Sky phoning in to the digibox
Acart
light comes on during the evenong for about 30 seconds). This is in theory OK,
but I have call waiting on my phone line. When I'm on the internet I leave call
waiting on because I don't want to miss any calls. I don't mind being cut off
the net for that. However, I also get cut off the internet when Sky phones the
digibox. This is starting to get annoying, as when Sky fail to get through when
I'm online, their computer retries. So when I reconnect, within minutes I'm cut
off again.
Has anyone else had similar experiences?
ADC
Leigh Preece
: I've noticed that Sky are phoning in to my digibox almost every day (the online
: light comes on during the evenong for about 30 seconds).
I thought it was the digibox that was calling Sky - not the other way
around.
Leigh.... call me Mr. Analogue !
--
Leigh M. Preece. Media and Communications Centre Ham Radio Call:
le...@media.keele.ac.uk Keele University, Staffs. M1CZK
Go on - spam me - I can delete as easily as you sent it !
Acart
phone operators at Sky have been known to be wrong!
ADC
Steve Pearce
>Sky told me that they phoned the digibox- not the other way round. However, the
>phone operators at Sky have been known to be wrong!
I think it is pretty well accepted that there is no way the Digibox
could answer an inbound call.
~~~~~~ Steve Pearce ~~~~~~
Tariq Atchia
Steve Pearce wrote in message <36714903...@news.eng.octel.com>...
>I think it is pretty well accepted that there is no way the Digibox
>could answer an inbound call.
It has a standard modem installed in it, of course it can answer a call. If
it is a voice modem, and if Sky put the right software on the box, it could
act as an answering machine.
However, it seems to be common belief that Sky don't phone the box.
Anything's possible.
Tariq
Simon Gallico
>I've noticed that Sky are phoning in to my digibox almost every day (the online
>light comes on during the evenong for about 30 seconds). This is in theory OK,
>but I have call waiting on my phone line. When I'm on the internet I leave call
>waiting on because I don't want to miss any calls. I don't mind being cut off
>the net for that. However, I also get cut off the internet when Sky phones the
>digibox. This is starting to get annoying, as when Sky fail to get through when
>I'm online, their computer retries. So when I reconnect, within minutes I'm cut
>off again.
>
>Has anyone else had similar experiences?
>
>ADC
How do you know it is the digibox's mum calling its baby?
Steve Pearce
OK, let me calrify what I meant to say.
There is no way the Digibox could know that an inbound call is for
itself and therefore if it answered all calls (just in case), your
phone would never ring. There has been talk of the box looking at the
Caller ID, however this is only available if you have paid for the
service. Since a huge number of subscribers wouldn't have CLID how
could the Digibox know the call was for it. The simple answer is
it couldn't and so that makes the theory that the Digibox answers
calls a nonsense.
~~~~~~ Steve Pearce ~~~~~~
Tariq Atchia
Steve Pearce wrote in message <3672367c...@news.eng.octel.com>...
>There is no way the Digibox could know that an inbound call is for
>itself and therefore if it answered all calls (just in case), your
>phone would never ring. There has been talk of the box looking at the
>Caller ID, however this is only available if you have paid for the
>service. Since a huge number of subscribers wouldn't have CLID how
>could the Digibox know the call was for it. The simple answer is
>it couldn't and so that makes the theory that the Digibox answers
>calls a nonsense.
Perhaps Sky could cut a deal with BT to transfer Caller ID for Sky only.
However, this wouldn't work on cable and other operator's lines, giving
credence to reports that Sky have said the DigiBox must be connected to a BT
line.
Tariq
Phil/Lin Spiegelhalter
Acart <ac...@aol.com> wrote:
> Sky told me that they phoned the digibox- not the other way round. >However, the phone operators at Sky have been known to be wrong!
Phil: Perhaps you should have interpreted that less literally --
Sky operators may well "phone your box" - meaning that they are calling it
over the air - and instructing it to "call home" on the landline -ET.
--
Phil and Lin Spiegelhalter - Fillin http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/fillin
Acorn RiscPC+StrongArm Videodesk, Photodesk, Cluttered desk...
martin carroll
<Steve....@NOSPAM.octel.com> writes
>"Tariq Atchia" <xy...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>Steve Pearce wrote in message <36714903...@news.eng.octel.com>...
>>
>>>I think it is pretty well accepted that there is no way the Digibox
>>>could answer an inbound call.
>>
>>
>>It has a standard modem installed in it, of course it can answer a call. If
>>it is a voice modem, and if Sky put the right software on the box, it could
>>act as an answering machine.
>>
>>However, it seems to be common belief that Sky don't phone the box.
>>Anything's possible.
>
>OK, let me calrify what I meant to say.
>
>itself and therefore if it answered all calls (just in case), your
>phone would never ring. There has been talk of the box looking at the
>Caller ID, however this is only available if you have paid for the
>service. Since a huge number of subscribers wouldn't have CLID how
>could the Digibox know the call was for it. The simple answer is
>it couldn't and so that makes the theory that the Digibox answers
>calls a nonsense.
It would also render the BT Answering service I use totally useless as
the phone would always be answered when I am out so no-one would ever be
able to leave me a message (presumably this would also be the case for a
standard ansaphone!
Regards
--
martin carroll
Vince Bennett
Acart wrote in message <19981211102214...@ng-cb1.aol.com>...
>I've noticed that Sky are phoning in to my digibox almost every day (the
online
>light comes on during the evenong for about 30 seconds). This is in theory
OK,
>but I have call waiting on my phone line. When I'm on the internet I leave
call
>waiting on because I don't want to miss any calls. I don't mind being cut
off
>the net for that. However, I also get cut off the internet when Sky phones
the
>digibox. This is starting to get annoying, as when Sky fail to get through
when
>I'm online, their computer retries. So when I reconnect, within minutes I'm
cut
>off again.
>
>Has anyone else had similar experiences?
>
>ADC
I'm having the same problem, but only 2 or 3 times a week. I contacted Sky
and explained that my Digibox was phoning out a lot. I was using the phone
at one time and the Digibox started dialing out drowning out the person I
was speaking to. I was told by Sky that the digibox was not capable of doing
this. They told me that it will make a quick call once a month for Sky to
check the connection and to check for PPV events. I gave up after Sky
started blaming the instalation, then the telephone line and anything else
exept the digibox.
As the digibox never seems to get through to Sky (engaged tone, I picked the
phone up and listened) It keeps trying about 3 times every 15 minuites for a
couple of hours. Next time it happens I will phone Sky again and make sure
that they are on the phone when it rings out. (it happened this Saturday but
I could not get through to Sky)
Vince
dj...@my-dejanews.com
ac...@aol.com (Acart) wrote:
> Sky told me that they phoned the digibox- not the other way round. However, the
> phone operators at Sky have been known to be wrong!
If only you knew the truth with the amount of shite Sky tell the
customers mate!
They will tell you whatever you want to hear to keep you off their
backs.
I work for them, and I know what they are like...
They told one of our customers that Digital Sky was taken off the air
by an asteroid hitting the satellite, and that "my" work does all the
tranmissions and subscriptions and to give us a ring and complain..
THIS is what they are like.. (well some of them)
Just to let you know....
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
R. Mark Clayton
Tariq Atchia <xy...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in article
<74ts4q$ogn$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>...
>
> Steve Pearce wrote in message <3672367c...@news.eng.octel.com>...
>
SNIP
>
> Perhaps Sky could cut a deal with BT to transfer Caller ID for Sky only.
> However, this wouldn't work on cable and other operator's lines, giving
> credence to reports that Sky have said the DigiBox must be connected to a
BT
> line.
>
> Tariq
Aha!
If true this would of course is another anti competitive practice. BT are
[currently] not allowed to supply TV. Consequently a BT customer can't
order cable TV. Customers of other PSTN suppliers can, so punters might
revert to the competition once the initial year was over (or just anyway
and send the box back). By keeping them with BT $ky would prevent churn to
cable operators.
BT can not currently deliver CLID on all its lines (though' it must be
close). I have never heard of a "force CLID" option, but it is certainly
possible.
BT lines can also be decoded to quite small geographical locations, so $ky
have a reasonableness check on where the subsidised box is supposed to be
going.
--
R. Mark Clayton
R. Mark Clayton
Steve Pearce <Steve....@NOSPAM.octel.com> wrote in article
<36714903...@news.eng.octel.com>...
> ac...@aol.com (Acart) wrote:
>
> >Sky told me that they phoned the digibox- not the other way round.
However, the
> >phone operators at Sky have been known to be wrong!
>
> I think it is pretty well accepted that there is no way the Digibox
> could answer an inbound call.
The modem goes off hook and answers the call?!? Of course it can, like any
modem.
There is no reliable way that $ky can call the box and it not answer real
calls. If the box makes call, it might busy up the line occasionally, but
at least the user will not lose incoming traffic - an artifact which would
send me ballistic.
>
> ~~~~~~ Steve Pearce ~~~~~~
IAN GARDNER
>
>>
>>Steve Pearce wrote in message <36714903...@news.eng.octel.com>...
>>
>>>I think it is pretty well accepted that there is no way the Digibox
>>>could answer an inbound call.
>>
>>
If
>>it is a voice modem, and if Sky put the right software on the box, it
could
>>act as an answering machine.
>>
>>However, it seems to be common belief that Sky don't phone the box.
>>Anything's possible.
>
>OK, let me calrify what I meant to say.
>
>There is no way the Digibox could know that an inbound call is for
>itself and therefore if it answered all calls (just in case), your
>phone would never ring. There has been talk of the box looking at the
>Caller ID, however this is only available if you have paid for the
>service. Since a huge number of subscribers wouldn't have CLID how
>could the Digibox know the call was for it. The simple answer is
>it couldn't and so that makes the theory that the Digibox answers
>calls a nonsense.
But don`t those boxes that you connect to your fax/phone detect what type of
phonecall it incoming, and they auto switch to the correct piece of
equipment.?#
Any Telephone engineers out their who know weather a piece of equipment can
detect what type of call is being received?
See Yer..
IAN P. GARDNER.
Nigel Goodwin
>Sky would not be concerned with any of this directly as they do not in
>fact require the phone connection at all. They are just happy to use
>it if someone has it.
>
>>However, this wouldn't work on cable and other operator's lines, giving
>>credence to reports that Sky have said the DigiBox must be connected to a BT
>>line.
>init string.
In the recent (first ever!) Sky Digital Technical Newsletter they stated
that there should be an upgrade fairly soon to cure the problems with BT
lines. It didn't mention when this might be though :-(.
--
Nigel.
/--------------------------------------------------------------\
| Nigel Goodwin | Internet : nig...@lpilsley.demon.co.uk |
| Lower Pilsley | Web Page : http://www.lpilsley.demon.co.uk |
| Chesterfield | Official site for Shin Ki Ju Jitsu |
| England | |
\--------------------------------------------------------------/
Ron O'Brien
<xy...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes
>
>However, it seems to be common belief that Sky don't phone the box.
>Anything's possible.
>
>
>
Or put another way, why would Sky want to phone the digibox when it can
send data to it from the airwaves - including the instruction to phone
home
--
Ron O'Brien
Ron O'Brien
<vi...@vbennett.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>I'm having the same problem, but only 2 or 3 times a week. I contacted Sky
>and explained that my Digibox was phoning out a lot. I was using the phone
>at one time and the Digibox started dialing out drowning out the person I
>was speaking to. I was told by Sky that the digibox was not capable of doing
>this. They told me that it will make a quick call once a month for Sky to
>check the connection and to check for PPV events. I gave up after Sky
>started blaming the instalation, then the telephone line and anything else
>exept the digibox.
I was told that you could find that your dodgybox phones home more often
if you have a moveable dish. The theory is that if it phones home, then
you move your dish, then bring it back to 28E, the dodgybox picks up the
phone home signal again and retries.
The odd thing is my box has never phoned home. I have a device which
monitors all incoming and outgoing calls - not once has it tried.
--
Ron O'Brien
Steve
>If the modem were told on-air to answer a particular call it need
>never answer any other (real) call. This system would work very
>nicely.
>
That'd need some pretty nifty timing though, and if you've ever rung
SkyDigital to get them to send a message (to enable extra channels and the
like), you'll know that they certainly aren't in any position to be precise
about when it'll be!
Steve
>THIS is what they are like.. (well some of them)
>
>Just to let you know....
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Isn't this the case for all helpdesks? <G>
Zaz
>I've noticed that Sky are phoning in to my digibox almost every day (the online
>light comes on during the evenong for about 30 seconds). This is in theory OK,
>but I have call waiting on my phone line. When I'm on the internet I leave call
>waiting on because I don't want to miss any calls. I don't mind being cut off
>the net for that. However, I also get cut off the internet when Sky phones the
>digibox. This is starting to get annoying, as when Sky fail to get through when
>I'm online, their computer retries. So when I reconnect, within minutes I'm cut
>off again.
Your box is dialling OUT - Sky don't dial in. If you're getting cut
off the net, it's because someone else is calling you.
Zaz
Nigel Goodwin
writes
>Nigel Goodwin <nig...@lpilsley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>However, this wouldn't work on cable and other operator's lines, giving
>>>>credence to reports that Sky have said the DigiBox must be connected to a BT
>>>>line.
>>>This is much more likely to be due to incompatibility in the modem's
>>>init string.
>>
>>In the recent (first ever!) Sky Digital Technical Newsletter they stated
>>that there should be an upgrade fairly soon to cure the problems with BT
>>lines. It didn't mention when this might be though :-(.
>which is odd as one would expect this to be a hardware fault and not a
>software upgradeable one.
Oops! - I meant non-BT lines of course :-).
Mark Keating
Mark
>>I've noticed that Sky are phoning in to my digibox almost every day (the
online
>>light comes on during the evenong for about 30 seconds). This is in theory
OK,
>>but I have call waiting on my phone line. When I'm on the internet I leave
call
>>waiting on because I don't want to miss any calls. I don't mind being cut
off
>>the net for that. However, I also get cut off the internet when Sky phones
the
>>digibox. This is starting to get annoying, as when Sky fail to get through
when
>>I'm online, their computer retries. So when I reconnect, within minutes
I'm cut
>>off again.
>>
Simon Gallico
>Ron O'Brien <r...@castcall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Or put another way, why would Sky want to phone the digibox when it can
>>send data to it from the airwaves - including the instruction to phone
>>home
>To check that the box is still at the registered address, perhaps ?
They can use CLID at their end to check that. They could well have
programmed the didibox to systematiclaly dial the prefix that enables
CLID in case it has been barred.
Simon Gallico
>>>I'm online, their computer retries. So when I reconnect, within minutes I'm cut
>>>off again.
>>
>>Your box is dialling OUT - Sky don't dial in.
>True.
>>If you're getting cut
>>off the net, it's because someone else is calling you.
>Quite incorrect. Try it yourself; go online then pick up another phone
>in your house (this is the equivalent of the digibox's modem testing
>for a dial tone). Your modem will most likely drop the connection and
>if it doesn't you should consider yourself lucky.
>
It shouldn't happen if the phones have been wired correctly.
But how often is that the case these days?
Ron O'Brien
<i...@gardner44.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>But don`t those boxes that you connect to your fax/phone detect what type of
>phonecall it incoming, and they auto switch to the correct piece of
>equipment.?#
>
>Any Telephone engineers out their who know weather a piece of equipment can
>detect what type of call is being received?
>
listens in, if it hears a data stream, it cuts off the phone and feeds
it to the fax.
--
Ron O'Brien
Brian McIlwrath
: I think that you'll find that this is because it is a non-automated
: service. It wouldn't be difficult to have a computer send an on-air
: message and dial the number simultaneously.
Wouldn't work! People can have user controlled call diversion setup. I have
BT "Call Minder" (an exchange level voicemail) and that can be set to
answer on zero rings.
Other people on this group have two lines and the digibox isn't on the first
one - or even the one in Sky's records.
David Atherton
And I have unplugged it for 5-6 days at a time.
Here's a thing. I don't think I gave Sky my home no,
I think I gave my work no - so how do they know!!
--
David Atherton Dabs Direct PLC
dath...@dabs.com http://www.dabs.com
Zaz
>Quite incorrect. Try it yourself; go online then pick up another phone
>in your house (this is the equivalent of the digibox's modem testing
>for a dial tone). Your modem will most likely drop the connection and
>if it doesn't you should consider yourself lucky.
Quite incorrect. Who says the digibox has to pick up the phone line
and listen for a dial tone to know if it can dial out or not? It is
trivial to design a circuit which can tell if a phone line is in use
or not merely from the voltage present on the line, without having to
pick it up all the time and listen.
It's also a better way of doing it - since not everyone has the same
dialtone, and some people (i.e. with call diversion, call minder,
etc.) have a dialtone that many modems just can't detect.
Zaz
Tariq Atchia
Jomtien wrote in message <368703de...@207.14.113.10>...
>>I have disconnected the phone line on mine with no problem.
>I don't think that anyone has said that it is not easy to disconnect
>the phone line.
Unless your installer permanently wired it to your line.
Tariq
Tariq Atchia
Zaz wrote in message <367908c4...@enews.newsguy.com>...
>It is
>trivial to design a circuit which can tell if a phone line is in use
>or not merely from the voltage present on the line, without having to
>pick it up all the time and listen.
>
>It's also a better way of doing it - since not everyone has the same
>dialtone, and some people (i.e. with call diversion, call minder,
>etc.) have a dialtone that many modems just can't detect.
When you do a System Check, it says Phone Line Connected. Is this done by
picking up the modem or checking for a voltage on the line? I'll try it
later.
Tariq
Simon Gallico
a écrit:
>I use the Net in the front room so I unplug it every time.
>And I have unplugged it for 5-6 days at a time.
>
>Here's a thing. I don't think I gave Sky my home no,
>I think I gave my work no - so how do they know!!
Let's all wait and see before Sky either ring you up to find out why
your box is not calling its mummy, or they cut you off altogether.
Simon Gallico
>sou...@nospam.nojunk.infonie.fr (Simon Gallico) wrote:
>
>>>Quite incorrect. Try it yourself; go online then pick up another phone
>>>in your house (this is the equivalent of the digibox's modem testing
>>>for a dial tone). Your modem will most likely drop the connection and
>>>if it doesn't you should consider yourself lucky.
>>>
>>
>>It shouldn't happen if the phones have been wired correctly.
>>
>>But how often is that the case these days?
>I agree that things are rarely done as they should be.
>In this case though many modems will drop the carrier if they detect
>noise on the line or a slight voltage fluctuation and these can easily
>be produced by another device (phone, fax, modem) joining the line.
>Even the best wiring in a normal domestic situation will not change
>this.
It is possible to wire e.g. a modem so that it disconnects the other
phone sockets when it is in use.
Ron O'Brien
writes
>
>>I have disconnected the phone line on mine with no problem.
>I don't think that anyone has said that it is not easy to disconnect
>those experiencing trouble with modem connections, buzzing etc.
unfortunately, my Sky connection is wired into the BT box, so I can't
disconnect it. However, I have noticed that since the digibox was so
wired, I now get what appears to be a radio station playing in the
background when I use the phone in that socket.
I haven't bothered to call the dealer back yet, as BT will be down in
install another line for me soon, so we'll see what they have to say
about this connection
--
Ron O'Brien
Tariq Atchia
Jomtien wrote in message <368cb282...@207.14.113.10>...
>I thought that they weren't supposed to do this ?
They're not! But some do it anyway, because they're thick sh***.
>Even so it would be pretty easy to undo the two screws.
I guess, or you could put another RJ-11 on the end of the cable.
Tariq
Tariq Atchia
Ron O'Brien wrote in message <1F4TcCAg...@castcall.demon.co.uk>...
>unfortunately, my Sky connection is wired into the BT box, so I can't
>disconnect it. However, I have noticed that since the digibox was so
>wired, I now get what appears to be a radio station playing in the
>background when I use the phone in that socket.
I would call Sky and tell them to get someone there now!
>I haven't bothered to call the dealer back yet, as BT will be down in
>install another line for me soon, so we'll see what they have to say
>about this connection
I don't think they'll be too happy. If the BT man is nice, he may fix it for
you.
Tariq
Tariq Atchia
Simon Gallico wrote in message <36808ac1....@news.infonie.fr>...
>It is possible to wire e.g. a modem so that it disconnects the other
>phone sockets when it is in use.
Yes. Either:
a) Use a 'privacy adapter'
or
b) One of my friends has a modem which blanks out the other extensions when
he is on the net.
Tariq
Tariq Atchia
Jomtien wrote in message <368eb295...@207.14.113.10>...
>The two actions are basically the same. Any normal modem connects to
>the line and looks for a (valid) voltage first. From there it can
>check for a dial tone and then dial if told to do so. The effect on
>the line is the same.
I did the System Check yesterday, unaware that someone was on the phone. The
screen said "Telephone Line Busy". I wasn't listening on the phone, so I
don't know whether the DigiBox modem actually picked up or not.
Tariq
Brian McIlwrath
: When you do a System Check, it says Phone Line Connected. Is this done by
: picking up the modem or checking for a voltage on the line? I'll try it
: later.
It must be checking the voltage. If I pick up an extension phone that test
says "Phone Line Busy" with no audible effect on the phone line.
timshaw
people, maybe thay are interrogating the system to find out just which
channels are being watched and when,
Information of this nature is good bnews for advertisers etc.
MusicMaster
bombarded from b&q etc....
ca
timshaw wrote in message <367E888A...@globalnet.co.uk>...
Nigel Goodwin
<Jom...@the.beach> writes
>"Tariq Atchia" <xy...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>I have disconnected the phone line on mine with no problem.
>>>I don't think that anyone has said that it is not easy to disconnect
>>>the phone line.
>>
THey are not supposed to do that!, the BSkyB specification calls for a
socket to be fitted which the digibox is then plugged into.
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
> sou...@nospam.nojunk.infonie.fr (Simon Gallico) wrote:
>
> >>>Or put another way, why would Sky want to phone the digibox when it can
> >>>send data to it from the airwaves - including the instruction to phone
> >>>home
> >>To check that the box is still at the registered address, perhaps ?
> >
> >They can use CLID at their end to check that. They could well have
> >programmed the didibox to systematiclaly dial the prefix that enables
> >CLID in case it has been barred.
>
> This is true though some countries allow permanent Caller ID barring.
I think there's a requirement that any country that permits CLID *must*
allow the option of permanent CLI barring.
> I don't know whether BT allow this.
For most people, the permanent withheld status can be overridden on a
call-by-call basis (through prefixing 1470). However, it is possible to
request permanent withhold AND NOT permit the use of 1470 (for example,
such a line state might be programmed in a women's refuge hostel, to
prevent anyone, by accident or design, from releasing CLID).
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
"You're one of the very rare few who can argue ad hominem, ad absurdum
and ad nauseam simultaneously...worse still it looks like you want to
carry on ad infinitum..." WPSM on alt.config 1998/06/27
Ron O'Brien
<xy...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes
>
>>I haven't bothered to call the dealer back yet, as BT will be down in
>>install another line for me soon, so we'll see what they have to say
>>about this connection
>
>
>I don't think they'll be too happy. If the BT man is nice, he may fix it for
>you.
>
>Tariq
>
>
--
Ron O'Brien
Dave Porter
timshaw <tim...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>If Sky are phoning the digibox every night as is suggested by some
>people, maybe thay are interrogating the system to find out just which
>channels are being watched and when,
They *are* checking to see what programmes are being watched, but they DO
NOT phone you. How many times does this need to be said. The box DOES NOT
accept incoming calls. A satellite delivered instruction activates the box
which then calls an 800 number. This happens only about twice a month, and
not every night. Can you not imagine the cost of calling 250,000 boxes
daily and the time involved?
--
Dave Porter - Northumberland, England
http://www.radiopages.co.uk - Radio Pages web design.
http://www.wcbs.demon.co.uk - The Dave Porter pages.
Tariq Atchia
Dave Porter wrote in message ...
>They *are* checking to see what programmes are being watched, but they DO
>NOT phone you.
This can't be done reliably. Some people have left their boxes switched on
since they got them, so the viewing data from their boxes will be well
dodgy.
Tariq
Dave Porter
"Tariq Atchia" <xy...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>This can't be done reliably. Some people have left their boxes switched on
>since they got them, so the viewing data from their boxes will be well
>dodgy.
Point taken, but the box is clever enough to know what channel you are
watching and when. It will be possible to see when channels changing stops
etc. It's not an exact science, but a lot more reliable than asking people
to complete diaries accurately.
Tariq Atchia
Jomtien wrote in message <369f70d3...@207.14.113.10>...
>The person on the phone may have heard a click which wouldn't have
>bothered him very much. If he had been a modem then he probably would
>have dropped the carrier in protest <g>.
No, apparantly it does check line voltage, as someone else in the NG has
confirmed.
Tariq
Tariq Atchia
Dave Porter wrote in message ...
>Point taken, but the box is clever enough to know what channel you are
>watching and when. It will be possible to see when channels changing stops
>etc. It's not an exact science, but a lot more reliable than asking people
>to complete diaries accurately.
Maybe they are using all their manpower to analyse the data they have
collected. I received my 'Welcome Pack' this morning, with the first copy of
the Sky Digital TV Guide - December's issue. I had to phone up for this the
day after my install, which was in November! I now have 2 copies of
December's guide, and January's which came on Monday.
Also included was an envelope, which they want me to return my analog
viewing card in. Since they kept me waiting for a month and a half from
October for a call to tell me that they had f***ed uk my order for Sky
Digital, I think i'll lose the envelope and wait for them to send me another
one (If they get round to calling me for the card of course). Should take a
few years...
Tariq
Brian McIlwrath
: The person on the phone may have heard a click which wouldn't have
: bothered him very much. If he had been a modem then he probably would
: have dropped the carrier in protest <g>.
There is NO effect on the phone connection at all. A modem would have been
unaffected. Stop guessing!
Brian McIlwrath
: I thought so. I always understood that BT did not allow hard-wiring
: into their circuits at all (except perhaps by them).
Wrong yet again! BT's equipment ends at a breakout box just inside the
customers premises. All the extensions fan out from that. It's perfectly
legal for ANYONE to connect in more extensions. The BT box allows all the
extensions to be disconnected to isolate faults to either their line or
customer equipment. Most DIY shops in the UK sell hardwired telephone
extension kits.
Zaz
wrote:
>If Sky are phoning the digibox every night as is suggested by some
>people, maybe thay are interrogating the system to find out just which
>channels are being watched and when,
Sky are not phoning the digibox every night, Sky are not collecting
information relating to viewing habits.
Sorry, but this seems to be the first thing that satellite newbies
seem to think when they discover digital, we've all heard it so many
times before..
Zaz
Zaz
Porter) wrote:
>They *are* checking to see what programmes are being watched, but they DO
>NOT phone you.
Sky are NOT checking to see which programmes are watched (with the
obvious exception of PPV)
Zaz
Oskar Arg
Brian McIlwrath wrote in message <75qfic$28...@newton.cc.rl.ac.uk>...
>Jomtien (Jom...@the.beach) wrote:
>: I thought so. I always understood that BT did not allow hard-wiring
>: into their circuits at all (except perhaps by them).
>
>customers premises. All the extensions fan out from that. It's perfectly
>legal for ANYONE to connect in more extensions.
What an arrogant shit you are.
I wouldn't describe plugging in an extension as 'hardwiring'.
Tariq Atchia
Brian McIlwrath wrote in message <75qfic$28...@newton.cc.rl.ac.uk>...
>Wrong yet again! BT's equipment ends at a breakout box just inside the
>customers premises. All the extensions fan out from that. It's perfectly
>legal for ANYONE to connect in more extensions.
Hardwiring EQUIPMENT (for the second time). eg. Is cutting the RJ-11 off the
end of a phone's cable and clipping the wires in an extension socket
allowed?
Tariq
Dave Porter
Z...@u.dont.need.to.know (Zaz) wrote:
>Sky are NOT checking to see which programmes are watched (with the
>obvious exception of PPV)
I think you'll find that if they are not doing so now, they soon will be.
That box is not phoning BIB twice a month *just* to confirm where it is.
Brian McIlwrath
: Brian McIlwrath wrote in message <75qfic$28...@newton.cc.rl.ac.uk>...
: Hardwiring EQUIPMENT (for the second time). eg. Is cutting the RJ-11 off the
: end of a phone's cable and clipping the wires in an extension socket
: allowed?
Yes. I added extensions to my house (partly for the Digibox as I did not want
cable routed round the skirting board) and B&Q, Homebase etc. sell approved
telephone bits. One is not allowed to interfere with the "master socket".
On modern phone systems this is a BT NTE ? terminating box with a removeable
top section to disconnect ALL user extensions (including those installed
by BT) for testing.
Sky's installer have been told to only use plug in extensions as they don't
want to maximise the chances of causing problems.
Nigel Goodwin
<da...@radiopages.co.uk> writes
>In article <367ff236...@enews.newsguy.com>,
>Z...@u.dont.need.to.know (Zaz) wrote:
>
>>Sky are NOT checking to see which programmes are watched (with the
>>obvious exception of PPV)
>
>I think you'll find that if they are not doing so now, they soon will be.
>That box is not phoning BIB twice a month *just* to confirm where it is.
I don't see why everyone is trying to spead unfounded rumours about the
digibox, there has never been any suggestion that the box will record
and report your viewing habits. There would be absolutely no point,
there are already accurate samples taken that are used to provide the TV
ratings, these are done with extra hardware fitted to the customers
equipment and carried out in a controlled manner (and the customer is
payed a small amount for the inconvenience). These are the only figures
that BSkyB could use with advertisers, any inaccurate figures that could
possibly be gained from the Digibox would be no use whatsoever.
Tariq Atchia
Brian McIlwrath wrote in message <75t32a$1t...@newton.cc.rl.ac.uk>...
>: Hardwiring EQUIPMENT (for the second time). eg. Is cutting the RJ-11 off
the
>: end of a phone's cable and clipping the wires in an extension socket
>: allowed?
>Yes. I added extensions to my house (partly for the Digibox as I did not
want
>cable routed round the skirting board) and B&Q, Homebase etc. sell approved
>telephone bits.
Evading the question again...
>ne is not allowed to interfere with the "master socket".
>On modern phone systems this is a BT NTE ? terminating box with a
removeable
>top section to disconnect ALL user extensions (including those installed
>by BT) for testing.
NTE5 lower section.
>Sky's installer have been told to only use plug in extensions as they don't
>want to maximise the chances of causing problems.
Many do not use plug in, even to plug the DigiBox modem into the socket.
Tariq
Phil/Lin Spiegelhalter
Nigel Goodwin <nig...@lpilsley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <B2A6EFEE9...@0.0.0.0>, Dave Porter
> <da...@radiopages.co.uk> writes
> >In article <367ff236...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> >Z...@u.dont.need.to.know (Zaz) wrote:
> >
> >>Sky are NOT checking to see which programmes are watched (with the
> >>obvious exception of PPV)
> >
> >I think you'll find that if they are not doing so now, they soon will be.
> >That box is not phoning BIB twice a month *just* to confirm where it is.
> I don't see why everyone is trying to spead unfounded rumours about the
> digibox, there has never been any suggestion that the box will record
> and report your viewing habits. There would be absolutely no point,
> there are already accurate samples taken that are used to provide the TV
> ratings, these are done with extra hardware fitted to the customers
> equipment and carried out in a controlled manner (and the customer is
> payed a small amount for the inconvenience). These are the only figures
> that BSkyB could use with advertisers, any inaccurate figures that could
> possibly be gained from the Digibox would be no use whatsoever.
Phil: Ah, but that's the problem.... There is NO such clear statement of
intnt from Sky, of such good acceptable behaviour -- and from the wording
of the rest of their one sided contract (and behaviour of reporters on
papers he owns) every reason to be concerned that unless EXPLICITLY
protected against such action, it iremainds a big brother possibility /
future probability.
--
Phil and Lin Spiegelhalter - Fillin http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/fillin
Acorn RiscPC+StrongArm Videodesk, Photodesk, Cluttered desk...
St...@prossers.demon.co.uk
>Nigel Goodwin <nig...@lpilsley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>In the recent (first ever!) Sky Digital Technical Newsletter they stated
>>>>that there should be an upgrade fairly soon to cure the problems with BT
>>>>lines. It didn't mention when this might be though :-(.
>>>The problems with BT lines ? I assume that they mean the buzzing etc.
>>>which is odd as one would expect this to be a hardware fault and not a
>>>software upgradeable one.
When the box was installed, we had a buzzing line. Several weeks
later we discovered we could not watch PPV. Sky informed us they had
tried 11 times to dial our box. The installers came out and redid the
phone line. Now it does not buzz and sky can call the box.
>>
>>Oops! - I meant non-BT lines of course :-).
>Aah. That's better ;-)
>This will be a mod to the init string then, I expect.
Steve Blasdale
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off
the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the
Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in
rain. Time to die.
John Burton
Jomtien wrote in message <36965a86...@207.14.113.10>...
>Nigel Goodwin <nig...@lpilsley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>But these samples only reflect the habits of the sampled viewers. I
>very much doubt that this is a true cross section of Sky viewers in
>general at all. Getting info back from the digibox would provide data
>on 100% of all viewers that have the phone connected. This is far more
>interesting than a small sample.
And the figures they got would be totally useless. They would have shown
that I was sitting watching the cartoon channel all day yesterday when in
fact it was just the last channel that I happened to step to and going out
for Christmas day. I've never watched the channel for more than about 10
seconds. They would have no way of knowing if I watched it or not
which is why a smaller sample of more carefully collected data is of much
more value to them.
Colin
to my computer (voice fax data) which is set to answer after1 ring ?
Regards
Colin.
John Burton
>If Sky really were phoning into the Sky box how would they not connect
>to my computer (voice fax data) which is set to answer after1 ring ?
>Regards
I suppose they could send a signal to the digibox to answer the phone before
the
first ring was complete, but I think it's clear that the digibox only phones
out and
doesn't answer incoming calls.
Colin
>Colin wrote in message <3685d260...@news.globalnet.co.uk>...
>>If Sky really were phoning into the Sky box how would they not connect
>>to my computer (voice fax data) which is set to answer after1 ring ?
>>Regards
>
>
>I suppose they could send a signal to the digibox to answer the phone before
>the
>first ring was complete,
Good point but judging by the time it takes to get a card authorised
while you wait on the phone fast over the air access to box's isn't a
strong point ! my phone would have been ringing for an hour !
>but I think it's clear that the digibox only phones
>out and
>doesn't answer incoming calls.
agreed.
Regards
Colin.
Nigel Goodwin
<Jom...@the.beach> writes
>Nigel Goodwin <nig...@lpilsley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>I think you'll find that if they are not doing so now, they soon will be.
>>>That box is not phoning BIB twice a month *just* to confirm where it is.
>>
>>I don't see why everyone is trying to spead unfounded rumours about the
>>digibox, there has never been any suggestion that the box will record
>>and report your viewing habits.
>happening. What there hasn't been is any suggestion from *Sky* that
>they might be doing this. Only they know whether they are doing this
>or not.
OK, there have never been any suggestions from anyone who knows anything
about it!, only the totally unfounded rumours from various paranoics in
this group.
>>There would be absolutely no point,
>Here you are completely wrong.
I don't think so!.
>>there are already accurate samples taken that are used to provide the TV
>>ratings,
>But these samples only reflect the habits of the sampled viewers. I
>very much doubt that this is a true cross section of Sky viewers in
>general at all. Getting info back from the digibox would provide data
>on 100% of all viewers that have the phone connected. This is far more
>interesting than a small sample.
It wouldn't be at all useful, all it would show is what the receiver is
set to - my satellite receiver is never turned off, but always left on
the last channel watched (as I'm sure the vast majority of receivers
are!). This is totally useless for producing any meaningful results at
all. Random sampling is a well tried and tested technique, and has been
proved to work for many years - this is the only valid way of obtaining
any worthwhile viewing figures.
Done properly you have to check what the TV's in the house are set to,
so if the satellite receiver is set to Sky 1, and the TV set to the
satellite channel, it's a reasonable assumption that someone is watching
Sky 1. The houses used for the sampling have all their equipment
modified by the addition of a module which detects which channel is
being watched, and the householders are also asked to keep a viewing log
as an extra check - also to see what agegroups are watching which
programmes.
>>these are done with extra hardware fitted to the customers
>>equipment and carried out in a controlled manner (and the customer is
>>payed a small amount for the inconvenience).
>Which in itself could introduce inaccuracies and possible
>contamination of results.
Possibly, but it's the best way possible at the present time, and the
only way which is of any use!.
>>These are the only figures
>>that BSkyB could use with advertisers, any inaccurate figures that could
>>possibly be gained from the Digibox would be no use whatsoever.
>You couldn't be more wrong. *If* Sky used this info (and I'm not
>saying that they even collect it let alone use it, though the box
>would be capable of transmitting it) then they would have a far more
>realistic sample of actual box use, after proper analysis.
No, *you* couldn't be more wrong, the figures would be of no use
whatsoever, and no advertiser would be impressed by inaccurate
'guessing' at Sky's viewing figures. Also the company who actually does
the sampling is a totally seperate concern to the broadcasters, would
YOU! trust figures from the broadcaster on their viewing figures - Sky
already over estimate their subscribers by a fair amount (by assuming
every hotel room with Sky available is in use).
Dave Porter
Nigel Goodwin <nig...@lpilsley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I don't see why everyone is trying to spead unfounded rumours about the
>digibox, there has never been any suggestion that the box will record
>and report your viewing habits.
This is *not* an unfounded rumour. My understanding is that if they are
not doing this now, they will be in the near future.
>There would be absolutely no point,
>there are already accurate samples taken that are used to provide the TV
>ratings
Why would you think that some random sample is more accurate that having a
full and accurate record of viewing habits? Personally I hope they are
doing this now, and if not start very soon. The sooner Sky have an accurate
idea of what programmes people don't like on their channels, the sooner
they will be removed and replaced by something we do like.
The skeptics would say 'Oh Sky don't care they have you tied to a 12 month
contract anyway'. Sky *do* care for one simple reason. It's one thing to
attract customers, it's another thing altogether to hold on to them. Sky
*do not* want to be haemorrhaging digital customers in 12 months time, so
it's in their interests to provide what their customers want.
Dave Porter
cm...@usa.net (Colin) wrote:
>If Sky really were phoning into the Sky box how would they not connect
>to my computer (voice fax data) which is set to answer after1 ring ?
How many times does this have to be repeated here? The box *does not*
accept incoming phone calls, it phones out to an 800 number.
John Burton
>Nigel Goodwin <nig...@lpilsley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I don't see why everyone is trying to spead unfounded rumours about the
>>digibox, there has never been any suggestion that the box will record
>>and report your viewing habits.
>
>This is *not* an unfounded rumour. My understanding is that if they are
>not doing this now, they will be in the near future.
>
>>There would be absolutely no point,
>>there are already accurate samples taken that are used to provide the TV
>>ratings
>
>Why would you think that some random sample is more accurate that having a
>full and accurate record of viewing habits? Personally I hope they are
>doing this now, and if not start very soon. The sooner Sky have an accurate
>idea of what programmes people don't like on their channels, the sooner
>they will be removed and replaced by something we do like.
There is NO WAY to get a full and accurate record of viewing habits just
using
the digibox. You seem to think it has some sort of magic device which can
tell if I'm actually watching a program rather than just left it tuned it to
a particular
channel.
If sky are stupid enough to want a record of what my box has been tuned into
they are welcome to it, but it would be of little use in telling them what I
actually
watched. I suspect most people are the same.
Zaz
Porter) wrote:
>>Sky are NOT checking to see which programmes are watched (with the
>>obvious exception of PPV)
>
>I think you'll find that if they are not doing so now, they soon will be.
What part of this is so hard to understand? SKY IS NOT MONITORING
PEOPLE'S VIEWING HABITS USING THE DIGIBOX! Why do people like you
persist in peddeling these false rumours?
>That box is not phoning BIB twice a month *just* to confirm where it is.
That box is not phoning BIB AT ALL at the moment. If yours is, either
it's reporting your PPV purchases, or it's having some problem
dialling out.
Zaz
Zaz
<fil...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>Phil: Ah, but that's the problem.... There is NO such clear statement of
>intnt from Sky, of such good acceptable behaviour -- and from the wording
>of the rest of their one sided contract (and behaviour of reporters on
>papers he owns) every reason to be concerned that unless EXPLICITLY
>protected against such action, it iremainds a big brother possibility /
>future probability.
If Sky was collecting this information, they would have to let
SOMEBODY know about it. And to the best of my knowledge, none of the
somebodies whom they would have a legal requirement to register this
data collection with, have been informed of such intent.
So it's not happening. Simple really.
Zaz
Zaz
>>these are done with extra hardware fitted to the customers
>>equipment and carried out in a controlled manner (and the customer is
>>payed a small amount for the inconvenience).
>Which in itself could introduce inaccuracies and possible
>contamination of results.
Far less inaccurate and prone to "contamination" than a digital
receiever attempting to guess who is watching what, based solely on
knowledge of which channel it is tuned to at any one time.
Zaz
Zaz
>If Sky really were phoning into the Sky box how would they not connect
>to my computer (voice fax data) which is set to answer after1 ring ?
Exactly. Sky does NOT phone the box. IT phones OUT.
Zaz
Zaz
>>Sky are not collecting
>>information relating to viewing habits.
>It would to fairer to say that they aren't doing this *as far as you
>know*, wouldn't it ?
>That's unless you have got that job at Sky that we talked about
>before. <g>
Sky will "keep my details on file" and notify me when a suitable
vacancy arises, they tell me. Which I think means "no".
>Everyone should be aware that the digibox *could* easily retain
>information of this kind and transmit it over the phone line. If you
>don't have a phone connection then it *cannot possibly* do this.
>Whether it actually does any of this or not is known only to Sky.
Yes, but by the same argument, your PC could be storing information
about which web sites you visit, and transmitting these details to the
Government. There comes a point where you have to draw a line between
what is possible and what is likely.
Zaz
Dave Porter
"John Burton" <john_...@jbmail.com> wrote:
>There is NO WAY to get a full and accurate record of viewing habits just
>using
>the digibox. You seem to think it has some sort of magic device which can
>tell if I'm actually watching a program rather than just left it tuned it to
>a particular
>channel.
I understand your point, but it will be blatantly obvious when the box is
not in use. Remember that what they are trying to do here is to get a
picture of *your* viewing habits.
For instance when the box is interrogated it will show that you, for
instance, watch the movie channels, Paramount and Sky One the most. More
importantly it will show which channels you *never* watch. That way they
can plan future channels and know which channels are not popular. They are
not trying to rival BARB for audience ratings.
>If sky are stupid enough to want a record of what my box has been tuned into
>they are welcome to it, but it would be of little use in telling them what I
>actually
>watched.
It tells them what you didn't watch though doesn't it.
Dave Porter
Z...@u.dont.need.to.know (Zaz) wrote:
>SKY IS NOT MONITORING
>PEOPLE'S VIEWING HABITS USING THE DIGIBOX!
SKY ARE MONITORING, OR SOON WILL BE, PEOPLE'S VIEWING HABITS USING THE
DIGIBOX!
Zaz we can both shout if you like, and I understand that you *think* Sky
are not monitoring viewing habits, I think they are.
>Why do people like you
>persist in peddeling these false rumours?
Because 'people like me' think that 'people like you' are probably wrong.
No offence intended, I just think you are probably wrong. However if you'd
like to offer some sort of proof to back up your views, I'd be pleased to
read them.
Nigel Goodwin
<da...@radiopages.co.uk> writes
>In article <8I+AdEA2...@lpilsley.demon.co.uk>,
>Nigel Goodwin <nig...@lpilsley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I don't see why everyone is trying to spead unfounded rumours about the
>>digibox, there has never been any suggestion that the box will record
>>and report your viewing habits.
>
>This is *not* an unfounded rumour. My understanding is that if they are
>not doing this now, they will be in the near future.
Where have you found such 'understanding', there has never been any
announcement from Sky about doing this! - any other source is just
unfounded speculation..
>>There would be absolutely no point,
>>there are already accurate samples taken that are used to provide the TV
>>ratings
>
>Why would you think that some random sample is more accurate that having a
>full and accurate record of viewing habits? Personally I hope they are
>doing this now, and if not start very soon. The sooner Sky have an accurate
>idea of what programmes people don't like on their channels, the sooner
>they will be removed and replaced by something we do like.
That's the point, it wouldn't be an accurate record of viewing habits,
it would be an accurate record of what channel the box is left on!. It's
normal practice to leave the box on all the time, seeing as switching to
standby does almost nothing - I presume the digibox does the same as the
analogue receivers and standby leaves it set to a channel where they can
turn off your card. Obviously this must be so, as it can receive a
software update while set to standby.
For this reason it would be a totally inaccurate record, and no
advertiser would accept it as otherwise - and that's what viewing
figures are all about, attracting avertising revenue.
>The skeptics would say 'Oh Sky don't care they have you tied to a 12 month
>contract anyway'. Sky *do* care for one simple reason. It's one thing to
>attract customers, it's another thing altogether to hold on to them. Sky
>*do not* want to be haemorrhaging digital customers in 12 months time, so
>it's in their interests to provide what their customers want.
It's not bothered them much in the past :-).
Although I'm sure Sky would be VERY! happy to only provide the most
popular programmes, but this surely wouldn't be a good thing - I
consider it fairly important that they provide minority programming as
well (even if I don't watch it at all).
Tariq Atchia
Dave Porter wrote in message ...
>Zaz we can both shout if you like, and I understand that you *think* Sky
>are not monitoring viewing habits, I think they are.
There is no way of proving it. Like saying 'Does God exist?'. Only the
argument about sending viewing information to Sky is bollocks to be quite
honest. Does anyone care? OK, don't answer that, some people who have been
watching After Midnight a bit too much might, but never mind.
Tariq
kit
<Z...@u.dont.need.to.know> writes
>
>Yes, but by the same argument, your PC could be storing information
>about which web sites you visit, and transmitting these details to the
>Government. There comes a point where you have to draw a line between
>what is possible and what is likely.
>
your web activities, which it *does* pass to third parties.
<paranoia>
Of course, the government does not collect this type of information from
your PC, they have much better facilities for monitoring you that that,
ie Menwith Hill etc...
</paranoia>
If the box does not collect information about its habits, it would be a
glaring omission on skys part, and, love them or loathe them, their
business sense is usually of a higher level than that. Have any of the
people who have contacts in Pace asked them about the software?
--
kit
To all you virgins, thanks for nothing.
Zayphod
Ah ..... but what is it programmed to tell the 0800 number ?
Zayphy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>How many times does this have to be repeated here? The box *does not*
>accept incoming phone calls, it phones out to an 800 number.
>
>--
>Dave Porter - Northumberland, England
>http://www.radiopages.co.uk - Radio Pages web design.
>http://www.wcbs.demon.co.uk - The Dave Porter pages.
Zayphod
" Crash or Crash Through "
Zayphod
OK so why don't they put some decent adult erotic entertainment on then and persaude the
government of this and also get the IBA closed down
That's what 80 % of customers want - good racy adult stuff - preferably of the fetish kind
( NB - In a free market like the Internet 80 % of the traffic is sex based )(ie safe sex
based )
Zayphod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~##
>*do not* want to be haemorrhaging digital customers in 12 months time, so
>it's in their interests to provide what their customers want.
>
Tariq Atchia
kit wrote in message ...
>Have any of the
>people who have contacts in Pace asked them about the software?
I think someone asked someone at Pace about the VCR timer update, and the
Pace person said Sky handle all the software. Maybe I'm wrong?
Tariq
Dave Porter
Nigel Goodwin <nig...@lpilsley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Where have you found such 'understanding', there has never been any
>announcement from Sky about doing this! - any other source is just
>unfounded speculation..
From an installer who installs earth stations for cable companies, and
systems for Hotels, offices, Government buildings etc.
>That's the point, it wouldn't be an accurate record of viewing habits,
>it would be an accurate record of what channel the box is left on!
Nonsense, it would be a lot more accurate than some ramdom sample. It's
easy to see when the box has been left unattended. It is also a very
accurate record of what is *not* being watched. This information will be
very useful to Sky.
>For this reason it would be a totally inaccurate record, and no
>advertiser would accept it as otherwise
Who said anything about advertisers?
Dave Porter
"Tariq Atchia" <xy...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>Only the
>argument about sending viewing information to Sky is bollocks to be quite
>honest.
Why is that? Technically is perfectly feasible, the information will be
useful, so why would they not be doing this?
I hope they are. Nobody has *ever* asked me what I like to watch,
consequently my views go unheeded. This way my views are known.
Dave Porter
Jom...@the.beach (Jomtien) wrote:
>Actually I rather fear that any info like this would have the effect
>of removing even more of the "good" programs and replacing them with
>more fodder for the brain-dead.
>Most viewers do not want to watch "good" programmes. They want to
>watch Coronation Street and Beadle's About.
Sadly you're right about that. Why people watch rubbish like Coronation
Street is a mystery to me.
Tariq Atchia
Dave Porter wrote in message ...
>Technically is perfectly feasible, the information will be
>useful, so why would they not be doing this?
You are quite right - it is quite possible to do, but very unlikely IMO.
>I hope they are. Nobody has *ever* asked me what I like to watch,
>consequently my views go unheeded. This way my views are known.
Exactly. That is why I don't object whatever they do.
Tariq
Dave Porter
"Tariq Atchia" <xy...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>You are quite right - it is quite possible to do, but very unlikely IMO.
Why do you think it unlikely?
Nigel Goodwin
<xy...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes
Yes, Sky write the software, they didn't even seem to bother telling
Pace they had disabled S-VHS in their software until after it was done.
Nigel Goodwin
<da...@radiopages.co.uk> writes
>In article <$UFAqKAc...@lpilsley.demon.co.uk>,
>Nigel Goodwin <nig...@lpilsley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Where have you found such 'understanding', there has never been any
>>announcement from Sky about doing this! - any other source is just
>>unfounded speculation..
>
>From an installer who installs earth stations for cable companies, and
>systems for Hotels, offices, Government buildings etc.
Oh, you mean an aerial rigger :-). Why would someone like that know
anything about what BSkyB plans might or might not be?.
>>That's the point, it wouldn't be an accurate record of viewing habits,
>>it would be an accurate record of what channel the box is left on!
>
>Nonsense, it would be a lot more accurate than some ramdom sample. It's
>easy to see when the box has been left unattended. It is also a very
>accurate record of what is *not* being watched. This information will be
>very useful to Sky.
The random sample is a tried and tested technique for such purposes, for
TV rating purposes it supplies many items which the digibox couldn't.
For example, which age groups are watching which programmes, which sexes
are watching which programmes, and which particular TV's are used to do
so.
>>For this reason it would be a totally inaccurate record, and no
>>advertiser would accept it as otherwise
>
>Who said anything about advertisers?
That's what rating figures are all about, getting the advertising money
coming in.
Dave Porter
Nigel Goodwin <nig...@lpilsley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Oh, you mean an aerial rigger :-). Why would someone like that know
>anything about what BSkyB plans might or might not be?.
Well, he knows a damn sight more about it that *you* do, Nigel. Remember
before the Digiboxes appeared, it was you who were saying that the boxes
would be interrogated by receiving incoming phone calls. You even had the
audacity to call those who said that the boxes would in fact phone out as
stupid. You clearly had no idea what you were taking about then, why do you
think anyone here would be 'stupid' enough to think that you have even the
first clue about what you are talking about now?
Unless you want to look very foolish, already too late in your case, it's
better not to present guesswork and rumour as fact.
>>Who said anything about advertisers?
>
>That's what rating figures are all about, getting the advertising money
>coming in.
Yes, thank you so much for explaining it to us, we all know that anyway.
I'm sure the advertisers will continue to use the inaccurate 'random
sample' method. I am suggesting that the useful information that Sky are
receiving by interrogation digiboxes is for their own use.
Dave Porter
zay...@cyberdude.com (Zayphod) wrote:
>Ah ..... but what is it programmed to tell the 0800 number ?
You've joined this thread a little late haven't you.
Tariq Atchia
Dave Porter wrote in message ...
>Well, he knows a damn sight more about it that *you* do, Nigel. Remember
>before the Digiboxes appeared, it was you who were saying that the boxes
>would be interrogated by receiving incoming phone calls. You even had the
>audacity to call those who said that the boxes would in fact phone out as
>stupid.
I think this was actually based on information Sky themselves released. It
was presumed that the system would work around a special CLI system, whereby
the box would know who was phoning it.
Tariq
Tariq Atchia
Dave Porter wrote in message ...
>Why do you think it unlikely?
Due to the amount of processing that would be required to sift through the
viewing records of 150 000 DigiBoxes. I don't know how often the box dials
out, because I've never actually seen it happen. I am guessing that it is
not every night, so quite a substantial amount of information is being
collected before submission. Someone posted the amounts of memory in the box
a while ago, but I can't remember the exact figures.
Are you thinking that the box collects all information, and then Sky sort
it, or do you think that the box sorts it intelligently, rejecting
anomalies? I personally don't think it would be advanced enough to do the
latter, so if the first guess is right, there will be _a_lot_ of data in the
box before it dials out. Presumably it stores a date, time, and channel
number each time the channel is changed? Wouldn't it be fun to try and
overload the box by changing the channel every two seconds? Fill up the
memory completely?
Tariq
Tariq Atchia
Jomtien wrote in message <369f5bbd...@207.14.113.10>...
>You are totally wrong here. The storing and transmission of such
>information could be achieved by a device many times simpler than the
>digibox is. The amount of memory needed for storage and the time
>needed for transmission are also far smaller than you probably imagine
>(just a few seconds to transit info for an entire month). This is
>very, very possible. The only question is 'does it happen ' ?
How much data do you imagine is being collected? The date, time and channel
number? Every time the channel is changed? What about die-hard channel
surfers? Would continually changing the channel every two seconds
'over-fill' the memory in the box?
Tariq
Movie buff who likes receiving tons of channels
>Presumably it stores a date, time, and channel
>number each time the channel is changed? Wouldn't it be fun to try and
>overload the box by changing the channel every two seconds? Fill up the
>memory completely?
Well, with 5 bytes per record (4 for date/time - 1 for channel number), it
would take 9 kilobytes / hr, therefore say 100 kilobytes / day or 3
Meg/month. At the current price of RAM, how long do you think you'll have to
switch channels every 2 seconds for 11 hours a day in order to fill the
Digibox memory ?
Movie buff
Tariq Atchia
Movie buff who likes receiving tons of channels wrote in message
<76ag49mbk$1...@news1.skynet.be>...
>Well, with 5 bytes per record (4 for date/time - 1 for channel number),
I don't quite know how you get this figure? Could you let me know? I thought
it would be stored in the format DDMMYY,HHMM,CHN where DD is the day, MM
month, YY year, HH hours, and MM minutes with the 3 figure channel number as
CHN. All seperated by commas. This makes 15 bytes for each record? Maybe
there is a better way?
It all depends in what form the data is stored.
Tariq
Dave Porter
"Tariq Atchia" <xy...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>I think this was actually based on information Sky themselves released. It
>was presumed that the system would work around a special CLI system, whereby
>the box would know who was phoning it.
Yes, and the key word here is 'presumed'. This guy Nigel Goodwin was
stating as fact something that was only a presumption. He was quite
vitriolic in his condemnation of others who, as it transpired, knew more
about it then he did. It bothers me when people who have no idea what they
are talking about try to pass rumour and speculation as fact. The danger is
that some may believe them.
Dave Porter
>I don't know how often the box dials
>out, because I've never actually seen it happen. I am guessing that it is
>not every night,
Apparently it's about twice a month.
>Are you thinking that the box collects all information, and then Sky sort
>it, or do you think that the box sorts it intelligently, rejecting
>anomalies?
I think it's sorted by Sky, or BIB, at the receiving end. It's quite
feasible for their computer to reject anomalies and extract the useful
information.
>Wouldn't it be fun to try and
>overload the box by changing the channel every two seconds? Fill up the
>memory completely?
Of course it's possible that the software just 'phones home' when the
memory is full, who knows?
Nigel Goodwin
<da...@radiopages.co.uk> writes
>In article <vbA05PAJ...@lpilsley.demon.co.uk>,
>Nigel Goodwin <nig...@lpilsley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Oh, you mean an aerial rigger :-). Why would someone like that know
>>anything about what BSkyB plans might or might not be?.
>
>before the Digiboxes appeared, it was you who were saying that the boxes
>would be interrogated by receiving incoming phone calls. You even had the
>audacity to call those who said that the boxes would in fact phone out as
>think anyone here would be 'stupid' enough to think that you have even the
>first clue about what you are talking about now?
I was quoting the official line from BSkyB, as given us by the BSkyB
staff on the installer training course! and confirmed by all BSkyB
technical staff at other seminars. It was also repeated by the BBC and
Astra technical staff at the same seminars - who obviously were also
told this by BSkyB.
I don't recall ever calling anyone 'stupid', but I apologize if I did,
it's not me who gets irate!.
And I suggest you calm down Dave, you appear to be getting over excited
about this, you also don't appear to have mentioned any reason why your
friend should know anything whatsoever about what BSkyB might, or might
not, be collecting from the Digibox?.
From a technical point of view the digibox 'could' be used to collect
and upload data - it has considerable computing power, probably enough
to run a bottom end Windows 95 system (if the processor wasn't
different). However there's no reason to suppose it's used for that
purpose, BUT! as the software can be changed by BSkyB at any time, it's
always possible that it could be done in the future - but so could
anything else within it's hardware capabilities that Sky might decide
on.
Nigel Goodwin
<xy...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes
>
>Dave Porter wrote in message ...
>
>>Why do you think it unlikely?
>
>
>Due to the amount of processing that would be required to sift through the
>out, because I've never actually seen it happen. I am guessing that it is
>collected before submission. Someone posted the amounts of memory in the box
>a while ago, but I can't remember the exact figures.
It's 16MB of memory, and the boxes are 'supposed' to only phone once a
month or so to upload any PPV information. Once BIB get their act
together who knows what might happen?.