De-Lurk Plus Why Bother with DTT?

"Malcolm Stewart" wrote:

Are you suggesting that I can get satellite reception of my (Freeview)
channels for a simple one-off equipment and aerial charge ? Whilst there's
a choice, I'm not into paying monthly (or whatever) for a load of channels I
don't want, simply to get the one channel that interests me.

This might not be up to date, so if it isn't, somebody correct me.

The following Freeview channels are not free on satellite and require a
Sky subscription:

The Hits, TMF, Sky Sports News, UK History, UK Bright Ideas, FTN, E4,
More 4, and ABC1.

The following Freeview channels are "FTV" (free to view) rather than
"FTA" (free to air) which means that they can only be received with a
Sky box with a decryption card bought for a one-off fee (although I'm
told that Sky had a similar scheme in the past which actually turned
out to have a limited lifespan):

Channel 4, Five, and Sky 3.

--
Dave Farrance

In article , Dave Farrance
wrote:
"Malcolm Stewart" wrote:

Are you suggesting that I can get satellite reception of my (Freeview)
channels for a simple one-off equipment and aerial charge ? Whilst
there's a choice, I'm not into paying monthly (or whatever) for a load of
channels I don't want, simply to get the one channel that interests me.

This might not be up to date, so if it isn't, somebody correct me.

The following Freeview channels are not free on satellite and require a Sky
subscription:

The Hits, TMF, Sky Sports News, UK History, UK Bright Ideas, FTN, E4, More
4, and ABC1.

The following Freeview channels are "FTV" (free to view) rather than "FTA"
(free to air) which means that they can only be received with a Sky box
with a decryption card bought for a one-off fee (although I'm told that Sky
had a similar scheme in the past which actually turned out to have a
limited lifespan):

Channel 4, Five, and Sky 3.

So without paying the Murdoch tax the satellite offering is severely
restricted compared with DTT. How do the (non-Murdoch) costs compare - eg for
Freeview I needed only pay about 30 GBP for a box? For FTA I'd need box (how
much?) dish (how much?) and dish/cable fitting (how much?).

--
John Cartmell [email protected] followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

Adrian wrote:
JPG wrote:
David wrote:

"Malcolm Stewart" wrote in
message ...



Are you suggesting that I can get satellite reception of my
(Freeview) channels for a simple one-off equipment and aerial
charge ?

£150 one off to Sky for equipment and installation.
http://www.sky.com/skycom/article/0,...178747,00.html

note *no* E4, More 4, Men & Motors etc

Men & Motors is FTA.

Sorry, my mistake - didn't see it in the list first time I looked.

JPG

--
Adrian A

Cardman wrote:
No large solar eruption has ever taken out a large group of
satellites. A few have been lost, but that is more due to a design
issue than anything.

Satellites are reasonably safe as they do not have the grounding
problem, but solar storms can still cause short circuits. In this case
though the motherboard is radiation hardened, has back-up processing,
and where the whole core electronics are well shielded.

They also tend to tilt their satellites into solar and meteor storms
to minimise the impact risk. History has highlighted that these
satellites are going nowhere quickly.

The history of communication satellites is however extremely brief. It
would be unfortunate if it coincided with an unusually benign period of
solar activity!

The "perfect solar storm" of 1859 was powerful enough to disrupt the
cutting edge communications technology of the day - the electric
telegraph. Power surges in telegraph wires caused widespread fires in
both Europe and the United States.

I wonder what effect an event of this magnitude (or worse) would have on
today's communications infrastructure?

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:45:21 GMT, Dave Farrance
wrote:

The following Freeview channels are "FTV" (free to view) rather than
"FTA" (free to air) which means that they can only be received with a
Sky box with a decryption card bought for a one-off fee (although I'm
told that Sky had a similar scheme in the past which actually turned
out to have a limited lifespan):

Channel 4, Five, and Sky 3.

I am starting to wonder if Sky Digital will soon be void of FTV
channels, when most stations would simply prefer to avoid Sky's charge
to use their NDS Videoguard system.

I am even doubting any independent FTV card scheme, when they would
still have to use NDS's (a Sky sub company) Videoguard system, where
NDS would charge them a nice fat fee for doing so. So that sounds to
me more like questionable news just to keep their programme providers
more content. Broadcasting FTA to much of Europe and all that.

Without no Sky Digital FTV stations then there would go the reason why
I created this Free To View (FTV) concept in the first place. As back
before Sky Digital started they were incorrectly calling their planned
FTV stations as FTA, but I guess you people do not know that FTV term
creation history.

Not that this should affect this FTV term I guess, when it achieved
wide-spread general public use a few years ago. Even though that took
quite some work by me, like with pointing out magazine's incorrect
FTA/FTV/Clear term use, and of course support by others.

Even FreeView were once calling themselves "Free To View". They soon
shortened their name when it was pointed out to them that they could
give people the wrong idea in that they were encrypted.

Anyway, don't mind me, when I just like to keep an eye on my baby you
could say.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.org
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 10:53:35 +0000, David wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com... .

What does the team think?

I think little in the quaulity of terrestrial to satellite, but satellite
slightly better picture.

Not sure what you mean

Sky is far superior as regards equipment

How you I get digital audio out with a sky box, how do I record to hard
disc on my PC, my freeview receiver is much better than any Sky box.

What about PVRs, you can only get one with Sky, with the features they
want to offer.

and Programme guides etc.
All boxes work the same way, all remotes are the same,

Is this a good thing? No budget option, no premium option, basically zero
choice.

all are kept upto
date with over the air upgrades.
Wish I could say the same for the BBCs Freeview.

It conforms to the standards and it is up to the box makers to provide a
product, compete on features/price/service.

Just like with MS Windows, you can only do with your box what MS wants to
allow to do.

Should all TVs have the same remotes/menus, what about washing machines,
phones, cars?

In message , Cardman
writes
I am starting to wonder if Sky Digital will soon be void of FTV
channels, when most stations would simply prefer to avoid Sky's charge
to use their NDS Videoguard system.

I am even doubting any independent FTV card scheme, when they would
still have to use NDS's (a Sky sub company) Videoguard system, where
NDS would charge them a nice fat fee for doing so. So that sounds to
me more like questionable news just to keep their programme providers
more content. Broadcasting FTA to much of Europe and all that.

Snip

Anyway, don't mind me, when I just like to keep an eye on my baby you
could say.

And again in English, please?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TQ - The Voice Of insanity

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 30 Jan 2006 02:21:40 -0800, wrote:

Hi All,

Have been dipping into the group for some time, to see what is avail
etc for Digical TV reception.

Having had a look at friends DTT and SKY installs and read a little on
here, I have to say i'm not sure why the guvermint is spending oodles
of our dosh in building a DTT network.

Bill sugested some time back that it would be better to give people in
remote areas a FTA or FTV satalite system rather than build expensive
repeater systems.

Having seen the superior (at least on the night I watched) quality of
satalite, i'm inclined to say it would have been better (and probably
cheaper) to have encouraged everyone onto this platform and thus
released more of the old analogue spectrum for selling off for more
appropriate use.

What does the team think?

They probably wanted the cheapest option for the public, as they are
going to to forced into it.

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:38:21 +0000, Tony Quinn
wrote:

In message , Cardman
writes
Anyway, don't mind me, when I just like to keep an eye on my baby you
could say.

And again in English, please?

I thought that I was clear enough already.

Back in 1998, and before the days of Sky Digital, there was no FTV
term only FTA. Due to these BBC and ITV channels being non-
subscription and encrypted, not to forget Sky totally messing up and
calling them FTA channels, then so did I see the need for a new term
to cover this encrypted yet free format.

So on the 2nd of September 1998 I created the FTV concept by defining
what FTV meant, with a few recommendations from other people I should
mention. You could say that I saw the original problem, the need for a
new term, and then got busy assembling the exact definition with the
advice of others.

To begin with only a few people used this term, when FTV unlike FTA
was not part of the DVB concept, which meant quite some work was
needed to get this non-international standard term to be fully
accepted by all. Since many people had not heard of it during the
first couple of years, then they had to be informed, where those
fellow satellite people already using it often helped out here.

And even when they heard of the FTV term, then people could often get
FTA and FTV mixed up. And so I used to get in contact with quite a few
organizations, including magazines, to point out the difference
between FTA, FTV and encrypted.

As you can see the simple matter of time and general support for this
FTV concept now means that everyone is using it. Mission successful.

Since everything has to come from somewhere, then now you have a rough
idea how this FTV concept came about. I guess if I never done that
back in 1998, then you would be calling them soft encrypted now, when
that was the closest analogue comparison.

As mentioned this FTV term was not agreed through an international
standards organization (unlike FTA), when I guess they overlooked this
"encrypted yet free" possibility, or simply did not care, which is why
it only lives though public support.

And this explains why I am interested to the changes in these Sky
Digital FTV channels, when having no FTV channels in the UK could pose
a small cultural threat to Free To View.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.org
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:46:40 +0000, Richard Cole wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:37:40 +0000, steve wrote:
delurk
How you I get digital audio out with a sky box,
Err.. Plug the audio out into your hifi?

**Digital** audio out, not analogue.


how do I record to hard
disc on my PC, my freeview receiver is much better than any Sky box.
Easy.. Move the aerial from the DVB-T USB connector to the Analogue PCI
card, tune that to the appropriate channel and record.

Not very integrated is it, plus I'd like to record the off air mpeg.


What about PVRs, you can only get one with Sky, with the features they
want to offer.
Get a DVD-RW/ROM drive and feed it from the primary (or secondary) aerial
output of the Sky box

Not very integrated is it, plus I'd like to record the off air mpeg.


Sorry, it was stated "Sky is far superior as regards equipment", all these
solutions require a separate box and transcoding of audio and video, in
anyones book that is technically inferior.

I run mythtv, it can record multiple channels, serve recording and live TV
to multiple client boxes, will auto-commercial skip, will play or rip
DVDs, my music offer web-browsing and with optional plugins, burn DVDs
with menus. I can control what it records from a web page. I can do this
now because others have decided they would like that functionality and
delivered it.

In your world, you only get what News Corporation wants you to have, the
recording capacity NC wants etc.

Should all TVs have the same remotes/menus, what about washing machines,
phones, cars?
Yes please, especially with menus

You snipped quite a lot, such as

"Is this a good thing? No budget option, no premium option, basically zero
choice."

and after all, all cars do have the same
basic controls, in the same places, Steering wheel, gear-lever, handbrake,
throttle, brake and clutch pedals. There is some variation with indicators
and wipers depending if you bought Japanese.

So do the different boxes, on/off up/down vol+/-. You like Sky because it
is simple and you cannot deal with learning a new remote every few years,
for the rest that can managed that feat, we'd like the choice of options
thanks.

How do you deal with other things in life, not all buses are the same,
trains, other peoples houses - do you pee in peoples cloakrooms perhaps
because they are not in the same place as yours?