(13-11-2009 17:14 )vila Wrote:  

(13-11-2009 12:22 )stoly Wrote:  For all you guy's that are moving home, or getting a freeview aerial installed, they will charge around £120.00 just to install the aerial, you still have to buy the box. Sky's freesat is £147.00 including installation. It make's more sense to go sky

Ffs! There's NO SUCH THING as a 'Freeview aerial'. All you need is an ordinary terrestrial aerial with a decent performance. 99% of existing aerials will do the job. I get perfect Freeview reception from a stubby little item about 18 inches long installed about 20 years ago and not even pointing directly towards the tv mast.

And once more, NOT EVERYONE IS ABLE TO INSTALL SKY!!! How many more times do we have to say this?

(13-11-2009 14:59 )elgar1uk Wrote:  As far as I can see, the difference between Sky only and Sky-Freeview transmissions is highly exaggerated anyway.

Then you need new spectacles. I watch the web stream whenever I can and the difference between a Sky-only 2-4-1 and the laughable Freeview equivalent is enormous.

Edit: Except of course for the notable, but very short, recent effort from Yvette and Kelly. There are hopeful signs on BS Freeview at the moment, and it's certainly far superior to what BB Freeview has settled down to.

(13-11-2009 19:41 )BarrieBF Wrote:  If freeview callers were not satisfied they would not keep on calling, so the freeview content must be good enough for what they require. Where exactly is the problem?

(13-11-2009 20:23 )TheWatcher Wrote:  

(13-11-2009 19:41 )BarrieBF Wrote:  If freeview callers were not satisfied they would not keep on calling, so the freeview content must be good enough for what they require. Where exactly is the problem?

Presumably, most freeview callers have not seen the Sky shows and are not members of this forum, so they don't know what they are missing.
The problem is for members like myself, who only have freeview, but are aware of what is shown on Sky but not seen on freeview.

Nearly annoying as the difference in content, is the reason why there is a difference in content.
Several suggestions have been put forward by quite a few of the members as to why this happens, but the question basically remains unanswered. No definitive reason has ever been posted by anyone who really knows. ie someone directly connected with Cellcast, Sky or Ofcom.

(13-11-2009 23:15 )De La Red Wrote:  Thanks for the input there chaps. As I previously mentioned, I am relatively new to the Babestation phenom, and am naturally enjoying what Freeview provides. I am in no hurry to subscribe to the Murdoch corporate machine anytime soon though

(13-11-2009 20:39 )Big Boobies Wrote:  Yes I agree;I think someone should come on here and explain the situation to us.Last night proved(Thanks Camilla!) that there is no reason why Freeview cant show Sky-type content and it should regularly.I still think it could be a directive from Sky to Cellcast to moderate content on Freeview to try and coerce us into spending our money (it should be unnecessary) on a Sky contract which we dont wish to do.I hope I'm wrong but thats how I see it;I dont think its anything to do with Cellcast..........But it would be good to know.

(14-11-2009 00:57 )Censorship :-( Wrote:  You don't need to contribute to Murdoch's fortune, the babe channels are FTA on satellite, just as they are on Freeview; any digital satellite receiver, with a dish receiving signals from 28 East, will do, you don't even need a $ky box, let alone a $ky subscription.

(14-11-2009 13:56 )Donald Trumps "Hair Wrote:  ~~~~~
~~~~~
Stop talking about this mysterious conspiracy between Sky and Cellcast, it's nonsense.
~~~~
~~~~

(14-11-2009 14:17 )TheWatcher Wrote:  

(14-11-2009 13:56 )Donald Trumps "Hair Wrote:  ~~~~~
~~~~~
Stop talking about this mysterious conspiracy between Sky and Cellcast, it's nonsense.
~~~~
~~~~

How do you know its nonsense? Do you work for Sky or Cellcast?
I'm sure the Sky marketing dept has some say in what Cellcast can show on freeview.
Its what I would do if I was in charge of that dept.