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

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:34:02 +0000, Charles Ellson
wrote:

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 ?

Does that mean that the same strictures about "Fit for purpose" & "Merchantable
Quality" etc apply to Services as well as Goods. I guess that it's more
debatable whether a service falls short of the mark.

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

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.

How the EPG works has nothing to do with what it contains.

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

You cannot prove that the fault lies with third parties.

You can't prove that it doesn't. And if the fault is due to poor data,
then there can be no question - the fault lies with the channel who
couldn't get their EPG data right.

Indeed it
seems much likely that the fault causing lost recordings is in the
Sky+, which as everyone knows has other bugs.

Since there are any number of reasons why a recording might fail,
lumping them all together and assuming that it's a bug is not a
particularly satisfactory piece of guesswork.

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

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".

And of course such a deliberately vague description would be illegal
anyway. :-)

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

Now there's a totally oblique response that has nothing at all to do
with the subject.

We are talking about EPG data, not programme content.

Who mentioned programme content? Editorial control doesn't just mean
programmes, you know.

On 28 Feb 2006 01:56:54 GMT, MJ Ray wrote:

ISTR Sky only offer the EPG-only option because they are effectively
forced to do so. Even then, there seems to be lots of odd hoops to
jump. (Everyone remember itv4 launching days before its EPG started?)

That's because ITV couldn't make their mind up in time and lost their
spots to broadcasters who were more prepared.

If EPG-only customers can only send N updates and EPG+encryption
customers can send unlimited, it's another stick to make channels use
the non-CAM encryption and hinder competition.

No, I don't buy it. "EPG only" customers pay more for the service, and
any trace of restrictions or favours to encryption customers would
have been jumped all over by the regulators and those who would scream
"unfair" at the first opportunity.

It's simply not in Sky's interests to broadcast out-of-date EPG data.
OK, I imagine they might have an issue if a channel decided to change
its mind 100 times in one day (ITV again) but even so there could be
no reasonable question of the number of updates being restricted. It's
a computer system. It can do as much work as is needed.

Where did you find that? I've seen promotions jointly with ntl, but
didn't find ownership info.

It was announced when it first launched. British Eurosport is (was)
based in NTL's Langley facilities.

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

That is merely a programme identifier.

Yes, and it's just one example of the behind-the-scenes data which you
repeatedly claim does not exist. So you're wrong. Thanks for playing.

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.

You don't think, for example, that a channel that would have its
income wiped out by being dropped out of the EPG might just be
sufficiently motivated by the threat to change its ways, then?

Plenty of channels have disappeared and reappeared from the EPG in the
past. Who knows why that happened? You don't, so you can't be sure.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:40:07 GMT, Nigel Barker wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:34:02 +0000, Charles Ellson
wrote:

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

Does that mean that the same strictures about "Fit for purpose" & "Merchantable
Quality" etc apply to Services as well as Goods. I guess that it's more
debatable whether a service falls short of the mark.

IMU the intended general effect is the same although a service by its
nature is not something you can plonk down in front of someone to
demonstrate the defects; the main tool of the consumer is probably
record keeping. There should be not a few local authority (and CAB)
websites which go into the subject.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Bob Lucas wrote:
EPG data from the BBC is usually pretty accurate (give
or take a few minutes). Furthermore, the BBC adjusts the EPG
dynamically, as programmes progress, to cater for over-running sports
events and similar problems. Last year's Wimbledon tennis was a case
in point, when one thrilling match over-ran by more than one hour.
Sky+ captured the entire event.

Unfortunately, Sky+ spectacularly failed to record Glastonbury 2005,
which is what was scheduled to be shown at the time. The event was shown
when the tennis finished, but my Sky+ did not record any of it.

Zero Tolerance wrote:

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

How the EPG works has nothing to do with what it contains.

Precisely. And the missed recordings are much more likely to be caused
by an error in the way the EPG works than by an error in the data.

--
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. ;-)