In article ,
Jim Watt wrote:

On Thu, 13 May 2004 07:12:59 +0100, rnet[dot]co[dot]uk
(Simon Gardner) wrote:


The area served is the point and not the numbers using it. And I'm still
talking about the vast "90 cm" dish area.

Where?

http://users.powernet.co.uk/hack/astra/

I see no 90cm dishes.

STILL not the point.

On Thu, 13 May 2004 09:09:43 +0100, rnet[dot]co[dot]uk
(Simon Gardner) wrote:

In article ,
Jim Watt wrote:

On Thu, 13 May 2004 07:12:59 +0100, rnet[dot]co[dot]uk
(Simon Gardner) wrote:


The area served is the point and not the numbers using it. And I'm still
talking about the vast "90 cm" dish area.

Where?

http://users.powernet.co.uk/hack/astra/

Well the A2d footprint looks rather optimised on the UK
- most on the other satellites is encrypted.

I see no 90cm dishes.

STILL not the point.

So we should worry about dishes that don't exist?
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

In article ,
Jim Watt wrote:

So we should worry about dishes that don't exist?

Jim has explained this to you on several occasions. I don't think I could
improve on that. I suggest you re-read what he has already said.

On Fri, 14 May 2004 06:59:46 +0100, rnet[dot]co[dot]uk
(Simon Gardner) wrote:

In article ,
Jim Watt wrote:

So we should worry about dishes that don't exist?

Jim has explained this to you on several occasions. I don't think I could
improve on that. I suggest you re-read what he has already said.

Which Jim is that? not me.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

In article ,
Jim Watt wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2004 06:59:46 +0100, rnet[dot]co[dot]uk
(Simon Gardner) wrote:

In article ,
Jim Watt wrote:

So we should worry about dishes that don't exist?

Jim has explained this to you on several occasions. I don't think I could
improve on that. I suggest you re-read what he has already said.

Which Jim is that? not me.

No indeed. Not you.