|
|
|
Ant wrote:
The BBCi (and Sky Active etc.) feeds aren't intended to be viewed outside of the interactive platform. Aren't they? No, they aren't. But the BBC says I can watch their services without using a Sky box now. You can. You can even watch the interactive services without a Sky box, though you can't expect them to work properly. I quite agree that the BBC don't make it very clear that the interactive services are platform dependent at the moment. If something is broadcast, I think I'm entitled to watch it. You are. Unless it's a VideoGuard encrypted signal or Sky type interactive service in which case you would need to use a Sky box. They can't have it both ways - the BBC can't make a big deal of how they're available on all recievers and the next minute say "Oh, well, you can't get this, or you shouldn't be watching that, because you should have a Sky box". You need only blame Sky for not respecting recognised standards for interactive motors. If the Sky motor was vanilla OpenTV then the BBCi services would work on any OpenTV box, as would the Sky ones (but they don't). -- Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these. The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/guiv How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73 Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://logofreetv.org/ BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.co.uk/ ---- Only the truth as I see it. No monies return'd. ;-) |
Ant wrote in uk.media.tv.sky on Tue, 05 Aug 2003 12:12:01 GMT:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 06:53:11 GMT, Jomtien wrote: The BBCi (and Sky Active etc.) feeds aren't intended to be viewed outside of the interactive platform. Aren't they? But the BBC says I can watch their services without using a Sky box now. If something is broadcast, I think I'm entitled to watch it. They can't have it both ways - the BBC can't make a big deal of how they're available on all recievers and the next minute say "Oh, well, you can't get this, or you shouldn't be watching that, because you should have a Sky box". They should probably give it a better name than 'SERVICE 0', rather than slapping DOGs on it. -- David Taylor To reply via e-mail: replace [email protected] with @yadt.co. "The future just ain't what it used to be." |
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 06:20:32 GMT, Jomtien wrote:
On the contrary, OpenTV is a standard that Sky could have used without modifications. They chose to make their implementation of it just different enough to be incompatible with all others. They did this for exactly the same reasons that they have for not releasing VideoGuard CAMs: to ensure that they retain the monopoly on hardware provision. Yawn! OpenTV is, despite the name, as proprietary a system as any other. How many other satellite recievers are there running OpenTV, or indeed any other such system? A small number compared to the overall glut of European FTA receivers which don't bother themselves with those (generally) country-specific features at all. |
Ant wrote:
On the contrary, OpenTV is a standard that Sky could have used without modifications. They chose to make their implementation of it just different enough to be incompatible with all others. They did this for exactly the same reasons that they have for not releasing VideoGuard CAMs: to ensure that they retain the monopoly on hardware provision. Yawn! OpenTV is, despite the name, as proprietary a system as any other. So? It is still a standard and could have been left as such. How many other satellite recievers are there running OpenTV, or indeed any other such system? A small number compared to the overall glut of European FTA receivers which don't bother themselves with those (generally) country-specific features at all. Most receivers issued by subscription channels have some sort of interactive engine in them. FTA receivers don't bother with these engines for the simple reason that there are several different ones and they generally require a card to work properly. And FTA receivers don't have card slots and CAMs. -- Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these. The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/guiv How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73 Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://logofreetv.org/ BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.co.uk/ ---- Only the truth as I see it. No monies return'd. ;-) |
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 06:30:20 GMT, Jomtien wrote:
So? It is still a standard and could have been left as such. I don't understand why you're so opposed to progress. I mean, they won't be changing things for the fun of it, it's obviously new features and benefits that have been added, and that means a better experience for the people using the services. Why should that be compromised to remain 'compatible' with something else which nobody uses? Who cares? When PAL was first invented each country made their own adjustments to it so that it best suited them, and it would have been crazy not to. Most receivers issued by subscription channels have some sort of interactive engine in them. Sure, but how many satellite enthusiasts who don't want a Sky box are going to buy a reciever intended for a different subscription platform elsewhere in the world? If you don't want to use a Sky box to watch FTA channels then why on earth would you want to use a Canal Satelite one? It's not going to happen - they're going to get an FTA box or a straightforward CAM-based box. |
Ant wrote:
I'm not. But taking a standard and modifying it just enough to make it non-standard is not any definition of progress that I know. Perhaps not, but as long as it's done for a decent enough reason then who cares? You obviously know more about OpenTV than I do so I don't know if the "non-standard" differences are anywhere critical, but as I say, at the end of the day does it REALLY matter? The difference is just enough to make the services run on a Sky box but not on a non-Sky box. This is important to anyone with a non-Sky box. I suspect that any modifications made were done primarily if not solely in order to ensure that Sky interactive services would only function on a Sky digibox. I think if they wanted to do that there would be much easier and more effective ways of doing it. Really? How? I can't see any reason why they would be bothered about it. Can you even buy a non-Sky OpenTV reciever in Europe? Is there one? Other broadcasters use the OpenTV motor and there are boxes for sale that run these services, yes. They won't run the Sky services though. If they did there would obviously be much more demand for the boxes. Who cares? I care. Yes, but for what reason? Because you genuinely believe it makes life harder and poorer for the consumer, or just because it gives you yet another chance to have a pop at Sky over some mindless technical irrelevance that means nothing to anyone? Simply because the non-standard nature of the interactive motor in the Sky box means that those who can now choose to buy a non-Sky digibox or PVR for viewing the BBC can't use the same box for viewing the BBCi services. The Sky digibox complies with the DVB standard for broadcasting (because it is a legal requirement) but has a non-standard interactive motor (probably because there are no legal requirements about this). This is a pain. -- Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these. The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/guiv How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73 Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://logofreetv.org/ BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.co.uk/ ---- Only the truth as I see it. No monies return'd. ;-) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com