New Combined DAB/Satellite Receiver
Steve
new DAB/DSat combined receiver made by Freesat, see here:
http://www.freesatkorea.com/product/freesky_1000Combo.html
This seems to be the ideal product for many people oh here. Unfortunately
after doing a Google search for more information I couldn't find when this
product will be available or the price. If anyone can find more information
about this product could they reply to this.
TIA
--
Steve
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk -- Subscribe for free to the DAB Listeners Group
Newsletter
Paul Webster
>I've seen on http://www.wohnort.demon.co.uk/DAB/rxdab.html that there is a
>new DAB/DSat combined receiver made by Freesat, see here:
>
>http://www.freesatkorea.com/product/freesky_1000Combo.html
>
>This seems to be the ideal product for many people oh here. Unfortunately
>after doing a Google search for more information I couldn't find when this
>product will be available or the price. If anyone can find more information
>about this product could they reply to this.
This might help .. but depends on others to chip in ....
They exhibited at the recent (21-23 May 2002) Mediacast 2002 in
London. Stand P40-5 in Korea section.
They were planning to show this box there.
I see from their site that they say that they have a contract to make
1 million DAB modules per year ... i suspect that there might be some
spare capacity at present then!
--
Rgds
Paul Webster
Mumm-Ra
message news:lkp2fu04i3gs5q8b4...@4ax.com...
> I see from their site that they say that they have a contract to make
> 1 million DAB modules per year ... i suspect that there might be some
> spare capacity at present then!
Just a probability!
--
Regards,
Paul,
-----------------------------------------------------
www.mumm-ra.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------------
If there is any truth to what I say, it is
for the same reason a broken clock
is correct twice a day.
tony sayer
<paul.w...@spidersweb.freeserve.spammenot.co.uk> writes
Pity it hasn't got FM for the high quality reception, so it looks as if
we'll have to keep our FM sets then...
--
Tony Sayer
Steve
"Paul Webster" <paul.w...@spidersweb.freeserve.spammenot.co.uk> wrote in
message news:lkp2fu04i3gs5q8b4...@4ax.com...
>
> >I've seen on http://www.wohnort.demon.co.uk/DAB/rxdab.html that there is
a
> >new DAB/DSat combined receiver made by Freesat, see here:
> >
> >http://www.freesatkorea.com/product/freesky_1000Combo.html
> >
> >This seems to be the ideal product for many people oh here. Unfortunately
> >after doing a Google search for more information I couldn't find when
this
> >product will be available or the price. If anyone can find more
information
> >about this product could they reply to this.
> This might help .. but depends on others to chip in ....
> They exhibited at the recent (21-23 May 2002) Mediacast 2002 in
> London. Stand P40-5 in Korea section.
> They were planning to show this box there.
You don't know about how much they plan to sell these for do you?
> I see from their site that they say that they have a contract to make
> 1 million DAB modules per year ... i suspect that there might be some
> spare capacity at present then!
1 million per YEAR! Probably only an overestimation of 998,000.
Mumm-Ra
news:acrs5e$tg1$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> 1 million per YEAR! Probably only an overestimation of 998,000.
Miscalculation matey ... there aren't 2,000 people in this group ;-)
Holden McGroin
there is a
> new DAB/DSat combined receiver made by Freesat, see here:
>
> http://www.freesatkorea.com/product/freesky_1000Combo.html
>
> This seems to be the ideal product for many people oh here.
Unfortunately
> after doing a Google search for more information I couldn't find
when this
> product will be available or the price. If anyone can find more
information
> about this product could they reply to this.
Why would anyone who's got a satellite dish and receiver want DAB
radio? Digital Satellite has most of the good DAB channels in better
quality, plus a few hundred others:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/
Cheers,
Holden
Nick Jeffery
> Why would anyone who's got a satellite dish and receiver want DAB
> radio? Digital Satellite has most of the good DAB channels in better
> quality, plus a few hundred others:
>
> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/
Of course, if you have no desire to listen to Radio 5 Live, TalkSPORT, 5
Live Sports Extra, or your local radio station then digital satellite
would be an option.
However, without a Murdoch Box, you won't get 5L, 5LSX, or Talk Sport.
Nor will you receive your local radio station(s).
--
Nick Jeffery - Durham, England Station Manager, Purple FM
http://durham.easytiger.ws/ http://www.purplefm.com/
Telephone 07941 349 444 Durham.St...@dur.ac.uk
Lat: N54:45:47 Long: W1:34:53 Dunelm House, DURHAM, DH1 3AN
Mumm-Ra
news:3CF226C0...@dur.ac.uk...
> However, without a Murdoch Box, you won't get 5L, 5LSX, or Talk Sport.
> Nor will you receive your local radio station(s).
That's what Cable is for ... all that lovelly redistributed FM fead!
Of course, losing [many of] the local radio stations wouldn't be the end of
the world. I think I could cope ;-)
Apart from Galaxy, must keep that. And Xfm.
Holden McGroin
> > radio? Digital Satellite has most of the good DAB channels in
better
> > quality, plus a few hundred others:
> >
> > http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/
>
> Of course, if you have no desire to listen to Radio 5 Live,
TalkSPORT, 5
> Live Sports Extra, or your local radio station then digital
satellite
> would be an option.
Why is digital satellite ruled out? These channels are all available
on digital satellite.
> However, without a Murdoch Box, you won't get 5L, 5LSX, or Talk
Sport.
> Nor will you receive your local radio station(s).
As the great Artie once pointed out "This is why I don't watch local
news: two kittens fall down a well - who gives a shit?".
With your DAB radio, you'll get news about kittens falling down a well
in 48 kbps MP2. Not what i'd call good quality in either the content
or audio sense. With digital satellite, the choice is almost limitless
and almost always in great quality.
At the end of the day, DAB has got feck all bandwidth and too many
stations in it. Digital satellite has hundreds of channels with space
to spare. DAB is one huge compromise (like DTT), DSat is a great
example of the freedom of choice that can be achieved when the
government (just for once) butt out.
Cheers,
Holden
Nick Jeffery
>>>Why would anyone who's got a satellite dish and receiver want DAB
>>>radio? Digital Satellite has most of the good DAB channels in
>>Of course, if you have no desire to listen to Radio 5 Live,
>
> TalkSPORT, 5
>
>>Live Sports Extra, or your local radio station then digital
>
> satellite
>
>>would be an option.
>
>
> Why is digital satellite ruled out? These channels are all available
> on digital satellite.
Those three are encrypted in NDS VideoGuard. To decrypt this particular
flavour of said encryption standard, you need a MurdochBox - you can't
just shove a CAM and FTV/FTL card in any old DVB-S receiver. Oh no.
Mark Carver
"Nick Jeffery" <n.s.j...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message news:3CF2D241...@dur.ac.uk...
> Those three are encrypted in NDS VideoGuard. To decrypt this particular
> flavour of said encryption standard, you need a MurdochBox - you can't
> just shove a CAM and FTV/FTL card in any old DVB-S receiver. Oh no.
Very true, but as far as most people are concerned a Sky box with an FTV card,
is the easiest route for D-Sat radio. There's a nice 'friendly' user interface, and it
has the added bonus of receiving more TV channels than they'd get terrestrially.
I should think most people go for D-Sat radio in order to escape from local radio,
you can hardly blame them!
Holden McGroin
available
> > on digital satellite.
>
> Those three are encrypted in NDS VideoGuard. To decrypt this
particular
> flavour of said encryption standard, you need a MurdochBox - you
can't
> just shove a CAM and FTV/FTL card in any old DVB-S receiver. Oh no.
Can I just repeat what you said? "Of course, if you have no desire to
listen to Radio 5 Live, TalkSPORT, 5 Live Sports Extra, or your local
radio station then digital satellite would be an option." These
stations are all available on digital satellite, that sentence was
wrong. If they're encrypted in an encryption scheme that you don't
like for some reason, that's irrelevant. It's like saying "I don't
like FM, therefore BBC Radio 1 is not available on radio".
Cheers,
Holden
Anthony
news:acv9g0$shfhv$1...@ID-75131.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Nick Jeffery" <n.s.j...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3CF2D241...@dur.ac.uk...
>
> > Those three are encrypted in NDS VideoGuard. To decrypt this particular
> > flavour of said encryption standard, you need a MurdochBox - you can't
> > just shove a CAM and FTV/FTL card in any old DVB-S receiver. Oh no.
>
> Very true, but as far as most people are concerned a Sky box with an FTV
card,
> is the easiest route for D-Sat radio. There's a nice 'friendly' user
interface, and it
> has the added bonus of receiving more TV channels than they'd get
terrestrially.
There's also the fact that you never have to tune it in or even do a scan to
get those radio stations or for any new ones that may come along (the
average Joe isn't in the least bit interseted in any channels that might not
be on the EPG yet).
Nick Jeffery
> Can I just repeat what you said? "Of course, if you have no desire to
> listen to Radio 5 Live, TalkSPORT, 5 Live Sports Extra, or your local
> radio station then digital satellite would be an option." These
> stations are all available on digital satellite, that sentence was
> wrong. If they're encrypted in an encryption scheme that you don't
> like for some reason, that's irrelevant. It's like saying "I don't
> like FM, therefore BBC Radio 1 is not available on radio".
* Local radio stations are not available on Astra (Except for one or two
London stations, and the odd regional station)
* Radio 5, Sports Extra are FTV - you need a card. You *need* a Murdoch
receiver; you can't just buy a plain DVB-S receiver (be it with an LED
channel display, or digital output, etc).
* TalKSPORT actually requires a *subscription* to Sky in order to be
received.
This is the thing I find singly most irritating about digital
television. In order to watch television programmes that I pay a licence
fee for, I *have* to buy a Murdoch receiver. The software is hacked up,
the boxes are built down to a price, and the remote controls are awful.
Plus everything has the Sky logo thrown over it.
If I lived in any other country, I could buy a receiver of my choice,
and fit it out with the appropriate CAM if I wanted to receive encrypted
broadcasts.
But, oh no, not in this country. This would never have happened under
the IBA...
Digital Britain? Fuck off, Tony.
Mark Carver
"Anthony" <o_anthony_oDE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ad039e$sqsea$1...@ID-98017.news.dfncis.de...
> There's also the fact that you never have to tune it in or even do a scan to
> get those radio stations or for any new ones that may come along (the
> average Joe isn't in the least bit interseted in any channels that might not
> be on the EPG yet).
>
Very good point. Also a lot of D-Sat stations fiddle about with their PIDs,
and change transponder. Sky's EPG transparently adjusts for this.
It's amazing that DAB and DTT transmissions and receivers do not make any
provision for similar functionality?
Mark Carver
"Nick Jeffery" <n.s.j...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message news:3CF390A7...@dur.ac.uk...
> * Local radio stations are not available on Astra (Except for one or two
> London stations, and the odd regional station)
Now that's an advantage ! :-)))
> This is the thing I find singly most irritating about digital
> television. In order to watch television programmes that I pay a licence
> fee for, I *have* to buy a Murdoch receiver.
Woahhh...Careful now. You can get a DTT box for 99 quid.
>The software is hacked up,
True
> the boxes are built down to a price,
True
>and the remote controls are awful.
IMHO the Sky remote control is quite nice. Durable, and quite a good
buy as a 'universal' TV remote. I know one person who does not have Sky,
yet bought himself the remote for £15, to replace the worn out one for his telly.
> Plus everything has the Sky logo thrown over it.
Tipex ?
> If I lived in any other country, I could buy a receiver of my choice,
> and fit it out with the appropriate CAM if I wanted to receive encrypted
> broadcasts.
Yes, it is less than ideal here in the UK
> Digital Britain? Fcuk off, Tony.
Now, don't get me started on Broadband....................
Anthony
>
> IMHO the Sky remote control is quite nice. Durable, and quite a good
> buy as a 'universal' TV remote. I know one person who does not have Sky,
> yet bought himself the remote for £15, to replace the worn out one for his
telly.
I agree with Mark, the Sky remote is one of the best remotes I've ever come
across (and I've used a few dozen in my time). It's clear (to me at least)
that they spent a fair bit off time designing it and it was a stroke of
genius adding TV functionality to it in the way they did.
In stark contrast, my Nokia DTT's remote is clearly the same used for their
satellite receivers in the rest of Europe and is awkward to hold and awkward
to use. Some buttons don't do anything, some buttons don't do what you'd
expect them to do (ie "guide") and some functions aren't labelled whatsoever
and aren't even documented in the manual! (ie the subtitles or aspect ratio
combo buttons).
The only things I don't like about the Sky remote is that there's no button
for subtitles (you have to go through a bunch of menus to select that option
and then you have to go through the same menus to deselect it) and there's
no way to change the aspect ratio or audio soundtrack (again unless you go
through those menus).
Anthony
> television. In order to watch television programmes that I pay a licence
> fee for, I *have* to buy a Murdoch receiver. The software is hacked up,
> the boxes are built down to a price, and the remote controls are awful.
> Plus everything has the Sky logo thrown over it.
>
> If I lived in any other country, I could buy a receiver of my choice,
> and fit it out with the appropriate CAM if I wanted to receive encrypted
> broadcasts.
I agree that it's about time that all reputable manufacturers be allowed to
design their own Sky digiboxes with the functions they want and not those
laid down by Sky. Sky should be forced into allowing the use of CAMs so
that anyone can buy any receiver as long as it's got a CI.
Why isn't this happening? How did we get to this state?
Nick Jeffery
>>This is the thing I find singly most irritating about digital
>>television. In order to watch television programmes that I pay a licence
>>fee for, I *have* to buy a Murdoch receiver.
>
> Woahhh...Careful now. You can get a DTT box for 99 quid.
I'm one of the 40% of people who can't get reliable DTT reception, and I
want *all* the BBCi stuff, not the "lite" version. I should have
inserted the word "satellite" in there, true...
>>If I lived in any other country, I could buy a receiver of my choice,
>>and fit it out with the appropriate CAM if I wanted to receive encrypted
>>broadcasts.
>
> Yes, it is less than ideal here in the UK
It's a disgrace.
>>Digital Britain? Fcuk off, Tony.
>
> Now, don't get me started on Broadband....................
What's that, then?
Simon Farnsworth
wrote:
> Very good point. Also a lot of D-Sat stations fiddle about with
> their PIDs, and change transponder. Sky's EPG transparently adjusts
> for this.
> It's amazing that DAB and DTT transmissions and receivers do not
> make any provision for similar functionality?
DVB includes a Service Move descriptor that can be inserted into any
DVB bitstream (DVB-S, DVB-T or DVB-C) to indicate that a channel is
moving from one PID or mux to another. Then again, DTT doesn't take
advantage of the Frequency List descriptor to save tuning time, so I
doubt our implementation would recognise a Service Move descriptor
either.
--
Simon Farnsworth
E-mail: simon.fa...@durham.ac.uk
Alternate: fa...@catlover.com
"Where did I put that top secret laptop? - MI5 agent"
Steve
> Sky should be forced into allowing the use of CAMs so
> that anyone can buy any receiver as long as it's got a CI.
Very much so.
> Why isn't this happening? How did we get to this state?
I'll bet light-touch regulation has something to do with it.....
Nick Jeffery
> I agree that it's about time that all reputable manufacturers be allowed to
> design their own Sky digiboxes with the functions they want and not those
> laid down by Sky. Sky should be forced into allowing the use of CAMs so
> that anyone can buy any receiver as long as it's got a CI.
Reputable manufacturers, such as Echostar, Sony, and Humax design and
make quality DVB-S receivers. Documents I have read suggest that Sky
boxes aren't fully DVB compliant, but I've not checked any digiboxes to
see if they have the DVB Logo.
Sky Digiboxes also don't have any CI - so you can't use it to watch
foreign encrypted broadcasts. They don't have LED displays - so you need
to have a TV plugged in to it, even for selecting a radio channel. Only
one has a digital audio output - and that's very difficult to find
supply of.
I fully agree with your sentiment.
> Why isn't this happening? How did we get to this state?
Well, it started when the IBA-regulated and legitimate BSB was in
competition with Murdoch's pirate station, Sky TV.
BSB was using the MAC family of standards, on a satellite at 1 degree
west. Digital sound and better-than-PAL analogue pictures. 5 quality
channels; a music channel, and entertainment channel, a film channel,
and a sports channel - I can't remember what the fifth was.
http://www.meldrum.co.uk/mhp/ will probably have the answer, though.
Sky Television was Murdoch's pirate station - using Luxembourg-owned
satellites (Astra) on pan-european beams, he set up many stations using
a poorer quality system, requiring large dishes.
Sky then "merged" with BSB to become BSkyB. Marco Polo (the BSB
satellite) was decommissioned and flogged to foreigners (I think it's
named 'Thor' these days) and BSkyB continued to trot out crap on Astra.
It still continues due to light-touch regulation by the ITC, and the
government in general. Murdoch has a *complete monopoly* on UK satellite
television. You can't even watch the public service broadcaster's output
by satellite without purchasing Murdoch's inferior, non-DVB-compliant,
equipment.
It's also worth pointing out that the NDS, the company who provide Sky's
encryption, are 80% owned by News Corporation - another Murdoch company.
This seriously needs to be investigated and rectified; I'd have no
objections to the BBC using NDS VideoGuard iff (that's "if and only if")
the system were opened up to be compatable with CI CAMs and
DVB-compliant boxes. If this were to happen, we'd be free to choose our
own equipment (if it were particularly for satellite radio, one with an
LED screen and digital output, for example) and we wouldn't be
restricted to using inferior-quality built-down gear..
It really does suck, and it really does need sorting.
tony sayer
<markc...@onetel.net.uk> writes
>
>"Nick Jeffery" <n.s.j...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message news:3CF390A7.9060408
There some who want to do their own round here, check out www.bbb.uk.net
or was that net.uk one or t'other...
--
Tony Sayer
Malcolm
news:CyQTCfCL...@bancom.co.uk...
> In article <ad052u$tj25l$1...@ID-75131.news.dfncis.de>, Mark Carver
> <markc...@onetel.net.uk> writes
> >
> There some who want to do their own round here, check out www.bbb.uk.net
> or was that net.uk one or t'other...
It won't solve Mark's problem which he will no doubt elaborate on 'ere long.
--
Malcolm
Steve
> This seriously needs to be investigated and rectified; I'd have no
> objections to the BBC using NDS VideoGuard iff (that's "if and only if")
> the system were opened up to be compatable with CI CAMs and
> DVB-compliant boxes. If this were to happen, we'd be free to choose our
> own equipment (if it were particularly for satellite radio, one with an
> LED screen and digital output, for example) and we wouldn't be
> restricted to using inferior-quality built-down gear..
>
> It really does suck, and it really does need sorting.
This is without a doubt way too monopolistic. Who should you complain about
this to?
Nick Jeffery
[Sky television rant]
> This is without a doubt way too monopolistic. Who should you complain about
> this to?
Your MP would probably be a good bet.
Or you could write to the Secretary of State for Culture:
Teresa Jowell MP, The House Of Commons, London, SW1.
Steve
> Steve wrote:
>
> [Sky television rant]
>
> > This is without a doubt way too monopolistic. Who should you complain
about
> > this to?
>
> Your MP would probably be a good bet.
>
> Or you could write to the Secretary of State for Culture:
> Teresa Jowell MP, The House Of Commons, London, SW1.
Nah, I think I'll complain to Tessa Jowell when I complain. ;)
Nick Jeffery
> Steve wrote:
>
> [Sky television rant]
>
>> This is without a doubt way too monopolistic. Who should you complain
>> about
>> this to?
>
>
> Your MP would probably be a good bet.
>
> Or you could write to the Secretary of State for Culture:
> Teresa Jowell MP, The House Of Commons, London, SW1.
Sorry for following up my own post - but the Monopoly and Mergers
Commission might be a reasonable one to write to, too. I don't have the
address to hand, but I'm sure you'd be able to find it on
http://www.open.gov.uk/ - I still think that a hand-written letter
carries more weight than an e-mail or telephone call.
Steve
> Nick Jeffery wrote:
> > Steve wrote:
> >
> > [Sky television rant]
> >
> >> This is without a doubt way too monopolistic. Who should you complain
> >> about
> >> this to?
> >
> >
> > Your MP would probably be a good bet.
> >
> > Or you could write to the Secretary of State for Culture:
> > Teresa Jowell MP, The House Of Commons, London, SW1.
>
> Sorry for following up my own post - but the Monopoly and Mergers
> Commission might be a reasonable one to write to, too.
Thanks, I'll get the DAB Listeners Group on their case.
> I don't have the
> address to hand, but I'm sure you'd be able to find it on
> http://www.open.gov.uk/ - I still think that a hand-written letter
> carries more weight than an e-mail or telephone call.
Hand-written? What's wrong with using a word processor? It proves nothing
that you have spent twenty times longer writing a hand-written letter rather
than doing a word-processed letter.
Mark Carver
"Malcolm" <validwith'M'he...@spam-trap.co.uk> wrote in message news:ad0i7r$t4m06$3...@ID-134879.news.dfncis.de...
> "tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
> > There some who want to do their own round here, check out www.bbb.uk.net
> > or was that net.uk one or t'other...
>
> It won't solve Mark's problem which he will no doubt elaborate on 'ere long.
Interesting web site Tony all the same.
ADSL for me is out. After an exhaustive campaign of making a nuisance of myself
with BT, my line (or rather *BT's* line that they rent to me) fails on quality.
NTL ?
I virtually back on to houses that are cabled for NTL, but because
NTL's predecessor got their licence based upon a 1983 map of the town my
road (or estate of 2500 homes) is not included.
Even though my home was built in 1985, and the company didn't even start
cabling the town until 1992/3, they didn't have the foresight to include any
additional homes.
The real irony is that virtually every home NTL can't be bothered (or afford)
to extend their network to, are also too far from the town's BT exchange for ADSL.
Wireless Broadband: Tele2
Well now what have they done? Put a base station in the centre of town. Result being
that the homes on the outskirts of Basingstoke (the very ones that are out of ADSL and
NTL range) are poorly covered. Some fortunate souls near me can receive a signal from
the base station. My problem, and many others too is that the centre of town is screened off
by nice thick rows of trees. Tele2's 4GHz signal just can't make it.
So there we go :-((
{This message has been brought to you via a 56k V90 modem, connected at 45,666b/s}
Nick Jeffery
> "Nick Jeffery" <n.s.j...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:3CF3D698...@dur.ac.uk...
>>address to hand, but I'm sure you'd be able to find it on
>>http://www.open.gov.uk/ - I still think that a hand-written letter
>>carries more weight than an e-mail or telephone call.
>
> Hand-written? What's wrong with using a word processor? It proves nothing
> that you have spent twenty times longer writing a hand-written letter rather
> than doing a word-processed letter.
Bah - I was being ditsy. I did mean "postal" letter, rather than
"hand-written" :)
Tim S Kemp
> stations in it. Digital satellite has hundreds of channels with space
> to spare. DAB is one huge compromise (like DTT), DSat is a great
> example of the freedom of choice that can be achieved when the
> government (just for once) butt out.
DAB works in your car, your pocket, your hi-fi...
Steve
> Steve wrote:
> > "Nick Jeffery" <n.s.j...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > news:3CF3D698...@dur.ac.uk...
> >>I don't have the
> >>address to hand, but I'm sure you'd be able to find it on
> >>http://www.open.gov.uk/ - I still think that a hand-written letter
> >>carries more weight than an e-mail or telephone call.
> >
> > Hand-written? What's wrong with using a word processor? It proves
nothing
> > that you have spent twenty times longer writing a hand-written letter
rather
> > than doing a word-processed letter.
>
> Bah - I was being ditsy. I did mean "postal" letter, rather than
> "hand-written" :)
Fairy nuff.
Steve
"Tim S Kemp" <ne...@timkemp.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ad0p8p$occ$1...@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net...
Have you actually heard DAB yet? For home listening DSat takes the piss out
if DAB. For home listening a half-decent FM signal takes the piss out of DAB
because the bit rates are now nearly all 128kbps for stereo music stations.
On DSat the same stations are 192kbps or 160kbps. No contest.
FM works fine in your car. I've yet to hear the problems with mobile
reception in my car. I tell a lie, I once had a problem in City Centre
Manchester. The thing is though I'd bet a lot of money that the DAB signal
would also drop out in exactly the same place. DAB reception is not all that
it is cracked up to be. I live in what should be a strong reception area but
my reception on DAB is pretty poor. One multiplex is virtually unlistenable.
Tim S Kemp
out
> if DAB. For home listening a half-decent FM signal takes the piss out of
DAB
> because the bit rates are now nearly all 128kbps for stereo music
stations.
> On DSat the same stations are 192kbps or 160kbps. No contest.
Yes I have heard it, no I don't have it (or sky for that matter). All the
audio output stages on the sky receivers I've heard are crap, worse than the
audio outs on my pace DTTV box.
> FM works fine in your car. I've yet to hear the problems with mobile
> reception in my car. I tell a lie, I once had a problem in City Centre
> Manchester. The thing is though I'd bet a lot of money that the DAB signal
> would also drop out in exactly the same place. DAB reception is not all
that
> it is cracked up to be. I live in what should be a strong reception area
but
> my reception on DAB is pretty poor. One multiplex is virtually
unlistenable.
Radio is a funny thing, a few inches may make a big difference in reception.
I get loads of FM reception problems in car, crappy R3 / R4 reception being
the main one, DAB may be all or nothing but in the environment of a car (a
noise generator) it makes sense. Also for portables it makes sense (in the
same way DTTV makes sense for portable applications).
tony sayer
<markc...@onetel.net.uk> writes
>
Ere!, Why don't you ask one of them that's on the ntl net across the way
if they'd put a wireless LAN onto their cable connection via a suitably
firewalled router arrangement then you could connect onto this and get
the BB. Course they, the cableco, frown on you doing this but it gets
done round this way then you share costs with whoever..Alright you do
need to know someone who's connected, but if you do or connect one of
these wireless LAN thing's to a more directional aerial arrangement.
Offer most people the right money...
Strange to hear that tele2 is on the go round your way though.
Still you need a radical solution to this one. I very much doubt that
ntl will cable up any more homes as they are short of the readies and BT
aren't rolling in it to invest either. Haven't BT got some sort of sat
offering on the go, I 'spect that latency is an issue.
I Do fell sorry 4 U as I'd be really pissed off if I had to go back to
dialup, lowest form of connection..
I've got 512 down and 128 up, and did think about the 1 Meg service.
Served by both BT and nthell here...
Bet that's pissed U off a tad;-((....
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
igitalradiotech.co.uk> writes
Well I had a job application the other day and it was superbly written
by hand quite a work of art. Good mind to scan it and put it on the web
but, data protection act etc..
No, she didnt get the job as we hadn't any jobs going but it sure was
impressive tho...
--
Tony Sayer
Steve
> > Have you actually heard DAB yet? For home listening DSat takes the piss
> out
> > if DAB. For home listening a half-decent FM signal takes the piss out of
> DAB
> > because the bit rates are now nearly all 128kbps for stereo music
> stations.
> > On DSat the same stations are 192kbps or 160kbps. No contest.
>
> Yes I have heard it, no I don't have it (or sky for that matter). All the
> audio output stages on the sky receivers I've heard are crap, worse than
the
> audio outs on my pace DTTV box.
You don't actually have to listen on a Sky digibox though. You could buy any
DSat receiver to get the FTA radio stations. Some of these are bound to wipe
the floor with Sky digiboxes, and digital outputs are not banned.
> > FM works fine in your car. I've yet to hear the problems with mobile
> > reception in my car. I tell a lie, I once had a problem in City Centre
> > Manchester. The thing is though I'd bet a lot of money that the DAB
signal
> > would also drop out in exactly the same place. DAB reception is not all
> that
> > it is cracked up to be. I live in what should be a strong reception area
> but
> > my reception on DAB is pretty poor. One multiplex is virtually
> unlistenable.
>
> Radio is a funny thing, a few inches may make a big difference in
reception.
> I get loads of FM reception problems in car, crappy R3 / R4 reception
being
> the main one, DAB may be all or nothing but in the environment of a car (a
> noise generator) it makes sense.
I like OFDM but it is not the panacea to all radio reception problems that
it is claimed by many to be.
There's a satellite system possibly being launched in 2005 called Global
Radio. You can receive that in cars. Personally I am not going to buy a DAB
car stereo because I just don't think it is worth the money. If you have big
reception problems then that's fair enough.
> Also for portables it makes sense (in the
> same way DTTV makes sense for portable applications).
It depends how much you move your portable. I'd say that the only beneficial
DAB application is personal stereos. For the stations you can receive in
your home on FM then buying a DAB portable will degrade the audio quality
apart from a couple of stations. Two of those stations are R3 and R4 though
so for you it would make sense.
Steve
> {This message has been brought to you via a 56k V90 modem, connected at
45,666b/s}
The Hauppauge and other manufacturers of the DVB-S cards advertise them as
being able to receive broadband via satellite. I read just last night that
the transmission delay via a GEO satellite is only about 100 or 200ms. If
nothing else will work then this would at least work even though you may
have a slightly longer wait. I've no idea how much the ISPs charge for this
but the download bandwidth is pretty impressive.
Ask a question in uk.telecom.broadband to see if anybody has any experience
with these cards.
Steve
> In article <ad0qoi$3uv$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, Steve <info@remove_this.d
> Well I had a job application the other day and it was superbly written
> by hand quite a work of art. Good mind to scan it and put it on the web
> but, data protection act etc..
>
> No, she didnt get the job as we hadn't any jobs going but it sure was
> impressive tho...
Job applications are one thing, complaining to the government is another. :)
Mumm-Ra
news:ad10pa$3c2$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Job applications are one thing, complaining to the government is another.
:)
Yes, you get more constructive feedback from job interviews ...
(unlike a particular interview of mine recently with a large organisation
...)
--
Regards,
Paul,
-----------------------------------------------------
www.mumm-ra.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------------
If there is any truth to what I say, it is
for the same reason a broken clock
is correct twice a day.
Steve
"Mumm-Ra" <paul@***remove2reply***.mumm-ra.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wPTI8.2628$Qu2.23...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> "Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ad10pa$3c2$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>
> > Job applications are one thing, complaining to the government is
another.
> :)
>
> Yes, you get more constructive feedback from job interviews ...
Don't you mean you actually get a reply from job interviews?
> (unlike a particular interview of mine recently with a large organisation
I take it you won't be working for the large organisation then? Have you
finished your degree now?
Mumm-Ra
> Don't you mean you actually get a reply from job interviews?
Not always the reply I want to hear though!
> I take it you won't be working for the large organisation then? Have you
> finished your degree now?
2 more weeks (and 2 exams) to go, and I will have finished! Yay!
And yes, I've got a job. No, it's not with a large organisation. Might do
a graduate scheme of sorts next year - depends on how much ŁŁŁ's I'm earning
in 6mths time!
(Hello to all I've inadvertently x-posted this OT reply to! - FU's set to my
familiar haunt 'alt.radio.digital')
Nick Jeffery
> There's a satellite system possibly being launched in 2005 called Global
> Radio. You can receive that in cars. Personally I am not going to buy a DAB
> car stereo because I just don't think it is worth the money. If you have big
> reception problems then that's fair enough.
*Or* if you want some of the additional stations - such as Sports Extra
or 6 Music. And, don't forget, AM reception is particularly dodgy in
automobiles, particularly in big cities!
Nick Jeffery
> FM works fine in your car. I've yet to hear the problems with mobile
> reception in my car. I tell a lie, I once had a problem in City Centre
> Manchester. The thing is though I'd bet a lot of money that the DAB signal
> would also drop out in exactly the same place. DAB reception is not all that
> it is cracked up to be. I live in what should be a strong reception area but
> my reception on DAB is pretty poor. One multiplex is virtually unlistenable.
DAB in Manchester will be highly amusing once the Sunley Building is
blown up. I read reports saying that it had "concrete cancer", and only
had about 5 years left to live... that was nearly a year ago :)
Quite how true this is, I dunno...
Nick Jeffery
> The Hauppauge and other manufacturers of the DVB-S cards advertise them as
> being able to receive broadband via satellite. I read just last night that
> the transmission delay via a GEO satellite is only about 100 or 200ms. If
> nothing else will work then this would at least work even though you may
> have a slightly longer wait. I've no idea how much the ISPs charge for this
> but the download bandwidth is pretty impressive.
A company called Europe Online offer the service from Astra at 19.2E.
Their prices seemed quite reasonable - their starter package includes a
dish and a card, for a good price, IIRC.
Google for 'em. :)
Steve
> "Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ad12p3$ume$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>
> > Don't you mean you actually get a reply from job interviews?
>
> Not always the reply I want to hear though!
Sounds like a BBC Reception Advice reply then.
> > I take it you won't be working for the large organisation then? Have you
> > finished your degree now?
>
> 2 more weeks (and 2 exams) to go, and I will have finished! Yay!
Then permanently drunk for a month I'd imagine?
> And yes, I've got a job. No, it's not with a large organisation.
There's plenty more large organisations. Areyou going to be a programmer? Or
is the correct title software engineer these days?
> Might do a graduate scheme of sorts next year - depends on how much ŁŁŁ's
I'm earning
> in 6mths time!
6 months time eh! I take it you didn't tell your new employers in the
interview that you might be leaving in 6 month's time. ;)
> (Hello to all I've inadvertently x-posted this OT reply to! - FU's set to
my
> familiar haunt 'alt.radio.digital')
Was that OT?
Steve
> Steve wrote:
> > There's a satellite system possibly being launched in 2005 called Global
> > Radio. You can receive that in cars. Personally I am not going to buy a
DAB
> > car stereo because I just don't think it is worth the money. If you have
big
> > reception problems then that's fair enough.
>
> *Or* if you want some of the additional stations - such as Sports Extra
> or 6 Music. And, don't forget, AM reception is particularly dodgy in
> automobiles, particularly in big cities!
Well yeah, I'll give you AM stations. :)
Steve
> Steve wrote:
> > FM works fine in your car. I've yet to hear the problems with mobile
> > reception in my car. I tell a lie, I once had a problem in City Centre
> > Manchester. The thing is though I'd bet a lot of money that the DAB
signal
> > would also drop out in exactly the same place. DAB reception is not all
that
> > it is cracked up to be. I live in what should be a strong reception area
but
> > my reception on DAB is pretty poor. One multiplex is virtually
unlistenable.
>
> DAB in Manchester will be highly amusing once the Sunley Building is
> blown up. I read reports saying that it had "concrete cancer", and only
> had about 5 years left to live... that was nearly a year ago :)
>
> Quite how true this is, I dunno...
No idea. They'll find somewhere else easily enough I would have thought.
Let's hope they don't and everybody has to get DSat.
Nick Jeffery
> No idea. They'll find somewhere else easily enough I would have thought.
> Let's hope they don't and everybody has to get DSat.
Galaxy's FM rig is up on Sunley...
Mark Carver
"Nick Jeffery" <n.s.j...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message news:3CF41996...@dur.ac.uk...
>
> A company called Europe Online offer the service from Astra at 19.2E.
> Their prices seemed quite reasonable - their starter package includes a
> dish and a card, for a good price, IIRC.
Yes, I've looked at that before. Problem is of course you still need a phone connection
for 'upload', so you have top add in the cost of that.
Currently I've got a second phone line for dedicated internet use, at 10 quid/month, plus
a 24/7 dial up ISP at 15 quid/m. So you have to add that cost on top of the D-Sat service.
That's about 35-40 quid/m IIRC?
The great attraction of ADSL and NTHell/Teleworst BB is that speech calls are all 'muxed'
in the same pipe. If I could have ADSL, I'd ditch the second phone line rental, and 24/7 DU
and just pay the ADSL sub of just over 20 quid from some ISPs, (10 times the b/w for 5q/m LESS !)
Anyway SWMBO gets really pissed off with the speed when she's in Sainsbury's Home Direct,
so I've got her full backing for any improvement scheme :-))))
Mark Carver
"Nick Jeffery" <n.s.j...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message news:3CF4303B...@dur.ac.uk...
> Steve wrote:
> > No idea. They'll find somewhere else easily enough I would have thought.
> > Let's hope they don't and everybody has to get DSat.
>
> Galaxy's FM rig is up on Sunley...
Bugger Galaxy ! If it's the building I think it is, then effectively it's
Madchester's 'Post Office Tower' ?
(Is it not the tower block that Piccadilly Radio used to live in?)
Andy Sinclair
>Sky Digiboxes also don't have any CI - so you can't use it to watch
>foreign encrypted broadcasts. They don't have LED displays - so you need
>to have a TV plugged in to it, even for selecting a radio channel. Only
>one has a digital audio output - and that's very difficult to find
>supply of.
>
You can ensure you get a Sony digibox by getting Sky from a Sony
Centre.
Regards
Andy Sincliar
Nick Jeffery
> Bugger Galaxy ! If it's the building I think it is, then effectively it's
> Madchester's 'Post Office Tower' ?
>
> (Is it not the tower block that Piccadilly Radio used to live in?)
If you leave Manchester Picadilly railway station, it's the incredibly
ugly yellow-ish(?) 1960s building just off to the left.
You can't miss it - it has a big guyed pole on the roof, with
fibre-glass covered transmission aerials at the top.
Mumm-Ra
> Sounds like a BBC Reception Advice reply then.
Can we include "Out Of Office AutoReply" and "Mailer Demon: Address Unknown"
?
> Then permanently drunk for a month I'd imagine?
Oh Yes. (In style of Churchill dog [or Mark & Lard]). Starts off 1 hour
after the final exam next Saturday! Mmm! All Day Bender!
> There's plenty more large organisations. Areyou going to be a programmer?
Or
> is the correct title software engineer these days?
Programmer? *shock* More like Bits and bobs fudging code to get it working
again, but mainly designing applications and planning the infrastructure for
clients. Sounds quite good. And they've got a water cooler, so they must
be good.
Might have to buy another WaveFinder for my office. Get them used to the
quality that is Xfm et. al.
> 6 months time eh! I take it you didn't tell your new employers in the
> interview that you might be leaving in 6 month's time. ;)
If I enjoy the job (and the associated ŁŁŁ's) then there's no need to leave!
> Was that OT?
Was it relating to Digital Satellite Radio, Digital TV, DAB? Nope! Though
the peeps in the DAB ng are less likely to flame me (unless relating to
Cheese products) ...
Mark Carver
"Nick Jeffery" <n.s.j...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message news:3CF4A4F0...@dur.ac.uk...
> If you leave Manchester Picadilly railway station, it's the incredibly
> ugly yellow-ish(?) 1960s building just off to the left.
>
> You can't miss it - it has a big guyed pole on the roof, with
> fibre-glass covered transmission aerials at the top.
Umm Dunno. The building I was thinking of is in Piccadilly square.
If you stand in the middle facing John Lewis it's up on the left.
Greeny/Black tower block?
I could be talking rubbish, the last time I was in central Manchester was
June 1986 (The weekend England lost against Argentina in Mexico 86)
It may have all changed since the IRA 'restyled' everything in June 96.
Steve
>
> "Nick Jeffery" <n.s.j...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3CF4A4F0...@dur.ac.uk...
> > If you leave Manchester Picadilly railway station, it's the incredibly
> > ugly yellow-ish(?) 1960s building just off to the left.
> >
> > You can't miss it - it has a big guyed pole on the roof, with
> > fibre-glass covered transmission aerials at the top.
>
> Umm Dunno. The building I was thinking of is in Piccadilly square.
Piccadilly Plaza I'll have you know! :)
> If you stand in the middle facing John Lewis it's up on the left.
> Greeny/Black tower block?
It's a creamy/grey colour. I think the yellow colour Nick is talking of is
the Arndale Centre tower.
If you walk out of Piccadilly train station, walk down station approach,
carry on walking down the road, you get to Piccadilly Plaza/square which had
a bus station but the bus shelters have now been knocked down, the Sunley
Building is on your left behind where the bus station and the trams go.
> I could be talking rubbish, the last time I was in central Manchester was
> June 1986 (The weekend England lost against Argentina in Mexico 86)
> It may have all changed since the IRA 'restyled' everything in June 96.
The IRA bomb went off right at the end of Market Street. Market Street
starts from Piccadilly Plaza and is the main shopping street with the
Arndale Centre on the right hand side. The bomb blew up the end shops of the
Arndale Centre and some older buildings nearby and caused a lot of
structural damage to buildings within about a quarter of a mile (maybe a bit
less) of where it went off. A lot of businesses went bust because they
couldn't open their shops for a long time after it but one good thing that
has come out of it is that the area has been redesigned and has actually
generated more businesses since the redesign, especially where the older
buildings were. It looks a lot nicer round that bit now too.
Steve
> "Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ad16bq$baq$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > Sounds like a BBC Reception Advice reply then.
>
> Can we include "Out Of Office AutoReply" and "Mailer Demon: Address
Unknown"
> ?
>
> > Then permanently drunk for a month I'd imagine?
>
> Oh Yes. (In style of Churchill dog [or Mark & Lard]). Starts off 1 hour
> after the final exam next Saturday! Mmm! All Day Bender!
>
> > There's plenty more large organisations. Areyou going to be a
programmer?
> Or
> > is the correct title software engineer these days?
>
> Programmer? *shock* More like Bits and bobs fudging code to get it
working
> again, but mainly designing applications and planning the infrastructure
for
> clients. Sounds quite good. And they've got a water cooler, so they must
> be good.
Definite bonus the water cooler. :)
> Might have to buy another WaveFinder for my office. Get them used to the
> quality that is Xfm et. al.
Do you think they will allow music?
> > 6 months time eh! I take it you didn't tell your new employers in the
> > interview that you might be leaving in 6 month's time. ;)
>
> If I enjoy the job (and the associated ŁŁŁ's) then there's no need to
leave!
True.
> > Was that OT?
>
> Was it relating to Digital Satellite Radio, Digital TV, DAB? Nope!
Though
> the peeps in the DAB ng are less likely to flame me (unless relating to
> Cheese products) ...
Only joking like.
Mumm-Ra
> Definite bonus the water cooler. :)
It was a condition of me sigining the contract :-)
> Do you think they will allow music?
If I'm in a closed-door office all on my own, I'll go mad ... so they'd
better :-)
Another condition was an office with window facing the street so I can drool
at the female University students and other office-types walking around all
day!
All helps to increase productivity!
> Only joking like.
Why I Oughtta ...
Steve
> "Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ad2hm7$mlk$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > Definite bonus the water cooler. :)
>
> It was a condition of me sigining the contract :-)
I suppose you're less fussy than J Lo. She "doesn't do steps" apparently.
I'm not sure what they asked her to do with said steps, but there you go. :)
> > Do you think they will allow music?
>
> If I'm in a closed-door office all on my own, I'll go mad ... so they'd
> better :-)
Ooooh, closed-door office eh. Must be well-paid.
> Another condition was an office with window facing the street so I can
drool
> at the female University students and other office-types walking around
all
> day!
I must remember that condition when I'm doing interviews in a few weeks.
> All helps to increase productivity!
Of course.
> > Only joking like.
>
> Why I Oughtta ...
Of course.
Mumm-Ra
> I suppose you're less fussy than J Lo. She "doesn't do steps" apparently.
> I'm not sure what they asked her to do with said steps, but there you go. :)
Come on, would you do a gig with 'Steps'? - Think 'H and Claire' and
scream. Let alone the others.
> Ooooh, closed-door office eh. Must be well-paid.
Good assumption. Lets hope ladies do in the local bars :-)
> I must remember that condition when I'm doing interviews in a few weeks.
Quite.
Holden McGroin
> Commission might be a reasonable one to write to, too. I don't have
the
> address to hand, but I'm sure you'd be able to find it on
> http://www.open.gov.uk/ - I still think that a hand-written letter
> carries more weight than an e-mail or telephone call.
BTW, you might find the Office for Fair Trading are more receptive
than the Monopoly and Mergers Commission :-)
Cheers,
Holden
Anthony
> Anthony wrote:
> > I agree that it's about time that all reputable manufacturers be allowed
to
> > design their own Sky digiboxes with the functions they want and not
those
> > laid down by Sky. Sky should be forced into allowing the use of CAMs so
> > that anyone can buy any receiver as long as it's got a CI.
>
> Reputable manufacturers, such as Echostar, Sony, and Humax design and
> make quality DVB-S receivers. Documents I have read suggest that Sky
> boxes aren't fully DVB compliant, but I've not checked any digiboxes to
> see if they have the DVB Logo.
I know all those companies make DVB-S receivers, that's the point I was
trying to make (any such companies should be able to make digital satellite
receivers compatible with Sky/Videoguard services and not have to stick
rigidly to BSkyB's specs).
BTW I know for a fact that my Sony Sky digibox is DVB compliant and it even
has a big DVB logo on the box it came in, the front of the manual and a
small one on the front of the unit itself. I've also used many Sky
digiboxes to watch non-Sky channels on Eurobird and Astra 1.
> Sky Digiboxes also don't have any CI - so you can't use it to watch
> foreign encrypted broadcasts. They don't have LED displays - so you need
> to have a TV plugged in to it, even for selecting a radio channel. Only
> one has a digital audio output - and that's very difficult to find
> supply of.
Again, I know all this (though you're incorrect about the digital audio out
bit - Two receivers on the market have this and they're both pretty easy to
get hold of).
> I fully agree with your sentiment.
>
> > Why isn't this happening? How did we get to this state?
>
> Well, it started when the IBA-regulated and legitimate BSB was in
> competition with Murdoch's pirate station, Sky TV.
Again, I know all this and the BSB/Sky merger/war has very little to do with
Sky's switch from analogue to digital. As far as I remember there were at
least a few dozen different manufacturers making or badging analogue
receivers with Sky approved Videoguard decoders. Manufacturers didn't have
to follow any set rules on how their receivers functioned, but then
manufacturers were (on the whole) making the receivers for the end user
rather than a pay TV operator. It has nothing to do with BSB using D-MAC
and Sky using PAL, infact if it did it would ironically be the other way
around as BSB were using a system that no other broadcaster was using.
Sky became essentially a monopoly out of a small start up that no one
thought would succeed (even with the mighty hand of News Corp behind it).
When digital TV became a reality, the government of the time as well as
rival companies all had a chance to put an end to this virtual monopoly
(infact in the mid nineties Turner Broadcasting was part of a group of
broadcasters/channel providers that thought that they could do a job of
going it alone). Unfortunately the then government as well as those
commercial broadcasters missed the boat. At the time it was thought that
with the move to digital, Sky would lose it's grip but amazingly it just got
tighter - Get all the third party channels from rival companies on to a new
satellite at a new orbital slot? Nah, that's never going to happen! Get
practically all the existing dishes not just moved but totally swapped over?
Nah, that's never going to happen!
It just seems like politicians and broadcasters don't want competition bad
enough.
Tony Walton
> Nick Jeffery wrote:
> > Steve wrote:
> >
> > [Sky television rant]
> >
> >> This is without a doubt way too monopolistic. Who should you complain
> >> about
> >> this to?
> >
> >
> > Your MP would probably be a good bet.
> >
> > Or you could write to the Secretary of State for Culture:
> > Teresa Jowell MP, The House Of Commons, London, SW1.
>
> Sorry for following up my own post - but the Monopoly and Mergers
> Commission might be a reasonable one to write to, too. I don't have the
> address to hand, but I'm sure you'd be able to find it on
> http://www.open.gov.uk/
He'll find it more easily if he looks for the correct name - the
Monopolies amd Mergers Commission was renamed the "Competition
Commission" some time ago.
http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/
--
Tony
Nick Jeffery
> Again, I know all this (though you're incorrect about the digital audio out
> bit - Two receivers on the market have this and they're both pretty easy to
> get hold of).
Sky+ is a receiver and PVR in one. I have no use for a PVR, nor do I
want to pay for one.
Nick Jeffery
>>Sorry for following up my own post - but the Monopoly and Mergers
>>Commission might be a reasonable one to write to, too. I don't have the
>>address to hand, but I'm sure you'd be able to find it on
>>http://www.open.gov.uk/
>
> He'll find it more easily if he looks for the correct name - the
> Monopolies amd Mergers Commission was renamed the "Competition
> Commission" some time ago.
>
> http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/
Upon searching open.gov.uk for the M&MC, one of the first links is to
the Competition Commission's website.
Anthony
> Anthony wrote:
> > Again, I know all this (though you're incorrect about the digital audio
out
> > bit - Two receivers on the market have this and they're both pretty easy
to
> > get hold of).
>
> Sky+ is a receiver and PVR in one. I have no use for a PVR, nor do I
> want to pay for one.
So if a satellite receiver has a HDD in it it is infact not a satellite
receiver?
I think you'll find an unsubsidised Sony digibox is about the same price as
the Sky+ digibox/PVR. Though the Sky+ receiver/PVR is subsidised by Sky,
there are no strings attached IIRC (ie you can buy one from your local
electrical store and put it in a cupboard or anywhere else for that matter -
you only have to abide by Sky's rules, ie connect it to the phone outlet and
pay £10 per month, if you intend to use the PVR functionality).
Anthony
>
> "Nick Jeffery" <n.s.j...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3CF41996...@dur.ac.uk...
> >
> > A company called Europe Online offer the service from Astra at 19.2E.
> > Their prices seemed quite reasonable - their starter package includes a
> > dish and a card, for a good price, IIRC.
>
> Yes, I've looked at that before. Problem is of course you still need a
phone connection
> for 'upload', so you have top add in the cost of that.
I've got Europe Online and it's no good for just general browsing or
downloading (you have to schedule downloads and then wait for the time they
are transmitted - there's many problems with this that include the fact that
not all files from all locations can be dowloaded and if they can, the wait
can be 12+ hours). It's (very) cheap and cheerful but it's no substitute
for a real broadband connection.
The cheapest and most interesting satellite ISP I've come across is the
Italian Netsystem. It uses one of the satellites at 19.2e (where Sky's
analogue channels were) and others it's services to all of the countries
covered by the satellite's footprint. If you pay a year in advance it works
out at just under £20 per month but of course you'll still need a dialup ISP
and an extra phoneline. I've heard some good things about Netsystem but I
have no experience of them myself. Check out
http://www.netsystem.com/eng/index.htm
> Currently I've got a second phone line for dedicated internet use, at 10
quid/month, plus
> a 24/7 dial up ISP at 15 quid/m. So you have to add that cost on top of
the D-Sat service.
> That's about 35-40 quid/m IIRC?
Like I said, Netsystem is just under £20 p/m but it might be worth reading
up on it to see what others think of the service (using Google,
www.ispreview.co.uk and www.eoninside.com )
Fortunately the area where I've moved to has cable (though my new building
isn't cabled!) and my phoneline's okay for ADSL (though I can't justify the
cost at the moment at least I know it's ready and able for when I am).
I still can't believe whole swathes (sp?) of Basingstoke have no access to
broadband (other than by satellite). It seems very odd that the new estates
weren't cable-ready but then that's too sensible and we live in Britain,
home of the Dome! We hear all this crap from the Government about
"Broadband Britain" and how eager they are to prevent the "digital divide"
yet they're doing nothing to help the rollout of such services essential to
such a vision even in heavily populated areas. If this country was as well
cabled as even some of the poorest countries in eastern Europe then we might
not have had the huge disaster that was ITV Digital/DTT.
If the cable and phone companies are doing so badly then the government
should give them tax breaks to help them improve and extend their networks.
When these companies are back in black the government should make it their
priority to enforce these companies into offering universal access. But
then again maybe I don't understand all the issues at stake!
Richard Lambley
"Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
> "Tim S Kemp" <ne...@timkemp.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ad0p8p$occ$1...@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net...
> >
> > DAB works in your car, your pocket, your hi-fi...
>
> Have you actually heard DAB yet? For home listening DSat takes the piss out
> if DAB.
Tim, you might try asking Steve whether he actually has DSat for home
listening. I think you'll find that he hasn't, despite his constant
enthusiasm for it.
Richard
--
Mark Carver
"Anthony" <o_anthony_oDE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ad6194$umov3$1...@ID-98017.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Like I said, Netsystem is just under £20 p/m but it might be worth reading
> up on it to see what others think of the service (using Google,
> www.ispreview.co.uk and www.eoninside.com )
Thanks Anthony, I'll check them out.
> Fortunately the area where I've moved to has cable (though my new building
> isn't cabled!) and my phoneline's okay for ADSL (though I can't justify the
> cost at the moment at least I know it's ready and able for when I am).
Grrr....:-)
> I still can't believe whole swathes (sp?) of Basingstoke have no access to
> broadband (other than by satellite). It seems very odd that the new estates
> weren't cable-ready but then that's too sensible and we live in Britain,
> home of the Dome!
The amazing final insult on this is that this morning the Postie delivered from
NTHell a glossy A3 sized piece of shite inviting me to "enter the world of NTL
Broadband" !!!!! I rushed outside to catch him, and he had a whole bag of them
to deliver to every home on his patch (Not a single street of his is NTL cabled).
No wonder that company are in so much trouble, if they can't even match postcodes
of uncabled areas to mail drops. Bloody Useless.
Someone on the NTL order line is going to have a *bad* day today :-))))))
tony sayer
Lambley <use...@nospamwireless.globalnet.co.uk> writes
Fairy snuff. Have you? Or have you not a S-DAB receiver Steve?..
--
Tony Sayer
Steve
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:I9whBvDP...@bancom.co.uk...
No I haven't got DSat or S-DAB. Richard shouldn't have sent me CD-Rs showing
me what DSat is capable of. He'd have had no need to write such a post as he
just has done.
Anthony
>
> "Anthony" <o_anthony_oDE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ad6194$umov3$1...@ID-98017.news.dfncis.de...
to
> > broadband (other than by satellite). It seems very odd that the new
estates
> > weren't cable-ready but then that's too sensible and we live in Britain,
> > home of the Dome!
>
> The amazing final insult on this is that this morning the Postie delivered
from
> NTHell a glossy A3 sized piece of shite inviting me to "enter the world of
NTL
> Broadband" !!!!! I rushed outside to catch him, and he had a whole bag
of them
> to deliver to every home on his patch (Not a single street of his is NTL
cabled).
> No wonder that company are in so much trouble, if they can't even match
postcodes
> of uncabled areas to mail drops. Bloody Useless.
My Mum and Dad are always getting flyers for NTL's services through their
postbox and that's on the "lake estate" in Kempshott. Cable is installed
all the way through Buckskin and the Berg Estate but just stops short of
Kempshott at Fiveways and on Pack Lane just before the Rugby Club. Why they
(or Telecential which was the cable co at the time) stopped short of cabling
Kempshott I don't know as I would imagine many people would've been
interested in their services and installation would seem pretty straight
forward. It seems that almost every other house has a dish and I'd imagine
a lot of the people would love cable modems so that they could work from
home. I'm not sure if ADSL is available there but I'd imagine if it's not
in Hatch Warren then there's no chance in Kempshott (it's down to the
quality of the lines and the distance from the exchange isn't it?).
It just seems so stupid that those that would most want and can afford
broadband services seem to be those denied them. I'm sure there's many
people in Hatch Warren, Kempshott and Chineham that have small businesses or
work from home and have such a major stumling block in front of them (but
that's for another topic in another newsgroup!).
Mark Carver
"Anthony" <o_anthony_oDE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ad88h1$uc77g$1...@ID-98017.news.dfncis.de...
> I'm not sure if ADSL is available there but I'd imagine if it's not
> in Hatch Warren then there's no chance in Kempshott (it's down to the
> quality of the lines and the distance from the exchange isn't it?).
No, that's right. I'm in one of the nearest Hatch Warren homes there is
to the exchange, and my line length is still 5.25km. (The cables all come via
Gershwin Rd in Brighton H to make matters worse) Some friends of mine
up in the new homes in Beggerwoood Lane are a massive 7.8km. As
you go further into that new estate, the numbers become 01256 39xxxx, which
is the Dummer exchange. Distances there are 3-4km, but guess what,
yep, BT have not, nor have any plans at present to enable ADSL from
there!
> It just seems so stupid that those that would most want and can afford
> broadband services seem to be those denied them. I'm sure there's many
> people in Hatch Warren, Kempshott and Chineham that have small businesses or
> work from home and have such a major stumling block in front of them (but
> that's for another topic in another newsgroup!).
Indeed. There's been a thread in uk.local.hampshire on this very topic, maybe see
you in there sometime ? :-)
Philip Crookes
"Holden McGroin" <holdin....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:xPoI8.13835$Uk6.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > I've seen on http://www.wohnort.demon.co.uk/DAB/rxdab.html that
> there is a
> > new DAB/DSat combined receiver made by Freesat, see here:
> >
> > http://www.freesatkorea.com/product/freesky_1000Combo.html
> >
> > This seems to be the ideal product for many people oh here.
> Unfortunately
> > after doing a Google search for more information I couldn't find
> when this
> > product will be available or the price. If anyone can find more
> information
> > about this product could they reply to this.
>
> Why would anyone who's got a satellite dish and receiver want DAB
> radio? Digital Satellite has most of the good DAB channels in better
> quality, plus a few hundred others:
>
>Yeah but what if you want to listen to radio while someone else in the
house inists on watching tv thru the STB?
Philip
Philip Crookes
> Holden McGroin wrote:
> >>>Why would anyone who's got a satellite dish and receiver want DAB
> >>>radio? Digital Satellite has most of the good DAB channels in
>
> >
> > TalkSPORT, 5
> >
> >>Live Sports Extra, or your local radio station then digital
> >
> > satellite
> >
> >>would be an option.
> >
> >
> > Why is digital satellite ruled out? These channels are all available
> > on digital satellite.
>
> Those three are encrypted in NDS VideoGuard. To decrypt this particular
> flavour of said encryption standard, you need a MurdochBox - you can't
> just shove a CAM and FTV/FTL card in any old DVB-S receiver. Oh no.
>
And you know who is responsible for that? The Pigopolists of the Football
League and the FA. If you want to change it, write them. And while you're at
it, complain to the MCC, and the Rugby Union, and Manchester United and
Aston Villa and Derby County and the PFA and the whole of the Premier
League.
These are the fat overpaid bastards who want to stop you enjoying sports
unless you pay an arm, a leg and a small but vital part of your genitalia.
Philip
Steve
"Philip Crookes" <philip_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ad8gtb$a3m$05$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > Why would anyone who's got a satellite dish and receiver want DAB
> > radio? Digital Satellite has most of the good DAB channels in better
> > quality, plus a few hundred others:
> >
> >Yeah but what if you want to listen to radio while someone else in the
> house inists on watching tv thru the STB?
Get a dual LNB and another DSat receiver. The 2nd hand market is massive so
it will be far cheaper than getting some over-priced crap audio quality DAB
receiver (not the fault of the receivers, it's the fault of the
broadcasters). I know, I've got DAB unfortunately.
Anthony
>
> "Anthony" <o_anthony_oDE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ad88h1$uc77g$1...@ID-98017.news.dfncis.de...
>
>
> > I'm not sure if ADSL is available there but I'd imagine if it's not
> > in Hatch Warren then there's no chance in Kempshott (it's down to the
> > quality of the lines and the distance from the exchange isn't it?).
>
> No, that's right. I'm in one of the nearest Hatch Warren homes there is
> to the exchange, and my line length is still 5.25km. (The cables all come
via
> Gershwin Rd in Brighton H to make matters worse) Some friends of mine
> up in the new homes in Beggerwoood Lane are a massive 7.8km. As
> you go further into that new estate, the numbers become 01256 39xxxx,
which
> is the Dummer exchange. Distances there are 3-4km, but guess what,
> yep, BT have not, nor have any plans at present to enable ADSL from
> there!
You just reminded me about the time I saw workers laying cable TV between
Andover and a village called Enham. This was in '98 and it amazed me that
ComTel (I think that's what the franchise was at the time, before NTL took
them over) was considering cabling out to a small village when in
Basingstoke they couldn't be bothered to do some of the town's biggest
estates. Again, I probably don't know the ins and outs but it seemed rather
silly to me (but then again, Andover itself was cabled years before
Basingstoke was for reasons I can't even fathom).
> > It just seems so stupid that those that would most want and can afford
> > broadband services seem to be those denied them. I'm sure there's many
> > people in Hatch Warren, Kempshott and Chineham that have small
businesses or
> > work from home and have such a major stumling block in front of them
(but
> > that's for another topic in another newsgroup!).
>
> Indeed. There's been a thread in uk.local.hampshire on this very topic,
maybe see
> you in there sometime ? :-)
Yeah, I'll go and have a gander. They have a newsgroup for everything don't
they!
Philip Crookes
> Holden McGroin wrote:
> > Can I just repeat what you said? "Of course, if you have no desire to
> > listen to Radio 5 Live, TalkSPORT, 5 Live Sports Extra, or your local
> > stations are all available on digital satellite, that sentence was
> > wrong. If they're encrypted in an encryption scheme that you don't
> > like for some reason, that's irrelevant. It's like saying "I don't
> > like FM, therefore BBC Radio 1 is not available on radio".
>
> * Local radio stations are not available on Astra (Except for one or two
> London stations, and the odd regional station)
>
> * Radio 5, Sports Extra are FTV - you need a card. You *need* a Murdoch
> receiver; you can't just buy a plain DVB-S receiver (be it with an LED
> channel display, or digital output, etc).
>
> * TalKSPORT actually requires a *subscription* to Sky in order to be
> received.
>
>
> This is the thing I find singly most irritating about digital
> television. In order to watch television programmes that I pay a licence
> fee for, I *have* to buy a Murdoch receiver. The software is hacked up,
> the boxes are built down to a price, and the remote controls are awful.
> Plus everything has the Sky logo thrown over it.
It's not a Murdoch box. The M;urdoch family owns 30% of News Corporation,
which in turn has about 40% of BSkyB. Rupert Murdoch is not a member of the
BSkyB management team.
What is your problem with the branding? Do you hate all brands, or is it
just Sky, and if so, why? Do you equally hate the Hollinger Press and Conrad
Black, who is about as powerful in UK media as you seem to think Murdoch is?
What's your attitude to Roger Gilbert, who heads up a number of DMGT (Daily
Mail & General Trust plc) companies that are dominant in major UK and
foreign media markets? What's your attitude to L. Lowry Mays, Chairman and
CEO of Clear Channel Inc, which according to its own hype "operates
approximately 1,225 radio and 37 television stations in the United States
and has equity interests in over 240 radio stations internationally. Clear
Channel also operates approximately 776,000 outdoor advertising displays,
including billboards, street furniture and transit panels around the world."
They even own the bus shelters in Northern Ireland. "Clear Channel
Entertainment is a leading promoter, producer and marketer of live
entertainment events and also owns leading athlete management and marketing
companies." How do you feel about CLT-UFA, the Bertelsmann-owned subsidiary
that owns the largest single chunk of Channel 5, plus Polygram where a
large proportion of your music comes from?
Their radio stations are, pretty well globally, pap and crap.
> If I lived in any other country, I could buy a receiver of my choice,
> and fit it out with the appropriate CAM if I wanted to receive encrypted
> broadcasts.
No you couldn't. Not in Italy, not in Australia, not in New Zealand, not in
the USA, not in Canada, not in a dozen other countries. Don't kid yourself.
BSkyB is behaving agressively in the market because it can, and because so
far it's the only UK pay-tv operator that's likely to survive past next
Thursday. But things aren't that different anywhere else. And believe me,
you'd really hate the Australian system. It really sucks.
> But, oh no, not in this country. This would never have happened under
> the IBA...
The IBA was a total disaster. It was firmly in the pocket of the government,
it ran a cosy 'old chums' system, it was hostile to innovation, it set up
the ill-planned and disastrous BSB system, imposed the demented and useless
D-MAC transmission standard on it, and licensed a company under the
Arch-Gibbon Anthony Simmons-Gooding (a man who had already proved he
couldn't run a piss-up in a brewery)to operate it, sold out to megabucks
business interests on radio and when Leicester Sound went silent its
successor the Radio Authority became terrified that another licensed
station might go bust and someone in Westminster might frown at them, so
gave licenses on the basis of how much money the station might make. GWR,
the oh-so-cosy friend of the Radio Authority, now owns most of the
commercial radio sector in the UK, and its programming is solid crap. And
the RA are still handing out licenses to their good buddies as if they were
a privilege and not a right.
At least BSkyB is out there, competing for the advertisers and the
subscribers, without any of the protection the ITC and the Radio Authority
have so willingly offered to their domestic lame ducks in radio and tv.
Nobody has to subscribe to Sky. Everybody has to subscribe to the BBC. What
does this tell us?
Philip
Philip Crookes
> > television. In order to watch television programmes that I pay a licence
> > fee for, I *have* to buy a Murdoch receiver. The software is hacked up,
> > the boxes are built down to a price, and the remote controls are awful.
> > Plus everything has the Sky logo thrown over it.
> >
> > and fit it out with the appropriate CAM if I wanted to receive encrypted
> > broadcasts.
>
to
> design their own Sky digiboxes with the functions they want and not those
> laid down by Sky. Sky should be forced into allowing the use of CAMs so
> that anyone can buy any receiver as long as it's got a CI.
>
BSkyB is a commercial company that sells its product in the open market. Do
you expect Ford to sell you a car with a Toyota engine and transmission?
Philip
tony sayer
<markc...@onetel.net.uk> writes
If BT cant put in some sort of repeater on these lines and as ntl are
no-hopers for supplying you, I really think that way forward is local
radio based distro networks. Some people round here are starting to do
this take a look at www.bbb.net.uk for more info. If BT cant do this and
no one else wants to then a bit of DIY may be the answer.
AFAIAC I would miss my BB badly but the things I really like is that its
always on and there is no dial up waiting. Absolute speed isn't that
much of an attraction, so the idea of a 2 Meg line to a local hub may be
quite good for most applications.
Even if BT enable a lot more of their exchanges they still have this
distance limitation. Is there some alternative to this, i.e. a more
powerful line driver or alternative modulation/carrier methods other
wise it appears that some will never get BB...
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
<philip_...@yahoo.com> writes
Well Volvo used Ford engines at one point. Now there likely to use them
even more...
Yes, I see the point you're trying to make.
--
Tony Sayer
Anthony
> to
> > design their own Sky digiboxes with the functions they want and not
those
> > laid down by Sky. Sky should be forced into allowing the use of CAMs so
> > that anyone can buy any receiver as long as it's got a CI.
> >
> > Why isn't this happening? How did we get to this state?
>
> BSkyB is a commercial company that sells its product in the open market.
Do
> you expect Ford to sell you a car with a Toyota engine and transmission?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these people who feel the need to add a
dollar sign to the word "Sky" - I realise they are a successful company and
they're good at what they do (that is why I'm a customer of theirs). I also
understand that they are a commercial entity that has to please sharholders
and to do this they have to make as much money as humanly possible. I
realise they aren't a charity and I don't expect them to act like one.
But your little analogy isn't a very good one (I'm sorry, but it's not!).
Do I *expect* Ford to sell me a car with a Toyota engine? Well no, but then
I wouldn't be surprised if when I looked under the hood it was one (or at
least a Mazda one).
So why shouldn't I be able to buy a digital satellite receiver with the
features *I* want so that I can watch channels I pay for via my TV Licence?
Again, why shouldn't I be able to buy a satellite receiver of my choosing
and with features I want for the Sky package I subscribe to?
BSkyB have restricted choice in satellite receiver technology, is this a
good thing? Why shouldn't I be able to buy a Echostar or Humax receiver
capable of receiving Sky channels as well as channels from the rest of
Europe? As it stands, many people in this country and in Ireland have to
have two satellite receivers under their TVs instead of one - Is this a good
thing in your book?
tony sayer
<philip_...@yahoo.com> writes
>
Quite agree. What was that football club that went to the wall
complaining that they were failing because they had lost the ITV digital
money and they couldn't afford the 20,000 pounds per week for ONE of
their players. What a shower of crap, Gawd if I ran my outfit like that
I'd shoot meself.
That wasn't a misprint that 20,000 quid a WEEK I had to check the date
for 1/4/**
--
Tony Sayer
Philip Crookes
> Anthony wrote:
> > I agree that it's about time that all reputable manufacturers be allowed
to
> > design their own Sky digiboxes with the functions they want and not
those
> > laid down by Sky. Sky should be forced into allowing the use of CAMs so
> > that anyone can buy any receiver as long as it's got a CI.
>
> make quality DVB-S receivers. Documents I have read suggest that Sky
> boxes aren't fully DVB compliant, but I've not checked any digiboxes to
> see if they have the DVB Logo.
>
> foreign encrypted broadcasts. They don't have LED displays - so you need
> to have a TV plugged in to it, even for selecting a radio channel. Only
> one has a digital audio output - and that's very difficult to find
> supply of.
>
>
>
> competition with Murdoch's pirate station, Sky TV.
Rubbish. Sky TV was never a 'pirate' station. It was a legitimate and legal
user of the Astra 1A satellite, broadcasting on frequencies assigned to that
satellite by the ITU. It's worth noting that at that time, government
assumed (and hoped) that satellite broadcasting would need much larger
dishes, and was much more complicated, than it turned out to be. Government
wants broadcasting to be difficult, expensive, hard to do, subject to
complicated and costly licensing procedures, restricted, able to be shut
down and in the hands of its friends. The UK government was, and still is,
terrified that someone might realise that broadcasting ought to be open to
all, free, licensed on demand and not subject to such madnesses as the
Official Secrets Act, D-Notices, hefty licence fees and the whole crap
panoply of 'we know better than you do'. And by the way, a 'pirate'
broadcaster steals someone else's frequency. Tell me how Sky did that?
>
> BSB was using the MAC family of standards, on a satellite at 1 degree
> west. Digital sound and better-than-PAL analogue pictures. 5 quality
> channels; a music channel, and entertainment channel, a film channel,
> and a sports channel - I can't remember what the fifth was.
> http://www.meldrum.co.uk/mhp/ will probably have the answer, though.
MAC (actually D-Mac: Digital Multiplexed Analogue Components) was a
shit-awful over-engineered system from the outset. It wasn't even the
European standard that the French wanted (D2-MAC - an equally shit-awful
system using less bandwidth). No-one anywhere else in the world used D-MAC.
It meant that everyone had to have a converter box just to output a signal
they could see, because everyone in the UK had PAL receivers, and there were
never any D-MAC receivers on the market. So any inherent quality (not much)
that might have been in the essentially analogue signal was lost in the
conversion. The MAC family of standards (personally, I preferred the Big
MAC) was supported in Europe mainly by the culture-protective French, who
wanted to weaken the penetration of PAL, scare off the Americans, and knew
they couldn't insist on SECAM for the 'next-generation' HDTV systems that
were being developed, and the control-freaking Germans, Dutch, Belgians and
Scandinavians, who were terrified that their governments and their political
chums in the state tv monopolies might lose control of the pictures on
peoples' home screens. Among other lunacies, the D?-MAC fiasco led to the
ill-fated Olympus satellite, perhaps the only DBS system in the world that
was deliberately sabotaged by its owners, the ESA. I'm still proud that I
refused from the outset to broadcast Channel e in D2-MAC on Olympus or
anywhere else - even though we got a whole load of stick from the EU for
taking that position.
BSB, a company almost as badly managed as Railtrack or Enron, spent more
money on lunch than on programs and promotion. It was a Millenium Dome of a
tv service, limited to a total of five (count 'em) channels. It was a cosy,
establishment, UK government-friendly, incompetent disaster that deserved to
fail.
> Sky Television was Murdoch's pirate station - using Luxembourg-owned
> satellites (Astra) on pan-european beams, he set up many stations using
> a poorer quality system, requiring large dishes.
'Pirate' is nonsense. Just how was Sky's PAL transmission over Astra of
poorer quality than BSB's transmission over the MarcoPolo pair? Could
viewers see a difference in the pictures? Hear a difference in the
soundtrack? And of course, BSB's MarcoPolo pair of satellites were at 31
degrees West - so ensuring that if the government had its way, UK viewers,
with fixed dishes aimed at 31W, and their D-MAC tuners that could only
resolve signals from BSB, could never have the chance to look at any other
programming from any other satellite, or hear any other point of view than
the offical government licensed and sanitised pap and pablum. Do you believe
that this was a good thing? Good for choice? Good for UK satellite viewers?
Good for the industry?
>
> Sky then "merged" with BSB to become BSkyB. Marco Polo (the BSB
> satellite) was decommissioned and flogged to foreigners (I think it's
> named 'Thor' these days) and BSkyB continued to trot out crap on Astra.
Both BSB and Sky were eating each other's dinner. At the time of the
takeover, Sky had about five weeks before it failed - BSB had about three
days. That's at least in part because Sky under Sam Chisholm was infinitely
better managed than BSB under the failed brewer and managerial goat Anthony
Simmons-Gooding. A simple example: BSB was in vastly expensive premises
(MarcoPolo House, later the home of the recently deceased ITV Digital) in
inner London. Sky was on an industrial estate in Isleworth, because they
realised it doesn't matter a toss where your studios and uplink are located.
> It still continues due to light-touch regulation by the ITC, and the
> government in general. Murdoch has a *complete monopoly* on UK satellite
> television. You can't even watch the public service broadcaster's output
> by satellite without purchasing Murdoch's inferior, non-DVB-compliant,
> equipment.
The ITC has a dismal record on regulation. Both BSB and ITV Digital,
regulated and chosen by the failed control freaks of ITC, went bust because
they were quasi monopolies licensed by fools and managed by gibbons. As far
as your remarks on BBC output are concerned, complain to the BBC - but I
don't believe they'll wamt to hear you.
>
> It's also worth pointing out that the NDS, the company who provide Sky's
> encryption, are 80% owned by News Corporation - another Murdoch company.
News Corporation is 30% owned by the Murdoch family, The other 70% is owned
by a range of corporate investors, including your pension scheme. Do you
still hate them so much?
>
> This seriously needs to be investigated and rectified; I'd have no
> objections to the BBC using NDS VideoGuard iff (that's "if and only if")
> the system were opened up to be compatable with CI CAMs and
> DVB-compliant boxes. If this were to happen, we'd be free to choose our
> own equipment (if it were particularly for satellite radio, one with an
> LED screen and digital output, for example) and we wouldn't be
> restricted to using inferior-quality built-down gear..
>
> It really does suck, and it really does need sorting.
>
As far as radio goes, you can receive almost all the satellite radio
services (except two or three that are limited because of the sports rights
pigopolies) on any satellite tuner you care to buy.
Why don't you campaign instead for an open broadcasting system, where anyone
who wants to broadcast can secure any frequency they can find and broadcast
on it. Why do you want to limit, restrict, confine, contain the free
expression of ideas and creativity? Why do we need broadcast regulation at
all?
Philip
Philip Crookes
(snip)
> Nick Jeffery - Durham, England Station Manager, Purple FM
This is drifting a bit from the thread--- but: what do you broadcast that is
different from the other (mostly GWR) stations on the air?
In Wolverhampton, we have GWR (Beacon, WABC, BRMB and associates), the BBC,
one local FM, a long term college AM station on 1 (!!!) watt and a
charitable RSL. The music is not all that different among the lot of them,
and outside the BBC none of them has any worthwhile talk at all.
Whatever happened to originality?
Philip
Philip Crookes
> > Have you actually heard DAB yet? For home listening DSat takes the piss
> out
> DAB
> > because the bit rates are now nearly all 128kbps for stereo music
> stations.
> > On DSat the same stations are 192kbps or 160kbps. No contest.
>
> Yes I have heard it, no I don't have it (or sky for that matter). All the
> audio output stages on the sky receivers I've heard are crap, worse than
the
> audio outs on my pace DTTV box.
>
>
> > FM works fine in your car. I've yet to hear the problems with mobile
> > reception in my car. I tell a lie, I once had a problem in City Centre
> > Manchester. The thing is though I'd bet a lot of money that the DAB
signal
> > would also drop out in exactly the same place. DAB reception is not all
> that
> > it is cracked up to be. I live in what should be a strong reception area
> but
> > my reception on DAB is pretty poor. One multiplex is virtually
> unlistenable.
>
> Radio is a funny thing, a few inches may make a big difference in
reception.
It's a bit like sex, really, innit?
The problem we have is that digital terrestrial transmission isn't working
the way it's supposed to be working. I suspect that we are going to need
more power - perhaps quite a lot more power - than we've tried so far to
deliver a stable, interference free DAB signal to you in Piccadilly Gardens
and at home and in the tram to Eccles.
> I get loads of FM reception problems in car, crappy R3 / R4 reception
being
> the main one, DAB may be all or nothing but in the environment of a car (a
> noise generator) it makes sense. Also for portables it makes sense (in the
> same way DTTV makes sense for portable applications).
>
Any car that I can afford to be in is likely to be too noisy for any
imaginable entertainment system to deliver a signal according to its spec to
my rather large and very sensitive ears. For that matter, the only time I
rode in a Roller (it belonged to Sir George Kenyon) I still thought it was
noisy. I guess I just hear too much.
Philip
Steve
"Philip Crookes" <philip_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ad8jpt$emn$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
Actually that is an awful analogy. Lots of car manufacturers use other
brands' parts. For example, my Rover has got a Honda engine in it.
Steve
> Quite agree. What was that football club that went to the wall
> complaining that they were failing because they had lost the ITV digital
> money and they couldn't afford the 20,000 pounds per week for ONE of
> their players. What a shower of crap, Gawd if I ran my outfit like that
> I'd shoot meself.
That'll be Bradford City who got relegated last but one season from the
Premiership. They got promoted to the Premiership and if they wanted any
chance of staying in that division they *had* to pay out in wages or they
wouldn't have attracted any players that they *needed* because there is a
gulf in ability between the Premiership and Division 1.
I will *never* agree that any club should go bust because of some shitty
broadcaster welching on their TV money when they've got that money but
they've started a new company that just goes bust so the parent company is
not liable.
Sky have made football completely money oriented because of the way they
hijacked the football rights and forced everybody who wanted to watch live
football for more than FA Cup games only to buy a satellite system from
them. Then football became the preserve of the "prawn-sandwich-eating
brigade" (one of Roy Keane's better statements!) and it has been downhill
ever since. Johnny from fecking Portsmouth or Plymouth now supports
Manchester U fecking nited and the rich get richer and everybody else has to
pay out big if they want to just stay in the Premiership. It is not the
fault of all the football clubs, football is an emotive game and the
chairmen are normally fans. They do pay too much but the wages will start
coming down big-time because they have been going irrationally high for the
last few seasons. You get the likes of Jack Walker who owned Blackburn
Rovers and who owned about Ł500m. He basically bought the Premiership title
by buying a full squad of players and other chairmen did the same. Bradford
are the victim of circumstances. The player who is on Ł20,000 per week will
be on a contract for a couple of years so they either play him or they leave
him out but if nobody wants to pay higher wages for him then he will sit
right where he is and collect his Ł20,000 per week because that is what it
says he is entitled to in his contract.
So you can blame it on the players' agents or Sky or a few of the chairmen
who have got more money than sense and could afford to send wages throught
the roof, but Bradford got promoted then got relegated and were lumbered
with the enormous wage bill that all Premiership clubs have, then just to
take the piss ITV Digital go and say you're not getting any money.
I tell you why I am against clubs going bust in this way because to a
football fan seeing their club go bust it must be the worst feeling in the
world. You don't like football so you won't understand what it is like just
to see your club get relegated, which really is a severe piss-off, but for
it to cease its existence would be just too fucking much to bear. I don't
particularly like or dislike Bradford City but I do feel very sorry for them
because to a proper non-prawn-sandwich-eating fan it would be teh end of the
world.
> That wasn't a misprint that 20,000 quid a WEEK I had to check the date
> for 1/4/**
Yes, and Roy Keane is probably on about Ł80,000 per week. I blame Sky for
creating the fucked up football wages market. They probably don't deserve
the blame but they have irretrievably changed football in England for the
worse IMO.
Philip Crookes
"Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ad8ulv$3qh$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8T6MqlCl...@bancom.co.uk...
>
> > Quite agree. What was that football club that went to the wall
> > complaining that they were failing because they had lost the ITV digital
> > money and they couldn't afford the 20,000 pounds per week for ONE of
> > their players. What a shower of crap, Gawd if I ran my outfit like that
> > I'd shoot meself.
>
>
> That'll be Bradford City who got relegated last but one season from the
> Premiership. They got promoted to the Premiership and if they wanted any
> chance of staying in that division they *had* to pay out in wages or they
> wouldn't have attracted any players that they *needed* because there is a
> gulf in ability between the Premiership and Division 1.
>
> I will *never* agree that any club should go bust because of some shitty
> broadcaster welching on their TV money when they've got that money but
> they've started a new company that just goes bust so the parent company is
> not liable.
Nope. Football is bust because of the greed of the so-called football
'clubs' that turned into plc's. Look at the ludicrous money they are pasing.
No-one is worth that much money.
How come a shit-arsed 21 year old can get 20 000 pounds a WEEK - and the
nurse that looks after your Nan doesn't make that in a year. That's crap.
The football companies were greedy, ITV Digital (a company managed by
monkeys) saw them coming and screwed them. ITV Digital is history, there
never was any money, so tough. Football isn't worth the money the monkey
said it would pay.
And just let's be clear about one thing. ITV Digital was a plc - a public
LIMITED company. That LIMITED eans that the shareholders' liability is
LIMITED to the amount they put into the company in the first place. Imagine
for a moment tat you invested in a plc that had a tv broadcasting licence.
If it fails, you lose your money. But do you expect them to come after your
house, your car and your pension too? And if youdon't, why do you suppose
that Carlton and Granada should lose out because their investment went sour?
>
> Sky have made football completely money oriented because of the way they
> hijacked the football rights and forced everybody who wanted to watch live
> football for more than FA Cup games only to buy a satellite system from
> them.
Wrong. the football companies lay down and let Sky fuck them over. Their
deal, their money. As a viewer, you're free to set the price on the product.
Just say No!
>
> Yes, and Roy Keane is probably on about £80,000 per week. I blame Sky for
> creating the fucked up football wages market. They probably don't deserve
> the blame but they have irretrievably changed football in England for the
> worse IMO.
Wrong again. the football companies (note- not clubs) and the PFA wrecked
football. Who ever said to Manchester United/Chelsea/Liverpool/Arsenal that
they had to pay that kind of money to the players - and screw the supporters
with such high prices? Not Sky, that's for sure.
Philip
Nick Jeffery
> This is drifting a bit from the thread--- but: what do you broadcast that is
> different from the other (mostly GWR) stations on the air?
BRMB is part of Capital Radio Group.
> In Wolverhampton, we have GWR (Beacon, WABC, BRMB and associates), the BBC,
> one local FM, a long term college AM station on 1 (!!!) watt and a
> charitable RSL. The music is not all that different among the lot of them,
> and outside the BBC none of them has any worthwhile talk at all.
Our playlist is only in operation during the day - it's pretty
alternative, quite similar to Xfm and SBN (who are our sustaining
service). We're also 30% speech-based, and evening and weekend shows are
presenter chosen specialist shows. The next RSL we're doing will be in
October, to coincide with the Freshers Fair and other associated
start-of-year nonsense.
> Whatever happened to originality?
We're not in it to make a profit. We're here, mainly, to give people
interested in radio some experience. We're also here to let those people
enjoy themselves, and hopefully provide a service to the student
community in Durham.
Obviously, as Friday was the last day of exams, and I've been out in the
bars of Durham, these are my views and they may not necessarily be those
of Purple FM, DSU, UoD, etc...
--
Nick Jeffery - Durham, England Station Manager, Purple FM
Steve
I agree. But Man U fecking nited aren't skint are they?
> How come a shit-arsed 21 year old can get 20 000 pounds a WEEK - and the
> nurse that looks after your Nan doesn't make that in a year. That's crap.
I agree totally. What are the players going to do though, say no?
> The football companies were greedy, ITV Digital (a company managed by
> monkeys) saw them coming and screwed them. ITV Digital is history, there
> never was any money, so tough. Football isn't worth the money the monkey
> said it would pay.
True again. I've heard that the Football League agreed to the deal as it is
without the guarantee of the money from Carlton and Granada, which sounds
pretty fecking suicidal, but then again, Bradford City won't even have voted
for this because they will have been in the Premiership.
> And just let's be clear about one thing. ITV Digital was a plc - a public
> LIMITED company. That LIMITED eans that the shareholders' liability is
> LIMITED to the amount they put into the company in the first place.
Yes, I'm well aware of what 'limited' means thanks.
> Imagine
> for a moment tat you invested in a plc that had a tv broadcasting licence.
> If it fails, you lose your money. But do you expect them to come after
your
> house, your car and your pension too?
I tell you what, if I was a Bradford City fan then yes, I would expect the
club to go after the money that actually is there in Carlton and Granada's
bank accounts. That is what the chairmen or the Football League is doing so
there must be a case of some sort.
> And if youdon't, why do you suppose
> that Carlton and Granada should lose out because their investment went
sour?
Don't twist this into the money aint there, it is definitely there, many
times over in fact. Look how much the market capitalisation of Carlton and
Granada is, billions and billions. They could easily afford it. I don't know
all the details but as the league clubs and League are going after the money
then it is obviously not clear cut.
> > Sky have made football completely money oriented because of the way they
> > hijacked the football rights and forced everybody who wanted to watch
live
> > football for more than FA Cup games only to buy a satellite system from
> > them.
>
> Wrong. the football companies lay down and let Sky fuck them over. Their
> deal, their money. As a viewer, you're free to set the price on the
product.
> Just say No!
Yeah right. One fecking person doesn't mean shit. We had Sky when I was
younger but I haven't had it for years now. I am a football fan but I've
been a student so I couldn't afford it. When Sky started though I was pissed
off that they were holding football to ransom and me and my old fella liking
football we basically had to get it. It was used for watching, err football,
and I watched one episode of The Simpsons. I didn't watch anything else. I
don't know whether my dad did or not cos I was out most of the time but
basically it was purchased *only* because we had to have it because we were
big football fans. Simple as that.
Sky needed football. The chairmen saw a big payday, the city analysts liked
it. If the chairmen saw the future I don't think that many would have
agreed. Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool seem to have benefitted but most
of the rest are in dire straights and it is the TV money that has brought
the astranomical wages on in the first place. I agree the chairmen have been
greedy and now it's all screwed up for all but the clubs mentioned above. I
didn't have a crystal ball but I've always been against Sky having their
football contract and whatever you say, without their involvement this
screwed up state wouldn't have happened.
> > Yes, and Roy Keane is probably on about £80,000 per week. I blame Sky
for
> > creating the fucked up football wages market. They probably don't
deserve
> > the blame but they have irretrievably changed football in England for
the
> > worse IMO.
>
> Wrong again. the football companies (note- not clubs) and the PFA wrecked
> football. Who ever said to Manchester United/Chelsea/Liverpool/Arsenal
that
> they had to pay that kind of money to the players - and screw the
supporters
> with such high prices? Not Sky, that's for sure.
Without Sky's money the players' agents wouldn't have been able to ask for
this sort of money. Without Sky's money the chairmen of the smaller 15
Premiership clubs wouldn't have had the stupid amounts of money to offer in
the first place so they wouldn't have tried tro compete with the big 5 or so
clubs that could afford higher wages than the smaller clubs simply because
their merchandising makes as much money as the smaller clubs ticket sales.
There is no single thing to pin this on, it is a combination of a few
things. But one thing is for sure is that without the Sky money the wages
wouldn't have got to anywhere near the vast amounts that they are at the
moment.
Nick Jeffery
>Everybody has to subscribe to the BBC. What
> does this tell us?
They do? I don't.
Then again, I don't have a television set.
Steve
If my experience is anything to go by then I would totally agree with you. I
live in a 1st floor flat with trees a few metres away from my window. It
seems that because the trees have grown leaves that now I cannot listen to
the CE Manchester multiplex because the signal strength goes up and down
like a yo-yo and drops out I'd say on average every 5 seconds and basically
is completely unlistenable.
Compare that with my piece of wire for my FM tuner that receives lots and
lots of stations with a good quality signal.
Recently the BBC multiplex reception has started going wrong too.
> > I get loads of FM reception problems in car, crappy R3 / R4 reception
> being
> > the main one, DAB may be all or nothing but in the environment of a car
(a
> > noise generator) it makes sense. Also for portables it makes sense (in
the
> > same way DTTV makes sense for portable applications).
> >
> Any car that I can afford to be in is likely to be too noisy for any
> imaginable entertainment system to deliver a signal according to its spec
to
> my rather large and very sensitive ears. For that matter, the only time I
> rode in a Roller (it belonged to Sir George Kenyon) I still thought it was
> noisy. I guess I just hear too much.
I assume you'd agree with me that FM is fine for in-car audio then? Improved
multipath reception my arse. I bet there won't be enough power to keep the
signal from dropping out in the first place.
tony sayer
digitalradiotech.co.uk> writes
>by buying a full squad of players and other chairmen did the same. Bradford
>be on a contract for a couple of years so they either play him or they leave
>him out but if nobody wants to pay higher wages for him then he will sit
>says he is entitled to in his contract.
>
>So you can blame it on the players' agents or Sky or a few of the chairmen
>who have got more money than sense and could afford to send wages throught
>the roof, but Bradford got promoted then got relegated and were lumbered
>with the enormous wage bill that all Premiership clubs have, then just to
>take the piss ITV Digital go and say you're not getting any money.
>
>I tell you why I am against clubs going bust in this way because to a
>football fan seeing their club go bust it must be the worst feeling in the
>world. You don't like football so you won't understand what it is like just
>to see your club get relegated, which really is a severe piss-off, but for
>it to cease its existence would be just too fucking much to bear. I don't
>particularly like or dislike Bradford City but I do feel very sorry for them
>because to a proper non-prawn-sandwich-eating fan it would be teh end of the
>world.
>
>> That wasn't a misprint that 20,000 quid a WEEK I had to check the date
>> for 1/4/**
>
>creating the fucked up football wages market. They probably don't deserve
>the blame but they have irretrievably changed football in England for the
>worse IMO.
>
>
>--
>Steve
>
>www.digitalradiotech.co.uk -- Subscribe for free to the DAB Listeners Group
>Newsletter
>
>
Well this seems to me to be total mismanagement of the business and a
real distortion of the supply and demand principle. I suppose that in
order to impress my punters I could go out and afford m'self a roller,
and I suppose in good times I could afford the repayments. However I
bloody well know that there are going to be times of the year when I
cant.
Same with the football business. Anyone with any business sense should
have realized that to support the local bunch then the players wages
should be set by the level of support that can be given by bum's on
seats.
To rely on the promises of a dubious lot with a half baked distribution
system that relied on its rivals to supply them with programmes wasn't a
very clever thing to do, and anyone with a bit of foresight could have
realised this. However most of these clubs are run by wallies, the local
one in Cambridge certainly is.
Quite frankly I think the way football is arranged is totally bloody
stoopid with a player for some tinpot place north of Watford paying a
ball kicker-a-bouter 20 grand a week! that's about the wages bill for a
bloody small hospital.
Stuff 'em I say. I think far more sportsmanship can be seen in a school
playground, or on the village green in the summer.
Pah Humbug!...
--
Tony Sayer
Steve
--
Steve
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk -- Subscribe for free to the DAB Listeners Group
Newsletter
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xlpvXNFl...@bancom.co.uk...
tony sayer
digitalradiotech.co.uk> writes
>
>Was this a speechless Steve then?...or did he hit the send button
before he wrote owt?..
>--
>Steve
>
>www.digitalradiotech.co.uk -- Subscribe for free to the DAB Listeners Group
>Newsletter
>"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:xlpvXNFl...@bancom.co.uk...
>> In article <ad8ulv$3qh$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, Steve <info@remove_this.
>> digitalradiotech.co.uk> writes
>> >
>> >"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:8T6MqlCl...@bancom.co.uk...
>> >
>> >> Quite agree. What was that football club that went to the wall
>> >> complaining that they were failing because they had lost the ITV
>digital
>> >> money and they couldn't afford the 20,000 pounds per week for ONE of
>> >> their players. What a shower of crap, Gawd if I ran my outfit like that
>> >> I'd shoot meself.
>> >
>> >
>> >That'll be Bradford City who got relegated last but one season from the
>> >Premiership. They got promoted to the Premiership and if they wanted any
>> >chance of staying in that division they *had* to pay out in wages or they
>> >wouldn't have attracted any players that they *needed* because there is a
>> >gulf in ability between the Premiership and Division 1.
--
Tony Sayer
Steve
> In article <ad8ulv$3qh$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, Steve <info@remove_this.
> Well this seems to me to be total mismanagement of the business and a
> real distortion of the supply and demand principle. I suppose that in
> order to impress my punters I could go out and afford m'self a roller,
> and I suppose in good times I could afford the repayments. However I
> bloody well know that there are going to be times of the year when I
> cant.
>
> Same with the football business. Anyone with any business sense should
> have realized that to support the local bunch then the players wages
> should be set by the level of support that can be given by bum's on
> seats.
>
> To rely on the promises of a dubious lot with a half baked distribution
> system that relied on its rivals to supply them with programmes wasn't a
> very clever thing to do, and anyone with a bit of foresight could have
> realised this. However most of these clubs are run by wallies, the local
> one in Cambridge certainly is.
>
> Quite frankly I think the way football is arranged is totally bloody
> stoopid with a player for some tinpot place north of Watford paying a
> ball kicker-a-bouter 20 grand a week! that's about the wages bill for a
> bloody small hospital.
>
> Stuff 'em I say. I think far more sportsmanship can be seen in a school
> playground, or on the village green in the summer.
I can't say I disagree with much of this. The wages are a joke but it is a
bit harsh to generalise about why this has happened by blaming all the
chairmen. All companies would include expected income in their finance
plans. The company's accountants would use some sort of risk analysis to
ascertain how safe it is that they will receive this income. Wages have most
definitely peaked by all accounts because they have gone into stupid mode.
Football is not your average company so what goes in football is not
directly comparable to normal companies. For example, Tesco don't perform
poorly if they have a series of poor 1 1/2 hour trading periods on
Saturdays. I can't think of an industry where the saying "speculate to
accumulate" applies more to it than it does to football. It has always been
the case that the teams that paid the highest transfer fees got the best
players and were successful. So with all the new money coming into football,
some of the chairmen (who are normally fans of the club as well) have seen
others do this (like Jack Walker basically buying the Premiership title by
paying out big on players) and some of these chairmen have attempted the
same. Some have failed miserably like Coventry who spent big and then were
relegated. Bradford City went from almost obscurity to the Premiership which
required a big investment and the wages that go with that. They were
relegated after their first season in the Premiership and then just to kick
them in the teeth ITV Digital welch on their TV money and they're stuck with
the players that they had to buy in order to even attempt to compete in the
Premiership. Being a football chairman is not an easy job. At Bradford you'd
have 20,000 fans at every home match in if you hadn't spent big on the team
on their first ever season in the Premiership then the fans would rip you to
shreds. You have to spend the money when you get promoted. Maybe they
shouldn't have spent as much as they did, I don't really know. You have to
remember though that they will have a load of players after they got
relegated that they bought for the Premiership who were all on pretty big
wages because in this day and age with the agents holding clubs to ransom
the wages are part and parcel of being in the Premiership. Also, it isn't as
simple as it used to be. The Bosman ruling that made any out of contract
player be allowed to go on a free transfer has also had its effect in making
the wages spiral upwards. For example, you've got David Beckham who is the
best player in England who would be out of contract in a few months or maybe
he already was when he signed another contract for Man United. If United
wanted to sell him when he is in contract they could get about £35million
for him if they sold him to Italy or Spain, but as soon as he is out of
contract the club can't get a penny for him. Not one penny. The agents know
this so they hold the clubs to ransom over this because the clubs have so
much to lose if the player does not agree terms and decides to go to the end
of his contract and move on to another club for a free transfer. Also, the
agent takes advantage of this because the club the player decides to go to
are getting him for nothing instead of say £35million so the agents
translate this into bigger pay.
It is too easy just to say that the bums are not on the seats so therefore
they're crazy to be paying these wages. Football isn't a normal business.
There are lots of factors that have contributed to the present state of
wages and clubs in financial difficulty.
Hopefully the ITV Digital fiasco will bring everything back down to earth.
It was only a few years ago when the football clubs' share prices were
absolutely soaring but they've dropped a long way since their peak. This too
contributed to spirally wages because everybody thought that football was
booming and that it would carry on doing so. It has obviously hit its peak
and there hasn't been a soft landing for some of the clubs.
tony sayer
<DABbled with>
>It is too easy just to say that the bums are not on the seats so therefore
>they're crazy to be paying these wages. Football isn't a normal business.
>There are lots of factors that have contributed to the present state of
>wages and clubs in financial difficulty.
>
can go pop just like any other..
>Hopefully the ITV Digital fiasco will bring everything back down to earth.
>It was only a few years ago when the football clubs' share prices were
>absolutely soaring but they've dropped a long way since their peak. This too
>contributed to spirally wages because everybody thought that football was
>booming and that it would carry on doing so. It has obviously hit its peak
>and there hasn't been a soft landing for some of the clubs.
>
Good then, lets hope that some sense and reality happens in footer..
Anyway my missus is really pissed of this weekend being from France and
losing to Senegal...Bit like us losing at cricket to all our old
outposts..england invents, and then everyone else does better with our
inventions than what we do..bit like DABble really.....
--
Tony Sayer