellite TV
suppliers is a very important point. Otherwise we are all, to varying extents, at their
mercy.”
“Yes. The only other options are commercial and the service is at the whim of the
companies. Sky freesat is good but could be withdrawn or the number of stations restricted
further for commercial reasons. Cable has only a subscription service.”
“Most certainly. The UK is in an almost unique situation compared with other European
countries being almost totally dependent upon Sky. In Germany and UK although there is a

Answering "yes" to the following proposition, "Freesat will be beneficial to consumers, were 93% of organisations, 93% of individuals, 92% overall and 83% categorised as "other".
sky service PVRs without subscription are readily available at a price around half those of UK
equivalents due in part to lack of competition.”
“Yes, increasing choice is something that really does need addressing.”
Sample of comments from respondents who believe the proposals will not be
beneficial to consumers
“Increasing choice is not part of the BBC’s remit as I see it. Wherever 'increased choice' has
been used, one eventually wins out, & not necessarily the best product (e.g. Betamax/VHS
video).”
Question 8 – Do you agree with the Trust's conclusion that whilst launching
“Freesat” will affect other participants in the market, it is not likely to lead to
exit from the market of existing participants or to create a barrier to future
innovation? (Any figures for the likely effect on other participants' revenues
would be particularly welcomed).
Of the 526 responses to question 8, 90% consider that the proposal is unlikely to lead to
market exit, while just 10% believe that it could.

Unlikely to lead to market exit?
Yes90%
No10%
YesNo
This is also true for responses from organisations, with 90% considering market exit unlikely.

"Freesat is unlikely to lead to market exit." 90% agreed and 10% disagreed.
The proposal is unlikely to lead to market exit. 92% of individuals agreed, overall 90% agreed, 90% of organisations agreed and 83% categorised as "other" agreed.Sample of comments from respondents who believe the proposal is unlikely to
lead to market exit
“Absolutely true. I think it may well work the other way given the BBC's commitment to
public access and its own innovative leads in the past. I think it is more likely to encourage
innovation. The BBC Micro computer model is pertinent here.”
“I agree entirely that the launch will affect the market marginally but I do think it will not be
hugely disruptive, any player in the market that doesn’t foresee the involvement of the BBC
as a part of or wholly as a competitor doesn’t deserve to survive in the market.”
“I hope it would have an effect on others services, otherwise it would not be the success
that we all want it to be”
“If other broadcasters do welcome competition, they should have no problems with this.”
“Yes because the service will not have the same sports and movie content that create
revenue for Sky and cable.”
“Yes. Introduction of this service (given suitable HD content) will act to further develop the
HD receiver market for STBs, PVRs and iDTVs. Assuming an open platform approach for
Freesat this can only act in the interest of future innovation. It is very unlikely that BSkyB will
exit from the market for FreeSat from Sky. There will alwaysbe a market for consumers to
have an easy potential upgrade to pay TV services using an initial free-only offer.”
“Yes. I don't imagine it would impact on any other participant's subscription services, and it
wouldn't directly compete with Freeview (havingdifferent features) so wouldn't force it out
the market.”

BBC TRUST DECIDES FREESAT.

AS REPORTED BY THE BBC TRUST IN APRIL 2007.

“Yes this is unlikely to affect cable/ satellite by a degree to closure, but would stimulate
innovation.”
“There is room in the TV market for both Free and Pay-tv alike.”
Sample of comments from respondents who believe the proposal is likely to
lead to market exit
“As the BBC will be effectively duplicating the "Freesat from Sky" service it will lead to lessinnovation. The money spent on BBC "Freesat" would be better spent developing
innovations!”
Question 9 – Does the proposal to establish a joint venture and to limit its
activity to marketing and technical co-ordination, leaving set top box
manufacture, retailing and installation to the market go far enough to minimise
the impact of the proposition on the market?
Of the 449 responses to question 9, 89% consider that the proposals go far enough to
minimise the impact of the proposition on the market, while 11% do not.

This conclusion also holds true when looking at responses from organisations, coming in just
1% lower at 88%.

"Do the proposals go far enough to minimise market impact?" 89% said "Yes" and 11% said "No".Do the proposals go far enough tominimise marketimpact?
Yes89%
No11%
YesNo
"The proposal will minimise market impact". Those agreeing were 90% of those categorised as "other", 89% of organisations, 89% of individuals and 88% of organisations. Sample of comments from respondents who believe the proposal will minimise
impact on the market
“Absolutely. You only have to look at Freeview's amazing success to back that statement
up.”
“Yes. But it must encourage other broadcasters, be it national or niche to get involved.”
“Yes and distances the BBC somewhat which is more suitable for a public service body.”
“Generally yes although some consideration will need to be given to influencing manufacture
and installation in the interests of consumers”
“Yes, plus in time it could be incorporated direct into new methods of viewing, like PC
media centres etc.”
“It's the most obvious way - it’s the same model as Freeview and the only sensible way
forward.”
“Yes. Many companies existing and future will benefit from the supply of the equipment
necessary.”
“Absolutely - the trust should not underestimate the market need for this development”
“Yes - it will also mean boxes will be cheaper as companies will be in competition with each
other.” 

BBC TRUST FREESAT CONCLUSION.

AS REPORTED BY THE BBC TRUST IN APRIL 2007.

Sample of comments from respondents who believe the proposal will notminimise impact on the market
“No it does not; the whole marketing and installation etc should be undertaken and
controlled by the BBC”
Question 10 – Is it appropriate for the Trust to impose conditions to prevent
licence fee money benefiting other participants in the proposed joint venture
and to ensure appropriate separation between Freeview and "Freesat"?
Of the 516 responses to question 10, 79% consider it appropriate for the Trust to impose
conditions to prevent licence fee money benefiting other participants in the proposed joint
venture and to ensure appropriate separation between Freeview and ‘Freesat’, while 21% do
not.

Should there be separation between "Freesat" and
Freeview?
Yes79%
No21%
YesNo
This view is less prevalent among responses from organisations, where only 69% of
respondents believe that the Trust should impose such conditions.

Should there be separation between "Freesat" and Freeview?. 79% said "Yes" and 21% said "No".
"The Trust should impose conditions to separate Freeview from "Fresat"". Those agrreing were 79% of individuals, 79% categorised as "other", 79% overall and 69% of organisations. Sample of comments from respondents who believe the Trust should impose
these conditions
“Yes, other participants should pay their fair share of any costs in the joint venture.”
“Yes. Licence fee money should go to providing programming and digital services. It should
be accountable for. It should not be used to help other partners develop technology and
services which will not be available to the freesat viewer. Also some services may be
available on freesat but not on freeview and vice versa. Therefore these should be kept
separate too.”
“Yes, the licence fee should not be used as a profit vehicle for allied companies involved inthe JV.”
“License fee money should only be used for the betterment of this service. Other
participants will see the obvious benefits without needing license fee money.”
“Yes - whilst the government and the BBC insisted on taxing television the licence fee
money should not profit other organisations. The licence fee money should be used purely
for distribution and channel content”
“It is, taxpayers/licence fees should not be used or available to private companies.”
“This is appropriate; there would be ample opportunity for the third-parties to make the
venture into a profitable one themselves.”
“Yes absolutely. The license fee money should only benefit the BBC not any joint venture
partners.”

BBC FREESAT FUTURE DECIDED BY THE BBC TRUST.

AS REPORTED BY THE BBC TRUST IN APRIL 2007.

Sample of comments from respondents who believe the Trust should notimpose these conditions
“No, as all users of TV equipment have to pay the licence and any benefit to other
participants will ultimately benefit the users.”
“No it is a partnership and therefore funds should be shared to ensure the very best in
programming and service.”
Question 11 – Should the Trust impose any other conditions if it approves the
proposals in its final decision?
Of the 390 responses to question 11, 47% consider that the Trust should impose further
conditions if it approves the proposals, while 53% do not.

Should the Trust impose any conditions?
Yes47%No53%
YesNo
Sample of comments from people who believe the Trust should impose other
conditions
“It should set limits on the price paid to other commercial channels (such as Sky one) to air
on Freesat”
“Keep costs to a minimum for subscribers”
“Perhaps limiting cost of this”
“Quality of the boxes!”
“To protect "Freesat" from Pay Per View and subscription-based companies (such as BSkyB)
that may wish to buy-into and erode the service by turning into a subscription-based service(as seems to be happening now to Freeview).”

"Should the Trust impose any conditions?". 47% said "Yes" and 53% said "No".
“Freesat should not at any stage be 'watered down' to include subscription services just toincrease the appeal of the overall service”
“That HD would be free to all, and not additional cost for either subscription or purchase of
equipment.”
“That the service should be subject to review after 5 years, with the intention of adjustment
for any licenses”
“Broadcast technology is advancing so fast currently. It is important to ensure that 'Freesat'
will be allowed to accommodate any technological advances which come along even after the
service has been launched. To this end, the technical specification of the service should be
sufficiently sophisticated and pliable to be able to accept major changes in the future in a way
which won't present problems of incompatibility between consumer equipment and new
transmission formats”
“It should limit the amount of licence money that can spent on this project, with a maximum
spend if the project is unsuccessful”
“Set top boxes should only be sold to people with UK addresses - the satellite footprint
covers most of Europe therefore the freesat box must be restricted to the UK population”
“Do not limit the BBC's ability to sell the Freesat service overseas. The BBC could easily
sell the service (by subscription or for free) to users across Europe (assuming you'd use
Astra) or further afield providing an extra revenue stream that could be used to provide
subsidies for hardware/installation back home (e.g. for pensioners, schools, hospitals).”
“A restriction on 'game' channels that are invading late night television”
“Every effort should be made to ensure that, in addition to the PSBs, only quality channels
are easily available through Freesat. Effort should be made to reduce shopping and quiz
channel content and to ban any pornographic content”
“Many people already have independent (non-Sky) satellite equipment. There must be no
bar (viewing cards, etc) that would prevent them from receiving Freesat on their existing
equipment”
Question 12 – What other comments would you like to make about these
proposals?
Due to the diverse and individual nature of responses generated by question 12 it is not
appropriate to give a quantitative breakdown.
A sample of responses to question 12

BBC TRUST DECIDES.

AS DESCRIBED AND REPORTED BY THE BBC TRUST IN APRIL 2007.

“There is no justifiable reason why people who don't use a service should be forced to help
pay for it”
“Sounds great”
“Much needed especially for those of us who do not currently have a choice”
“I think they are very positive, and are a good solution to the problem of limited freeview
coverage”
“I believe I am one of a very small minority - the ariel cable in my house is broken between
the aerial and the socket - however to repair it involves channelling out the cable which has
been plastered inside the wall by the previous owner! So it’s either satellite or fuzz!
We have been considering changing to thefreesat service offered by sky. However we
would prefer to use a service offered by the BBC, were one available”
“Anything which stops HD broadcasts being only available via pay-per-view is a good thing”
“The trust should be seeking only to ensure a free (and as soon as possible, HD) service is
available to all licence fee payers.”
“It is not clear what the real benefit from this proposition would be. If it meant TV / Radio
masts could be removed from the landscape as aresult then that would be a real benefit”
“Free Sat from Sky was hidden away by Sky as they wanted monthly payments. BBC's Freesat should
be advertised properly and openly”
“Far too late it would have been a much better use of licence fee payers’ money to get thisimportant service correct in the first instance”
“I am concerned about the effect bad weather will have on the signal as the UK is not known
for its good weather. I also stress that I would prefer one system that works rather than
several that may work depending on the circumstances. I'd also prefer my license money tobe spent on upkeeping one working system rather than several”
“Whilst I am broadly in favour of the *way* the Trust is planning the venture, I am not in
favour of the venture itself. I consider it (and this consultation) to be a waste of licence-
payers' money.”

BBC TRUST FREESAT CONCLUSION.

AS DESCRIBED BY THE BBC TRUST IN APRIL 2007.

Conclusions

Public Value
Questions 1 – 4 broadly covered the public value aspect of the proposal, examining issues
such as access, choice and future-proofing.
Question 1 asked whether or not respondents believe current access to the BBC’s digital
services is adequate and whether the BBC should be seeking to improve this. The majority
of respondents considered current access to be unacceptable, and also considered that the
BBC should be taking action to improve this in the lead up to digital switchover.
Question 2 looked at the principle of choice,asking whether Licence Fee payers should have
a choice of subscription-free means of access to digital services, with the majority of
respondents firmly in favour of a choice.
Question 3 tested whether the current “Freesat” proposals offer value to all Licence Fee
payers, or just those currently without access to Freeview. The majority of respondents
considered that the “Freesat” proposal will bevaluable and attractive to all Licence Fee
payers, not just those currently without access to Freeview, though they did consider it
particularly valuable to this subset of Licence Fee payers.
Finally, Question 4 looked at the issue of whether the “Freesat” proposition should be
future-proof, for instance by including HD capability. Respondents demonstrated strong
support for incorporating future-proof capabilities.
The results of Questions 1 – 3 strongly support the idea that the “Freesat” proposal will
deliver significant public value by giving viewers a choice of means of access to the BBC’s
digital services. A further benefit identified by respondents was the stability offered by
“Freesat” as a free-to-air offering, in perpetuity, from a public service broadcaster.
Although the proposal will deliver public value without future-proof capacity, it is clear that
the level of public value delivered would be enhanced by offering features such as HD, which
have strong support among respondents.
The BBC’s Public service remit
Question 5 looks at the public service remit of the BBC, specifically focusing on the BBC’sPublic Purpose to help deliver emerging technologies and take a lead in digital switchover.
An overwhelming majority of respondents consider “Freesat” to be consistent with this
public purpose, citing improved access and technological advancement in their reasons.
Competitive impact
The Trust has a duty to have regard to the competitive impact of the BBC’s activities on thewider market, so Questions 6 – 9look at this in some detail.
Responses to Question 6 demonstrate that most people consider that the proposal has
identified those markets that may be affected by “Freesat”.