BBC/ITV Sky Monopoly
p
transmissions require a Sky card to be recieved. and in particular why
these transmissions are not FTA.. thereby enabling wider viewing amongst a
wider population who do not own specialised Sky aperatus..
cheers
paul.uk
Steve Pearce
Simple. If they didn't restrict who was able to receive the broadcast
the rights to broadcast copyright material would go through the roof.
~~~~~~ Steve Pearce ~~~~~~
Steve Pearce
Bad form to reply to your own message but what the hell....
You don't need a Sky card to get the BBC (today) and ITV (in the
future), just a free viewing card. By this method they can restrict
the receiving of the channels to homes that are eligible to receive
the channels.
~~~~~~ Steve Pearce ~~~~~~
St. George
"p" <cv...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9984bc$57u$2...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> Does anyone know why BBC and ITV (existing and future) satellite
> transmissions require a Sky card to be recieved.
They don't
David Sim
"St. George" <En...@nd.com> wrote in message
news:99852f$66e$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
BBC's do anyway - at least the domestic services. The FTV card is simply a
non-subscription Sky card.
They are supposedly required to encrypt due to the treat of overseas viewers
all turning to the BBC and abandoning their own country's television
station. Or something like that.
D.
Charlie Pearce
A Sky card isn't required, but a (free) viewing card is required to
limit reception of BBC transmissions to those eligible to receive
them...
Charlie
--
Remove NO-SPOO-PLEASE from my email address to reply
Please send no unsolicited email or foodstuffs
Neil Thomas
Charlie Pearce <charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk> wrote in
message news:3ab7a158...@news.eidosnet.co.uk...
Ian McFarlane
"Neil Thomas" <ne...@gelatin.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
news:9987uj$pag$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> And to those who pay a TV Licence (BBC).
> Charlie Pearce <charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:3ab7a158...@news.eidosnet.co.uk...
> > On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 17:31:55 -0000, "p" <cv...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Does anyone know why BBC and ITV (existing and future) satellite
> > >transmissions require a Sky card to be recieved. and in particular why
> > >these transmissions are not FTA.. thereby enabling wider viewing
amongst
> a
> > >wider population who do not own specialised Sky aperatus..
> >
> > A Sky card isn't required, but a (free) viewing card is required to
> > limit reception of BBC transmissions to those eligible to receive
> > them...
But the card is blue with Sky Digital written in big letters on the front
and in the small print on the back it says -
This card is the propert of Sky Subscription Services Ltd and must be
returned upon request.
Nigel Goodwin
<ne...@gelatin.greatxscape.net> writes
>And to those who pay a TV Licence (BBC).
Apparently not!. Card distribution is provided by BT Contract Services,
and they don't have access to TV Licence information - they state this
when asked, as do the relevant BBC departments.
--
Nigel.
/--------------------------------------------------------------\
| Nigel Goodwin | Internet : nig...@lpilsley.co.uk |
| Lower Pilsley | Web Page : http://www.lpilsley.co.uk |
| Chesterfield | Official site for Shin Ki and New Spirit |
| England | Ju Jitsu |
\--------------------------------------------------------------/
Nigel Goodwin
<imcfa...@bigfoot.com> writes
>
>"Neil Thomas" <ne...@gelatin.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
>news:9987uj$pag$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> And to those who pay a TV Licence (BBC).
>> Charlie Pearce <charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk> wrote in
>> message news:3ab7a158...@news.eidosnet.co.uk...
>> > On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 17:31:55 -0000, "p" <cv...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Does anyone know why BBC and ITV (existing and future) satellite
>> > >transmissions require a Sky card to be recieved. and in particular why
>> > >these transmissions are not FTA.. thereby enabling wider viewing
>amongst
>> a
>> > >wider population who do not own specialised Sky aperatus..
>> >
>> > A Sky card isn't required, but a (free) viewing card is required to
>> > limit reception of BBC transmissions to those eligible to receive
>> > them...
>
>But the card is blue with Sky Digital written in big letters on the front
>and in the small print on the back it says -
>This card is the propert of Sky Subscription Services Ltd and must be
>returned upon request.
But you can't get them from Sky :-). Also Sky can't help you in any way
with problems with the card, they have no record on their systems - Sky
simply provide the card on request to BT Contract Services, presumably
they don't even have any reason to know the customer details?.
R. Donaldson
that a CAM is available for other FTA receivers not a restrictive practice?
"p" <cv...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9984bc$57u$2...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
Nick
wrote:
>Says who ? .
The grammar police.
--Nick.
--
icq: 9235201 -- Fax: (0) 7974 984182 - United Kingdom
http://www.blackstar.co.uk/scp/id/what - Want videos?
Hayn on dal.net -- #SkyDigital IRC -- dragons.dal.net
Nick
<ne...@gelatin.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>And to those who pay a TV Licence (BBC).
Erm, no. You can get a BBC FTA card even if you don't have a TV
Licence.
The Wizard
> They are supposedly required to encrypt due to the treat of overseas
viewers
> all turning to the BBC and abandoning their own country's television
> station. Or something like that.
Or so Sky has so convincingly led most people to believe!
It's no wonder not many other channels won't start up in the UK, Having
straight away to pay Sky for encryption/EPG is it?
I thought the football doc on BBC 2 tonight summed up exactly how Sky
behave.
If they did'nt force charge for every channel,They would'nt have the cash to
continually way over-bid for footie rights.
According to the doc the cash was to improve football <LOL!>, Yeah right,buy
a load of foreigners who take the cash back to their own country!
I guess ITV won't be contribruting to Sky at all.
Joe Matthews
news:_0St6.14409$Q4.27...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> > They are supposedly required to encrypt due to the treat of overseas
> viewers
> > all turning to the BBC and abandoning their own country's television
> > station. Or something like that.
>
> Or so Sky has so convincingly led most people to believe!
>
> It's no wonder not many other channels won't start up in the UK, Having
> straight away to pay Sky for encryption/EPG is it?
Not many other channels? What do you base that statement on? There are
hundreds upon hundreds of channels, and new ones starting up all the time.
> I thought the football doc on BBC 2 tonight summed up exactly how Sky
> behave.
>
> If they did'nt force charge for every channel,They would'nt have the cash
to
> continually way over-bid for footie rights.
Well if the other companies wouldn't try to outbid them, they wouldn't have
to pay such a high price? This is ridiculous. If the BBC had the cash to
spend on it that Sky do, they would do precisely the same thing, as would
ITV, NTL, and any other company.
David Patrick
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, it was written:
> > They are supposedly required to encrypt due to the treat of overseas
> viewers
> > all turning to the BBC and abandoning their own country's television
> > station. Or something like that.
>
> Or so Sky has so convincingly led most people to believe!
No they haven't. The problem is one of rights. The BBC (for instance) does
not have the licence to show many of its programmes (like The X-Files) in
any other country covered by the Astra footprint. To buy the rights for
the whole of Western Europe might be impossible and would certainly cost a
hell of a lot more money. An efficient use of resources against
encryption? I don't think so.
> It's no wonder not many other channels won't start up in the UK, Having
> straight away to pay Sky for encryption/EPG is it?
EPG charges are at a fixed rate as you well know.
If the channel holds the rights to all countries in the Astra footprint
for its programmes then it doesn't have to encrypt.
David Patrick
Jomtien
>You don't need a Sky card to get the BBC (today) and ITV (in the
>future), just a free viewing card.
The BBC card is a Sky card.
--
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)
Jomtien
>> Does anyone know why BBC and ITV (existing and future) satellite
>> transmissions require a Sky card to be recieved.
>
>They don't
Yes they do.
Jomtien
>Perhaps to widen this debate a little further - Is the failure to ensure
>that a CAM is available for other FTA receivers not a restrictive practice?
Just add it to Sky's very long list of such.
Jomtien
>A Sky card isn't required, but a (free) viewing card is required to
>limit reception of BBC transmissions to those eligible to receive
>them...
All the cards that work in the Sky digibox are Sky cards.
Andy Luckman
WHAT says who?
--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO)
Satellite and TV aerial
expertise since 1986
Mark Stapley
mediaguard cam. Anybody fancy doing a petition or a bit of legal civil
disobedience? :) That Sky don't produce a mediaguard cam is indefensable.
Nigel Goodwin
Donaldson <robert_do...@SPAMhotmail.com> writes
>Perhaps to widen this debate a little further - Is the failure to ensure
>that a CAM is available for other FTA receivers not a restrictive practice?
Not really, it's a reasonably effective security measure, and one of the
reasons that the BBC use the Sky Digital system.
Tim
Mark Stapley wrote in message ...
>There must be someway we can get the government to force sky to produce a
>mediaguard cam. Anybody fancy doing a petition or a bit of legal civil
>disobedience? :) That Sky don't produce a mediaguard cam is indefensable.
>
Charlie Pearce
>Charlie Pearce wrote:
>
>>A Sky card isn't required, but a (free) viewing card is required to
>>limit reception of BBC transmissions to those eligible to receive
>>them...
>
>All the cards that work in the Sky digibox are Sky cards.
You're correct - what I should have said was that a Sky subscription
isn't required...
R. Mark Clayton
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
news:B6DD8B279...@hack.powernet.co.uk...
> In article <uTPt6.14029$Q4.25...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> "R. Donaldson" <robert_do...@SPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps to widen this debate a little further - Is the failure to ensure
> > that a CAM is available for other FTA receivers not a restrictive
practice?
Maybe, but the BBC have Crown Immunity.
>
> It certainly is. And Region slugged DVD players are a restrictive practice
> too.
Definitely, but the agreement is outside juridstiction. You will note that
the DVD manufacturers and the film makers do nothing about retailers such as
Richer Sounds (plug plug) who sell unslugged DVD's.
>
>
> Er... And your point was?
>
>
--
R. Mark Clayton
PS Albeit at an excessive additional mark up. RMC
R. Mark Clayton
"David Patrick" <spsp...@reading.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.3.95q.101032...@sumb1.reading.ac.uk...
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, it was written:
>
> > > They are supposedly required to encrypt due to the treat of overseas
> > viewers
> > > all turning to the BBC and abandoning their own country's television
> > > station. Or something like that.
> >
> > Or so Sky has so convincingly led most people to believe!
>
> No they haven't. The problem is one of rights. The BBC (for instance) does
> not have the licence to show many of its programmes (like The X-Files) in
> any other country covered by the Astra footprint. To buy the rights for
> the whole of Western Europe might be impossible and would certainly cost a
> hell of a lot more money. An efficient use of resources against
> encryption? I don't think so.
Two bits of misinformation above.
Firstly the BBC has rights to most of its output because it produced it.
BBC Prime, was almost entirely BBC copyright material. This argument is
falacious.
Secondly it is the US film producers who choose to treat Europe as a
disparate load of separate states, something they do not (and almost
certainly can not legally do) in the USA.
As long as EU countries continue to play along with this sort of nonesense
the longer EU consumers will be ripped off.
The EU should insist that
1. Any DVD player sold in the EU must play any DVD sold worldwide.
and
2. Any EU citizen can subscribe to any channel offered anywhere in the EU on
a common specification receiver.
>
> > It's no wonder not many other channels won't start up in the UK, Having
> > straight away to pay Sky for encryption/EPG is it?
The cost of trying to set up a rival verification method in a market already
dominated by $ky specified receivers.
>
> EPG charges are at a fixed rate as you well know.
>
> If the channel holds the rights to all countries in the Astra footprint
> for its programmes then it doesn't have to encrypt.
>
> David Patrick
>
--
R. Mark Clayton
Jomtien
>> 1. Any DVD player sold in the EU must play any DVD sold worldwide.
>> and
>
>They implicitly do this by allowing it to sell region code free players.
Not at all. There are no laws that could prohibit the sale of multi
region players and that is not the same as having laws making them
obligatory.
>> 2. Any EU citizen can subscribe to any channel offered anywhere in the EU on
>> a common specification receiver.
>
>This is already done for other items like cars when this items are
>available in the same country. But nothing can force a company to sell a
>product in whole EU when it doesn't wants to.
>Every company can decide with which customers it wants to deal.
How far would a company get if it decided that it wasn't going to
accept black customers? About as far as the nearest court I expect.
The same anti-discrimination rules could easily be applied to sales
across Europe where the product is of a nature as to be sold there at
all.
David Patrick
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "David Patrick" <spsp...@reading.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.95q.101032...@sumb1.reading.ac.uk...
> >
> > On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, it was written:
> >
> > > > They are supposedly required to encrypt due to the treat of overseas
> > > viewers
> > > > all turning to the BBC and abandoning their own country's television
> > > > station. Or something like that.
> > >
> > > Or so Sky has so convincingly led most people to believe!
> >
> > No they haven't. The problem is one of rights. The BBC (for instance) does
> > not have the licence to show many of its programmes (like The X-Files) in
> > any other country covered by the Astra footprint. To buy the rights for
> > the whole of Western Europe might be impossible and would certainly cost a
> > hell of a lot more money. An efficient use of resources against
> > encryption? I don't think so.
>
> Two bits of misinformation above.
>
> Firstly the BBC has rights to most of its output because it produced it.
> BBC Prime, was almost entirely BBC copyright material. This argument is
> falacious.
Doesn't Prime show adverts? As a commercial BBC channel it couldn't be
shown in the UK.
Also, there is a surprisingly large ammount of foriegn material on bothe
BBC 1 and 2 that prevents it from being shown abroad. There are also
rights issues within the UK about some sport fixtures. So I don't feel I
was giving misinformation here.
For the BBC to show unencrypted throughout all of Europe it would have to
own or have all the European rights to _everything_ it showed. Just saying
that it has pan-european rights to most of it is not going to stop it
getting sued into oblivion.
> Secondly it is the US film producers who choose to treat Europe as a
> disparate load of separate states, something they do not (and almost
> certainly can not legally do) in the USA.
True, but then I never said they didn't. However close to a European
superstate that we are Europe is not one country like the US is yet.
Why do they _have_ to treat all these countries as just one? There is no
comparison between an American state and a European country. A closer
aproximation would be the four states making up the UK against the fifty
in the American union. A degree of seperation but far from absolute.
David Patrick
Simon G
<MCla...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>Firstly the BBC has rights to most of its output because it produced it.
>BBC Prime, was almost entirely BBC copyright material. This argument is
>falacious.
In fact BBC Prime is operated as a distinct company. It has to pay the
BBC for the rights to the material it uses.
That is why it just buys half a dozen episodes of each series and
screens lots of repeats.
loz
> these transmissions are not FTA.. thereby enabling wider viewing amongst a
> wider population who do not own specialised Sky aperatus..
>
i.e. Sky is NOT the specialised aperatus.
isnt it the other satellite equipment that is specialised?
regards
loz
Jomtien
>As long as there is no discrimination between EU people regarding
>access, there is is nothing to do for the EU.
Not at all. The EU concerns itself with anything affecting trade (and
most everything else too).
>> How far would a company get if it decided that it wasn't going to
>> accept black customers? About as far as the nearest court I expect.
>
>Come on, don't compare this with racism. :(
I'm comparing nothing.
You're the one who said:
>>Every company can decide with which customers it wants to deal.
not me. I just pointed out that you are wrong.
>> The same anti-discrimination rules could easily be applied to sales
>> across Europe where the product is of a nature as to be sold there at
>> all.
>
>No, absolutely not! This wouldn't hold in any court.
>I can decide that I sell my service only to a specific region. If
>someone calls me from outside I simply say - NO!
>And this is was all the Pay-TV companies are doing in europe without any
>problems with law.
>If you think you are right then why aren't you going to the court?
You misunderstand. I didn't mean that race discrimination laws apply
also to discrimination by country of residence. They obviously don't.
I meant that the same type of law could easily be passed to ensure
that such discrimination was not permitted.
>Sorry, but the real world is a little bit different from your dreams.
Oh dear.
>Understand me right, I would also like that what you are saying. But I
>see no chance for this to happen.
Up to us to make the chance.
>BTW, the subject is wrong. There is no monopoly in the PayTV market.
By satellite? Of course there is. Name one Pay TV supplier by
satellite in the UK that doesn't use Sky's encryption. Sky have a
total monopoly on satellite Pay TV encryption in the UK.
>Everyone is free to jump into this business. But it seems to be that the
>market doesn't allow for more competing companies.
Because Sky have sewn it up.
"Monopoly" refers to facts today, not possibilities tomorrow.
Ian Hoare
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 09:45:06 +0000, you said:-
>On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>
>> "David Patrick" <spsp...@reading.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.SOL.3.95q.101032...@sumb1.reading.ac.uk...
>> >
>> > On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, it was written:
>> >
>> > > > They are supposedly required to encrypt due to the treat of overseas
>> > > viewers all turning to the BBC and abandoning their own country's television
>> > > > station. Or something like that.
A view held by brits to re-inforce their self image. No one's going to turn in
drove to the Beeb, better or not, because they dont speak english. I know that
we all like to think that the civilised world speak english well enough to
watch films etc, but the truth is, they don't. In France, for example,
watching figures for an English film with actors whose voices are their
strength and for whom dubbing is an obscenity, in english, subtitled in
french, are 1/10 that of the same film , dubbed by a bunch of hack actors
working, bored to sobs, in a back room in a Paris suburb.
>> > No they haven't. The problem is one of rights. The BBC (for instance) does
>> > not have the licence to show many of its programmes (like The X-Files) in
>> > any other country covered by the Astra footprint.
This HAS to be complete crap. It may be the excuse, but it CAN'T be legally
correct. Consider. On Astra, every single public service German station plus
the private sations ALL broadcast FTA in Analogue. ALL of these also broadcast
FTA in digital on Astra 1 AND hotbird. They all broadcast films, admittedly
dubbed, but sometimes subtitled. Italian stations do the same, so do spanish
ones. ALL these have been perfectly easily available with analogue decoders
and now with digital ones, throughout Europe _including_ the UK. So what sort
of agreement can be the Beeb have signed that prevents THEM being picked up in
Europe while European stations can be picked up freely in England. As a
genuine reason, this simply doesn't hold water. I don't _know_ what the real
reason is, but have a suspicion it has some political basis.
Telecom 2b can be picked up unencrypted in Britain,
>> > the whole of Western Europe might be impossible and would certainly cost a
>> > hell of a lot more money.
So what about Vox, Sat 1, Pro7? - all private stations all available FTA
throughout Europe. Not Public Service? True, then what about ARD BF HF WDR SWF
Phoenix, ZDF, Eins, N3 B? I think ALL these are public service. Don't tell me
seriously that some tin pot public service broadcasting organisation designed
to reach Bavaria can afford to pay the rights and the Beeb can't.Come off it.
>Also, there is a surprisingly large ammount of foriegn material on both
>BBC 1 and 2 that prevents it from being shown abroad.
And you don't think that's true for the FTA French, FTA polish, FTA hungarian
and FTA spanish and portuguese programs? So why can they be shown FTA
throughout Europe?
>rights issues within the UK about some sport fixtures. So I don't feel I
>was giving misinformation here.
Eurosport is FTA, DSF is FTA! Where's the problem?
>
>For the BBC to show unencrypted throughout all of Europe
>own or have all the European rights to _everything_ it showed. Just saying
>that it has pan-european rights to most of it is not going to stop it
>getting sued into oblivion.
Round things. It semply needs to DO it, and in defence point at every single
other country's TV stations.
>Why do they _have_ to treat all these countries as just one?
Because the reality is that throughout Europe, except in the UK, there is a
very significant Public Service FTA presence. Most satellites which are aimed
at Europe, can be received _throughout_ Europe. I'm not saying EVERY country
does, but the UK is significant by its absence vis-a-vis France, Germany,
Italy and Spain.
I suspect that there's some very seedy agreement between Murdoch and the
Government involving political support from his rags, in return for some heavy
handed ministerial involvement in preventing free competition. When the
Murdoch rags stopped supporting the Conservatives, they got thrown out, and
the same would happen to Labour if they switched back.
What I would like to see happen is for ITV and BBC to take space on one
satellite at a suitable distance from (say) Astra 2, so a 6deg pair of twin
LNBs could pick up both, and for them to announce that as from 2005 ALL future
broadcasting will be by satellite, and encrypted with viewing cards free for
those who've paid their license fee. And they should use a recognised standard
NOT Sky's so that they would effectively force Sky to use a similar system.
Now THAT would blow the Sky monopoly out of the water.
Amitiés
--Ian Hoare--
Tony Sayer
<ianhoare...@wanadoo.fr> dictates
<long interesting article snipped a bit!>
You would think that the BBC didn't want England to be in Europe,
wouldn't you....
--
Tony Sayer
Tim
Ian Hoare wrote in message ...
>
>A view held by brits to re-inforce their self image. No one's going to turn
in
>drove to the Beeb, better or not, because they dont speak english. I know
that
>we all like to think that the civilised world speak english well enough to
>watch films etc, but the truth is, they don't. In France, for example,
>watching figures for an English film with actors whose voices are their
>strength and for whom dubbing is an obscenity, in english, subtitled in
>french, are 1/10 that of the same film , dubbed by a bunch of hack actors
>working, bored to sobs, in a back room in a Paris suburb.
>
watching BBC1 via cable than watching Dutch language programmes on their own
networks. The people I know in the Netherlands certainly know enough English
to understand a film...just as I know enough German to watch a film in
German.
The same is true, although to a lesser extent in Germany and Scandinavia.
You'll also find people in Eastern Europe...particularly Poland, Czech Rep,
Slovakia, who know enough English to understand English language TV and
films.
I suspect one reason for this is that a lot of their TV (particularly during
daytime) is British stuff with subtitles. Recently I've seen both Allo Allo
and Dad's Army subtitled in Polish but with English language soundtrack.
Ian Hoare
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 22:32:52 +0000, you said:-
>In article <ma2nbt0dbtpu8a2tt...@4ax.com>, Ian Hoare
><ianhoare...@wanadoo.fr> dictates
>
><long interesting article snipped a bit!>
You could have taken a bit more off, you know!
>You would think that the BBC didn't want England to be in Europe,
>wouldn't you....
No, I don't think it's as simple as that. Satellite broadcasting grew in
Britain as an effective Sky monopoly when Mrs T was PM, and Mrs T was heavily
supported by Murdoch's papers. Now Mrs T's position about Europe is pretty
well known, it's roughly on a par with that of Colonel Blimp. "They're all
frogs, wogs, wops or dagos. Pity we need to do business with them." That's
just about the Sun's position, and it has had a huge influence on "thinking"
in Britain - if the word "thinking" can be used in conjunction with the rag
"The Sun". Ally that with successive Governments' bizarre attitude towards the
weak moral fibre of the British, compared with that of continentals, and
you'll see that they basically WANT to see a monopoly built up with the
British locked into a UK only system of broadcasting. So when other satellites
came within 3deg or 6deg from Astra, and offset LNBs became prevalent, BSB
promptly found another position, for the Astra 2 series of satellites, at 28W.
So I don't think any of this comes from the Beeb, frankly. The regional
character of ITV broadcasting gives them a vested interest in NOT becoming
nationwide, and of course advertisers in the UK have little or no interest in
being picked up on the Continent. Frankly, I think that at some stage Sir
Humphrey had a chat to the comptroller of the Beeb, and a little conversation
took place in which words like "license fee" and "Channel 5" and "continental
porn" got bandied about, and the Beeb had to try to find some tin pot excuse
that would possibly convince enough people not to exert pressure on them.
It's a great shame actually, because exposure to other countries broadcasts
might open the eyes of people in the UK that not everything in the UK is
automatically better than everything "abroad". And you might also be exposed
to some of the REAL debates about Europe and not the jingoistic crap about the
pound or the pint that Brits have been side tracked into. And Europe might get
the benefit of the UK being properly IN Europe, acting as a counter weight to
the current German domination of thinking here. TV is an enorously powerful
and important medium of information and the days are over when it should be
kept as tool of government propaganda. Accessible satellite broadcasting from
all countries would be a hugely powerful tool to prevent censorship such as
exists in France, for example - which with Telecom 2A's position, and the
promotion of french only bouquets is blatant, and sometimes even risible. We
learnt on the french equivalent of the BBC 1 lunctime news program that
Aurillac (60 kms from us here) is the world umbrella capital. There was NO
element of tongue in cheek either! How do they know? Because the town council
of Aurillac erected a plaque to say so!! Sometimes I don't know whether to
laugh or cry.
Amitiés
--Ian Hoare--
The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe
(Simon Gardner) wrote:
>In article <GCVSeWAU...@bancom.co.uk>,
>Tony Sayer <tony@bancom_nilspamus_.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> You would think that the BBC didn't want England to be in Europe,
>> wouldn't you....
>
>You mean like Holland isn't and Austria isn't and Belgium isn't and Sweden
>isn't and Denmark isn't etc etc etc?
I'll believe we're in Europe when the HMC&E presence at Coquelles is
finally removed.
>
>--
> Voting Tory
> will kill you
> B. S .E.
Foot and Mouth disease is Labour's answer to the BSE problem.
Jomtien
>Accessible satellite broadcasting from
>all countries would be a hugely powerful tool to prevent censorship such as
>exists in France, for example - which with Telecom 2A's position, and the
>promotion of french only bouquets is blatant, and sometimes even risible. We
>learnt on the french equivalent of the BBC 1 lunctime news program that
>Aurillac (60 kms from us here) is the world umbrella capital. There was NO
>element of tongue in cheek either! How do they know? Because the town council
>of Aurillac erected a plaque to say so!! Sometimes I don't know whether to
>laugh or cry.
I laugh. The French are a joke to which they themselves never quite
get to hear the punchline.
I am however grateful to them for having invented absolutely
everything on the planet, starting with TV, continuing through the
internal combustion engine, and on to intangibles like democracy and
culture, and even including all the things that by some unexplained
act of international stealth ended up with a world-wide patent that
infuriatingly makes no mention of France or any Frenchman as the
inventor.
Jomtien
> On Astra, every single public service German station plus
>> the private sations ALL broadcast FTA in Analogue. ALL of these also broadcast
>> FTA in digital on Astra 1 AND hotbird.
>
>And they have come under a great deal of pressure not to.
Really?
Nice to see someone effectively resisting the pressure anyway.
>> Telecom 2b can be picked up unencrypted in Britain,
>
>And when this gets switched off, the digital equivalents are already
>encrypted. Try getting Fr2 or Fr3 digital. You'll find they are both
>encrypted.
With cards available over the counter to anyone with a few Francs in
his pocket. Cards that can be used in any receiver with a CAM slot and
a freely available CAM. Cards that even come with a special phone
number that is accessible to callers from overseas. And to watch a
service that deliberately switched to a wide beam in order to increase
overseas signal strength.
Nigel Goodwin
>>> > No they haven't. The problem is one of rights. The BBC (for instance) does
>>> > not have the licence to show many of its programmes (like The X-Files) in
>>> > any other country covered by the Astra footprint.
>
>This HAS to be complete crap. It may be the excuse, but it CAN'T be legally
>correct. Consider. On Astra, every single public service German station plus
>the private sations ALL broadcast FTA in Analogue. ALL of these also broadcast
>FTA in digital on Astra 1 AND hotbird. They all broadcast films, admittedly
>dubbed, but sometimes subtitled. Italian stations do the same, so do spanish
>ones. ALL these have been perfectly easily available with analogue decoders
>and now with digital ones, throughout Europe _including_ the UK. So what sort
>of agreement can be the Beeb have signed that prevents THEM being picked up in
>Europe while European stations can be picked up freely in England. As a
>genuine reason, this simply doesn't hold water. I don't _know_ what the real
>reason is, but have a suspicion it has some political basis.
The reason for this difference is dead simple, and has often been
mentioned here, the German stations are effectively encrypted by being
dubbed from the original language. As the majority of programming which
is affected by copyright problems is of American origin, it's them who
are happy to let the Germans use 'dubbed' encryption. Some other
countries which hold plenty of copyright (and insist on programmes been
encrypted) are the UK and France, both of which blocked European wide TV
access suggested by the EU.
>>For the BBC to show unencrypted throughout all of Europe
>>own or have all the European rights to _everything_ it showed. Just saying
>>that it has pan-european rights to most of it is not going to stop it
>>getting sued into oblivion.
>
>Round things. It semply needs to DO it, and in defence point at every single
>other country's TV stations.
No defence - the BBC couldn't afford to do it!.
>>Why do they _have_ to treat all these countries as just one?
>
>Because the reality is that throughout Europe, except in the UK, there is a
>very significant Public Service FTA presence. Most satellites which are aimed
>at Europe, can be received _throughout_ Europe. I'm not saying EVERY country
>does, but the UK is significant by its absence vis-a-vis France, Germany,
>Italy and Spain.
>
>I suspect that there's some very seedy agreement between Murdoch and the
>Government involving political support from his rags, in return for some heavy
>handed ministerial involvement in preventing free competition. When the
>Murdoch rags stopped supporting the Conservatives, they got thrown out, and
>the same would happen to Labour if they switched back.
>
>What I would like to see happen is for ITV and BBC to take space on one
>satellite at a suitable distance from (say) Astra 2, so a 6deg pair of twin
>LNBs could pick up both, and for them to announce that as from 2005 ALL future
>broadcasting will be by satellite, and encrypted with viewing cards free for
>those who've paid their license fee. And they should use a recognised standard
>NOT Sky's so that they would effectively force Sky to use a similar system.
>Now THAT would blow the Sky monopoly out of the water.
That would be a huge expense for the broadcasters and the viewers, we
currently have the most modern digital satellite TV broadcasting system
anywhere in the world - at one of the lowest costs. The BBC won't go
elsewhere as no where else offers sufficient security - notice all the
threads in this group for 'download the latest codes for Tv ????' - you
don't get that for Sky Digital, this is EXTREMELY!! Important to the
Beeb.
The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe
(Simon Gardner) wrote:
>In article <3abc2f24...@news.ukgateway.net>,
>F...@ukgoatway.net (The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe) wrote:
>
>> >--
>> > Voting Tory
>> > will kill you
>> > B. S .E.
>>
>> Foot and Mouth disease is Labour's answer to the BSE problem.
>
>I don't recall Labour having covered up, persistently lied to the public,
>bullied scientists and destroyed their livelihoods over a disease that was
>obviously going to kill a lot of people - in order to corruptly protect its
>political clients.
>
What a load of crap.
I bring you New Labour: the party that brought integrity back into
politics.
Ian Hoare
Hi 66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner),
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 00:10:36 +0000, you said:-
>In article <ma2nbt0dbtpu8a2tt...@4ax.com>,
>Ian Hoare <ianhoare...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>> A view held by brits to re-inforce their self image. No one's going to turn in
>> drove to the Beeb, better or not, because they dont speak english. I know that
>> we all like to think that the civilised world speak english well enough to
>> watch films etc, but the truth is, they don't.
>
>You're an ignorant bastard, I'll give you that.
Maybe, but learning will cure it. You're a stupid bigot and, poor chap, you'll
remain one for the rest of your life.
> Most Scandanavians and Dutch speak better English than you do.
You've met a suitably representative sample, presumably - in their own
countries. But what does that prove?
>> On Astra, every single public service German station plus the private sations ALL broadcast FTA in Analogue. ALL of these >> also broadcast FTA in digital on Astra 1 AND hotbird.
>
>And they have come under a great deal of pressure not to.
Maybe, though I wonder how you know. The FACT remains that they broadcast
American films FTA.
>certainly don't broadcast the English sound track alongside - for rights
>reasons - as they do on many terrestrial broadcasts which are more
>geographically limited.
Tried switching Audio channels? It's surprising how often you find it there.
>They also don't broadcast alternate English sound tacks
When you learn to type correctly, (and perhaps if you care to continue this
conversation in French - or German) I'll permit you to criticise my English.
>some of the Italian erncrypted services. They also blank the screens on Sat
>during critical sports broadcasts - for rights reasons.
What's a "critical" sports program? That's a contradiction in terms if ever
there was one.
>Nope. Almost all encrypted - with the exception of two channels
>specifically cleared for European consumption - rights-wise.
That's arguing arsy versy (you can look it up in the dictionary if you like).
The FACT is that there are public service FTA programs from almost ALL
European countries. Whether it's one or two or twenty doesn't affect the
_principle_ that it's possible nor does it affect the _principle_ that they
broadcast films sometimes, without Me Cecil B de Mille's successors having
conniptions.
>
>> ALL these have been perfectly easily available with analogue decoders
>
>Oh yeah? Try geting the main Spanish channels, or the Swedish ones, or the
>Dutch ones, or the Danish ones.
That's "getting", if we're being picky about English.
I've not tried to receive Swedish or Danish or Dutch programs. So I'm
perfectly prepared to concede that their major Public Service stations don't
broadcast FTA. Now how many people are we talking about here?
call it
5 million for Denmark
9 million for Sweden
15 million for the Netherlands
===
29 million in all
Or let's go a bit further and add in Norway and Finland, I wouldn't want you
to think that I'm being mean about this.
So let's add 4 million for Norway and 5 million for Finland.
Call it 38 million Scandinavians "all of whom speak better english than you".
Now take the countries which officially speak German.
82 million for Germany
8 million for Austria
(8 million of whom 63% are german speaking) so call it
5 million.
Then we mustn't forget the Dutch who all deny speaking German but succeed in
understanding it quite as well as they understand English
So let's be generous and say there's only 50%
7.5 million.
Call it 100 million German speaking people (not counting the ex eastern bloc
countries, many of whose peoples resolutely refuse to admit to speaking
German.)
By the way, I'm not trying to denigrate the peoples of these smaller
countries, but their position is somewhat different, and it could be argued
that interest Europe wide in their national programs would be limited so one
can understand why they don't or cant put their broadcasts on Satellite.
And where were with the English speakers?
29 million plus the UK, call it 90 million.
So there are MORE German speakers than English speakers, even if your
ludicrous assumptions were correct, which of course they aren't.
So the FTA broadcasting of films and such in German should, cause MORE harm to
the USA moguls than doing so in English. Yes they do it. So I say again, I
suspect that claims about restrictive clauses are more about keeping the
gullible silent than about a true state of affairs.
>> genuine reason, this simply doesn't hold water. I don't _know_ what the real
>> reason is,
>
>You've just been told it.
No, I've seen what YOU say, but what's that got to do with the state of the
Bolivian Navy? The _evidence_ is that given determination on the part of the
broadcasting organisations, they can freely broadcast films and such FTA
Europe wide.
>> Telecom 2b can be picked up unencrypted in Britain,
>
>And when this gets switched off,
France is a long way from switching off analogue. It's Murdoch who is forcing
the pace on this.
>> >Also, there is a surprisingly large ammount of foriegn material on both
>> >BBC 1 and 2 that prevents it from being shown abroad.
>>
>> And you don't think that's true for the FTA French,
>On the way out.
Nonsense.
>> FTA polish,
>
>Also on the way out.
Nonsense
>> FTA hungarian
>
>One channel.
Wrong. Two.
>Just two channels cleared for general consumption - a bit like BBC World,
>in fact. The real Spanish channels are all encrypted.
No BBC world AND Prime, even with my general ignorance and stupidity I can
tell the difference between one and two.
>Mainly because it's a lot cheaper to have non-English language rights than
>English rights.
Says who? Anyone who's got a vested interest in selling Sky, of course they
will.
>> Eurosport is FTA
>Also on the way out. The 13E transmissions have already gone. It's
>encrypted on 28.2E.
Wrong. I watched it there FTA in English today. You're thinking of Hotbird.
>> in defence point at every single other country's TV stations.
>
>I think you'll find that they are mostly encrypted - particularly anything
>in English - eg Swedish, Dutch, Norwegian, Danish, Finland. You've rather
We've been there, done that and got the T shirt - 38 millions as opposed to
100 million German speakers.
Your attitude is absolutely typical of the blinkered Brit. I travel all over
the continent - living in France since moving here from the UK in 1989 I speak
fluent French, fair German, and can make myself understood in Italian.
Wherever I go, I try to speak with people in their own languages, as best I
can and I always, without exception, find that (especially when I mangle their
languages) people who speak English make a point of doing so. And I can tell
you that just because english is the first foreign language for 35% of the
population of Europe, it doesn't mean people understand it! In England, the
first foreign language taught may be French, German or Spanish. That doesn't
mean that the typical Brit can understand a broadcast in the foreign language
they learnt. YES it's true that proportionately many more Scandiwegians and
Germans understand English than English understand any foreign languages,
but that misses the point. Most of them see these films in their OWN language,
anyway, so your bizarre notion that Europeans will rush to listen to the Beeb
in English to see films in their original language is completely unrealistic.
So I say again no doubt there IS a logical reason for Public Service
broadcasts to have hidden themselves away behind encryption, but it simply
doesn't make sense for it to be just a question of broadcasting rights.
Amitiés
--Ian Hoare--
Ian Hoare
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 07:15:51 +0000, you said:-
>In article <ma2nbt0dbtpu8a2tt...@4ax.com>, Ian Hoare
><ianhoare...@wanadoo.fr> writes
>>>> > No they haven't. The problem is one of rights.
>>
>>This HAS to be complete crap. It may be the excuse, but it CAN'T be legally
>>correct. Consider. On Astra, every single public service German station plus
>>the private sations ALL broadcast FTA in Analogue.
[snip]
>>genuine reason, this simply doesn't hold water. I don't _know_ what the real
>>reason is, but have a suspicion it has some political basis.
>The reason for this difference is dead simple, and has often been
>mentioned here, the German stations are effectively encrypted by being
>dubbed from the original language.
Well, sure that is a MAJOR drawback for Brits, but I've answered this in
detail in my reply to Simon. At a conservative estimate there are 100 million
europeans for whom German is either their mother tongue, or who speak it
perfectly. My guesstimate is that the TRUE figures for British speaking
Europeans is that there about 70 millions (including the 60 million people
living in the UK who already have access to these programmes) for whom English
is their mother tongue or who speak it perfectly.
>is affected by copyright problems is of American origin, it's them who
>are happy to let the Germans use 'dubbed' encryption.
I've dealt with this and shown it up for the fallacy it is.
>countries which hold plenty of copyright (and insist on programmes been
>encrypted) are the UK and France, both of which blocked European wide TV
>access suggested by the EU.
I am not surprised France should do so, because they have long believed in the
right (and duty) of the administration to control the access to information of
their citizens. So free access to satellite broadcasts would open up free
access to information they don't control. Simple as that.
>>Round things. It simply needs to DO it, and in defence point at every single
>>other country's TV stations.
>
>No defence - the BBC couldn't afford to do it!.
Why NOT? They wouldn't be sued, on what grounds? They would be doing the same
as most other European countries' PSBOs do.
>>What I would like to see happen is for ITV and BBC to take space on one
[snip]
>>those who've paid their license fee. And they should use a recognised standard
>>NOT Sky's so that they would effectively force Sky to use a similar system.
>>Now THAT would blow the Sky monopoly out of the water.
>
>That would be a huge expense for the broadcasters and the viewers,
No more than it is for the switch to digital. If Sky can do a "free" digibox
offer, don't you think the Beeb AND ITV would have enough clout to do so?
Course they have. yes there would be a significant start up cost, but think of
the savings, NO terrestrial network to pay for or maintain, AND significant
extra license fees paid for by such people abroad who were prepared to pay the
UK license fee to have access to the programs.
>currently have the most modern digital satellite TV broadcasting system
Yeah yeah yeah. Who tells you that. Sky? The most modern simply means the most
recent. Next year I expect Lithuania will have the most modern one. Proves
nothing.
>The BBC won't go elsewhere as no where else offers sufficient security - notice all the
>threads in this group for 'download the latest codes for Tv ????' - you
>don't get that for Sky Digital, this is EXTREMELY!! Important to the
>Beeb.
How long do you thing it will be before Videoguard gets hacked? I agree that
some of the other system's are pretty insecure, but I also suspect this is a
matter of time. Someone will think of a scheme that makes hacking no longer
worthwhile, I suspect. And in any case, much of the REASON people do it, is
either to get access to porn that the UK Govts in their collective wisdom feel
would sap the moral fibre of Brits, (without seeming to to much harm to every
other national) or to justify their expensive new decoders.
Amitiés
--Ian Hoare--
Simon G
Naepflein) wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 00:10:36 +0000, 66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk
>(Simon Gardner) (66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner))
>wrote:
>
>> Nope. Germany is the significant exception. Almost everyone else either
>> encrypts - or is heading that way with a couple of unencrypted token
>> channels.
>
>Just read that only ten percent of the people outside the german
>language countries are understand german, but about 50 % outside the
>english language countries understand english. So this is certainly that
>is a reason why german stations get away with FTA without to much costs.
I wonder why the Welsh channels are encrypted.
Simon G
(Simon Gardner) wrote:
>
>You also ignore the views (in the case of the BBC) of the taxpayer.
>Dog-in-the-manger and mean-spirited as they are, the majority of taxpayers
>are not going to be too chuffed about the BBC which *they pay for* and in
>many cases which *they resent paying for* being given for free to feckless
>wogs.
I recently discussed the idea that European TV licences should be
reciprocal with a councilor on the CSA (the French broadcasting
regulatory committee). He found this attitude that is widely held in
the UK very difficult to understand.
The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe
(Simon Gardner) wrote:
>In article <3abcf3f0...@news.ukgateway.net>,
>F...@ukgoatway.net (The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 10:16:02 +0000, 66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk
>> (Simon Gardner) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3abc2f24...@news.ukgateway.net>,
>> >F...@ukgoatway.net (The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe) wrote:
>> >
>> >> >--
>> >> > Voting Tory
>> >> > will kill you
>> >> > B. S .E.
>> >>
>> >> Foot and Mouth disease is Labour's answer to the BSE problem.
>> >
>> >I don't recall Labour having covered up, persistently lied to the public,
>> >bullied scientists and destroyed their livelihoods over a disease that was
>> >obviously going to kill a lot of people - in order to corruptly protect its
>> >political clients.
>> >
>> What a load of crap.
>
>It certainly was. And they think they got away with it. Just wait until the
>Tory-induced cjd deaths hit 1,000 - which they will.
>
Don't believe everything you read in the Socialist Worker.
Jomtien
>You may not like this and I certainly don't but the majority
>of licence-fee payers will be hugely outraged if the BBC were to go FTA and
>so "we" would be "subsidising" their entertainment - particularly as there
>would be a considerable added cost to the licence payer and a considerable
>loss of export income too. Let's say as a ballpark figure that what you
>want to do would effectively add an extra 15 per cent to the BBC licence
>fee and rising as rights continue to become more valuable.
They don't need to go FTA. The entire thing hinges on the inescapable
fact that UK digital satellite channels are now controlled by a Sky
smart card. And so there is nothing stopping companies (even the BBC,
via BBC Enterprises) from issuing Sky cards for use abroad and
charging a corresponding fee for doing so. No-one in the UK would need
to subsidise it at all. And the extra money earned should keep the
rights owners happy.
Jomtien
>I recently discussed the idea that European TV licences should be
>reciprocal with a councilor on the CSA (the French broadcasting
>regulatory committee). He found this attitude that is widely held in
>the UK very difficult to understand.
Of course. Who would pay to finance French TV if they could choose to
pay for something else!
Jomtien
>The numbers of EU citizens outside the UK and ROI who speak English is 41
>per cent of the total.
Don't quote those senseless EU/German newspaper statistics as fact.
They surely include as English-speakers everyone who know what "stop",
"parking" or "weekend" means.
Ask the 41% what language they would like to watch their TV in and you
will get very different answer.
Jomtien
>> >And when this gets switched off, the digital equivalents are already
>> >encrypted. Try getting Fr2 or Fr3 digital. You'll find they are both
>> >encrypted.
>>
>> With cards available over the counter to anyone with a few Francs in
>> his pocket.
>
>Oh twaddle Jomtiem. It's encrypted.
And the official cards are available over the counter from authorised
shops to anyone with the fee in his pocket. No questions asked about
domicile or anything else.
Jomtien
>Some other
>countries which hold plenty of copyright (and insist on programmes been
>encrypted) are the UK and France, both of which blocked European wide TV
>access suggested by the EU.
Official cards for the French services are easily available over the
counter in France for the standard fee and for use anywhere within the
footprint with any suitable CAM. No attempt is made to hinder their
export (as it is with the BBC). On the contrary, the broadcasters go
out of their way to assist foreign viewers.
The French are past masters at passing protectionist laws which they
promptly ignore if it suits them.
Nigel Goodwin
<ianhoare...@wanadoo.fr> writes
>Well, sure that is a MAJOR drawback for Brits, but I've answered this in
>detail in my reply to Simon. At a conservative estimate there are 100 million
>europeans for whom German is either their mother tongue, or who speak it
>perfectly. My guesstimate is that the TRUE figures for British speaking
>Europeans is that there about 70 millions (including the 60 million people
>living in the UK who already have access to these programmes) for whom English
>is their mother tongue or who speak it perfectly.
It makes no difference, the English speaking copyright holders (mainly
USA and UK) only really care about original language programming. To
broadcast it in English without encryption requires payment for the
entire area covered.
>>is affected by copyright problems is of American origin, it's them who
>>are happy to let the Germans use 'dubbed' encryption.
>
>I've dealt with this and shown it up for the fallacy it is.
Hardly, it's still perfectly true, your imagined ideas don't make it any
less true!.
>>countries which hold plenty of copyright (and insist on programmes been
>>encrypted) are the UK and France, both of which blocked European wide TV
>>access suggested by the EU.
>
>I am not surprised France should do so, because they have long believed in the
>right (and duty) of the administration to control the access to information of
>their citizens. So free access to satellite broadcasts would open up free
>access to information they don't control. Simple as that.
>
>>>Round things. It simply needs to DO it, and in defence point at every single
>>>other country's TV stations.
>>
>>No defence - the BBC couldn't afford to do it!.
>
>Why NOT? They wouldn't be sued, on what grounds? They would be doing the same
>as most other European countries' PSBOs do.
No, they would be transmitting in the original language, which isn't
acceptable.
>>>What I would like to see happen is for ITV and BBC to take space on one
>[snip]
>
>>>those who've paid their license fee. And they should use a recognised standard
>>>NOT Sky's so that they would effectively force Sky to use a similar system.
>>>Now THAT would blow the Sky monopoly out of the water.
>>
>>That would be a huge expense for the broadcasters and the viewers,
>
>No more than it is for the switch to digital. If Sky can do a "free" digibox
>offer, don't you think the Beeb AND ITV would have enough clout to do so?
>Course they have. yes there would be a significant start up cost, but think of
>the savings, NO terrestrial network to pay for or maintain, AND significant
>extra license fees paid for by such people abroad who were prepared to pay the
>UK license fee to have access to the programs.
It would be a great!! deal more expensive, as for the terrestrial
network it could be closed and simply use Astra 2 (as they are doing
now) - why not carry on using a UK specific slot (as specified by
Astra/SES - see their website!).
>>currently have the most modern digital satellite TV broadcasting system
>
>Yeah yeah yeah. Who tells you that. Sky? The most modern simply means the most
>recent. Next year I expect Lithuania will have the most modern one. Proves
>nothing.
All the UK broadcasters agree, as do most of the rest of the European
broadcasters!.
>>The BBC won't go elsewhere as no where else offers sufficient security - notice
>all the
>>threads in this group for 'download the latest codes for Tv ????' - you
>>don't get that for Sky Digital, this is EXTREMELY!! Important to the
>>Beeb.
>
>How long do you thing it will be before Videoguard gets hacked? I agree that
>some of the other system's are pretty insecure, but I also suspect this is a
>matter of time. Someone will think of a scheme that makes hacking no longer
>worthwhile, I suspect. And in any case, much of the REASON people do it, is
>either to get access to porn that the UK Govts in their collective wisdom feel
>would sap the moral fibre of Brits, (without seeming to to much harm to every
>other national) or to justify their expensive new decoders.
It's not been cracked yet, and cracking Sky has probably had more money
and effort thrown at it over the years than any other system as there is
massive demand for original language programming. Don't forget, the
original computer hack for decryption (Season) was written by a German
student wanting to watch Startrek in English (hence the name 'Season').
Paul Dundas
<jom...@the.beach> writes
>
>How far would a company get if it decided that it wasn't going to
>accept black customers? About as far as the nearest court I expect.
>The same anti-discrimination rules could easily be applied to sales
>across Europe where the product is of a nature as to be sold there at
>all.
Not very far at all fortunately - but this isn't what satellite TV
companies do.
They choose sales on geographic grounds, not nationality, race or
anything else (apart from credit rating of course).
>
--
Paul Dundas
Paul Dundas
<jom...@the.beach> writes
>>Everyone is free to jump into this business. But it seems to be that the
>>market doesn't allow for more competing companies.
>
>Because Sky have sewn it up.
>"Monopoly" refers to facts today, not possibilities tomorrow.
Sky only have it sown up because they outwitted every other TV company.
In particular, ITV have constantly underestimated and been out
manoeuvred by Sky at every turn since 1990 and if there is anyone to
blame I'd be more inclined to blame the inept management of competitors
rather than Sky.
>
--
Paul Dundas
Paul Dundas
Patrick <spsp...@reading.ac.uk> writes
>
>> Secondly it is the US film producers who choose to treat Europe as a
>> disparate load of separate states, something they do not (and almost
>> certainly can not legally do) in the USA.
>
>True, but then I never said they didn't. However close to a European
>superstate that we are Europe is not one country like the US is yet.
Europe = disparate load of separate states, usually bickering and
arguing.
USA = fairly homogenous federal state.
Yup, that sound about right.
>
>Why do they _have_ to treat all these countries as just one? There is no
>comparison between an American state and a European country. A closer
>aproximation would be the four states making up the UK against the fifty
>in the American union. A degree of seperation but far from absolute.
As far as I'm concerned if a company makes a TV programme it is their
property to sell and do with as they wish. If Paramount wish to make 100
episodes of Star Trek Deep Voyage Yawn and then never show them to
anyone, sell them at $200 million a pop, or burn all the videotape to
keep their offices warm that's up to them.
They paid for it, it's theirs to do with as they wish. If they don't
like the terms TV companies do not have to buy it. It is hardly a human
rights infringement not to be able to see the next series of the X-
Files.
If European TV companies or anyone else do not like the terms then
rather than crying about it perhaps they should take a long look at
themselves as to why they have pay a lot to buy in material but nobody
wants to buy anything else they make.
If a UK or European country wants to have influence over the world TV
market they need to make things others want to buy. As it is, the USA TV
industry has consistently managed to make things people do want to buy
which is why they dominate the terms of the industry. If "Europe"
(whatever "Europe" may mean) wishes to influence this they need to get
their act together and do what they have consistently failed to do for
50 years and make something the world wishes to watch.
>
>David Patrick
>
--
Paul Dundas
Peter Twydell
<Emil.Na...@philosys.de> writes
>On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 12:27:31 +0000, 66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk
>(Simon Gardner) (66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner))
>wrote:
>
>> Indeed. And where did you find this?
>
>Ok, I looked again. It was in a german newspaper. Here are the exact
>percentages:
>From 100 people living in the EU speak beside their native language
>41 English
>19 French
>10 German
>7 Spanish
>3 Italian
>
What about those who speak more than one foreign language? Most educated
people in The Netherlands, for example, will speak English, German and
usually at least some French. Not always fluently, but at least enough
to get by. This is helped greatly, I believe, by all English language
programmes being subtitled.
I was once told by someone "I am speaking perfectly English".
Having seen "Das Boot" in its original German, and later in dubbed
English, all I can say is that dubbing is a dreadful waste of time and
money.
>For this part of the EU people is the first foreign language
>English 32.6 %
>French 9.5 %
>German 4.2 %
>Spanish 1.5 %
>Italian 0.8 %
>
>The data was provided by Globus with the EU-Kommission as source.
>
>Emil
--
Peter
Peter Twydell
gray.org.uk> writes
>
>Ian Hoare wrote in message ...
>>
>>A view held by brits to re-inforce their self image. No one's going to turn
>in
>>drove to the Beeb, better or not, because they dont speak english. I know
>that
>>we all like to think that the civilised world speak english well enough to
>>watch films etc, but the truth is, they don't. In France, for example,
>>watching figures for an English film with actors whose voices are their
>>strength and for whom dubbing is an obscenity, in english, subtitled in
>>french, are 1/10 that of the same film , dubbed by a bunch of hack actors
>>working, bored to sobs, in a back room in a Paris suburb.
>>
>France perhaps, but if you look in the Netherlands you'll find more people
>watching BBC1 via cable than watching Dutch language programmes on their own
>networks. The people I know in the Netherlands certainly know enough English
>to understand a film...just as I know enough German to watch a film in
>German.
>
inflicted the Generation Game on us, then Big Brother. Fortunately some
of the other Endemol projects didn't go through.
>The same is true, although to a lesser extent in Germany and Scandinavia.
>You'll also find people in Eastern Europe...particularly Poland, Czech Rep,
>Slovakia, who know enough English to understand English language TV and
>films.
>
>I suspect one reason for this is that a lot of their TV (particularly during
>daytime) is British stuff with subtitles. Recently I've seen both Allo Allo
>and Dad's Army subtitled in Polish but with English language soundtrack.
>
>
This is also a useful way to keep up a foreign language. Can get a bit
OTT, though - some Belgian programmes have bilingual subtitles!
--
Peter
Tony Sayer
dictates
>That's interesting. I shall hang on to that for the next time someone like
>Ian Hoare or Tony Sayer starts spouting bollocks or Jomtien comes out with
>something as equally absurd as his Catch Pi.
Which particular bit of old bollocks are you referring to ?...
--
Tony Sayer
The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe
(Simon Gardner) wrote:
>In article <3abd697...@news.ukgateway.net>,
>F...@ukgoatway.net (The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe) wrote:
>
>> >It certainly was. And they think they got away with it. Just wait until the
>> >Tory-induced cjd deaths hit 1,000 - which they will.
>> >
>> Don't believe everything you read in the Socialist Worker.
>
><boggle> Your name for the Lancet is "Socialist Worker" </boggle>
>
<boggle> The Lancet accused the Tories of covering up, lying to the
public, bullying scientists and destroying their livelihood in order
to corruptly protect their political clients? </boggle>
Which issue?
Richardr
sou...@infonie.fr says...
> I wonder why the Welsh channels are encrypted.
>
>
They are though freely available to Sky subscribers - a phone call will
unscramble them.
Tim
Peter Twydell wrote in message ...
>
>>I suspect one reason for this is that a lot of their TV (particularly
during
>>daytime) is British stuff with subtitles. Recently I've seen both Allo
Allo
>>and Dad's Army subtitled in Polish but with English language soundtrack.
>>
>>
>This is also a useful way to keep up a foreign language. Can get a bit
I am not considering Allo Allo as a method of learnnig Polish...even if I
wanted to learn Polish.
>OTT, though - some Belgian programmes have bilingual subtitles!
Arte shows some programmes in German with French subtitles, and some
programmes in French with German subtitles.
Tim
Peter Twydell wrote in message ...
>
>English, all I can say is that dubbing is a dreadful waste of time and
>money.
>
subtitles. The subtitles didn't help my understanding of the film (my German
wasn't as good then), nor did they stop it being a terrible film.
Paul Dundas
writes
>In article <UVw8QUA1...@advsys.demon.co.uk>,
>a monopoly factually exists - except possibly blame on the authorities.
No, you're quite correct it doesn't, but I'm far from convinced a
monopoly exists in television in the UK as are, presumably, the
authorities.
>
--
Paul Dundas
Peter Twydell
gray.org.uk> writes
>
film, I was talking about "Das Boot". Dubbing turned it from an
excellent film (apart from the poorly-done ending) into a mediocre one.
I only wish my German were up to reading the original book.
--
Peter
ExCaLiBuR
digital if you supply TV license details to them. Only one per household
"p" <cv...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9984bc$57u$2...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> Does anyone know why BBC and ITV (existing and future) satellite
> transmissions require a Sky card to be recieved. and in particular why
> these transmissions are not FTA.. thereby enabling wider viewing amongst a
> wider population who do not own specialised Sky aperatus..
>
> cheers
> paul.uk
>
>
Nigel Goodwin
ExCaLiBuR <toxicw...@hotmail.com> writes
>The BBC will supply a card to receive the free to air channels on sky
>digital if you supply TV license details to them. Only one per household
No they won't!!!.
The 'BBC' (actually BT Contract Services) will provide an FTV card to
any UK address that asks for it - you don't need to provide licence
details (they have no way of checking anyway!), only the details of the
Sky Digibox it's intended for (this is used to authorise the card when
you ring for authorisation).
Later changes apparently mean you can now order a card without the box
details, but you then have to give them all the details when you
authorise the card anyway.
Also, you are not limited to one card per household, you can have as
many (within reason) as you wish, but you must provide different box
details for each one.
Radiostar
wrote:
Not to all Sky subscribers, alas. Please be sure of your facts!
The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe
(Simon Gardner) wrote:
>In article <3abdedd...@news.ukgateway.net>,
>F...@ukgoatway.net (The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe) wrote:
>
>> <boggle> The Lancet accused the Tories of covering up, lying to the
>> public, bullying scientists and destroying their livelihood in order
>> to corruptly protect their political clients? </boggle>
>
>No idea. Did it?
>
>Oh and you forgot "killing people".
>
This all sounds like something the Socialist Worker would come up
with, to bring the argument round full circle.
Anyway, how many years will it be before the 'Tory-induced' cjd deaths
reach 1000? It's hardly epidemic proportions, is it?
Ian Hoare
If your method of debating is insult and denial of the truth, you had better
go and do it by yourself, I'll not demean myself by descending to your level.
Amitiés
--Ian Hoare--
The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe
(Simon Gardner) wrote:
>Ask me again in another 5 and then another 10 years. It's not every year a
>Government negligently and deliberately poisons the electorate purely for
>what it perceives are its short term political interests, let's just see.
>[Although it happened less blatantly in France with AIDS blood products and
>there, ex-Ministers were prosecuted.]
BSE and CJD are not political diseases at all. They are simply the
inevitable result of inappropriate farming practices. Any other
explanation belongs to the conspiracy theorists. Do you also blame
Labour for the Foot and Mouth outbreak?
>
>And discussion of my temporary sig is severely off-topic for this group -
>even if it's an alt one.
I've yet to see a charter for this group. You seem to like posting
charters. Why don't you write one up?
Jomtien
>>Because Sky have sewn it up.
>>"Monopoly" refers to facts today, not possibilities tomorrow.
>
>Sky only have it sown up because they outwitted every other TV company.
>
>In particular, ITV have constantly underestimated and been out
>manoeuvred by Sky at every turn since 1990 and if there is anyone to
>blame I'd be more inclined to blame the inept management of competitors
>rather than Sky.
That's as maybe but they are still a monopoly and monopolies are bad
news for consumers and so should invariably be outlawed.
Was Idi Amin a better dictator because he managed to outwit the other
monkeys after for the same job? I don't think so.
Jomtien
>No, you're quite correct it doesn't, but I'm far from convinced a
>monopoly exists in television in the UK as are, presumably, the
>authorities.
Not a monopoly in television, a monopoly in encryption and receivers.
The government are fully aware of this (see Oftel).
Jomtien
>They choose sales on geographic grounds, not nationality, race or
>anything else (apart from credit rating of course).
Discrimination on geographic grounds is clearly unjustifiable in any
free trade area such as the EU. And as such should be outlawed.
Jomtien
>> Don't quote those senseless EU/German newspaper statistics as fact.
>> They surely include as English-speakers everyone who know what "stop",
>> "parking" or "weekend" means.
>
>How can you assert that? Do you have any facts?
I have as many facts as the original article has: none at all.
Statistics like that are totally meaningless and should be treated
with the contempt that they deserve.
>At least I can say that for at least the last 30 years every german
>learns english as the primary foreign language. The certainly know more
>words than the above ones.
Surely, but I bet that knowing those words would be enough to include
anyone in the 41% group. As far as I'm concerned no-one would be in
that group unless they could conduct a serious conversation in the
corresponding language for at least 20 minutes. And that definition
would surely put the figure down to 10%.
>> Ask the 41% what language they would like to watch their TV in and you
>> will get very different answer.
>
>I would assume, most of them would like to watch TV in their native
>language. But for licensing this is not important. What is important is
>the potential of people which can watch and understand the program.
Not at all. Only what is actually watched is important and most people
prefer to watch/listen/read in their native language, even if they are
completely fluent in another.
Andy Luckman
The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe <URL:mailto:F...@ukgoatway.net> wrote:
> the Socialist Worker.
Isn't that an oxymoron? :-)
--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO)
Satellite and TV aerial
expertise since 1986
Simon G
Anyone can walk into a French satellite shop, put down a pile of
French francs on the counter and walk out with a valid official TPS
viewing card.
Is the same true of Sky Digital ?
Simon G
(Simon Gardner) wrote:
>In article <tbs05da...@corp.supernews.co.uk>,
>"Tim" <tim_u...@tim-gray.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Arte shows some programmes in German with French subtitles, and some
>> programmes in French with German subtitles.
>
>Arte comes in two flavours - a French one and a German one. This may be
>because it's a joint French/German channel with alternate sound tracks.
The sound tracks are not "alternate". They are simultaneous sound
tracks.
It would be very inconvenient to have French sound this week and
German sound next.
Methinks you've been reading too many American management reports.
Tim
Simon Gardner <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message ...
>
>Ask me again in another 5 and then another 10 years. It's not every year a
>Government negligently and deliberately poisons the electorate purely for
>what it perceives are its short term political interests, let's just see.
>[Although it happened less blatantly in France with AIDS blood products and
>there, ex-Ministers were prosecuted.]
>
The French AIDS blood scandal appears worse though, because it was quite
quickly apparent how many people were affected. Nobody really knows how many
people will be affected by CJD, or from what sources. Right now I'd rather
eat British beef than have a blood transfusion in a French hospital.
Mark Nixon
[snip]
>Anyone can walk into a French satellite shop, put down a pile of
>French francs on the counter and walk out with a valid official TPS
>viewing card.
>Is the same true of Sky Digital ?
>
>
I thought you had to show some ID and proof of a French address? I got
mine through my nephew's cousins who live in Paris. I have to go
through all sorts of bank transfer crap to renew. If I only have to
pay at a sat shop without French ID, I'd much rather do that.
Un montréalais living in Denmark
The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe
Monkeys? Tsk, tsk. Shame on you.
The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe
<g6...@ajlelectronics.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3abd697...@news.ukgateway.net>,
>The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe <URL:mailto:F...@ukgoatway.net> wrote:
>
>> the Socialist Worker.
>
>Isn't that an oxymoron? :-)
>
It is indeed. But the layabouts who sell it in High Streets (if they
still do) fail to see the irony.
Mark Nixon
(Simon Gardner) wrote:
[snip]
>
>Is it insular xenophobia? Is it anti-Europeanism? Is it a much fostered
>belief that "they" would be getting something and "we" would be getting
>nothing in return? Is it simple mean-spiritedness or even simple financial
>meanness? (Let's not forget the potential drop in the value of UK TV
>exports to Europe as a result.) Is it rather that there are so few Brits
>with foreign languages (or even any desire for any) that "we" would mostly
>quite genuinely not be getting anything in return?
I think this is changing, especially with *some* of the younger Brits,
isn't it?
The Danes used to laugh at the unilinguism of Germans, French and
English. However, I'm meeting more and more younger Frenchmen and
Germans who's grasp of English is quite good. There are a few more VO
programmes with subtitles instead of VF on French TV.
But agreed, when I'm over visiting my aunt & my cousins, the language
capabilities of me pub mates isn't impressive (-:
Andy Luckman
The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe <URL:mailto:F...@ukgoatway.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 19:49:23 +0100, Andy Luckman
> <g6...@ajlelectronics.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <3abd697...@news.ukgateway.net>,
> >The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe <URL:mailto:F...@ukgoatway.net> wrote:
> >
> >> the Socialist Worker.
> >
> >Isn't that an oxymoron? :-)
> >
> It is indeed. But the layabouts who sell it in High Streets (if they
> still do) fail to see the irony.
Yes, I remember getting threatened by one such when I made the point to him.
It *was* after he had accused me of being a socialist though!
Mark Nixon
(Simon Gardner) wrote:
>In article <vpqtbtg1c52kr1r7s...@4ax.com>,
>Simon G <sou...@infonie.fr> wrote:
>
>> Anyone can walk into a French satellite shop, put down a pile of
>> French francs on the counter and walk out with a valid official TPS
>> viewing card.
>
>Simon, You can now do this without having to fake any sort of French
>address, can you? I had a feeling you used to have to fake an address - or
>was that one of the other services?
>
C'est ca que j'pensais. Methinks he's referring to Absat. I orderet
*that* over the phone from Denmark. TPS required a few somersaults,
though my nephew's cousin says that they're more relaxed about it now,
and he's working on getting me on direct payment, which will simplify
things.
Actually, I 'like* most of French TV. Maybe it's something to do with
having been brought up quadro-culturally. In Québec, we saw a lot of
French films and French(France) programmes, as well as all the
American channels across the border in Maine/Vermont/New York, plus a
lot of British programming on the Canadian CBC. Plus I went to a
French garderie, a British prep school, a Montréal high school in
French and English, lived in a mainly Italian neighbourhood in
Montréal, and have lived in Denmark for the last 18 years.
The French can't sing rock though. I just wish they'd realize it (-:
The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe
(Simon Gardner) wrote:
>In article <3abed365...@news.ukgateway.net>,
>F...@ukgoatway.net (The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe) wrote:
>
>> BSE and CJD are not political diseases at all.
>
>All innoculations after about 1987 [when the evidence of what was happening
>became pretty clear] were entirely the fault of Conservative Ministers.
>They are completely to blame. They deliberately and willfully suppressed
>all attempts to warn people, destroyed scientific careers, bullied anyone
>telling the truth or even questioning their self-interested lies *and*
>terrorised civil servants [the famous 'climate of fear'] and consistently
>and deliberately publically lied - thus giving more and more people the
>disease - all for their own short term cynical politically corrupt purposes
>- and for no other.
Yes of course they did. It's a conspiracy.
>
>Tory Ministers are just as guilty of deliberately killing people with cjd
>as someone who slips cyanide in your cocoa. Of course, not every cjd death
>will have been the fault of those Ministers (they could reasonably claim
>ignorance on the very early infections), but the vast and overwhelming
>majority most certainly will.
Bad farming practices (feeding meat products to herbivores etc) had
nothing to do with it. It was 'them'.
>
>> Do you also blame
>> Labour for the Foot and Mouth outbreak?
>
>Are you claiming that Foot and Mouth kills people or that anyone in
>Government is telling lies about it not existing?
No
>Is Nick Brown feeding children Foot and Mouth burgers?
No
>Have Ministers attempted to get anyone
>researching F & M sacked? Is anyone who says Foot and Mouth exists
>consistently libelled by Ministers in Parliament? Are Ministers willfully
>encouraging the spread of Foot and Mouth so that yet more of your mythical
>human deaths ensue. Is evidence of Foot and Mouth deliberately suppressed
>by Ministerial diktat?
Not yet. It's early days.
I commend you to the following newsgroups:
alt.conspiracy.jfk
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana
There you will find like-minded nutters who blame 'them' for
everything and see government conspiracies everywhere..
Tim
Mark Nixon wrote in message <3abf3b54...@news.get2net.dk>...
>
>The French can't sing rock though. I just wish they'd realize it (-:
>
when they humiliate themselves in the Eurovision Song contest ;-)
Jomtien
>You can now do this without having to fake any sort of French
>address, can you?
Yes. I, Arne Saknussem, have done this on several occasions recently
on behalf of clients.
Mark Nixon
(The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe) writes:
:>
:>On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 23:46:51 +0100, 66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk
:>(Simon Gardner) wrote:
:>
:>
[snip]
:>
:>BSE and CJD are not political diseases at all. They are simply the
:>inevitable result of inappropriate farming practices. Any other
:>explanation belongs to the conspiracy theorists. Do you also blame
:>Labour for the Foot and Mouth outbreak?
:>
Totally off topic, and my only post on this.
I agree for the most part. And there was a cover-up.
Foot-an-mouth diesease in itself is not that serious a disease *for
the animal*. Most of them with proper time and care recover, and
develope immunity. It's only a problem for industrial animal
production.
Mark Nixon
Un montrealais living in Denmark
Mark Nixon
<tim_u...@tim-gray.org.uk> writes:
:>
:>
:>Mark Nixon wrote in message <3abf3b54...@news.get2net.dk>...
:>>
:>>The French can't sing rock though. I just wish they'd realize it (-:
:>>
:>But if they knew that, it would spoil the enjoyment of the rest of europe
:>when they humiliate themselves in the Eurovision Song contest ;-)
:>
[header trimmed to this newsgroup]
"enjoy". Christ, I can barely make to the loo when I see Plastique
Bertrand.
They should stick to those fantastic soulful chansonnier balads.
Very few do them better.
Richardr
jom...@the.beach says...
>
> Discrimination on geographic grounds is clearly unjustifiable in any
> free trade area such as the EU. And as such should be outlawed.
>
>
So if Selfridges offer delivery within the M25 only, that should be
outlawed, and their van driver should be forced to drive to Greece, say,
to deliver groceries?
Tim
Richardr wrote in message ...
That's different. It is only the delivery which is being restricted, not the
transaction. If I was in Greece and wanted to buy something from Selfridges,
I could 'phone them up and buy it no problems.
Nigel Goodwin
>Anyone can walk into a French satellite shop, put down a pile of
>French francs on the counter and walk out with a valid official TPS
>viewing card.
>Is the same true of Sky Digital ?
No, but Sky abide by the laws and contracts that control broadcasting,
the French (as usual) just ignore any laws or contracts they don't
like!.
--
Nigel.
/--------------------------------------------------------------\
| Nigel Goodwin | Internet : nig...@lpilsley.co.uk |
| Lower Pilsley | Web Page : http://www.lpilsley.co.uk |
| Chesterfield | Official site for Shin Ki and New Spirit |
| England | Ju Jitsu |
\--------------------------------------------------------------/
Tim
Simon Gardner <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message ...
>In article <tbv75ra...@corp.supernews.co.uk>,
>"Tim" <tim_u...@tim-gray.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> That's different. It is only the delivery which is being restricted, not
the
>> transaction. If I was in Greece and wanted to buy something from
Selfridges,
>> I could 'phone them up and buy it no problems.
>
>anyway].
>
Who said I wanted it in Greece? Just because I happened to be there doesn't
mean I want my purchases there. If I wanted something in Greece it would be
better to buy it in greece. If I wanted to buy a ham sandwich to be
delivered to my sister in London, I probably wouldn't choose Selfridges
(although I'm very disappointed that Subway in Oxford Street closed!)
R. Mark Clayton
"loz" <lawr...@nospam.wilkesworld.co.uk> wrote in message
news:99g11b$7hi$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
>
> "p" <cv...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9984bc$57u$2...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> > Does anyone know why BBC and ITV (existing and future) satellite
> > transmissions require a Sky card to be recieved. and in particular why
> > these transmissions are not FTA.. thereby enabling wider viewing amongst
a
> > wider population who do not own specialised Sky aperatus..
> >
> Isnt that the other way round?
> i.e. Sky is NOT the specialised aperatus.
> isnt it the other satellite equipment that is specialised?
No it is not. The other equipment has a "Common Interface" capable of
accepting Conditional Access Modules from a number (at least five) of
different encryption systems. This sort of receiver is more common in EU
countries outside the UK.
$ky will not provide a CAM or Card for their system in Common Interfaec
receivers, nor of course will other cards work in their receiver, although
both are / were perfectly possible at modest cost.
It is this specialised only to $ky that is the problem.
>
> regards
> loz
>
>
--
R. Mark Clayton
R. Mark Clayton
"Emil Naepflein" <Emil.Na...@philosys.de> wrote in message
news:btcmbtgmi4b9b1tng...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 09:24:41 +0100, Jomtien <jom...@the.beach>
> (Jomtien) wrote:
>
snip
>
> > How far would a company get if it decided that it wasn't going to
> > accept black customers? About as far as the nearest court I expect.
Try Asian here, perhaps he will see the point.
>
> Come on, don't compare this with racism. :(
It's not a comparison with racism, to all intents and purposes it IS racism.
>
snip
>
> No, absolutely not! This wouldn't hold in any court.
> I can decide that I sell my service only to a specific region. If
> someone calls me from outside I simply say - NO!
It's a bit like Cahill and the Carbolic Smoke Ball company. The offer is to
all the world (well all the foot print anyway). If you ring up and say you
want to buy great. When you tell them you are a Frenchman calling from
France it's "sorry sir we don't serve people in France".
>
> BTW, the subject is wrong. There is no monopoly in the PayTV market.
> Everyone is free to jump into this business. But it seems to be that the
> market doesn't allow for more competing companies.
IMHO $ky have deliberately created anti competitive conditions with the
approval of the UK goverment. By allowing $ky to achieve market domination
with a proprietry receiver and propritary cards they have ensured that
no-one can "jump into this business".
For historical and national reasons most EU countries have few TV channels
(often [former] state enterprises). It could have foisted effective
competition, but instead has allowed narrow language based monopolies to
emerge, setting satellite TV in europe back years.
>
> Emil
The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe
(Simon Gardner) wrote:
>In article <3abf5096...@news.ukgateway.net>,
>F...@ukgoatway.net (The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 09:59:30 +0100, 66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk
>> (Simon Gardner) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3abed365...@news.ukgateway.net>,
>> >F...@ukgoatway.net (The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe) wrote:
>> >
>> >> BSE and CJD are not political diseases at all.
>> >
>> >All innoculations after about 1987 [when the evidence of what was happening
>> >became pretty clear] were entirely the fault of Conservative Ministers.
>> >They are completely to blame. They deliberately and willfully suppressed
>> >all attempts to warn people, destroyed scientific careers, bullied anyone
>> >telling the truth or even questioning their self-interested lies *and*
>> >terrorised civil servants [the famous 'climate of fear'] and consistently
>> >and deliberately publically lied - thus giving more and more people the
>> >disease - all for their own short term cynical politically corrupt purposes
>> >- and for no other.
>>
>> Yes of course they did. It's a conspiracy.
>
>Still at it, eh? This was deeply unconvincing back in 1990 and it just
>won't wash in 2001.
>
>> >Tory Ministers are just as guilty of deliberately killing people with cjd
>> >as someone who slips cyanide in your cocoa. Of course, not every cjd death
>> >will have been the fault of those Ministers (they could reasonably claim
>> >ignorance on the very early infections), but the vast and overwhelming
>> >majority most certainly will.
>
>> It was 'them'.
>
>It certainly wasn't "them". Rather, it was very specific cynical Tory
>cabinets, very specific Tory Governments and even more directly, it was
>most certainly very specific Tory Ministers of Agriculture and Health
>personally. They did it. Not some amorphous and generalised, flabby "them".
Why not name names if you are confident of your 'facts'?
>> There you will find like-minded nutters who blame 'them'
>
>Nobody here is blaming "them" or "government". It was the fault of
>individual identifiable people by individual identifiable means. Go away
>and throw your silly generalisations elsewhere. Most of the needless deaths
>by way of past and future ncjd is the fault of quite specific collectively
>responsible Governments and quite specific individually responsible
>Ministers personally at quite specific times for quite specific political
>motives by virtue of deliberate and indentifiable acts of commission and
>ommission on their separate parts.
>
>I don't think all Governments will cheerfully do such things, but these
>ones, regrettably certainly did. We have motive (albeit a particularly
>shabby one), means and piles of evidence. It's not my fault you failed to
>pay attention.
>
This is a satellite newsgroup. We deal with reality here. Take your
paranoid political ramblings somewhere where they might be
appreciated.
Nigel Goodwin
writes
>In article <MA2FnKAd...@lpilsley.freeserve.co.uk>,
>Nigel Goodwin <nig...@lpilsley.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> No, but Sky abide by the laws and contracts that control broadcasting,
>> the French (as usual) just ignore any laws or contracts they don't
>> like!.
>
>A miracle of British honesty and slavish adherence to regulations.
>
Obviously they are :-). But if Sky have the slightest reason to believe
a box and card are being used outside the UK it will be instantly turned
off!.
Simon G
<nig...@lpilsley.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <vpqtbtg1c52kr1r7s...@4ax.com>, Simon G
><sou...@infonie.fr> writes
>>Anyone can walk into a French satellite shop, put down a pile of
>>French francs on the counter and walk out with a valid official TPS
>>viewing card.
>>Is the same true of Sky Digital ?
>
>No, but Sky abide by the laws and contracts that control broadcasting,
>the French (as usual) just ignore any laws or contracts they don't
>like!.
Sky, TPS, Canal and others need to be able to show their American
suppliers that that they are only broadcasting to the regions for
which they have paid rights. You can never keep all audiovisual
production within national frontiers - there is nothing to stop
someone recording broadcast TV and sending the cassettes to friends
abroad. So the blocus is never 100%. After that, it is a matter of
degree. TPS take reasonable measures to restrict reception to the
regions they have paid for (I was exagerating just a little in my
previous post).
Sky's measures are definitely OTT.
Jomtien
>> Discrimination on geographic grounds is clearly unjustifiable in any
>> free trade area such as the EU. And as such should be outlawed.
>>
>>
>
>So if Selfridges offer delivery within the M25 only, that should be
>outlawed, and their van driver should be forced to drive to Greece, say,
>to deliver groceries?
Not at all. But where it is clearly feasible to provide the product
(online services, financial services, mail order, satellite
distribution etc.) then companies should be obliged to do so
regardless of geographical location.
Simon G
(Mark Nixon) wrote:
>
>Actually, I 'like* most of French TV. Maybe it's something to do with
>having been brought up quadro-culturally. In Québec, we saw a lot of
>French films and French(France) programmes, as well as all the
>American channels across the border in Maine/Vermont/New York, plus a
>lot of British programming on the Canadian CBC. Plus I went to a
>French garderie, a British prep school, a Montréal high school in
>French and English, lived in a mainly Italian neighbourhood in
>Montréal, and have lived in Denmark for the last 18 years.
My "other half" is French, was brought up in Tunisia, has an Italian
father, worked for ten years on Spanish documentation. Of course her
English is prety good too.
A person in London who recently asked me for a motorised system is
American, lived in Italy for some time. Her friend is Argentinian who
went to French Lycee. So they are not at all interested in getting
Sky, but want Rai, French channels, Argentinian, Spanish, etc.
Multi-cultural people are becoming increasingly common, which makes
the policy of restricting TV to within frontiers as ridiculous as
trying to restrict phone calls to within the same borders.