Discovery Channel will be on Sky High-Definition!

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
It has been suggested that the contracts between Sky and C4/C5
actually oblige them to use the encryption. Unfortunately we are
unlikely to ever have any proof either way.

If they did not encrypt it would cost much more to screen films because they
would be watched all over Europe.
That is the reason they encrypt.

http://www.burnyourbonus.co.uk/

In article ,
Jomtien wrote:
It has been suggested that the contracts between Sky and C4/C5
actually oblige them to use the encryption. Unfortunately we are
unlikely to ever have any proof either way.

The only real evidence we had was the on-again/off-again statements about
More4 being FTA. In the end, Channel 4 blamed Sky, so no wonder we lept to
the conclusion that Channel 4's contract with Sky *requires* Sky to be given
first-pick of channels to join their packages.

Not Sky's fault - they're a business doing their best for their shareholders
- Channel 4's fault. Did they not read the contract? Did they read it but
decide it didn't matter?

Dave
--
Email: MSN Messenger:

"Phil" wrote in message
...

It has been suggested that the contracts between Sky and C4/C5
actually oblige them to use the encryption. Unfortunately we are
unlikely to ever have any proof either way.

If they did not encrypt it would cost much more to screen films because
they would be watched all over Europe.
That is the reason they encrypt.

And BBC and ITV broadcast without encryption because?

I thought the satellite footprint was now tighter so less problem

Loz

loz wrote:
"Phil" wrote in message
...

It has been suggested that the contracts between Sky and C4/C5
actually oblige them to use the encryption. Unfortunately we are
unlikely to ever have any proof either way.

If they did not encrypt it would cost much more to screen films
because they would be watched all over Europe.
That is the reason they encrypt.

And BBC and ITV broadcast without encryption because?

I thought the satellite footprint was now tighter so less problem

Loz

BBC and ITV transmit from Astra 1D, as you say, a tighter footprint. The
other channels transmit from satellites with a footprint covering more of
europe, this _may_ be part of the reason they stay encrypted.
--
Adrian A

In uk.tech.tv.sky loz wrote:

: And BBC and ITV broadcast without encryption because?

The BBC are thought to have to pay significantly more for many of their
programmes since going FTA. They also pay Sky significant sums for the
EPG (regulated) and for the "postcode mapping" of 101 and 102 by area/country
(a Sky facility).
Whether going FTA has actually saved them money only they know!

: I thought the satellite footprint was now tighter so less problem

It might help but people who want to watch BBC have just bought larger
dishes where possible!

Phil wrote:

It has been suggested that the contracts between Sky and C4/C5
actually oblige them to use the encryption. Unfortunately we are
unlikely to ever have any proof either way.

If they did not encrypt it would cost much more to screen films because they
would be watched all over Europe.
That is the reason they encrypt.

Really? The BBC and ITV apparently don't find that a problem.

--
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. ;-)

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 08:32:06 +0100, Jomtien wrote:

If they did not encrypt it would cost much more to screen films because they
would be watched all over Europe.
That is the reason they encrypt.

Really? The BBC and ITV apparently don't find that a problem.

That's why they show fewer, and older, films now.

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
Phil wrote:

It has been suggested that the contracts between Sky and C4/C5
actually oblige them to use the encryption. Unfortunately we are
unlikely to ever have any proof either way.

If they did not encrypt it would cost much more to screen films because
they
would be watched all over Europe.
That is the reason they encrypt.

Really? The BBC and ITV apparently don't find that a problem.

because as another poster pointed out when I also asked by BBC and ITV are
FTA, both those channels have a different footprint to C4
http://www.uk-satellite-tv.co.uk/foo...on_103674.html

Loz

Zero Tolerance wrote:

If they did not encrypt it would cost much more to screen films because they
would be watched all over Europe.
That is the reason they encrypt.

Really? The BBC and ITV apparently don't find that a problem.

That's why they show fewer, and older, films now.

Can't say that I have noticed that.

--
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. ;-)

loz wrote:

If they did not encrypt it would cost much more to screen films because
they
would be watched all over Europe.
That is the reason they encrypt.

Really? The BBC and ITV apparently don't find that a problem.

because as another poster pointed out when I also asked by BBC and ITV are
FTA, both those channels have a different footprint to C4

And what would stop C4 and C5 moving to 2D if they wished to go FTA?

--
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. ;-)