Plans for Sky's unused spectrum at 28.2 East?
 

Gaz wrote:

Yes very wicked of him.. but a private monopoly is a bit worse than a
state one dontcha tink?..

Only if that monopoly is granted through license.

Or through cross subsidies.

The goal of capitalism is a working market for efficiency, not 'let the
biggest gobble everything up'. The rules for the first also make the
second possible, but the second is not desirable.


Thomas

Plans for Sky's unused spectrum at 28.2 East?
 

Jerry wrote:

that's discovery's business - if they wish they can make their
service
available via other means.


No they can't (easily), not unless the EPG and delivery etc. is
removed from BSkyB's control, even the BBC has to pay to have their
FTA channels listed on the EPG.

I think they can. They have to pay for their inclusion of the EPG but
could as well add another EPG to the bit stream.

Now, adding other encryption keys to that bit stream may be something
that Sky doesn't want. But it can be done: one channel can support
multiple encrytion systems at the same time (but whether SKY's system
allows that... well they can just say 'NO' obviously. Again a negative
point of the proprietary system).


Thomas

Plans for Sky's unused spectrum at 28.2 East?
 

David wrote:

I do have a normal free to air satellite reciever but I'm afraid Joe Public
would find it hard to use. The Sky is easy with its EPG system and stations
in a set order, and programme info. etc.
With my fta box it would be hard work for Joe P to find the station he was
after. Also with some station the w/s switching is not automatic and you
have to manually alter the TV's ratio.
What really is needed is a 'Sky' type box being made for use on fta and sold
in shops, all makers being able to produce it. But as the Government the
will to loosen Skys grip on the control of specs and makers.

For FTA, any moroccan or turkish sat shop here will give support and set
the channels for you. Some FTA boxes can copy everything from box to box
even.

More of a hassle, but installing a dish isn't simple either.


Thomas

Plans for Sky's unused spectrum at 28.2 East?
 

On 30 Nov 2006 10:16:54 GMT, Paul Martin wrote:

|In article ,
| JF wrote:
| In message ews.net,
| Jerry writes
|
|Now, perhaps you would like to tell us all how we can subscribe to
|(for example) one of the Discovery channels in the UK without having
|first to subscribe to Sky and one of it's 'packages'?...
|
|[snip]
| No one holds a gun to a programme owner's head and dictates to whom they
| should sell their product's territorial rights. This is normal trading
| practice which predates and transcends all this satellite TV nonsense.
|
|Nice bit of waffle, but you didn't answer the question.
|
|What the original poster was asking was, "Why do I have to buy a bundle
|of channels when the single channel I'm interested in is not sold on
|its own, but is bundled with many others that I'm not interested in?
|Why should I be subsidising the channels I don't want to watch?"

De facto Monopoly.
All monopolys are bad, not only $ky.

--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

Plans for Sky's unused spectrum at 28.2 East?
 

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 04:41:49 +0000, JF wrote:

Of course! I'm a truly dreadful person! Never tried to deny it. But it's
strange that an appalling stomper likes me rarely ever resorts to using
personal insults because they're a weak debating tool usually
employed to underpin a weak argument ...

I didn't expect you to jump into the trap quite so enthusiastically! You
use personal insults all the time, as any reader here can attest, so I
gave you a small taste of what you'd been dishing out to others. And yes,
your insults *do* reflect the strengths of your arguments.

Plans for Sky's unused spectrum at 28.2 East?
 

JF writes:

It's a rule that territorial rights sales to publishers generally
can't be duplicated by selling the same rights at the same time to
other publishers.

It is the same with books. Yet suppose, for example, that your UK
publisher were to only print your novels in anthologies together with
stories by other authors whom I did not want to read[1]. Also that
your publisher in Eire prints them as individual novels. I would be
perfectly within my rights to either travel to Eire, purchase the book
and bring it back to the UK, or have a friend in Eire buy it there and
post it to me. Similarly with (mainly US technical) magazines. Certain
foreign magazines have a UK distributor who supplies them to (certain)
newsagents shops. Yet I am perfectly at liberty to (and do) subscribe
directly with the foreign publisher and have them sent to me by mail
(often in bulk to the Netherlands or Germany and individually shipped
from there). Again, with CDs and DVDs (though the media companies do
not necessarily like it) it is possible to purchase them from another
country whether or not they are available from the 'official'
distributor/publisher covering your territory.

All these other copyrighted materials are subject to territorially
licensed distribution, yet it is possible for the consumer to legally
obtain them from other territories. So why should TV be the odd one
out and prohibit the consumer from accessing programmes being
broadcast from another territory?

[1] Which for the benefit of pedants, I know is not actually the
case.

Plans for Sky's unused spectrum at 28.2 East?
 

"JohnT" wrote in message
...

"JF" wrote in message
...

Sorry -- can't stop. The muddled thinking that pervades this newsgroup
like November mist on a Sussex down dictates that commercial reality is
too hideous a spectre to accept, and that that messengers shall be shot
at.

May we please have those pearls of wisdom translated into English?

He means you're all talking ****e.

Bill

Plans for Sky's unused spectrum at 28.2 East?
 

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:18:39 +0000, JF wrote:

In message , Sandman
writes

You use personal insults all the time,

Patently untrue.

Dunno what you expect to gain by lying that blatantly, Mr Follett.

Plans for Sky's unused spectrum at 28.2 East?
 

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:07:08 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:


"JohnT" wrote in message
...

"JF" wrote in message
...

Sorry -- can't stop. The muddled thinking that pervades this newsgroup
like November mist on a Sussex down dictates that commercial reality is
too hideous a spectre to accept, and that that messengers shall be shot
at.

May we please have those pearls of wisdom translated into English?

He means you're all talking ****e.

Bill, you might like him for his reactionary politics, but you're doing
yourself no favours by siding with somebody so lacking in integrity. He
just abuses people that he has no answer for - heck, see what you've
quoted of his above - and he'll even deny that he does it in the very
next post.

Plans for Sky's unused spectrum at 28.2 East?
 

Zak wrote:
Jerry wrote:
No they can't (easily), not unless the EPG and delivery etc. is
removed from BSkyB's control, even the BBC has to pay to have their
FTA channels listed on the EPG.

I think they can. They have to pay for their inclusion of the EPG but
could as well add another EPG to the bit stream.

Huh? I thought Sky's EPG encoding used the DVB-SI stream in a manner
incompatible with Event Information Tables (the standard EPG) - that is,
Sky-coding prevents adding another EPG to the bitstream. BBC told me that
they can't add the standard EPG to satellite. Is that incorrect?

Regards,
--
MJR/slef
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/