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

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 09:30:52 +0100, Jomtien wrote:

And paying less isn't a favour, I suppose? I wonder what it is then?

It's a discount, since they would be paying for other services at the
same time.

Sky clearly favour encrypted channels above FTA ones, and pay channels
above FTV ones.

Except that they are not allowed to - so clearly they could not do so.

On 01 Mar 2006 09:04:08 GMT, MJ Ray wrote:

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.

Don't you remember when real-time MP3 encoding was beyond most PCs?

I don't see what that has to do with it.

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 09:30:52 +0100, Jomtien wrote:

No, it is *the* example of extra data transmitted with the other EPG
data, and none of it has any effect on the rest of data, nor does it
replace or contradict the other data. It just isn't displayed in the
EPG. It wouldn't mean anything to anyone if it was.

So we are in fact in agreement that - contrary to your earlier claims
- there ARE elements of EPG data which are not visible, and so
therefore your claims that "if it looks right, it must be right" are
unsustainable.

So why aren't they doing it to the BBC who, according to you, are
directly responsible for many missed Sky+ recordings and who transmit
much false data?

Who knows what discussions take place behind closed doors? The BBC
know how Sky+ works, if they can't be bothered to get the data right
then the fault is with them. And we know that they CAN do it when they
can be bothered, and often get it very right indeed.

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 12:02:19 GMT, (Zero
Tolerance) wrote:

On 01 Mar 2006 09:04:08 GMT, MJ Ray wrote:

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.

Don't you remember when real-time MP3 encoding was beyond most PCs?

I don't see what that has to do with it.

But then you are just a troll who likes to disagree with everyone.

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 12:55:44 +0000, Bob Sherunkle
wrote:

Don't you remember when real-time MP3 encoding was beyond most PCs?

I don't see what that has to do with it.

But then you are just a troll who likes to disagree with everyone.

I'm sorry, and you are... ?

For the record, I only disagree with people who are wrong. :-)

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 19:24:12 GMT, (Zero
Tolerance) opined:

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 12:55:44 +0000, Bob Sherunkle
wrote:

Don't you remember when real-time MP3 encoding was beyond most PCs?

I don't see what that has to do with it.

But then you are just a troll who likes to disagree with everyone.

I'm sorry, and you are... ?


I am just someone who has been following this thread since it started,
and have formed my opinion accordingly.


For the record, I only disagree with people who are wrong. :-)

Clearly you disagree with those who have a different opinion to
yourself, which is entirely different.

--

Zero Tolerance wrote:

It is also clear that Sky don't make any effort when it comes to new
FTA channels which are apparently always at the bottom of the waiting
list.

It is clear that this cannot possibly be true, given the ease with
which FTA channels have been launching recently.

It is clear that previously some channels have been made to wait
months for a slot when there was no apparent shortage (ie plenty of
gaps in the EPG).

Perhaps things are improving but either way I suspect that FTA
channels remain resolutely at the bottom of the waiting list. If the
list is short enough they shouldn't notice the difference too much.

--
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:

And paying less isn't a favour, I suppose? I wonder what it is then?

It's a discount, since they would be paying for other services at the
same time.

And that is indeed a favour.


Sky clearly favour encrypted channels above FTA ones, and pay channels
above FTV ones.

Except that they are not allowed to - so clearly they could not do so.

What nonsense.

--
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:

For the record, I only disagree with people who are wrong. :-)

You must have some enthralling conversations with yourself. I'm
surprised you have time to watch TV.

--
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:

No, it is *the* example of extra data transmitted with the other EPG
data, and none of it has any effect on the rest of data, nor does it
replace or contradict the other data. It just isn't displayed in the
EPG. It wouldn't mean anything to anyone if it was.

So we are in fact in agreement that - contrary to your earlier claims
- there ARE elements of EPG data which are not visible, and so
therefore your claims that "if it looks right, it must be right" are
unsustainable.

Not at all. Most of the data is visible, and that includes the
important part (time, channel). Some extra data that doesn't alter or
contradict the visible part is not visible.


So why aren't they doing it to the BBC who, according to you, are
directly responsible for many missed Sky+ recordings and who transmit
much false data?

Who knows what discussions take place behind closed doors? The BBC
know how Sky+ works, if they can't be bothered to get the data right
then the fault is with them. And we know that they CAN do it when they
can be bothered, and often get it very right indeed.

And who knows if Murdoch doesn't meet secretly with Blair on Hampstead
Heath when the moon is full?

"Who knows" is neither here nor there.

--
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. ;-)