Plans for Sky's unused spectrum at 28.2 East?

"the dog from that film you saw"
wrote in message
...

"Jerry" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Bob Lucas" wrote in message
...

snip

Consequently, there is nothing to prevent a viewer in the UK
from
using a different type of digital receiver (i.e. non-Sky
equipment)
to view any channel that is genuinely Free to Air (i.e. not
encrypted).


I think you are missing the point, at least from were I'm
standing
(!), if I want to pay to watch for example the encrypted
Discovery
channels I should not be required to a/. have a BskyB neuted box
and
b/. have a minimum service from Sky before I can subscribe.





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.

"JF" wrote in message
...
In message , Bob Lucas
writes

Consequently, there is nothing to prevent a viewer in the UK from
using a different type of digital receiver (i.e. non-Sky
equipment)
to view any channel that is genuinely Free to Air (i.e. not
encrypted).

BSkyB's soft encryption meets the requirments of copyright owners
when
granting territorial rights.


No, it meets BSkyB's requirements, both the BBC and ITV have got
around the problems. BSkyB could have used one of the other
encryption methods and meet the requirements of copyright owners.

"JF" wrote in message
...
Copyright residual distribution rights have always been sold on
language/territory.

"Have always" is no reason for "Should always"

Bill

"JF" wrote in message
...
snip

The so-called 'Television without Frontiers' was dreamed up by a
bunch
of limp-wristed, pink and fluffy, mincing wankstains who were
strong on
the idea of hanging a bell around pussy's neck but couldn't be
bothered
to take time off from buggering each other to think up a way of
doing
it. The Berne Convention is the result of agreement between most
countries of the world. The opinions of a group of piddling little
corrupt countries in Europe are of no consequence in the great
scheme of
thing.


I think that little rant says all there is to be said about the worth
of your contributions and knowledge.

"JF" wrote in message
...

snip
Please
read what I actually wrote rather than what you thought I wrote.

That is rich coming from you...

JF wrote:

Actually I didn't mention the Beeb. I said that the licences were
probably in the hands of BT. It was not a categoric statement therefore
there was nothing 'wrong' about it.

BT are not a regulatory body. Radio transmission licences in the UK are
in the domain of Ofcom and the DTI AIUI.

Oh dear. I didn't say that BT were a regulatory body! I was talking
about holders of licenses, not the muppets who write the regs. Please
read what I actually wrote rather than what you thought I wrote.

Yes, and I explained to you that BT don't appear to uplink any major (if any
?) channels directly to the Astra or EuroBrid satellites at 28.2E.

In fact I could be really pedantic and point out that a couple of weeks ago
Arqiva bought BT's broadcast satellite business, but I'm sure such a well
read chap such as you knew that already ?

http://www.arqiva.com/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.883


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

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:19:26 +0000, JF wrote:

It's absolutely true. Yes, I admit to being a great big, nasty man who's
saying unpalatable truths that pink and fluffies can't stomach.

The main trouble (even though I agree with the point that you'd been
making) is that you're a snide egocentric blowhard. I suspect that you're
trying to project light humour but it comes across as truly repellent
narcissism.

"JF" wrote in message
...
snip


The Berne will be around long after everyone on this planet is
dust. We
might as well get used to.


It might well be around, that doesn't mean that it will never need
modifying.

On 28 Nov 2006 23:25:47 GMT, Paul Martin wrote:

What's the Berne Convention got to do with the permission given by the
copyright holder to broadcast a work? Under copyright, no broadcast is
possible without the permission of the copyright holder.

Territorial licencing of material is already becoming archaic when
the broadcasts don't respect national borders.

Copyright itself is a compromise between private profit and public
good.

We might have to change our understanding of the meaning of
"copyright", since technology has effectively changed the meaning of
"copy". I don't expect it will change quickly because nothing legal
ever does - a few decades probably.

Copyright means some people being paid over and over again for the
same work, while others are only paid once. It's never going to please
everybody.

Rod.

Mark Carver wrote:
But Sky have made 28.2 their 'de facto' orbital position. Apart from a
few Czech channels on Eurobird, everything else is UK 'Sky Platform'.

I would be interested in czeh channels. But I cannot find a single one
on 28.2 east?

--
Tor Pedo