On 22/07/2011 08:34, funkyoldcortina wrote:
On 21/07/11 13:43, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/07/2011 13:35, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
Man at wrote:
UKTV. Half owned by the BBC (OK, the worldwide arm) so all the more
reason it should be FTA, or at least those progs originally funded by
license payers.

They are FTA via FreeView. And there is an extra cost for
transmitting via
satellite. Either requires a decent external aerial. The problem with
making it available free on satellite is it then becomes free to many
who
don't pay any UK licence.


If you think how many kWHrs are used to power terrestial transmitters, I
doubt they're much cheaper than leasing a satellite transponder.

The power used to operate terrestrial TV transmitters pales into
insignificance compared to the power used to launch a satellite into
space...

Not according to numerous articles. Googled and found 2, though I admit
they written by interested parties. However, just look how much CO2 is
produced by a few terrestial transmitters!! Something that can easily
be verified.

http://www.satellitetoday.com/via/gl...tes_22875.html
http://www.esoa.net/Green-Satellites.htm