FilmFour free on Sky?
 

On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 00:14:43 +0100, "Heracles Pollux"
wrote:

ZT, you disappoint me, that you of all people, would willingly pander to
them at the BBC who are your inferiors? ;-)

At least Sky, **** that I think it is, never needed to stick a gun to
peoples heads, and ultimately gives people what they chose to subscribe to
voluntarily.

Good god, I find myself in agreement with you! :-)

--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:38:29 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

This is really money for old rope as far as Sky are concerned. It
doesn't actually cost them anything at all to provide encryption for
C4 and C5, yet they get paid millions for doing so.

It does cost them money to give away set top boxes to millions of
people, though, and C4/C5 benefit from that.

--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:38:29 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

This is irrelevant when it comes to FTV channels. Sky are only
concerned about the security of pay channels. There is no reason why
FTV viewers should have to fork out such an excessive charge just
because Sky want to keep pay channels secure.

If channels are paying for encryption then by definition they are
paying for security. Doesn't matter if they're FTV or pay, they both
want the same thing, and Sky's obligation to both is the same.
--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

In article ,
Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 00:14:43 +0100, "Heracles Pollux"
wrote:

ZT, you disappoint me, that you of all people, would willingly pander to
them at the BBC who are your inferiors? ;-)

At least Sky, **** that I think it is, never needed to stick a gun to
peoples heads, and ultimately gives people what they chose to subscribe
to voluntarily.

Good god, I find myself in agreement with you! :-)

Let's be perfectly accurate about matters. The BBC are paid for by the TV
licence fee because that is what Parliament has decided. Various govenments
of various colours have tried to come up with alternative ways of funding
but they all come back to the licence system.

Don't blame the messenger for the message.

--
From KT24 - in drought-ridden Surrey

Using a RISC OS5 computer

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
Heracles Pollux wrote:




All true.

And ask ourselves this. Why wasn't Top-Up TV and NDS Datacorp / Sky
competitively tendered to operate the TVL Licensing authority at the
beginning of the next Charter renewal?

Possibly because the contract with the current agency didn't co-incide with
the Charter renewal. the present operator obtained the job by competitive
tendering.

It may not be related but, Many moons ago, before the BBC Microcomputer was
launched, there was an outcry that Clive Sinclair hadn't won the tender and
it had been awarded to an unknown company "Acorn". The reality was that
Sinclair had been asked to tended and declined the offer.

Do you have a reference for that? My personal library only takes me back to
mid-1982 (Acorn User Number 1) and I do like to gather (the rather sparse)
information from before that date.

--
John Cartmell [email protected] followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Big Al wrote:
"Arfur Million" wrote in message
oups.com...
Nigel Barker wrote:
On Wed, 31 May 2006 17:04:36 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Except that this would be an offence only if the car were driven on a
public road.

Regards,
Arfur

Actually, the law has changed. its now an offence not to have the car taxed
even if its not on the public highway unless you have declared it to be
undrivable though a SORN.

Yes

But then to drive it at all makes it liable to
road fund licence

Not if you only drive it on private land, surely?

Regards,
Arfur

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 12:05:14 +0100, charles
wrote:

Let's be perfectly accurate about matters. The BBC are paid for by the TV
licence fee because that is what Parliament has decided. Various govenments
of various colours have tried to come up with alternative ways of funding
but they all come back to the licence system.

Because the BBC manipulates the market such that any alternative to
the licence fee is somehow impractical for some reason.

The most obvious example of this is Freeview. Up until 2001, all
digital TV equipment (satellite, cable or terrestrial) came with
encryption facilities which could easily have been used to ensure that
only people who wanted to watch the BBC had to pay for it.

Then the BBC piles into Freeview, encouraging manufacturers to flood
the market with cheap set top boxes with no encryption system at all.
A couple of years, and ten million set top boxes later, and once again
there is no possible way that the Government could decide to replace
the forced licence fee with a voluntary subscription. BBC wins again.

And rememember, the BBC admitted that this was their strategy.
It's not just the usual usenet cynicism. :-)

--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

The most obvious example of this is Freeview. Up until 2001, all
digital TV equipment (satellite, cable or terrestrial) came with
encryption facilities which could easily have been used to ensure that
only people who wanted to watch the BBC had to pay for it.

Then the BBC piles into Freeview, encouraging manufacturers to flood
the market with cheap set top boxes with no encryption system at all.
A couple of years, and ten million set top boxes later, and once again
there is no possible way that the Government could decide to replace
the forced licence fee with a voluntary subscription. BBC wins again.

And rememember, the BBC admitted that this was their strategy.

Having seen the appalling anti-competitive disaster for viewers that
encrypted TV in the UK has always been, it comes as no surprise at all
that the non-pay channels would want as little as possible to do with
it. Me too.

Pay TV is a catastrophe that leads to the sort of programming that one
sees on Sky channels. You may think that this has some merit. (You may
also be brain damaged.) I certainly do not. There is nothing worth
watching on the Sky channels. The little that is worth watching on pay
TV is mostly made up of repeats of old BBC and independent programmes
previously shown for free on the terrestrial channels.

Pay TV also leads to the gross overcharging of non-Sky channels for
encryption services that they don't need or want, which was in fact
the main reason why the BBC "piled into Freeview" and also why they
instigated Freesat. It is also the reason why ITV have stopped
encrypting and why the C4 channels are looking also to change.

It also leads to the sort of shenanigans that caused ITVDigital to
collapse (reverse engineering of the ITVDigital encryption system by
an Israeli company controlled by Sky and the subsequent release to the
public domain of the hacked algorithms).

It also leads to the monopolistic manipulation by Sky of all satellite
reception equipment in the UK, the absence of competing equipment, the
lack of desired functionality and the requirement to pay several times
for functions that should be free anyway.

It also leads to the total disaster that is UK sport today.

Without the BBC and the licence fee all UK TV would be like Sky One
and you would have to pay even more for the Sky channels than you do
know.

I can't think of anything worse, except perhaps French or American TV,
from which may God preserve us all.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
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. ;-)

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

This is really money for old rope as far as Sky are concerned. It
doesn't actually cost them anything at all to provide encryption for
C4 and C5, yet they get paid millions for doing so.

It does cost them money to give away set top boxes to millions of
people, though, and C4/C5 benefit from that.

Sky's choice, not C4/C5's.

The BBC and ITV benefit from it too. And they pay through the nose for
EPG places that cost Sky little or nothing to provide either.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
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. ;-)

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

This is irrelevant when it comes to FTV channels. Sky are only
concerned about the security of pay channels. There is no reason why
FTV viewers should have to fork out such an excessive charge just
because Sky want to keep pay channels secure.

If channels are paying for encryption then by definition they are
paying for security. Doesn't matter if they're FTV or pay, they both
want the same thing, and Sky's obligation to both is the same.

No, the FTV channels are paying for a simple method to ensure that
they are not easily viewable outside their allotted area. They don't
give a toss about security. Only pay channels care about this.

Indeed we have seen the FTV channels becoming FTA channels in order to
stop paying for unwanted security.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
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. ;-)