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

"Bob Lucas"
[...] it would be
unreasonable to blame Sky for the resulting inconvenience to viewers,
if the EPG accurately reflects information provided by the
broadcasters. Complaints about inaccurate EPG data should be
addressed in the first instance to the broadcaster.

Firstly, it's probably Sky's use of proprietary technology instead of
the standard DVB-SI Event Information Tables which makes it cheaper
(or maybe even mandatory) to let Sky generate the EPG, although I'd
need to see some confidential contracts to verify that.

Secondly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of Sky's EPG-only
customers like BBC were limited in the number of EPG updates/encoding
requests they are allowed to send. Again, that's probably in contracts
that aren't public.

If you want an instance of truly appalling EPG data, tune to Eurosport
and Eurosport 2. Eurosport EPG data is wrong, more often than it is
correct. [...]

Some of the Eurosport variations have a "programme changes" page on
teletext and used to broadcast almost-correct EPG. The one carried on
ZDFmedia did, until it was booted off after the German elections. That
information seems to be missing from British Eurosport. Is British
Eurosport a Sky joint venture (= Sky are partly responsible for
this one!) or do TF1 own the lot now?

--
MJR/slef
Sat FAQ: http://mjr.towers.org.uk/comp/astefaq.txt

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
Zero Tolerance wrote:

No broadcaster has any choice about how the EPG works, how it was
designed or how it is broadcast; ergo Sky are entirely responsible.

How it works and what it contains are two different things.

If a channel submits entirely fictitious EPG information to Sky, there
is no way for them to know. Sky's responsibility is to make the
information from that channel available to its viewers. If the channel
is so clueless that they can't even get their EPG data right, then
that is the channel's responsibility, not Sky's.

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.

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?

--
Tumbleweed

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

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:36:57 GMT, 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'm fairly sure that they would only have a contractural obligation if
such an obligation were actually in the contract. Which it isn't.

If third-party channels can't get it right, they're the ones to blame.
Who better than them? Putting the blame on Sky just highlights how
some people will go to any lengths to blame them for everything.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:04:16 +0100, Jomtien wrote:

No, my argument is that Sky are the editor and, as such, are
responsible.

Sky does not have editorial control over third party channels.
You would be the first to moan if they had.

On 27 Feb 2006 09:44:46 GMT, MJ Ray wrote:

Firstly, it's probably Sky's use of proprietary technology instead of
the standard DVB-SI Event Information Tables which makes it cheaper
(or maybe even mandatory) to let Sky generate the EPG, although I'd
need to see some confidential contracts to verify that.

Sky merely pass on the data supplied by the channels themselves. If
there are any obvious errors then I'm sure they're flagged back to the
channels, but none of that changes the fact that what comes out is
what is put in by the channels.

Secondly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of Sky's EPG-only
customers like BBC were limited in the number of EPG updates/encoding
requests they are allowed to send. Again, that's probably in contracts
that aren't public.

I'd be very surprised if that were the case, given that such systems
are all electronic. Such a clause would merely guarantee that data was
out-of-date, and that's in nobody's interests.

Some of the Eurosport variations have a "programme changes" page on
teletext and used to broadcast almost-correct EPG. The one carried on
ZDFmedia did, until it was booted off after the German elections. That
information seems to be missing from British Eurosport. Is British
Eurosport a Sky joint venture (= Sky are partly responsible for
this one!) or do TF1 own the lot now?

British Eurosport is a joint venture with the cable company NTL, those
noted sticklers for accuracy.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:04:16 +0100, Jomtien 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.)

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?

(Zero Tolerance)
On 27 Feb 2006 09:44:46 GMT, MJ Ray wrote:
Secondly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of Sky's EPG-only
customers like BBC were limited in the number of EPG updates/encoding
requests they are allowed to send. Again, that's probably in contracts
that aren't public.

I'd be very surprised if that were the case, given that such systems
are all electronic. Such a clause would merely guarantee that data was
out-of-date, and that's in nobody's interests.

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?)
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.

[...]
British Eurosport is a joint venture with the cable company NTL, those
noted sticklers for accuracy.

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

Thanks,
--
MJR/slef
Sat FAQ: http://mjr.towers.org.uk/comp/astefaq.txt

"MJ Ray" wrote in message
reenews.net...
(Zero Tolerance)
On 27 Feb 2006 09:44:46 GMT, MJ Ray wrote:
Secondly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of Sky's EPG-only
customers like BBC were limited in the number of EPG updates/encoding
requests they are allowed to send. Again, that's probably in contracts
that aren't public.

I'd be very surprised if that were the case, given that such systems
are all electronic. Such a clause would merely guarantee that data was
out-of-date, and that's in nobody's interests.

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?)
If EPG-only customers can only send N updates and EPG+encryption

if if if if ...... no one here knows, all that is pure speculation.

--
Tumbleweed

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

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. However Sky are usually as good
at protecting themselves in contracts as they are at making them
vague.

--
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, my argument is that Sky are the editor and, as such, are
responsible.

Sky does not have editorial control over third party channels.
You would be the first to moan if they had.

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.

--
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. ;-)