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

Zero Tolerance wrote:

If third-party channels can't get it right, they're the ones to blame.

You cannot prove that the fault lies with third parties. Indeed it
seems much likely that the fault causing lost recordings is in the
Sky+, which as everyone knows has other bugs.

--
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. ;-)

Nigel Barker wrote:

By virtue of charging for the Sky+ service they also have a contractual
obligation to ensure the data is correct so that there are no missed recordings.

I suspect that they have tried to wriggle out of this in the T&Cs.

--
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:

This assumes that these missed recordings are due to fictitious data.
This seems most unlikely, especially as the data is clearly visible in
the EPG.

As I've already said, clearly not all of the data is clearly visible.
There will be substantial "under-the-bonnet" information in addition
to the basic time, title, synopsis stuff which you can see.

(Example: If a programme is in your personal planner and the
broadcaster moves it to another time, your personal planner is
updated. That shows straight away that events must have PDC-style
unique keys.)

That is merely a programme identifier. It is a known part of the EPG
structure (indeed the identifiers have been re-used in the Sky EPG as
those with older recordings will know). Apart from that I see no extra
data.


And if some broadcasters are indeed providing totally incorrect data
then I'm sure that Sky's EPG contract with them allows for Sky to
exert suitable pressure on them to stop doing so.

I'm sure it does, but who's going to be the test case? There's only so
much Sky can do, and they're hardly going to chuck a channel off the
EPG just for being a bunch of nobs who can't add times together, are
they?

That is precisely the sort of thing they could do. If false data was a
real issue then I'm sure that they would have done so already. As they
haven't we can safely assume that false data is not an issue.

--
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. ;-)

Andrew wrote:

If anyone else had any say in either then it could be argued that the
responsibility lies elsewhere. However this is not the case.

You mean all the third party suppliers of programming? Until Rupert
Murdoch takes over the BBC and all the other networks, Sky cannot be
held totally responsible for the EPG contents and scheduling.

You don't understand. None of those others has any say in how the EPG
works at all.

--
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 Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:47:37 +0100, Jomtien wrote:

You don't understand. None of those others has any say in how the EPG
works at all.

What are you smoking? They provide the data that the Sky EPG is based
on.

This "Care in the Community" programme really isn't working, *plonk*.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:51:34 GMT, Nigel Barker wrote:

There must be a point at which inaccurate data becomes unacceptable as it
renders the Sky+ service useless. They can't wriggle out of it in the T&Cs as it
would amount to an Unfair Contract. People are paying Sky for the recording
service so are entitled to the best possible service or a refund.

I don't have Sky, but I would put money on the fact that the contract
does not specify they have to provide "the best possible service".
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:47:37 +0100, Jomtien wrote:

Nigel Barker wrote:

By virtue of charging for the Sky+ service they also have a contractual
obligation to ensure the data is correct so that there are no missed recordings.

I suspect that they have tried to wriggle out of this in the T&Cs.

There must be a point at which inaccurate data becomes unacceptable as it
renders the Sky+ service useless. They can't wriggle out of it in the T&Cs as it
would amount to an Unfair Contract. People are paying Sky for the recording
service so are entitled to the best possible service or a refund.

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
Tumbleweed wrote:

And if some broadcasters are indeed providing totally incorrect data
then I'm sure that Sky's EPG contract with them allows for Sky to
exert suitable pressure on them to stop doing so.

Why, what does that specific section say?

That of course is what we don't know.

How can you be "sure" then?

--
Tumbleweed

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

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:01:50 +0000, Andrew [email protected] wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:51:34 GMT, Nigel Barker wrote:

There must be a point at which inaccurate data becomes unacceptable as it
renders the Sky+ service useless. They can't wriggle out of it in the T&Cs as it
would amount to an Unfair Contract. People are paying Sky for the recording
service so are entitled to the best possible service or a refund.

I don't have Sky, but I would put money on the fact that the contract
does not specify they have to provide "the best possible service".

No but there clearly would be a quality of service that would be unacceptably
poor. Whether it's one missed recording a day, a week or a month would be open
to interpretation by the courts. Unfortunately I don't think there is any
legislation akin to the Sale of Goods Act with regard to the provision of
services.

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:32:01 GMT, Nigel Barker wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:01:50 +0000, Andrew [email protected] wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:51:34 GMT, Nigel Barker wrote:

There must be a point at which inaccurate data becomes unacceptable as it
renders the Sky+ service useless. They can't wriggle out of it in the T&Cs as it
would amount to an Unfair Contract. People are paying Sky for the recording
service so are entitled to the best possible service or a refund.

I don't have Sky, but I would put money on the fact that the contract
does not specify they have to provide "the best possible service".

No but there clearly would be a quality of service that would be unacceptably
poor. Whether it's one missed recording a day, a week or a month would be open
to interpretation by the courts. Unfortunately I don't think there is any
legislation akin to the Sale of Goods Act with regard to the provision of
services.

Sale of Goods and Services Act 1982 ?
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|