So why have sky cut off the major European dealers?
 

I know sky should not be used in Europe but let’s face it there are
close to 800 000 paying subscribers outside of the uk, without this
all the uk subscribers would be paying more every month.

So what has changed now?

Sky seem to have kicked all the asa’s that were previously supplying
cards and have switched off thousands of cards.

Anyone know what the deal is?

Is there anyone around who are now supplying cards at a reasonable
price

So why have sky cut off the major European dealers?
 

wrote:
I know sky should not be used in Europe but let’s face it there are
close to 800 000 paying subscribers outside of the uk, without this
all the uk subscribers would be paying more every month.

So what has changed now?

I expect it's because of the outcome of this court case:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7155939.stm

As Sky took the landlady to court over her using a Greek satellite supplier to
receive English football, Sky can hardly look clean in any reverse situation.

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

So why have sky cut off the major European dealers?
 

In uk.media.tv.sky on Thu, 27 Dec 2007, wrote :

I know sky should not be used in Europe but let’s face it there are
close to 800 000 paying subscribers outside of the uk, without this
all the uk subscribers would be paying more every month.

So what has changed now?

Sky seem to have kicked all the asa’s that were previously supplying
cards and have switched off thousands of cards.

If they've arbitrarily cut off a service paid for between customers & a
third party, ISTM they should be financially liable for the remainder of
the service, assuming it was paid for up-front.
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

So why have sky cut off the major European dealers?
 

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
wrote:
I know sky should not be used in Europe but let’s face it there are
close to 800 000 paying subscribers outside of the uk, without this
all the uk subscribers would be paying more every month.

So what has changed now?

I expect it's because of the outcome of this court case:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7155939.stm

As Sky took the landlady to court over her using a Greek satellite
supplier to receive English football, Sky can hardly look clean in any
reverse situation.

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

So whose rights are being infringed? SKY can't control who the Premier
League sell broadcast rights too. I don't think it's right that the Pub
should be prosecuted for using equipment legally available. It should be the
suppliers of the equipment, and the foreign channels, which should have been
persued by SKY. Or indeed sue the Premier League for selling the rights to
foreign companies and not monitoring if they are compliant with their
limited broadcast rights at the expense of SKY. But SKY doesn't want to ****
off the Premier League, whose match's are it's biggest earner.

So why have sky cut off the major European dealers?
 

The lady is right. In EU the free movement of persons, services and
capital is the basic most fundamental principle and law.

Until UK is in EU she does not have to worry, she will win this issue
at last!

So why have sky cut off the major European dealers?
 

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:50:21 -0000, "John Russell"
wrote:

I don't think it's right that the Pub
should be prosecuted for using equipment legally available.

The equipment is legally available but that doesn't mean the pub has
the rights for "public exhibition" to a paying audience. Same as you
can't go and buy a video down Woolworths and screen in a pub either.
--

So why have sky cut off the major European dealers?
 

"Paul Hyett" wrote in message
...
In uk.media.tv.sky on Thu, 27 Dec 2007, wrote :

I know sky should not be used in Europe but let's face it there are
close to 800 000 paying subscribers outside of the uk, without this
all the uk subscribers would be paying more every month.

So what has changed now?

Sky seem to have kicked all the asa's that were previously supplying
cards and have switched off thousands of cards.

If they've arbitrarily cut off a service paid for between customers & a
third party, ISTM they should be financially liable for the remainder of
the service, assuming it was paid for up-front.




since when did sky offer the option to pay up front?
it's up to the third party to refund - not sky.

--
Gareth.

That fly... is your magic wand.
http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/

So why have sky cut off the major European dealers?
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:50:21 -0000, "John Russell"
wrote:

I don't think it's right that the Pub
should be prosecuted for using equipment legally available.

The equipment is legally available but that doesn't mean the pub has
the rights for "public exhibition" to a paying audience. Same as you
can't go and buy a video down Woolworths and screen in a pub either.

No, although AIUI she had purchased a 'public performance' subscription from
the Greek broadcaster. This cost 800 quid, as opposed to 'thousands' for the
same service via BSkyB. Good for her I say, for being savvy enough to get a
better deal, and contest it in the courts. I hope she wins.

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

So why have sky cut off the major European dealers?
 

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:50:21 -0000, "John Russell"
wrote:

I don't think it's right that the Pub should be prosecuted for using
equipment legally available.

The equipment is legally available but that doesn't mean the pub has
the rights for "public exhibition" to a paying audience. Same as you
can't go and buy a video down Woolworths and screen in a pub either.

No, although AIUI she had purchased a 'public performance' subscription
from the Greek broadcaster. This cost 800 quid, as opposed to 'thousands'
for the same service via BSkyB. Good for her I say, for being savvy enough
to get a better deal, and contest it in the courts. I hope she wins.

I don't think the law should be allowed to invert braodcast rights. That is
SKY have bought the rights to "broadcast" to the UK. That doesn't mean that
someone can breach those rights by "receiving" broadcasts from other
sources. SKY should be told to prosecute those in breach of "their"
broadcast rights, that is another broadcaster.

So why have sky cut off the major European dealers?
 

On dec. 28, 18:30, "John Russell" wrote:
"Mark Carver" wrote in message

...

Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:50:21 -0000, "John Russell"
wrote:

I don't think it's right that the Pub should be prosecuted for using
equipment legally available.

The equipment is legally available but that doesn't mean the pub has
the rights for "public exhibition" to a paying audience. Same as you
can't go and buy a video down Woolworths and screen in a pub either.

No, although AIUI she had purchased a 'public performance' subscription
from the Greek broadcaster. This cost 800 quid, as opposed to 'thousands'
for the same service via BSkyB. Good for her I say, for being savvy enough
to get a better deal, and contest it in the courts. I hope she wins.

I don't think the law should be allowed to invert braodcast rights. That is
SKY have bought the rights to "broadcast" to the UK. That doesn't mean that
someone can breach those rights by "receiving" broadcasts from other
sources. SKY should be told to prosecute those in breach of "their"
broadcast rights, that is another broadcaster.

That has nothing to do with this. if an enrepreneur can buy this
service in Europe cheaper that has nothing to do what contract SKY, a
private company made.

trully it is a question do the freedom of services apply to broadcast
rights? In the aspect of the broadcaster it does not (meaning SKY has
no right to sell viewing of this program outside UK) but in the aspect
of the individual person or entrepreneur this does not apply as the
pub is hers and she is an individual company who has no contract with
SKY.