BBC/ITV FreeSat - will this be any different from FreeSatFromSky?

(Zero Tolerance)
Maybe - but what are the chances of that? Why would the BBC and ITV
invest large sums of money in developing a Sky-beater EPG which could
only make it easier for people to watch other people's channels?

The standard EPG doesn't need developing. They could start
broadcasting it today, with the same data as Freeview, but see
below.

[...]
So, like I said, the equipment will probably cost more.

Nah, it could be compatible with sets across the EU, so should
be cheaper - larger equipment market than Sky boxes.

[...]
Of course perhaps if the BBC and ITV could even be bothered to
transmit proper advance EPG data which these boxes would work with,
that would change things. But they haven't done, so far. The BBC have
been FTA for years, why have they done nothing?

I've been told unofficially that the distribution doesn't support
broadcasting the standard EPG because Sky asked for it to be left
out. Personally, I doubt it and I hope it will be proved wrong by
BBC and ITV starting full 7-day EPG broadcasts.

Trying to run a twin-tuner PVR off some half-assed 'now and next'
information is ridiculous. No wonder Sky+ is popular.

Yes, unfair competition does help.

MJ Ray wrote:

Of course perhaps if the BBC and ITV could even be bothered to
transmit proper advance EPG data which these boxes would work with,
that would change things. But they haven't done, so far. The BBC have
been FTA for years, why have they done nothing?

I've been told unofficially that the distribution doesn't support
broadcasting the standard EPG because Sky asked for it to be left
out. Personally, I doubt it and I hope it will be proved wrong by
BBC and ITV starting full 7-day EPG broadcasts.

Distribution ? To and from where ? Please elaborate

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 05:40:50 +0100, Jomtien wrote:

Once vendors, manufacturers and users actually realise that a non-Sky
box can do the job I suspect that they will become much more
available.

Doesn't say much for the administration of this so-called BBC
"Freesat" service if it relies on waiting for companies to "realise"
that something can be done.

And again, why has the BBC not done anything about transmitting proper
European-style EPG data so that people viewing on non-Sky receivers
get a better service?

See above. It is the Sky EPG data that is non-standard and it is made
so by Sky quite deliberately in order to prevent competition.

Rubbish - nothing stops any broadcaster transmitting proper EPG
information in addition to any information that they may supply to
Sky. Why has the BBC not done so?

Could it be because there is no significant market for non-Sky
reception equipment? Or can the BBC just not be bothered? Are they
serious about this 'Freesat' experiment or not?

Hmm. Shame it's so unreliable, even though you have to pay a monthly
fee for it.

That's an interesting comment coming from someone who doesn't have it
and wouldn't pay for it even if they WERE in this country.

Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:43:37 +0000, Dave Fawthrop
wrote:

Price is always part of the advertising mix.

So any product or service that is sold for money is "just an
advertising exercise" then? I see.

And it's spelt "Sky", with an S.

Tell Murdock to change the moneygrubbing policies.

That isn't how you spell Murdoch either.

You should know Mr Murdoch.

Keith wrote:
Zero Tolerance wrote:

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:43:37 +0000, Dave Fawthrop
wrote:


Price is always part of the advertising mix.

So any product or service that is sold for money is "just an
advertising exercise" then? I see.


And it's spelt "Sky", with an S.

Tell Murdock to change the moneygrubbing policies.

That isn't how you spell Murdoch either.


You should know Mr Murdoch.


Don't call him Mr. That implies some civility towards him. Referencing
the rat by his surname is sufficient.

--
Adrian C

You should know Mr Murdoch.
Don't call him Mr. That implies some civility towards him. Referencing the
rat by his surname is sufficient.

Adrian C

Why is it the British custom to deride anybody who is successful at creating
a profitable enterprise?

Malcolm H wrote:
You should know Mr Murdoch.

Don't call him Mr. That implies some civility towards him. Referencing the
rat by his surname is sufficient.

Adrian C

Why is it the British custom to deride anybody who is successful at creating
a profitable enterprise?


It's not only a profitable enterprise - Murdoch's a monopolistic mogal
who concentrates on annilation of the competition, corruption,
restrictive practices, exploitation ... the unhappy list goes on.

Other successfuls certainly deserve praise, but unfortunately the
'British custom' you are refering to is not actually born out of the
British public, but by some purposely slanted critic published by a
Murdoch newspaper or broadcast which then enters the social conscience
and does immense harm to democracy and fairness.

--
Adrian C

Malcolm H wrote:

Why is it the British custom to deride anybody who is successful at creating
a profitable enterprise?

Is it? Are Alan Sugar, Richard Branson or "Call Me Stelios" often
derided?

No, the British custom is to deride the unpleasant of this world and
Murdoch falls neatly into this group.

--
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. ;-)

Zero Tolerance wrote:


And again, why has the BBC not done anything about transmitting proper
European-style EPG data so that people viewing on non-Sky receivers
get a better service?

I suspect that they are working on this.


See above. It is the Sky EPG data that is non-standard and it is made
so by Sky quite deliberately in order to prevent competition.

Rubbish - nothing stops any broadcaster transmitting proper EPG
information in addition to any information that they may supply to
Sky. Why has the BBC not done so?

Why isn't the Sky EPG standard in the first place? There shouldn't
need to be two.


Hmm. Shame it's so unreliable, even though you have to pay a monthly
fee for it.

That's an interesting comment coming from someone who doesn't have it
and wouldn't pay for it even if they WERE in this country.

Actually I do have a Sky+. I don't bother with the recording features
though as I won't pay a monthly fee for this.

Besides which one doesn't have to use one to know that there is a
problem. One only has to read the many comments here and elsewhere
from people complaining that their Sky+ misses recordings, or loses
them. I have also installed many Sky+ units and all of the users of
those complain from time to time about missed recordings.

Personally I have a Tivo which I know is much more reliable and
requires no monthly fee.

--
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. ;-)

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
Zero Tolerance wrote:


And again, why has the BBC not done anything about transmitting proper
European-style EPG data so that people viewing on non-Sky receivers
get a better service?

I suspect that they are working on this.


See above. It is the Sky EPG data that is non-standard and it is made
so by Sky quite deliberately in order to prevent competition.

Rubbish - nothing stops any broadcaster transmitting proper EPG
information in addition to any information that they may supply to
Sky. Why has the BBC not done so?

Why isn't the Sky EPG standard in the first place? There shouldn't
need to be two.


Hmm. Shame it's so unreliable, even though you have to pay a monthly
fee for it.

That's an interesting comment coming from someone who doesn't have it
and wouldn't pay for it even if they WERE in this country.

Actually I do have a Sky+. I don't bother with the recording features
though as I won't pay a monthly fee for this.

Besides which one doesn't have to use one to know that there is a
problem. One only has to read the many comments here and elsewhere
from people complaining that their Sky+ misses recordings, or loses
them. I have also installed many Sky+ units and all of the users of
those complain from time to time about missed recordings.

Personally I have a Tivo which I know is much more reliable and
requires no monthly fee.


..........but according to you really poor quality .
--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com