Brian McIlwrath wrote:

: Hopefully also opens up the prospect of subscription free PVR boxes to end
: the Sky + racket.

But Sky themselves are already thinking of making Sky+ subscription free!

Only for Sky subscribers. I am not aware of any plan to remove the £10
fee for non-subscribers. Though this may well be introduced in light
of current developments in order to get Freesat viewers to have
Sky-compatible equipment.


: Time to sell Sky shares methinks!

But all this excitment is premature! There will be no C4 and C5 for some
years

I bet that both will be FTA on 2D before the end of 2006. I am not
aware that the long contracts that they have for encryption services
actually require that the encryption be used.


and I would confidently expect that something like 95+% of DSAT viewing
will end up still being on Digiboxes (which are very cheap second-hand from
ebay etc.)!!

Initially, yes. But less and less once non-Sky boxes become common.
*Finally*, after all these years, there will be an open market for UK
digiboxes and that means lower prices and more features.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/7rm2m
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:34:47 GMT, "^^artnada^^"
wrote:

I suppose you're one of these people who has "never ever ever" copied
someone elses work. Check your TV recorded videos. Every piece of recorded
tv will be "someone elses work", complete with copyright. In other words,
"that at worst, is copyright theft", as someone eagerly pointed out.

Recording TV shows for timeshifting purposes is 'fair use' in copyright terms &
endorsed by an act of parliament.

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:29:42 +0300, someone purporting to be
wrote:

Lipsync poor on BBC World/Hotbird here too.

Re-boot the receiver.

MJ Ray wrote:
Brian McIlwrath wrote:


Don't care too much about five.

You should, if often outshines the other four during peak time with some
intelligent programming.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 07:20:36 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 21:59:10 +0100, "Michael Chare"
wrote:


| And the fact that a dish can often be sited lower down than a terrestrial aerial
| can make it an easier DIY project.

I saw one at a height of about a metre above the ground.
It had a wonderful view of Astra, provided that you were careful what you
planted in front of it.

I have two dishes on metal posts hammered into the lawn.

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

Nigel Barker wrote:
Recording TV shows for timeshifting purposes is 'fair use' in copyright terms &
endorsed by an act of parliament.

It's not called "fair use" in the legislation and that term can
confuse people with US copyright law. "Non-infringing" is safer.
See http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/cdpa1.htm#s70 for text.

--
MJR/slef
More on copyright and me: http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
A draft satellite TV FAQ: http://mjr.towers.org.uk/comp/astefaq.txt

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:12:09 GMT, Nigel Barker wrote:

Five _were_ FTA on Astra 19.2 analogue before Sky switched entirely to digital.
For the pedants they were actually soft encrypted in that you needed a
videocrypt decoder but did not require a card.

So for those pedants who appreciate those minor things like accuracy
and truthfulness, actually they weren't FTA at all, were they?

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 09:14:27 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

Of course it is always possible that this will encourage Sky to
activate PVR functionality on all Sky+ units for free, and perhaps
even to release a CAM. He who buys a non-Sky box for Freesat reception
will never be able to receive a pay Sky channel as things stand now,
and so it will be in Sky's interest to encourage new Freesat viewers
to buy and use a Sky box for Freesat in the first place. I doubt that
Sky will let that slip past them.

Surely the majority of the FTA boxes will be lowest-possible-cost
no-CAM-slot units that can't be upgraded anyway, though? (Especially
if the BBC have their way.)

On 08 Sep 2005 09:59:13 GMT, MJ Ray wrote:

Nigel Barker wrote:
Recording TV shows for timeshifting purposes is 'fair use' in copyright terms &
endorsed by an act of parliament.

It's not called "fair use" in the legislation and that term can
confuse people with US copyright law. "Non-infringing" is safer.
See http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/cdpa1.htm#s70 for text.

Thanks for the pointer. It actually says "The making in domestic premises for
private and domestic use of a recording of a broadcast solely for the purpose of
enabling it to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time does not
infringe any copyright in the broadcast or in any work included in it."

I was just pointing out that the post that I was responding to that referred to
recording TV shows as 'copyright theft' was totally & utterly wrong.

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

MJ Ray wrote:
itv-1 and BBC are already duplicated a lot to show regional
news/ads. They don't seem to merge transmissions when they're
showing the same programme, which is what German and Austrian
channels do (frees up capacity which can be used for other
channels the rest of the time). I'm told that was because Sky
digiboxes don't cope well with merges and splits.

I didn't know that. That you could merge and split, I mean - not that
the Sky boxes didn't do it well.

So BBC One (all regions) is at ~4Mbps (per region) because they don't
implement merging for national output?

Heck - they've got the "hidden" capacity there to provide four HD
streams, just by merging BBC One during national output. Or even just
increasing the bitrate of the SD version (and other channels).

Cheers,
David.