Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andygrif
I know what you're saying, but even Freeview's interactive services are far better than ntl's. It still makes me laugh when I see the little red 'i' for ITV followed by the inevetable 'There is no interactive link for this channel' message!
|
In fairness to NTL, it's up to the broadcasters to provide the interactive service. Maybe NTL could be doing more to encourage development, but having been involved with design of Interactive TV (for a student's project, not a live site), I found that CR3 was technically as capable as the Sky system, and NTL were far more willing to help than Sky. Sky basically said that they could help, but would charge.
NTL gave us the liberate emulation software (Liberate forms the basis of CR3), access to a special off-net test server, and unlimited technical support for free.
Quote:
|
Sky very quickly eroded cable's offer through quality marketing, a better product and being quick to adapt. As such Sky is a very profitable company when most cablecos are struggling to break even.
|
Actually, I thought that Sky made huge losses for the first 15 years of it's life, and has only recently started making a profit. IIRC, it was heavily financed as part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. Cable companies (and other broadcasters) do not have the backing of one of the largest (if not the largest) media companies in the world.
Put basically, Sky could (& still can) afford to spend tens of millions of pounds on a new technology, then not worry when they see a return on that investment.