The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I am probably going to read this in the morning and think "why on earth did I think that?". But to me, this reads like a massive advert for Sky TV. Some of this is crap - I use freeview myself and there is no way I get anywhere near 100 channels AND the BBC numbers definitely aren't in the 900s (BBC1 = 101 & 801, BBC2 = 102 & 802, BBC3 = 107 & 803 and BBC4 = 109 & 804 I think) - and most is original research. Launchballer 22:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes, why on earth would you think that? Firstly the article is called 'Free-to-view' which refers to the specific technology used for encrypted but freely viewable satellite broadcasts, where no subscription is required. You use 'Freeview', a marketing brand name for the group of channels you receive with a television aerial. So 'there is no way [you] get anywhere near 100 channels AND the BBC numbers definitely aren't in the 900s' because you're not even using the system which the article is about. Secondly, while the article might read to you like 'a massive advert for Sky TV' it's hard to explain why because it's about FREE channels which don't require a subscription like Sky TV does. So unfortunately I think you're mistaken on just about every count. Bonusballs (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn means no more AfD? Still lotsa problems though. No sources, and I never thought I'd ever say this, but a definite European (non-American!) bias. I really don't understand though - all US broadcast TV is digitally encoded, though available for free. Is that what this is? I ask here coz the most recent (and only) comment on the article's talk page is 8 years old. :P Dcs002 (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Any European bias would seem to be more down to the fact that this particular arrangement of technology is far more common (and necessary) in Europe than it is in North America. This kind of encryption is to protect territorial broadcast rights, so that, for example, viewers in Switzerland may view their country's national broadcasters (ORF, etc) on satellite without a specific subscription being required, while ensuring that viewers outside that country do not also receive the transmissions, as would be the case if they were transmitted completely unencrypted and free-to-view. Since European satellites will have a reception footprint that covers many countries, encryption like this is used. It's used most in the UK, but also exists in other countries like Switzerland, Germany, etc. The situation in North America will most likely be different because one satellite's footprint will cover that country (or part of it) alone, hence free-to-view encryption is not used as it's a solution to a problem which does not exist in that part of the world. Bonusballs (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. The US broadcasting I was referring to is land-based transmission, not satellite. I'm not sure there has been any concern to limit cross-border transmission here either, as most broadcast TV is commercial, though not all. I agree with User:Launchballer that WP:DINC#The Case for Discussion driving Cleanup applies here, but I don't know that I'm really one to help because I seem to be so clueless about the subject. :( Dcs002 (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.