How much did BBC save by ditching Sky encryption?

[Richard Hunt]

Mods, feel free to move this, but I hope you find it interesting.

I was always bothered by Greg Dyke's claim that he saved the BBC "£85mill" by moving to the tighter beam Astra. That was supposed to be the cost of encryption so that they could use the Sky platform, and it sounded like a lot of money.

So I finally got round to asking under the Freedom of Information law for the evidence of this saving. I presumed there must be a contract between the BBC and Sky for the encryption service, which would therefore be a matter of public record.

The BBC really didn't want to answer my question, and I had to go all the way to the Information Commissioner to make them answer it, but finally, today, they have. You can read it here. It is, finally a quite detailed response. I would be interested in any comments people have on it.

 

[timo_w2s]

Thank you for providing that information. It's interesting to think what would have happened if the BBC had stayed with Sky's encryption and the use of spot beams on these newer satellites.

Although many of us outside the UK are arguably worse of due to the spot beam I think the most important thing is in the UK we're better off for the BBC, and now other PSBs, being truly FTA, especially these days of increased hard disk recording facilities. If they where all still behind Sky's encryption would we have had to pay £10/month for Sky+ recording or live without it? (Or go through dodgy unreliable methods using unofficial receivers which aren't suited to the casual TV viewer?)

 

[PaulR]

A good read. Thanks for doing the donkey work.

 

[far78]

Although many of us outside the UK are arguably worse of due to the spot beam I think the most important thing is in the UK we're better off for the BBC, and now other PSBs, being truly FTA, especially these days of increased hard disk recording facilities.

Exactly and even if the savings were non-existent I think it's a matter of importance that the free to air national channels remain free to air on satellite so we are free to receive them on equipment of our choosing and budget - not someone else's! The reply is definitely an interesting read though

 

[satelliteman]

Well done, some good information there.

 

[Tatra Man]

Although many of us outside the UK are arguably worse of due to the spot beam I think the most important thing is in the UK we're better off for the BBC, and now other PSBs, being truly FTA, especially these days of increased hard disk recording facilities. If they where all still behind Sky's encryption would we have had to pay £10/month for Sky+ recording or live without it? (Or go through dodgy unreliable methods using unofficial receivers which aren't suited to the casual TV viewer?)

Don't forget that you can only time-shift HD on a $ky box. You cannot record it. Your "copy" is restricted to that hard drive on that machine and only until they fail. A recording is something you make to portable media and can play back whenever and wherever you wish.

As far as I'm aware, the only equipment which allows you to record HD in the true sense of the word, i.e. to keep, are the Panasonic BluRay recorders.