So what will this mean ?

[old Bill]

Just been looking at Sam Knows and checked my Exchange. To my surprise It came up with this
21CN WBC status:      RFS date set: 18/11/2008

So what does this mean ? Which ISPs are going to be supporting this and with a line attenuation of 42 would there be any improvement  in speed any way ? Yes I know I have only just changed to S-- but there is no harm in looking to the future.

[Simon]

To save waiting for responses, there's a thread on this already that you might like to look at, Bill. 

http://www.idnetters.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=7186.0

[Cookiemonster]

And check Here for rough ADSL2+ speeds

[Inactive]

I wouldn't worry about it OB, Sky will have you stitched up like a kipper for at least 12 months, possibly eighteen.

Once the BBC/ITV Freesat becomes a reality in May and Sky TV customers start leaving in droves, I can almost guarantee that Sky will do what Sky do best, put their charges up to cover the shortfall.

[madasahatter]

I've been looking at freesat In - looks interesting, but I don't think it will dent Sky much to be honest. It looks to me like it's more or less the digibox channels plus HD - have to wait for the launch to see the final package.

[Rik]

There's a lot of Sky customers who take the service because digital signals are poor or non-existent, Mad. If the new freesat contains recording facilities, I can see people moving rather than paying Sky.

[Inactive]

Many Sky customers only stay at Sky because it is the only place to get HD at the moment, once that stops, then I am convinced that huge amounts will leave, just for that reason alone.

Sky will inevitably have a shortfall in income, they traditionally deal with that by upping their prices.

[plugwash]

Once the BBC/ITV Freesat becomes a reality in May and Sky TV customers start leaving in droves

what gives you that idea? sure there will be a lot of channels probablly even a few that aren't availible on digital terrestrial but do you really think there will be many channels that are both worth having and not already availible subscription free?

Many Sky customers only stay at Sky because it is the only place to get HD at the moment,

BBC hd is already broadcast on unencrypted digital sattalite and can be received by anyone with a suitable receiver. Unfortunately this fact is not really advertised and suitable receivers aren't very common. There are also some HD services on virgin media cable.

Yes there may be a few suckers who got a sky package purely for BBC hd and will quit if the BBC start advertising freesat but I find it hard to belive they are a significan portion of sky customers.

[Inactive]

what gives you that idea? sure there will be a lot of channels probablly even a few that aren't availible on digital terrestrial but do you really think there will be many channels that are both worth having and not already availible subscription free?
BBC hd is already broadcast on unencrypted digital sattalite and can be received by anyone with a suitable receiver. Unfortunately this fact is not really advertised and suitable receivers aren't very common. There are also some HD services on virgin media cable.

True, but only a small proportion of UK residents can get Virgin ( at a price ), more importantly the lack of a proper EPG has been the stumbling block of using non Sky Receivers to get HD, Freesat will overcome that.

I suppose it depends on how you interpret a " a significant proportion " I was thinking maybe around 5% in the first year.